Understanding the Flat Geometry and Curvature of the Universe

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Alltimegreat1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of flat geometry and curvature in the universe, particularly in the context of 3D and 4D spaces. Participants explore the implications of flatness, Euclidean geometry, and the nature of intrinsic versus extrinsic curvature, with references to cosmology and mathematical models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the terms "flat geometry" and "baseline curvature," questioning how a 3D universe can be flat.
  • It is proposed that flat space, or Euclidean space, has no curvature, where parallel lines never meet and the angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees.
  • Others argue that flatness is not synonymous with Euclidean geometry, suggesting that while flat spaces can exhibit similar measurable properties, they can also wrap back on themselves.
  • A distinction is made between intrinsic curvature, which is a property of the space itself, and extrinsic curvature, which relates to how the space is embedded in higher dimensions.
  • Participants discuss examples of flat spaces, such as cylinders and tori, and their properties regarding wrapping and curvature.
  • There is contention over whether a flat space can be finite and unlimited, with some asserting that it cannot, while others suggest that certain configurations, like a torus, can be flat depending on the metric used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the relationship between flatness and Euclidean geometry, with multiple competing views presented regarding the definitions and implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include nuances about local versus global properties of flatness, the mathematical distinctions between different types of curvature, and the implications of these concepts in cosmology. Some statements lack qualifiers, leading to potential misunderstandings.

Alltimegreat1
Messages
115
Reaction score
5
I'm having trouble understanding the terms "flat geometry of the universe" and "baseline curvature of the universe." How can a 3D universe be flat?
 
Space news on Phys.org
It is flat in the sense that it has no curvature.

2D geometry can be curved as well. For example, if you draw a triangle on the surface of a sphere (a 2D surface), its interior angles will add up to a number larger than 180 degrees. This is a consequence of the curvature of the space.

Flat space is called Euclidean space, where the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, and parallel lines never intersect.

3D space can be flat (i.e., Euclidean) in the sense that parallel lines never meet and keep the same distance from each other.
3D space, doesn't have to be flat though.
If we apply the rules on non-euclidean spaces to 3D, you can get things like parallel lines at one point eventually bending toward each other and intersecting.

The geometry of the Universe usually refers to space and time as a peculiar kind of 4-dimensional system called "space-time". Where spacetime is flat, we see that it obeys the rules of euclidean geometry and spatial relativity. However, the theory of General Relativity says that mass/energy curves or warps spacetime. That means near a massive body, the laws of space and time are non-euclidean.
 
jfizzix said:
3D space can be flat (i.e., Euclidean) in the sense that parallel lines never meet and keep the same distance from each other.
Flat is not the same thing as Euclidean.
 
Orodruin said:
Flat is not the same thing as Euclidean.
For nearly all intents and purposes, it is.

It's possible for a flat space to wrap back on itself, but this definitely doesn't occur for our observable universe. So as far as we can tell, our universe is very close to Euclidean on large scales.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhanthomJay
Chalnoth said:
For nearly all intents and purposes, it is.
Definitely not. For the application to cosmology, yes, but flattness and being a Euclidean space are different mathematical concepts.
 
Orodruin said:
Definitely not. For the application to cosmology, yes, but flattness and being a Euclidean space are different mathematical concepts.
Perhaps, but that distinction is quite subtle.

Euclidean space and flat space have all of the same measurable properties, except for the possibility that a flat space can potentially wrap back on itself.
 
Chalnoth said:
Perhaps, but that distinction is quite subtle.

Euclidean space and flat space have all of the same measurable properties, except for the possibility that a flat space can potentially wrap back on itself.
This is not true either. Flatness is a local concept although it is perfectly possible to have completely flat spaces which do not wrap back on themselves and are not Euclidean. In particular, spaces with non-zero torsion come to mind.

As long as you work in a Riemannian setting with the Levi-Civita connection you might have a point, but the original statement was a blanket statement without any qualifiers and as such is incorrect.
 
how can a flat space wrap back on itself?
 
Alberto87 said:
how can a flat space wrap back on itself?

A cylinder is the most usual example of such a space. It is flat, but has a cyclic direction.

Note that we are talking about intrinsic curvature here, which is a property of the space itself, not of its embedding into a higher-dimensional space. Extrinsic curvature is something different.
 
  • #10
Orodruin said:
A cylinder is the most usual example of such a space. It is flat, but has a cyclic direction.

Note that we are talking about intrinsic curvature here, which is a property of the space itself, not of its embedding into a higher-dimensional space. Extrinsic curvature is something different.
Ah ok, but it only wraps back in one direction, the second direction cannot, am I right?
It´s not possible for a flat space to be finite and unlimited, isn´t it?
Is the torus a flat space time?
 
  • #11
Alberto87 said:
Ah ok, but it only wraps back in one direction, the second direction cannot, am I right?
It´s not possible for a flat space to be finite and unlimited, isn´t it?
Is the torus a flat space time?
It can wrap around in all directions. A torus is an example - whether it is flat or not depends on the metric you put on it.
 
  • #12
Alberto87 said:
Ah ok, but it only wraps back in one direction, the second direction cannot, am I right?
It´s not possible for a flat space to be finite and unlimited, isn´t it?
Is the torus a flat space time?

The function ##(x,y) \rightarrow 2^{-1/2}(cos(x), sin(x),cos(y),sin(y))## maps the Euclidean plane into a flat torus in ##R^4##. The square [0.2π] x [0,2π] in the plane is bent around in both directions and its opposite edges are identified. A square with opposite edges identified is a torus. The function also preserves the Euclidean metric on the plane so the torus is flat. One can think of it as a cylinder made in both directions.

You are right that you can not wrap the cylinder into a flat torus in 3 dimensions. In 3d one would have to stretch the cylinder and this would create curvature. In 4 dimensions one does not need to do any stretching.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alberto87

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K