Terminology: Omega_0 = Omega_m? and more

  • Thread starter hAndrew
  • Start date
  • #1
hAndrew
1
0
Some papers refer to Omega_0 without defining it. (Example: The first footnote on page 2 in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9908/9908159v3.pdf.) What's the normal assumption in this case? Omega_0 = Omega_m (Omega_m as in Omega_m + Omega_Lambda = 1 in LambdaCDM) fits the context, but seems strange in the above paper because the authors use the notation Omega_m elsewhere in the paper. Is Omega_0 = Omega_m?

A related question: That paper refers to the "universal density" rho_u. I haven't heard that term before. rho_u = Omega_m * rho_critical fits the context. Is "universal density" = Omega_m * rho_critical?
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
hellfire
Science Advisor
1,051
1
Usually [itex]\Omega_0[/itex] refers to the fraction of the total density and the critical density today [itex]\Omega_0 = \rho_0 / \rho_{c,0}[/itex]. The term "universtal density" in that paper seems to me to be equivalent to the density at a given redshift, but I might be wrong.
 

Suggested for: Terminology: Omega_0 = Omega_m? and more

Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
811
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
792
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
78
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
137
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
203
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
771
Replies
41
Views
4K
Top