# Difference between spatially homogeneous and isotropic?

• pivoxa15
In summary, there are several key differences between spatially homogeneous and isotropic systems. Homogeneous systems have a uniform composition of space, while isotropic systems have the same appearance regardless of the direction in which they are observed. Additionally, isotropic systems do not have any angular dependence, meaning that their properties do not change based on the direction in which they are observed. In contrast, homogeneous systems may exhibit differences in properties based on the chosen coordinate system. Furthermore, homogeneous systems may have translational symmetries, meaning that they are unchanged when shifted along certain coordinates. Overall, while these systems may seem similar, their differences lie in the details of their spatial and angular properties.
pivoxa15
What are their differences?

Spatially homogeneous is when there is uniform composition of space

Spatially isotropic is when you look anywhere, they look the same

Is it the case that one is visit anywhere, it is the same and the other is look anywhere they look the same?

They seem very similar but what are their differences?

pivoxa15 said:
What are their differences?
Spatially isotropic is when you look anywhere, they look the same
Isotropic means there is no angular dependence to what you see.

pivoxa15 said:
What are their differences?

Spatially homogeneous is when there is uniform composition of space

Spatially isotropic is when you look anywhere, they look the same

Is it the case that one is visit anywhere, it is the same and the other is look anywhere they look the same?

They seem very similar but what are their differences?
If the composition of space is uniform in every region, then, uniformity clearly implies isotropy as well; but this situation is not necessary to apply Noether's Theorem.

When you write the lagrangian of the system, you have to choose the coordinates q_i, so you can have a traslational symmetry of the system with respect of one of these coordinates, but not with respect another.

Think, for instance, to a region or space made of two parallel different regions, each of which is uniform. If you choose one of the coordinates parallel to the separation between the two regions, when you change the value of that coordinate, you remain in one of the two regions, so the lagrangian doesn't change; it would change, instead, with respect to a coordinate which is perpendicular to the first, or with respect to the direction, that is, an angular coordinate, because in that case, you are forced to go from one region to another.

pivoxa15 said:
What are their differences?

Spatially homogeneous is when there is uniform composition of space

Spatially isotropic is when you look anywhere, they look the same

Is it the case that one is visit anywhere, it is the same and the other is look anywhere they look the same?

They seem very similar but what are their differences?
Consider an example, that of the dielectric constant of a crystal. In general this constant is a tensor quantity. In one direction the constant has one value and in another direction it has the same values. However these values will depend on the direction you're looking at and not on your location.

Best wishes

Pete

Homogeneous vs. isotropic

Hi, pivoxa15,

The other respondents apparently assumed you were asking about the difference between homogeneous and isotropic -materials-, but is it possible that you were actually asking about homogeneous versus isotropic cosmological models?

If so, it might be helpful to see some simple cosmological models which lack one or both of these features.

Here is a simple exact dust solution in gtr, the plane symmetric case of the Kasner dust (1921):
$ds^2 = -dt^2 + \frac{(t+K)^2}{(t-K)^{2/3}} \, dx^2 + (t-K)^{4/3} \, \left( dx^2 + dy^2 \right),$
$K < t < \infty, -\infty < x, \, y, \, z < \infty$
This is a dust solution because the Einstein tensor matches the matter tensor of a pressureless perfect fluid ("dust") in which the world lines of the dust particles are timelike geodesics whose tangent vectors are given by the timelike unit vector field $$\partial_t$$. Thus, the lapse of coordinate time along one of these world lines agrees with the lapse of proper time as measured by an observer riding on the dust particle. (Cosmologists would say that we are using a "comoving chart".)

The self-isometries of this spacetime (considered as a Lorentzian manifold) form a four dimensional Lie group. These isometries, restricted to the hyperslice $$t=t_0$$, consist of combinations of translations in any direction and rotations about a vertical axis (parallel to $$\partial_z$$) around any point. That is, the z direction is "distinguished", so it is not isotropic. But the isometry group is transitive on the hyperslices, i.e. all points within each slice are equivalent, so it is spatially homogeneous.

