Is the Universe Flat or Closed According to WMAP Data?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter palmer eldtrich
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inflation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the geometry of the universe as inferred from WMAP and Planck data, specifically addressing whether the universe is flat or closed. Participants explore the implications of observational data on cosmological models, including inflationary theories, and engage in a debate regarding the interpretation of curvature in different topological contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that current measurements suggest the universe is flat within error margins, potentially infinite or much larger than the observable universe.
  • Others challenge a passage from a book claiming that current data indicates a closed universe, arguing that many inflation models remain compatible with the data.
  • One participant notes that while some inflation models may be disfavored by recent data, there is no evidence of deviation from flatness.
  • Another participant mentions Einstein's preference for a closed universe, suggesting that theoretical models often favor closed topologies for simplicity.
  • A discussion arises regarding the curvature of a torus, with differing views on how curvature is represented in two-dimensional surfaces embedded in three dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of WMAP and Planck data, with some supporting the idea of a flat universe and others suggesting the possibility of a closed universe. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the relationship between topology and curvature, as well as the interpretation of observational data. The complexity of different cosmological models and their implications for the universe's geometry is acknowledged but not fully resolved.

palmer eldtrich
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
I read the following passage from a book that does not look correct to me. I understood that the geometry of the universe as far as we can tell is flat to within the error bars of our measurements and that is therefefore either infinite or at least much much larger than our observable patch. However the passage reads as this:
"Current observational data indicate a closed-geometry universe, contrary to the predictions of inflationary multiverse models. Additionally, the low power seen in the low spherical harmonics from WMAP indicate that the total universe may not be much larger than the observable universe."
I was pretty sure WMAP and Planck results were considered inflation friendly. Have i got something wrong or is this passage wrong?
 
Space news on Phys.org
palmer eldtrich said:
I read the following passage from a book that does not look correct to me. I understood that the geometry of the universe as far as we can tell is flat to within the error bars of our measurements and that is therefefore either infinite or at least much much larger than our observable patch. However the passage reads as this:
"Current observational data indicate a closed-geometry universe, contrary to the predictions of inflationary multiverse models. Additionally, the low power seen in the low spherical harmonics from WMAP indicate that the total universe may not be much larger than the observable universe."
I was pretty sure WMAP and Planck results were considered inflation friendly. Have i got something wrong or is this passage wrong?
Yeah, it's not correct.

There are some inflation models which are made unlikely by the latest Planck (and other CMB) data, but there are many other models which fit the data just fine. There is no evidence (yet) of any deviation from flatness.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara and skydivephil
Thanks, thought so.
 
It is interesting to note that Einstein strongly favored a closed universe. His equations become rather awkward in an open universe
 
Chronos said:
It is interesting to note that Einstein strongly favored a closed universe. His equations become rather awkward in an open universe
I'm not sure that's important. But it is true that most theorists who consider models for the birth of our universe tend to find it easier to work with topologically closed universes.

But just because a universe is closed topologically doesn't mean we should always expect to measure positive curvature. To take a simple example, consider a torus. A two-dimensional torus embedded in three dimensions (basically a doughnut) has positive curvature along the outside and negative curvature along the inside. If our universe as a whole had a similar topology, it would be possible for the observable patch to fall along the interior side that has negative curvature, despite the closed topology.
 
Chalnoth said:
A two-dimensional torus embedded in three dimensions (basically a doughnut) has positive curvature along the outside and negative curvature along the inside.
Really? I can draw a square everywhere and the angles are always 90°, indicating zero curvature.
 
mfb said:
Really? I can draw a square everywhere and the angles are always 90°, indicating zero curvature.
That's true for an idealized torus. It's not true for the 2D torus embedded in three dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K