University of Southern Mississippi

Discussion

Started 20 March 2019

# Space Curvature - Is there a mathematical description of the fourth drawing?

Dear all,

in accordance with Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equation there are three different possibilities of space curvature which can be described mathematically and imparted graphically or analogously (Closed, Openend or Flat Universe). In the attached poster a fourth graphic representation is shown, which is however only graphically derived.

Is this sketch describable within Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equations? How can we interpret this sketch? A Universe that is truly infinite, although it has a defined start and a defined end point?

What would be a 3-Dimensional mathematical object to describe the plot (closed hypertorus, while closed means without a connection in the center?). And what numbers for curvature parameter k and density Parameter Ω make sense for this sketch?

I have created this plot purely graphically and wonder whether a mathematical interpretation of such a shaped space-time is possible, or whether it inevitably leads to paradoxes and is thus a graphic that can be drawn abstractly, but ultimately makes no mathematical sense.

Thank you!

## Most recent answer

I might add that my paper on a "Bipolar Model"...of hyperbolic space was rejected by Physics journals as being too mathematical and by Mathematics journals as being too physical. It primarily raises the question of what coordinates are "physical". This is not easy to answer. For example rotating coordinates are considered non-physical, but if you are in them, they are real and there is physics associated with them. As mentioned above, one needs to consider the matter distribution to make sense of them.

2 Recommendations

## All replies (12)

In the "Closed Universe" and in the "Opened universe" you have put the geodesic views from the plane, in the "Flat universe" following that logic (which I do not know if it is the correct one) would be wrong, it would be a "triangle".

In the last figure, notice that it begins as two "Opened universe" reflected, and that in the part that expands to infinity join.

Therefore I would say that the figure you are looking for would be the "Opened universe" rotated, like an hourglass

1 Recommendation

Technische Universität München

@Sergio Garcia Chimeno

Please note that the graph shows the size of the universe as a function of time, depending on the k and Ω parameters. While a closed universe reunites in one point (sometimes called Big Crunch), the open universe continues to grow. In the flat universe, however, growth is no longer recorded at some point due to the parameters, but there is an asymptotic approximation to a fixed size of the universe. This is at least the interpretation I was taught - and here the two-dimensional representation of a triangle - I think - would not be correct. But maybe I am wrong too.

Note that the fourth graphical representation says something strange if we accept that the x-axis represents time. So here we would have a universe that grows, then strikes backwards due to a too large exponential gradient - in this case into the temporal past (if x-axis is time). For me this is very difficult to understand and i wonder if there is anything mathematically to be read out of this graph, or if its just a nonsense plot.

Actually there is a common misunderstanding with the Friedmann-Lemaitre equations and the solutions for the Robertson-Walker metric. The point is that the parameters k and Ω define the metric, which is a local entity and does not imply the global structure of the space(time). Topologically, if k>0, the universe must be closed. But for k=0 or k<0, the universe can be either closed (and finite) or open (and infinite). For k=0 for example, a flat universe with periodic boundary conditions (aka torus) is not excluded. And for k<0 there exist several topologically distinct manifolds with constant curvature.

I am saying this because the commonly sketched 3 kinds of universes: closed 3-sphere, flat infinite space, and negatively curved 3-hypersphere is just not the complete picture.

2 Recommendations

The other thing is: I do not understand the fourth picture. Where does the fourth option actually come from? I understand the graphics is meant to denote the timeline of the universe (bottom to top), but then I do not understand the fourth picture at all.

From what I said above, the parameter k defines the curvature of the RW metric. This by itself does not imply the global, topological properties of the universe. For this, additional input is needed, namely equations of state or in other words: models of matter. This then gives the "radius" as a function of a cosmological time parameter, and may lead to big bang, crunch, some periodicity maybe, ever expansion and so forth.

2 Recommendations

Technische Universität München

Dear Oliver,

Thank you very much for the gainful answer.

To your question, where the fourth drawing did come from:

I just thought about how to graphically represent an entity that is infinitely extended in all directions, but is still a finite entity. The graphic thus has both a defined start and end point, but is nevertheless infinitely extended in all directions. As noted in the question, the derivation is purely graphical and I was just wondering if there is a mathematical interpretation of such a body.

I came up with the idea because the concepts of a closed universe as well as of an open universe were always coming towards me in my work, but they were then always closed

**"or"**open. So the question for me was: Is there a description for a system that is open in all directions**"and"**closed with a defined start- and endpoint at the same time.Thales Group, UK

Aleksandar, I think you're going about this the wrong way, you can't just draw a picture then look for an equation that fits, you need to first propose a density profile (Robertson and Walker assumed homogeneous and isotropic) then from that work out the metric and finally calculate a graphical representation if that is feasible. The first three on your poster cover all the three possibilities of the Robertson-Walker metric so you need a different distribution of energy to start from. To work that backwards which is what I think you are trying to do, you first need to turn the picture into the equations for the metric. I would advise you look at a variety of existing metrics to see the form of what would be needed.

