Universe density in Hyperbolic Universe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the density of the universe in the context of a hyperbolic universe model, specifically using the Friedmann equation with a curvature parameter of ##k=-1##. Participants explore the implications of this model on universe density, the challenges of solving related equations, and the role of various density parameters.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to understand universe density using the equation ##H^2(t)-8πρG/3=-k/a^2(t)##, noting that ##ρ_U=ρ_m+p_r##.
  • Another participant mentions that the differential equation for ##a(t)## is not solvable analytically due to the presence of multiple terms, leading to an implicit form involving an integral.
  • Some participants suggest that expressing the integral in terms of elliptic integrals or using numerical integration could be viable approaches, while others express uncertainty about their ability to perform these calculations.
  • There is discussion about the implications of the condition ##Ω_0<1## and its relevance to the problem at hand.
  • One participant highlights the need for numerical solutions and programming to find ##a(t)## and ##ρ(t)##, emphasizing the complexity involved.
  • Another participant points out that there are too many parameters and not enough equations to determine the universe density without additional constraints or assumptions.
  • Participants discuss the significance of density fractions and how they relate to the Friedmann equation, introducing constants like ##Ω_m, Ω_r, Ω_k,## and ##Ω_Λ##.
  • There is a mention of the 2015 Planck results, with some participants debating the values of ##H_0## and ##Ω_m##, and the implications of changing these parameters for fitting data.
  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the relationship between the curvature parameter ##k## and the density parameter ##Ω_k##, questioning whether a negative ##k## necessitates a positive ##Ω_k##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the curvature parameter or the specific values of density parameters. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the interpretation of the equations and the relationships between the parameters.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the solutions to the equations may not have a simple form and that the discussion is limited by the need for numerical methods and the dependence on specific conventions for density parameters.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying cosmology, particularly in relation to the Friedmann equations and the implications of different curvature models on universe density.

Quarlep
Messages
257
Reaction score
4
I want to know Universe density according to this equation( ##k=-1##) ?

##H^2(t)-8πρG/3=-k/a^2(t)##
##ρ_U=ρ_m+p_r##
##ρ_U##=Universe density
##ρ_m##=Matter density
##p_r##=Radiation density
 
Space news on Phys.org
With three terms (##1/a^2, 1/a^3, 1/a^4##) the differential equation for ##a(t)## is not solvable analytically, you only have an implicit form in terms of an integral which cannot be expressed in terms of usual functions - you can obtain this form by substituting ##\frac{\dot a}{a}## for ##H##, you get something of the form ## \int F(a)da=t-t_0 ##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quarlep
Then What should I do ? Is there's any way to escape this situation ?

In ##k=-1## → ##Ω_0<1## Is this can help us ?
 
It depends what you're looking for. If you're brave enough I think you can express the integral in terms of standard elliptic integrals, which are available in most mathematical packages. But the easy route is just to integrate numerically, this works fine.

## \Omega_0<1 ## doesn't help - but the issue is not a hard one, the only thing is, the solution does not have a nice form. It is perfectly computable numerically though.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quarlep
wabbit said:
If you're brave enough you can express tge integral in terms of standard elliptic integrals, wgich are available in most mathematical packaged. But the easy route is just to integrate numerically, tgis wirks fine.

I am in high school so I did not understand a single word what you're saying
 
wabbit said:
##Ω_0<1## doesn't help - but the issue is not a hard one, the only thing is, the solution does not have a nice form. It is perfectly computable numerically though.
I can't do that myself Should I open a new thread or somebody can do that ?
 
Sorry about that. Very impressive, when I was in high school in didn't know anything at all about the Friedman equation or about General Relativity !

To find ## a(t) ## (and therefore ## \rho(t) ## ), you need to program two things :
1. The numerical calculation of the integral ##G(a)=\int F(a)da##
2. The numerical solution of the equation ## G(a)=t ##

This is a rather tough with high school tools though, you definitely need calculus. And the answer is a computer program, not a formula.

What are you trying to achieve exactly, is your question about the qualitative behaviour of the solution ? There are some things you can tell without going through a complete solution.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quarlep
Quarlep said:
I want to know Universe density according to this equation( ##k=-1##) ?

