# Problem understanding how universe is infinitely flat

• nikolakis
In summary: So while the universe may be flat from our perspective, there is no reason it couldn't have evolved from a curved state.
nikolakis
Hi,

I can't visualize how the universe could be infinitely flat according to the big bang theory...

The only way I can visualize this is like a cone surface, one dimension supressed and left with a circle line (the universe), the other dimension thus forming the cone, is time. Now, in a fourth dimension the ends of the circle never meet, thus forming a spiral line. This universe is flat (as cones are topologically flat surfaces), infinite and isotropically expanding.

I am confused. I needed 4 dimensions to represent a universe which is only a line. How many dimensions are needed for the familiar 3D universe? 5 dimensions suffice?

Or maybe expansion is accelerated. Then we have a hyperboloid-like surface. Is my thinking any valid?

I think your problem is wrapping the 1-D line back on itself into a circle. The 1 D line would stretch into infinity in both directions. Adding in time, this forms a 2-D sheet where the distance between points is found by sqrt(t^2 - x^2 ) or sqrt(x^2 -t^2 ) depending on which convention you like. Adding in another spatial dimension forms 3 D where we subtract or add y^2 like the x^2 in the previous two equations. Adding in a third spatial dimension forms a 4 D hypervolume where distances are found similarly: sqrt(+/- t^2 -/+ x^2 -/+ y^2 -/+ z^2 ).

What is meant by it being flat is that parallel lines never converge or diverge, and triangles always have pi radians in interior angles, and the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi.

Edit:NB, the universe is *presently* flat (to the best of our ability to measure). The shape has changed over time.

Last edited:
nikolakis said:
I can't visualize how the universe could be infinitely flat according to the big bang theory...

I don't think the big bang theory does say that it is infinitely flat. Can you provide a reference?

phinds said:
I don't think the big bang theory does say that it is infinitely flat. Can you provide a reference?

Oh, never mind... I am a mathematician and not familiar with the theory.
I think, I was trying to say infinite, flat and expanding. I was trying to visualize the thing macroscopically, not from the differential point of view. Sorry, if i have offended you.

Well from a mathematics perspective, there's a scaling parameter that is a function of time: a(t). So distances (in any direction) is scaled by a(t). I'm not precisely sure how one would describe the overall space-time, but the "flatness" refers to a more-or-less Euclidean space, with time coupled like a Minkowski space.

I was more thinking of a 3-torus, and trying to tile the infinite Minkowski plane with identical copies of this domain.
The analogy to an infinite roll of paper folded to a cone for a constant-rate expanding universe is self-evident, but are cosmologists talking of the same thing here?

There remains an open possibility that the universe could be a flat 3-torus, so long as the volume was larger than that of our observable universe. But it's an additional complication in the geometry unjustified by physical observation, so there's no particular push to drive acceptance of this model. The generally accepted one is that of an infinite Euclidean 3-D volume with a time-like dimension as well.

I see... Because, all this time I have been thinking that all expansion-contraction was an issue of the curvature of space-time.
But if the universe is truly flat, what is causing it to expand? More so, if the spatial universe boils down to an infinite stretching line, what could be the Minkowski spacetime for an isotropically, let's say, constant-rate expanding line?
Why I can't visualize the thing without any curvature of the resulting spacetime ??!

The expansion is not related to the sectional curvature of the hypersurfaces in the space-like foliation determined by the CMB frame but rather to the spatial metric tensor relative to the CMB frame and the covariant derivative of the 4-velocity field of the CMB frame: ##\nabla_a u_b = \frac{1}{3}h_{ab}\theta## where ##\theta## is the expansion (defined by ##\theta = \nabla_a u^a##). By the way, the Friedman space-time is obviously not flat; when we say the universe is flat we just mean that the sectional curvature of the aforementioned hypersurfaces vanishes.

Last edited:
what they said.

Essentially a single "time slice" in a frame where the CMB is isotropic (ie at rest to the CMB frame, measured by the dipole moment of the measured anisotropy), and roughly around present time, is a 3D volume with no measured global curvature. (though of course there are many small pockets of local curvature, small being galactic clusters and smaller).

What drives curvature is that measures of space and time are intimately coupled to the energy of "stuff" within that space-time. Some energy (like mass) pulls measures of space and time "closer together" (rulers are shorter and clocks run longer at the bottom of a gravitational well compared to the top). Other energy (like radiation pressure, dark energy) push measures of space and time "further apart" (rulers appear longer over time).

Note also, that expansion does not occur in regions of space that have significant portions of mass (galactic clusters and smaller) where gravitation is the apparent behaviour of space-time. It is simply that our universe has a lot more space without massive stuff, so more expansion (on the whole) occurs than "contraction."

nikolakis said:
I see... Because, all this time I have been thinking that all expansion-contraction was an issue of the curvature of space-time.
Well, it is. In fact, if you compute the Ricci curvature scalar in an FRW universe, you end up with two terms. One is directly related to the rate of expansion. The other is the spatial curvature. When people say, "the universe is flat," they're only talking about the spatial curvature.

Of course, it's worth mentioning that the "spatial curvature" is coordinate-dependent, but the key point here is that it's possible to choose a set of coordinates where, at least to current measurement accuracy, there doesn't appear to be any spatial curvature.

Either way, it's perfectly sensible to consider the expansion as being a manifestation of space-time curvature. It's just possible to select specific three-dimensional hypersurfaces that don't have any curvature (or, at least, that have a radius of curvature far larger than the observable universe).

## 1. What does it mean for the universe to be infinitely flat?

When we say that the universe is infinitely flat, we are referring to the curvature of space. This means that if you were to travel in a straight line in any direction, you would eventually come back to your starting point, similar to how the surface of a globe is curved.

## 2. How do scientists know that the universe is infinitely flat?

Scientists have been able to measure the curvature of the universe through various experiments and observations, such as studying the cosmic microwave background radiation and analyzing the distribution of galaxies. These studies have consistently shown that the universe is flat, with a curvature close to zero.

## 3. Why is it difficult to understand the concept of an infinitely flat universe?

The concept of an infinitely flat universe is difficult to understand because it goes against our everyday experiences and perceptions of space and time. It is also a challenging concept to visualize, as our brains are not able to comprehend the idea of something being infinite.

## 4. Does the idea of an infinitely flat universe have any implications for the future of our universe?

Yes, the flatness of the universe has significant implications for its future. It suggests that the expansion of the universe will continue indefinitely, without ever slowing down or collapsing. This has implications for the ultimate fate of the universe and the possibility of other universes existing beyond our own.

## 5. Are there any alternative theories to explain the flatness of the universe?

Yes, there are alternative theories, such as the "inflation theory" which proposes that the universe underwent a rapid period of expansion in its early stages, smoothing out any curvature. There are also theories that suggest the universe may have a slight curvature, but it is too small to be detected by current technology.

• Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
2K
• Cosmology
Replies
17
Views
1K
• Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
894
• Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
669
• Cosmology
Replies
52
Views
5K
• Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
2K
• Cosmology
Replies
17
Views
3K
• Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
• Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K