Does Isotropy Necessarily Imply Homogeneity in the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisVer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Homogeneity Means
AI Thread Summary
Homogeneity in the universe means that observers at different locations see the same evidence, while isotropy indicates uniformity in all directions. The discussion highlights that while isotropy and homogeneity are related, they are not the same; a universe can be isotropic without being homogeneous. To demonstrate that isotropy from two locations implies homogeneity, one must consider the geometric constraints of the universe, particularly in a spherical model. The need for three points arises because two isotropic points can exist in a non-homogeneous universe, such as one structured with varying densities. Ultimately, isotropy at two points necessitates homogeneity under specific conditions, reinforcing the interconnectedness of these cosmological principles.
ChrisVer
Science Advisor
Messages
3,372
Reaction score
465
quating from Cosmological_principle
Homogeneity means that the same observational evidence is available to observers at different locations in the universe ("the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample"). Isotropy means that the same observational evidence is available by looking in any direction in the universe ("the same physical laws apply throughout"). The principles are distinct but closely related, because a universe that appears isotropic from any two (for a spherical geometry, three) locations must also be homogeneous.

How can one see that if the universe appears isotropic from any two locations it must also be homogeneous?
And why would we need three points for a sphere?
Thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org
The converse is easy - a universe which is spherically symmetric wrt one observer, but inhomogeneous (composed on concentric shells of different densities for instance) will be isotropic from the center of symmetry - and only from there if it is flat, but also from the antipodal point is it is globally spherical (which are the only two points of isotropy in that case).
Not sure how to prove there are no other possibilities though.
 
ChrisVer said:
How can one see that if the universe appears isotropic from any two locations it must also be homogeneous?
And why would we need three points for a sphere?

The second question is easy: because as wabbit showed, you can have two points of isotropy in a universe which is spatially a 3-sphere, without having it be homogeneous; just make the two points antipodal points. Another way of saying this is, for the two point requirement to be sufficient, we must restrict consideration to an open, non-compact spacelike hypersurface as the "universe" (more particularly, the universe at one instant of time).

Given that restriction, wabbit's argument should also be enough to show you why isotropy about two points is sufficient: because isotropy about one point, combined with lack of homogeneity, rules out isotropy about any other point. So if we know we have isotropy about two points, we must have homogeneity.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Back
Top