Regardless of an expanding universe

AI Thread Summary
In a curved space, the shortest distance between two points is represented by geodesics, which generalize the concept of straight lines. While straight lines exist in flat space, they do not necessarily represent the shortest distance in curved space, where the geometry alters their properties. The discussion highlights that converting flat space to curved space can complicate the relationship between straight lines and distances, often requiring specific methods that may not preserve the shortest path globally. The conversation emphasizes that in curved geometries, traditional definitions of straight lines become inadequate. Ultimately, understanding the nature of distances in curved spaces is essential for accurately describing the geometry of our universe.
Yessem101
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In our universe, is the shortest distance between two points a straight line or a hyperbolic curve? (I'm debating this with my teacher)

Of course you're going to ask me for the definition of a straight line but I don't think I can define that relative to a curved line without getting unnecessarily rigorous, so just use the definition of a straight line that you would use synonymously with "a curve that has a constant slope."

Don't pick apart my definition and just answer me this quick one!
 
Space news on Phys.org
I guess you're describing a straight line through curved space like in this image?
hyperbolictravel.jpg

Although this grid/space is curved, the rectangles are still rectangles (correct me if I'm wrong). The line is not passing straight through the rectangles, which means the distance is actually longer going this way.
This is just how I think it is so maybe someone will correct me.
 
Luuk Steitner said:
I guess you're describing a straight line through curved space like in this image?
hyperbolictravel.jpg

Although this grid/space is curved, the rectangles are still rectangles (correct me if I'm wrong). The line is not passing straight through the rectangles, which means the distance is actually longer going this way.
This is just how I think it is so maybe someone will correct me.
That's not quite it. Think, rather of a sphere. There just isn't any such thing as a perfectly straight line on the surface of a sphere, because the surface itself is curved. So what we use instead are called "geodesics", which are the shortest distance between two points (geodesics are sometimes also called straight lines, though perhaps this is misleading...geodesics are only actually straight when the surface itself is flat). On a sphere, a geodesic turns out to be a great circle (it's quite literally what you'd get if you were standing on the sphere and just picked any direction and walked straight that way, assuming you could actually walk straight).

So the answer is a geodesic, which is a generalization of a straight line. It's not going to be a hyperbolic curve except in some specially-chosen geometry.
 
Chalnoth said:
So the answer is a geodesic, which is a generalization of a straight line. It's not going to be a hyperbolic curve except in some specially-chosen geometry.

I know what a geodesic is, but it seems like you're defining a straight line as the shortest distance between two points regardless of the space its in.

Let me ask my question in this way. The shortest distance between two points in some flat space forms a straight line, and every straight line in this flat space can be recursively defined through another straight line in the flat space. Converting the flat space to a curved space, without converting the straight lines, these straight lines still connect two points in the curved space, but are they the shortest distance between the two points in the curved space?
 
Yessem101 said:
I know what a geodesic is, but it seems like you're defining a straight line as the shortest distance between two points regardless of the space its in.

Let me ask my question in this way. The shortest distance between two points in some flat space forms a straight line, and every straight line in this flat space can be recursively defined through another straight line in the flat space. Converting the flat space to a curved space, without converting the straight lines, these straight lines still connect two points in the curved space, but are they the shortest distance between the two points in the curved space?

Isn't that what I pointed out with the image? In this situation your line would only look straight from the outside, but actually it's the line that's hyperbolic/curved relative to the space. Since you're traveling in this space - and not another dimension outside this space - traveling along this line would take longer.
 
Yessem101 said:
I know what a geodesic is, but it seems like you're defining a straight line as the shortest distance between two points regardless of the space its in.
Well, this is the way we often think of geodesics as being: the generalization of the straight line. In any case, whether you call a geodesic a straight line or not is just words. Obviously in the special case of flat space-time, a geodesic is what we normally think of as a straight line. In curved space (or space-time, depending), straight lines (in the usual sense) are impossible.

Yessem101 said:
Let me ask my question in this way. The shortest distance between two points in some flat space forms a straight line, and every straight line in this flat space can be recursively defined through another straight line in the flat space. Converting the flat space to a curved space, without converting the straight lines, these straight lines still connect two points in the curved space, but are they the shortest distance between the two points in the curved space?
That entirely depends upon how you do the conversion. And bear in mind that doing such conversion always requires a stretching of said space In some cases, it can only be done with tearing (generally, you can always go from a flat space to a small region of curved space without tearing, but it's often impossible to do it globally; for instance, it's not possible to take a single sheet of paper and make an entire sphere surface without tearing).

The basic issue here is that there are a great many ways to deform a flat surface to make a curved one. Even if you could do it in such a way that the geodesics in some small area conform to straight lines in the flat surface before deformation, you'd have to do it specially, and even then it's typically going to be impossible for the mapping to hold for any significant distance.
 
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...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top