I What proof do we have that the universe is homogenous?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concepts of isotropy and homogeneity in the universe, as defined in a cosmology book. Isotropy means the universe appears the same in all directions at large scales, which is supported by current observations from galaxy surveys and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Homogeneity, on the other hand, suggests that the universe looks the same from any location at large distances, but proving this is more complex. It is suggested that homogeneity is a postulate, accepted as a fundamental assumption until proven otherwise, as there is currently no evidence against it. The combination of isotropy and the Copernican principle supports the idea that if the universe is isotropic from one point, it must be isotropic from all points, leading to the conclusion of homogeneity.
Phys12
Messages
351
Reaction score
42
TL;DR Summary
Definition given in a book I am following says that a universe that is homogenous looks the same from any location on large enough scales. How do we know this is true for our universe?
In the book, it states that a universe is isotropic if it looks the same regardless of which direction you look at large enough scales. This seems fairly easy to prove these days with observations from galaxy surveys and the CMB. However, how can we possibly prove that the university is homogenous (definition: the universe looks the same at large enough distances regardless of your location)?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Like you said, we make observations. We can measure the distances to galaxies along with their direction and from that build a model and look at the distribution of galaxies at different scales. Obviously our observations are limited to our own observable universe, so there's a limit to how well we can verify the homogeneity at larger and larger scales.
 
Phys12 said:
Summary:: Definition given in a book I am following says that a universe that is homogenous looks the same from any location on large enough scales. How do we know this is true for our universe?

In the book, it states that a universe is isotropic if it looks the same regardless of which direction you look at large enough scales. This seems fairly easy to prove these days with observations from galaxy surveys and the CMB. However, how can we possibly prove that the university is homogenous (definition: the universe looks the same at large enough distances regardless of your location)?
In physics you can't prove something like this. It must be a postulate - something you take as a fundamental assumption on which to base your theories. If the assumption is wrong then eventually you will find experimental evidence of this. What you can say is that currently there is no evidence for any lack of homegeneity or isotropy in the universe.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and Phys12
Phys12 said:
In the book, it states that a universe is isotropic if it looks the same regardless of which direction you look at large enough scales. This seems fairly easy to prove these days with observations from galaxy surveys and the CMB. However, how can we possibly prove that the university is homogenous (definition: the universe looks the same at large enough distances regardless of your location)?
As you said, we can observe that universe looks isotropic from our perspective. Now if you accept that there is nothing special about our place in the universe and that it also looks isotropic from other places, you can say that universe is homogeneous.
I like this illustration taken from Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", explaining why the universe is homogeneous when it is isotropic:

IMG_20200806_080318.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes Phys12
Understood, thank y'all so much!

Read this line 8 minutes after posting the above message:
""
Isotropy around any point in the universe, such as your navel, combined with the Copernican principle, implies isotropy around every point in the universe; and isotropy around every point in the universe does imply homogeneity
""

It's from Barbara Ryden's book, by the way, on intro to cosmology.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes lomidrevo
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