http://camoo.freeshell.org/27.16wrong.pdf" [Broken](adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Mistake by the author?

Laura

Latex source below for quoting purposes but the .pdf may've been edited since then.

Exercise 27.16 asks you to show why a connected 3-space can't be

isotropic about 2 distinct points without being homogeneous.

Counterexample, though. Suppose the space is $S^3$, the

3-dimensional sphere. You could think of it as the equation for

$x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2=1$.

Then let the 2 separate points be antipodal points on the sphere. For

example $x=(1,0,0,0)$ and $-x=(-1,0,0,0)$.

You could have a matter distribution that was radially symmetric

around both of these points, because a rotation around x is also a

rotation around $-x$! But it doesn't have to be homogeneous. The

matter density could go up with distance from x or $-x$, up to the

"equator" $y^2+z^2+w^2=1$.

Am I missing something, or is this exercise just wrong?

\end{document}

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

Join Physics Forums Today!

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

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

# Isotropy and homogeneity

Loading...

Similar Threads - Isotropy homogeneity | Date |
---|---|

I Homogeneous static universe | Apr 19, 2017 |

Homogeneity and isotropy in Big Bang model | Aug 28, 2015 |

Isotropy means Homogeneity? | Jun 2, 2015 |

Litterature on Statistical Homogeneity and Isotropy | May 18, 2015 |

Amateur question: isotropy and the cosmologic principle | Aug 13, 2011 |

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