Source for the margin of error of curvature

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the margin of error for the curvature of the universe, specifically seeking reputable sources that quantify this margin. The scope includes theoretical aspects of cosmology and the interpretation of observational data.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about reputable sources for the margin of error regarding the flatness of the universe, suggesting a figure of about 2% without citations.
  • Another participant provides a link to a paper from October 2007 found on arXiv, which may contain relevant information.
  • A different participant suggests that better constraints on curvature can be obtained by incorporating baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova data alongside WMAP results, citing a specific range for the curvature parameter.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the information shared.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specific margin of error, and multiple views regarding the sources and methods for estimating curvature remain present.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific data sources and parameters but does not resolve the assumptions or methodologies behind the cited figures.

zeebo17
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
I have seen in a few places around the web that the margin of error for the flatness of the universe is about 2%, but haven't seen any citations. Could anyone refer me to a reputable paper that I could cite that mentions what this margin of error is?

Thanks!
 
Space news on Phys.org
You can get better constraints by adding baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova data to the WMAP result. They estimate the following parameters for w = constant:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/params/owcdm_sz_lens_wmap5_bao_snall.cfm

The curvature parameter is:
[tex]-0.0175 < \Omega_k < 0.0085[/tex] (95% confidence)

...which is a significantly tighter confidence interval than is given in the above paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great, thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K