Ok, so I was trying to explain the flatness problem and I noticed a flaw in the logic I can't explain.. The wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem) covers the basic problem pretty well, with the added fact that(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[itex]\rho \approx a^{-3(1+w)}[/itex]

where w=0 for matter, 1/3 for radiation, and -1 for dark energy, and

[itex]a_m(t) \approx \dfrac{2}{3}t[/itex]

[itex]a_r(t) \approx \dfrac{1}{2}t[/itex]

[itex]a_Λ(t) \approx e^{\sqrt{1/3Λt}}[/itex]

for matter, radiation, or dark energy dominated universes. Now for a matter or radiation dominated universe, it is very clear why the (Ω-1) parameter is unstable at 0, since it grows as a power of time. However, if you look at the case of a dark energy dominated universe you find that (Ω-1) goes to 0 exponentially! Since our universe now is 70% dark energy, how can anyone claim its obvious that (Ω-1)=0 is unstable?? Clearly I've used the usual over-approximations so its certainly possible that if you make various assumptions about the history of the universe you can get an answer. However, I can't find a single source that mentions this point, and all they say is that inflation is the only way to fix it! Naively it seems possible that (Ω-1) grew until some point where it went back down to the 0 we observe today right?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Flatness Problem

Loading...

Similar Threads - Flatness Problem | Date |
---|---|

I Why Is a Violation of Causality a Problem? | Jan 17, 2018 |

I Schwarzschild metric asymptotically flat | May 11, 2017 |

A Flat s-t 4d killing vectors via solving killing equation | Feb 12, 2017 |

B Flatness of the Universe | Dec 19, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**