Does the Equation 1=Ω_k+Ω_m+Ω_Λ Hold for All Universe Types?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mysteryciel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation 1=Ω_k+Ω_m+Ω_Λ and its applicability to different types of universes (open, flat, closed). Participants explore the conditions under which this equation holds, particularly in the context of cosmological parameters and energy density components.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the equation 1=Ω_k+Ω_m+Ω_Λ is valid for all types of universes and seeks proof.
  • Another participant asserts that the equation is true for globally isotropic universes with matter and a cosmological constant, suggesting reference to introductory cosmology texts for proof.
  • A different participant clarifies that the equation holds as long as no other energy density components, such as radiation, are significant, proposing an extended equation that includes Ω_r.
  • Some participants note that a sum of 1 indicates a flat universe, while sums greater or less than 1 imply closed or open universes, respectively.
  • There is a discussion about the role of Ω_k, with one participant stating that it can absorb the k term, affecting the interpretation of the sum.
  • Another participant elaborates that Ω_k > 0 implies an open universe, Ω_k = 0 implies a flat universe, and Ω_k < 0 implies a closed universe, referencing the definition of Ω_k provided by the original poster.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which the equation holds, with some asserting its validity under specific circumstances while others highlight the need for additional components in the energy density. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the general applicability of the equation across all universe types.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the assumption that no other significant energy density components are present, and the discussion does not resolve the implications of including such components.

Mysteryciel
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
I was searching a cosmology calculator and In one calculator I saw this equation.
##1=Ω_k+Ω_m+Ω_Λ##
is that true true for all type universe's (open,flat,closed) ?
and is here ##Ω_k={-k\over H^2_0 /a^2_0}## isn't it.
(And If you can give me an article about this issue I will be very happy,I need exact proof)
Thanks
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
It's true for globally isotropic universes with matter and cosmological constant. For proof, consult any introductory cosmology text.
 
Mysteryciel said:
I was searching a cosmology calculator and In one calculator I saw this equation.
##1=Ω_k+Ω_m+Ω_Λ##
is that true true for all type universe's (open,flat,closed) ?
and is here ##Ω_k={-k\over H^2_0 /a^2_0}## isn't it.
(And If you can give me an article about this issue I will be very happy,I need exact proof)
Thanks
That equation is part of the definition of the ##\Omega## parameters. It's true as long as there is no other component of the energy density (e.g. it's true as long as the radiation density is small enough to be ignored). If you have some other component, such as ##\Omega_r## for radiation, then you have to add that to the equation:

[tex]1 = \Omega_k + \Omega_m + \Omega_\Lambda + \Omega_r[/tex]

And yes, that equation for ##\Omega_k## is correct.
 
Sum = 1 implies a flat universe. > 1 implies closed, < 1 implies open.
 
mathman said:
Sum = 1 implies a flat universe. > 1 implies closed, < 1 implies open.
Not when [itex]\Omega_k[/itex] is included, as Chalnoth said the sum is unity; [itex]\Omega_k[/itex] absorbs the k term.

[itex]\Omega_k[/itex] > 0 implies open, [itex]\Omega_k[/itex] = 0 implies flat and [itex]\Omega_k[/itex]< 0 implies closed, (see the OP definition of [itex]\Omega_k[/itex]).

Garth
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
998
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
12K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K