Flatness Problem: Understanding Resolution in Big Bang Model

  • Thread starter Thread starter moving finger
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the flatness problem in the standard Big Bang model, specifically regarding the implications of k=0 and Omega being close to unity. It highlights that while the current critical mass/energy density is influenced significantly by dark energy, the matter density was much higher in the early universe, leading to an Omega value of 0.27 when the universe was about 400 million years old. Participants debate whether the flatness problem can be resolved within standard Big Bang cosmology without invoking inflation, with some arguing that an initial Omega of 1 could inherently imply flatness. The conversation also points out potential misunderstandings in calculations related to the scaling of density and the role of dark energy in the universe's expansion. Ultimately, the flatness problem remains a complex issue that may require inflationary theory for a comprehensive resolution.
moving finger
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
1
I'm having a problem understanding the resolution of the flatness problem in the standard Big Bang model (k = 0 and Omega = unity).

If k=0 at the present time, then this implies Omega ~ unity (actual mass/energy density ~ critical mass/energy density).

For k = 0 and H0 (Hubble parameter for present time) = 71km/s/Mpc then rho(critical) = 3.H^2/8.pi.G = 9.4665 x 10^-27 kg/m3.

BUT ~73% of this critical mass/energy density (at the present time) is supposed to come from the vacuum energy (Dark Energy) which is hypothesised to be scale-invariant (the vacuum energy density scales as a^0, in other words it does not change as the universe expands). This implies a vacuum energy-density of 6.91 x 10^-27 kg/m3.

Most of the remaining 27% of mass/energy density (at the present time) is made up of matter (visible and cold dark matter), the density of which scales as a^-3, ie the matter density scales as the inverse cube of the size of the universe). This implies a matter-density of 2.56 x 10^-27 kg/m3 at the present time.

The contribution from radiation energy-density at the present time is less than 0.01% of the total.

The above implies that when the universe was one tenth of its present size (which, because a scales as t^2/3 during the matter-dominated era, was when the universe was about 3.16% of its present age, or about 400 million years old) then the mass-density was 1,000 times greater than it is now, which implies a matter mass-density ~2.56 x 10^-24 kg/m3. The vacuum energy density contribution would have been the same as now, at 6.91 x 10^-27 kg/m3. The contribution from radiation energy-density at that time would have still been very small (~0.3% of the total). Thus matter contributed ~99.4% of the total energy density, and the total energy density would have been ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

Assuming flatness (k=0), what would have been the critical mass/energy density when the universe was one tenth of it's present size? The same equation applies, rho(critical) = 3.H^2/8.pi.G. But at that time H would have been much higher than it is now. In fact, during the matter-dominated era H scales as t^-1 (this follows from the definition of H as a'/a, where a' is the expansion velocity; during the matter-dominated era a scales as t^2/3 and a' scales as t^-1/3). Therefore H would have been ~H0/0.0316 = 2,247 km/s/Mpc. This gives a value for the critical energy density at that time of ~9.48 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

But the actual mass/energy density, from above, was only ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3, which is only ~27% of the critical mass/energy density at that time, hence Omega = 0.27 when the universe was only 400 million years old.

Where am I going wrong?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Go back to the beginning. You are mixing reference frames. You're not wrong, just making the same mistake we have all made.
 
Well for a start there isn't a resolution to the flatness problem in bog-standard big bang cosmology, it's one of those probelms that need inflation to be resolved.

Though I think your going to have to spell out your problem more clearly as 0.27~1 (and I must admit I'm not really completely sure what the value should be, but Omega = 0.27 seems reasonable to me).
 
Last edited:
jcsd said:
Well for a start there isn't a resolution to the flatness problem in bog-standard big bang cosmology, it's one of those probelms that need inflation to be resolved.

Though I think your going to have to spell out your problem more clearly as 0.27~1 (and I must admit I'm not really completely sure what the value should be, but Omega = 0.27 seems reasonable to me).

Thanks. I think I know where I'm going wrong, and am working on it.

However I disagree with you on your comment "there isn't a resolution to the flatness problem in bog-standard big bang cosmology" - if the universe was created with Omega = 1 then (inflation or no inflation) it was flat by definition. (Inflation perhaps explains how Omega got to be equal to 1.)
 
It wouldn't be much of a problem if it could be easily be explained by normal big bang theory. The flatness problem IS why the universe should have a value of Omega so incredibly close to 1, there's ceratinly no problem with chucking in an initial value of Omega of ~1 in non-inflationary big bang theory (which would be required to re-create the observed flatness of today).


edited to add: looking at your calculations you have defintely gone wrong soemwhere though 0.27 still seems like a resoanbel value for Omega.
 
Last edited:
moving finger said:
The above implies that when the universe was one tenth of its present size (which, because a scales as t^2/3 during the matter-dominated era, was when the universe was about 3.16% of its present age, or about 400 million years old) then the mass-density was 1,000 times greater than it is now, which implies a matter mass-density ~2.56 x 10^-24 kg/m3. The vacuum energy density contribution would have been the same as now, at 6.91 x 10^-27 kg/m3. The contribution from radiation energy-density at that time would have still been very small (~0.3% of the total). Thus matter contributed ~99.4% of the total energy density, and the total energy density would have been ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

Assuming flatness (k=0), what would have been the critical mass/energy density when the universe was one tenth of it's present size? The same equation applies, rho(critical) = 3.H^2/8.pi.G. But at that time H would have been much higher than it is now. In fact, during the matter-dominated era H scales as t^-1 (this follows from the definition of H as a'/a, where a' is the expansion velocity; during the matter-dominated era a scales as t^2/3 and a' scales as t^-1/3). Therefore H would have been ~H0/0.0316 = 2,247 km/s/Mpc. This gives a value for the critical energy density at that time of ~9.48 x 10^-24 kg/m3.

But the actual mass/energy density, from above, was only ~2.58 x 10^-24 kg/m3, which is only ~27% of the critical mass/energy density at that time, hence Omega = 0.27 when the universe was only 400 million years old.

Where am I going wrong?

Throughout you're assuming a matter-dominated era from the present time to when the universe was a factor of 10 smaller. This isn't the case (because of lambda), so some of the above scalings won't apply (for example, H as t^-1).
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
175
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top