Flatness Problem: Deriving Relation from Friedmann Eqns.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Magister
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the flatness problem in cosmology, specifically focusing on deriving a relation from the Friedmann equations. Participants explore the implications of the flatness problem, the behavior of the curvature parameter, and the relationship between density parameters over time.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a relation involving the density parameter \(\Omega\) and redshift \(z\), suggesting it derives from the Friedmann equations.
  • Another participant outlines a method to derive the relation starting from the first Friedmann equation under the assumption of a matter-dominated universe.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the flatness problem, questioning whether curvature remains constant over time despite changes in \(\Omega\).
  • Another participant asserts that deviations from flatness accumulate exponentially over time, implying the universe must have been very close to flat at earlier epochs.
  • One participant argues that curvature is not constant unless it is exactly zero, indicating that \(\Omega\) must have been very close to one in the early universe for it to be close to one today.
  • A participant raises a concern about the constancy of the curvature parameter \(k\) and its implications for the flatness problem, suggesting that it should change with \(\Omega\).
  • Another participant clarifies that \(k\) is an integer with fixed values (-1, 0, or 1), which does not change over time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the flatness problem and the behavior of curvature over time. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the flatness problem or the constancy of curvature in relation to \(\Omega\).

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the relationship between the curvature parameter and the density parameter \(\Omega\), highlighting that the understanding of these concepts may depend on specific assumptions about the universe's initial conditions and the nature of cosmic evolution.

Magister
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
Reading about the flatness problem in the standard cosmological model I have came to this relation

[tex] \frac{1-\Omega(t)}{\Omega(t)}=\frac{1-\Omega_0}{\Omega_0} \frac{1}{1+z}[/tex]

where

[tex] \Omega = \frac{\rho}{\rho_c}[/tex]

and [itex]z[/itex] is the redshift.

I would like to know where this relation cames from. I supose it cames from the Friedmann equations but I am not getting there...
 
Space news on Phys.org
Start with the first Friedmann equation. Set [itex]\Lambda = 0[/itex], multiply both sides by [itex]3/8 \pi G \rhp[/itex] and rearrange terms to get:

[tex]\left( \frac{1 - \Omega}{\Omega} \right) \rho a^2 = constant[/tex]

Evaluate this equation for today with [itex]\Omega_0[/itex], [itex]\rho_0[/itex] and [itex]a = 1[/tex], and for another cosmological epoch with [itex]\Omega[/itex], [itex]\rho[/itex] and [itex]a[/tex]. <br /> <br /> Then, consider that the energy density is matter-dominated and you will get the result.[/itex][/itex]
 
Ok. I get it! Thanks.
But this leads me to another question.
I supposed that the flatness problem was that if [itex]\Omega_0[/itex] was a little different from 1, then the universe at an early stage would have had a very different [itex]\Omega[/itex] and so the curvature would have been very different from what it is today. By other words, flat at the beginning flat for ever.
But I can see from your reply that the curvature is suppose to be constant (no matter if [itex]\Omega[/itex] changes or not) in time and so it seems that I didnt understand the flatness problem at all...
So my next question is - what is the flatness problem? I would be pleased if someone could give me a explanation or a good reference where I could learn more about it.
 
Last edited:
The universe must have always been very close, if not exactly 'flat', for the reasons you have already noted. Any deviations pile up exponentially when you run the clock forward [or backwards] from t=0 to the present epoch.
 
Magister said:
But I can see from your reply that the curvature is suppose to be constant (no matter if [itex]\Omega[/itex] changes or not) in time and so it seems that I didnt understand the flatness problem at all...
In a matter or radiation dominated universe the curvature is only constant if it is exactly zero. Otherwise, as Chronos points out, you can see in your formula that curvature strongly deviates from flatness in a matter (or radiation) dominated universe and that [itex]\Omega[/itex] must be extremely close to one at [itex]z \rightarrow \infty[/itex] for [itex]\Omega_0[/itex] to be of order unity today.

You could try solve this problem in two ways. Either assume that the initial conditions were such that [itex]\Omega[/itex] was (extremely close to) one, or assume that a mechanism exists that leads the curvature to zero regardless of the initial conditions. The first option is actually no solution to the problem because it merely shifts it. The second option is inflation.
 
Last edited:
But in the derivation of that relation I got
[tex] \left( \frac{\Omega - 1}{\Omega} \right) \rho a^2 = \frac{3k}{8 \pi}[/tex]

then you say that in every other epoch the [itex]3k/8 \pi[/itex] has the same value so that the left side of the relation can be evaluated in any instant [itex]t[/itex] . But that seems to go against the Flatness problem because [itex]k[/itex] changes with [itex]\Omega[/itex] and hence it should change with time. What am I missing?
 
Note that [itex]k[/itex] is an integer with three possible values: -1, 0 or 1, and it cannot change from one value to another. The value [itex]3k/8 \pi[/itex] is therefore constant in time.
 
Ok. Now I understand. I got confuse with the fact that the universe is almost flat but not flat and because of this I forgot that k was an integer.
Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K