1 Recommendation

Technische Universität München

Thank you for your comment. Basically I think you can draw a picture to see if there could turn out new thoughts or not. But of course there is no metric here. After the drawing I also did not find a corresponding formulation, so that I assume myself that it is a drawing that can be drawn, but nothing more.

1 Recommendation

Australian National University

Aleksandar wrote:

*"... so that I assume myself that it is a drawing that can be drawn, but nothing more."*

Not so fast. Recall

**Ringermacher's**discussion of oscillating accelerations (2015, 2017), and his earlier (2012) speculations about combining negatively curved (hyperbolic) regions of space ("voids") within an FRW universe.Please keep going a little more!

Nigel

1 Recommendation

Technische Universität München

A big thank you for these great articles I didn't know before!

1 Recommendation

University of Southern Mississippi

Hi...

The FLRW metric is a solution of the Einstein eqns for a Constant-Curvature space. There are only 3 possibilities - already mentioned in your discussion. Anything else is not a solution of FLRW. To accommodate your 4th option requires a new metric, perhaps a time/space-dependent curvature solution. I have not yet found such a solution of the Einstein eqn.

1 Recommendation

University of Southern Mississippi

I might add that my paper on a "Bipolar Model"...of hyperbolic space was rejected by Physics journals as being too mathematical and by Mathematics journals as being too physical. It primarily raises the question of what coordinates are "physical". This is not easy to answer. For example rotating coordinates are considered non-physical, but if you are in them, they are real and there is physics associated with them. As mentioned above, one needs to consider the matter distribution to make sense of them.

2 Recommendations

## Similar questions and discussions

What is the cosmological impact of "The Radcliffe Wave" for understanding our galaxy's formation?

- Gloria Lee Mcmillan

Dear Colleagues,

I am a liaison (informal) at my university between science and the arts. I have family in planetary astronomy but this is far afield.

LINK to VIDEO: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/01/largest-gaseous-structure-ever-seen-in-our-galaxy-is-discovered/

A question or two:

What does this newly-reported Radcliffe Wave of gaseous proto-stars tell us about how our galaxy originated?

Is there any chance that this wave will make some difference in our own sun's behavior?

Is Cyclic Universe the Scientific Version of Turtle All the Way Down?

- Ziaedin Shafiei

Might what be shocking about dark energy is the failure to explain it?

- Robert Shour

December 2023 Sci Am has an article at page 62 by science writer Richard Panet, The Cosmic Surprise. Scientists discovered dark energy 25 years ago. They’re still trying to figure out what it is

The same article appears in Sci Am’s Space and Physics November 16, 2023: The Most Shocking Discovery in Astrophysics Is 25 Years Old A quarter of a century after detecting dark energy, scientists are still trying to figure out what it is.

Suppose instead, that dimensional capacity, a simple principle embedded but unnoticed in Galileo’s 1638 strength of materials scaling explains dark energy. The scaling principle is that scaling weight by exponent 3 requires the cross-sectional area of weight-bearing bone to get fatter by scaling by 3/2 relative to scaling of weight. Weight has 3/2 the dimension of area, area gets bigger by 3/2 disproportionately, so there is enough bone mass to support increased weight.

For dark energy, suppose the 4 dimensions of space + light motion results in 3D space getting fatter, so 3D radial distances are 4/3 of 4D distances.

As in :

Preprint Flowchart for deriving 4/3 scaling

If after 25 years, physics with all its modern mathematics, theories and technology has not figured out DE, maybe it's because physics cannot without a simple concept not yet part of conventional physics.

I suspect future generations will be mystified why this generation thought dark energy was shocking.

What is the real shape of the gravitational bending of light?

- Ziaedin Shafiei

## Related Publications

Studies in many countries, as part of the project Rose, evaluated the interest of the students in science subjects. In general, it has been found that topics related to astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology were considered very interesting by students in school years. It is even more remarkable that this interest does not depend on gender. Then, in...

This document is part of Subvolume A 'Instruments and Methods' of Volume 4 'Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology' of Landolt-Börnstein - Group VI 'Astronomy and Astrophysics'.

Recebido em 10/5/2012; Aceito em 3/9/2012; Publicado em 1/3/2013 El objetivo de este trabajo es conocer las dificultades de aprendizaje de la astronomía del alumnado al finalizar la educación secundaria de nuestro país (16 años) y si la enseñanza las tiene en cuenta. Para ello se ha realizado un cuestionario a estudiantes y una red de análisis de t...