I Spatial flatness and cosmological constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether the universe was always spatially flat due to the cosmological constant or if it has become flatter over time. The cosmological constant contributes to spatial flatness at late times, but early on, spatial curvature was significantly smaller compared to matter density, suggesting other factors influenced curvature before the constant became relevant. Cosmic inflation is proposed as a key mechanism that rapidly drives the universe toward flatness, addressing the exceedingly small curvature observed in the early universe. The conversation also touches on the implications of curvature constants and the expectations of physicists regarding their values, indicating a need for explanation of the tiny curvature observed near the Big Bang. Overall, the relationship between spatial curvature, the cosmological constant, and cosmic inflation remains a critical area of inquiry in cosmology.
Ranku
Messages
433
Reaction score
18
Was the universe always spatially flat due to the presence of the cosmological constant, or has it become flatter in the late-time universe?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The two are rather different.

The cosmological constant makes the universe more spatially-flat at late times. But before a few billion years ago, the impact of spatial curvature would have been increasing. Which means that the curvature, when compared against the matter density, had to be incredibly tiny in the early universe.

To see this, the effect of the curvature scales as ##(z+1)^2##, while matter density scales as ##(z+1)^3##. Right now, the measured spatial curvature is less than a few percent of the matter density. Go back to the time the CMB was emitted (##z=1090##), and the spatial curvature would have been a few thousandths of a percent of the matter density.

So something else must have caused the very, very small spatial curvature in the early universe, which was around long before the current cosmological constant was relevant to the expansion. This fact has long been one of the primary motivations for cosmic inflation, which drives the universe towards flatness very rapidly in a manner similar to the cosmological constant.
 
  • Like
Likes Ranku, fresh_42 and Orodruin
kimbyd said:
The two are rather different.

The cosmological constant makes the universe more spatially-flat at late times. But before a few billion years ago, the impact of spatial curvature would have been increasing. Which means that the curvature, when compared against the matter density, had to be incredibly tiny in the early universe.

To see this, the effect of the curvature scales as ##(z+1)^2##, while matter density scales as ##(z+1)^3##. Right now, the measured spatial curvature is less than a few percent of the matter density. Go back to the time the CMB was emitted (##z=1090##), and the spatial curvature would have been a few thousandths of a percent of the matter density.

So something else must have caused the very, very small spatial curvature in the early universe, which was around long before the current cosmological constant was relevant to the expansion. This fact has long been one of the primary motivations for cosmic inflation, which drives the universe towards flatness very rapidly in a manner similar to the cosmological constant.
So when the universe was expanding deceleratingly due to gravitation, before it began to expand acceleratingly due to cosmological constant, the universe was less spatially flat?
 
kimbyd said:
So something else must have caused the very, very small spatial curvature in the early universe, which was around long before the current cosmological constant was relevant to the expansion. This fact has long been one of the primary motivations for cosmic inflation, which drives the universe towards flatness very rapidly in a manner similar to the cosmological constant.
" drives the universe towards flatness " seems to suggest that before inflation the curvature constant wasn't ##k=0##. In this case this is true till today and our universe could e.g. be a very very large sphere. Is this reasoning correct?

If however the curvature constant was ##k=0## before inflation which means euclidean flatness then this holds till today and our universe would be spatially infinite (if we disregard a non-trivial topology e.g. torus) . - Should we neglect this case because we have some reason to think that it is extremely unlikely? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Ranku said:
So when the universe was expanding deceleratingly due to gravitation, before it began to expand acceleratingly due to cosmological constant, the universe was less spatially flat?
Nobody knows. But usually physicists expect to see numbers that aren't ridiculously small or large when comparing things in a particular way.

Take the dimensionless electromagnetic coupling constant (aka the fine structure constant) ##\alpha##. This number is approximately 1/137. Which isn't terribly big or small.

Similarly, one might expect that the spatial curvature when our observable universe was started would have been a medium number. Like 2 or 0.1.

Instead, if the current curvature is 0.01, then the curvature near the big bang would have been something ridiculous like ##10^{-30}## (note: this number is for illustration only and it's not precise in any sense). Theorists generally feel such a tiny number is something which needs explaining.

Cosmic inflation is one attempt to solve this problem.
 
kimbyd, you stated:
"So something else must have caused the very, very small spatial curvature in the early universe, which was around long before the current cosmological constant was relevant to the expansion"

Please excuse a question from a very basic learner who does not know enough. Does your above quoted statement in any way relate to decreasing curvature towards the Big Bang, which might suggest a nexus, a thinning passage, rather than a singularity.

Catastrophe :)
 
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...
Back
Top