##H^2(t)-8πρG/3=-k/a^2(t)##
##ρ_U=ρ_m+p_r##
##ρ_U##=Universe density
##ρ_m##=Matter density
##p_r##=Radiation density
Too many parameters, too few equations. Also, it depends a bit upon your conventions. There are two commonly-used conventions:
1. ##k = {-1, 0, 1}##. With this convention, the scale parameter ##a## becomes the radius of curvature.
2. ##a(now) = 1##. This is usually the easiest. With this convention, ##k## can take on any number, and represents the amount of spatial curvature today (when ##a = 1##).

One way to make things easier to deal with is to use the concept of density fractions. With density fractions, I can rewrite:

H^2(t) = {8\pi G \over 3} \left(\rho_m + \rho_r\right) - {k \over a^2}

as:

H^2(t) = const \left({\Omega_m \over a^3} + {\Omega_r \over a^4} + {\Omega_k \over a^2}\right)

Here I've introduced a constant on the left, and a series of ##\Omega## constants. The equation becomes simplest if we require than when ##a = 1##, ##\Omega_m + \Omega_r + \Omega_k = 1##. In this case, when ##a = 1##, we get:

H^2(now) = const

Where this is the same constant that goes out in front, so our constant is just ##H_0^2##, and the Friedmann equation becomes:

H^2(t) = H_0^2 \left({\Omega_m \over a^3} + {\Omega_r \over a^4} + {\Omega_k \over a^2}\right)

So now we have four unknowns, but only one equation. That's not enough to give an answer unless three of the unknowns are set. What's done in practice is to take some measurable quantity which is a function of ##H(t)##:

F(data) = f(H(t))

We then take lots of data points, and use computer simulations to figure out which choices for the constants ##H_0, \Omega_m, \Omega_r, \Omega_k,## and ##\Omega_\Lambda## fit the data most closely (that last one stems from the cosmological constant).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quarlep
Quarlep said:
I can't do that myself Should I open a new thread or somebody can do that ?
I don't think this is exactly what you've asked for, but this website calculates a bunch of different quantities based upon a variety of different inputs:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Quarlep
  • #10
Chalnoth said:
##H_0, \Omega_m, \Omega_r, \Omega_k,## and ##\Omega_\Lambda## fit the data most closely (that last one stems from the cosmological constant).

In our universe ##H_0## is known 70 and ##Ω_m=0.05## ... so we can change this things isn't it.I mean this quantites describes known universe.So Can I put ##H_0=65## to fit the data ?
 
  • #11
Quarlep said:
In our universe ##H_0## is known 70 and ##Ω_m=0.05## ... so we can change this things isn't it.I mean this quantites describes known universe.So Can I put ##H_0=65## to fit the data ?
##\Omega_m## is not 0.05. This parameter includes both normal matter and dark matter.

Planck's 2015 results report the best-fit estimates of these parameters are:
##H_0 = 68##km/sec/Mpc
##\Omega_m = 0.31##

Anyway, if you tried to fit the data with these parameter values, but ##\Omega_\Lambda = 0##, you'd find pretty quickly that the data doesn't fit at all.
 
  • #12
I am trying to find density of universe ) If I put matter density 0.31 then what's the meaning to find density.We have already decided it.Is there any calculator which modified by 2015 plank results.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
You can't just compute it... you have to make experiments in order to decide its value and try to fit the data... It's a free parameter.
 
  • #15
Ok,I understand the idea.But I want to ask something.My question is simple so I thought that there's no need to open a new thread and its related this question.
##H^2(t)-8ρπG/3=-k/a^2(t)## (Lets suppose a(t)=1) then
##H^2(t)-8ρπG/3=-k## In equations ##k## can be -1,0,1.
Then If ##k<0## then ##-k>0## then
##H^2(t)-8ρπG/3>0 ##→Hyperbolic Universe. This means ##Ω_k>0## I mean If ##k## negative ##Ω_k## must be positive isn't it ? I am confused here.
In cosmology calculator says ##Ω_k=1-Ω_m-Ω_Λ##

(Its look like hyperbolic universe I am trying to understand)
Chalnoth said:
Here I've introduced a constant on the left, and a series of ##\Omega## constants. The equation becomes simplest if we require than when ##a = 1##, ##\Omega_m + \Omega_r + \Omega_k = 1##.
Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K