Lorentzian manifolds which have one "slicing" have infinitely many. But the one we are using is preferred because each hyperslice is everywhere orthogonal to the world lines of the dust particles, which in turn form a distinguished timelike (geodesic) congruence because these dust particles are the source of the gravitational field (also, the only matter in sight).

There are many other well known cosmological models which are spatially homogeneous but not isotropic, such as the LTB dust models, the Kantowski-Sachs dusts, the Ellis-MacCallum dust, and so on.

Here is a simple exact dust solution which is not homogeneous, the Senovilla-Vera dust (1999):
$ds^2 = -dt^2 + \left(1 - \frac{t^2+r^2}{k^2} \right) \, dz^2 + dr^2 + r^2 \, d\phi^2,$
$t^2 + r^2 < k^2, \; -\infty < z < \infty, \; -\pi < \phi < \pi$
This model once again features dust particles whose world lines have tangent vectors of form $\partial_t$, so that again the lapse of coordinate time along one of these world lines agrees with the elapsed proper time as measured by an observer riding on the dust particle. These dust particles are once again the sole source of the gravitational field, and their contribution to the matter tensor matches the Einstein tensor, so we have an exact dust solution.

The self-isometries of this spacetime form a two dimensional Lie group. These isometries, restricted to a hyperslice $$t=t_0$$, consist of combinations of translations along z and rotations about the vertical axis through any point. This group cannot possibly be transitive on a three dimensional submanifold (the hyperslice), however, since it is only two dimensional, so this model is not spatially homogeneous. Indeed, various curvature invariants show that the curvature is larger or smaller on average depending on how far you are from $$r=0$$.

There are other known dust solutions which can be written down in closed form which are inhomogeneous, including the Szekeres dust (1975). As you can see from the date, the Senovilla-Vera dust is a very recent discovery, suggesting that not all simple solutions have already been found.

Many but not all of the known dust solutions are generalizations of the best known cosmological models, the FRW dusts, which are both spatially homogeneous and isotropic. In fact, some of these give "nonlinear perturbations" of the FRW dusts and can serve as realistic models of the universe in which we live.

Chris Hillman

Last edited by a moderator:

## 1. What is the difference between spatially homogeneous and isotropic?

Spatial homogeneity refers to a system or environment where all points are statistically identical in terms of their properties or characteristics. This means that there is no variation in the distribution of these properties across the space. On the other hand, isotropy refers to a system or environment where all directions are statistically identical. This means that there is no preferred direction or orientation in the system.

## 2. How do spatial homogeneity and isotropy relate to each other?

Spatial homogeneity and isotropy are closely related concepts. In many cases, if a system is spatially homogeneous, it is also isotropic. However, there are some cases where a system may be isotropic but not homogeneous, or vice versa. For example, a perfectly circular surface is isotropic but not homogeneous, as the properties may vary depending on the distance from the center.

## 3. Can you give an example of a system that is spatially homogeneous but not isotropic?

A good example of a system that is spatially homogeneous but not isotropic is a checkerboard pattern. In this pattern, all the squares are identical and there is no variation in their properties across the board. However, the directionality of the pattern (horizontal vs. vertical) makes it anisotropic.

## 4. How are spatial homogeneity and isotropy important in scientific research?

Spatial homogeneity and isotropy are fundamental concepts in many scientific fields, including physics, chemistry, and astronomy. They allow us to simplify complex systems and make predictions based on statistical analyses. In cosmology, for example, the assumption of spatial homogeneity and isotropy is crucial in the development of the Big Bang theory.

## 5. Can spatial homogeneity and isotropy be observed in real-world systems?

While there are no perfectly homogeneous and isotropic systems in the real world, these concepts provide useful approximations for understanding and analyzing various phenomena. In fact, many natural systems exhibit a high degree of spatial homogeneity and isotropy on large scales, such as the distribution of galaxies in the universe.

Replies
51
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
980
Replies
1
Views
731
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
57
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K