- #36
timmdeeg
Gold Member
- 1,461
- 282
But at least experimental support for inflation would support the L-CDM model and thus postulates like homogeneity on which this model is based, right?
You would have to prove that there are no models that fit our current data that are not homogeneous.timmdeeg said:What could prove "that the universe must be homogeneous (on large enough distance scales)"?
Not specifically. Experimental support for inflation by itself does not tell us anything about what happens after inflation ends. The Lambda-CDM model is about what happens after inflation ends.timmdeeg said:But at least experimental support for inflation would support the L-CDM model
As far as inflation is concerned, you have this backwards. Inflation models predict that the universe will be homogeneous to a very high degree of accuracy at the end of inflation, in which case we would expect it to be homegeneous on large enough distance scales today. But that in itself doesn't support the Lambda-CDM model specifically. It just tells us that the general class of FRW models is the right general class to be using.timmdeeg said:and thus postulates like homogeneity on which this model is based, right?
In general, yes. But note that FRW spacetimes that are homogeneous are spherically symmetric too. So a spherically symmetric spacetime can have more than just one set of 3 such KVFs.cianfa72 said:Spherically symmetric spacetime has only 3 linearly independent spacelike KVFs (Killing Lie algebra has dimension 3).
Note that this way of looking at it assumes that the vacuum Schwarzschild region ends at the surface of an ordinary object, i.e., that we are not talking about a black hole. For a Schwarzschild black hole, there is no "fixed point". But the rotational KVFs are still there and the spacetime is still spherically symmetric.cianfa72 said:They are rotational KVFs about a fixed point on any spacelike hypersurface of constant Schwarzschild coordinate time (contrast with a maximally symmetric spacelike hypersurface that has got ##3*4/2=6## linearly independent KVFs).
Again, see the caveat I gave above.cianfa72 said:Therefore such spherically symmetric spacetime is isotropic only about a specific "spatial" location (i.e. about the points that a specific timelike worldline intersects any of the spacelike hypersurfaces of constant Schwarzschild coordinate time).
Yes, but the volume of such "ordinary object" can be taken in principle as infinitesimal. Therefore the 3 rotational KVFs are about that "location", I believe.PeterDonis said:Note that this way of looking at it assumes that the vacuum Schwarzschild region ends at the surface of an ordinary object, i.e., that we are not talking about a black hole. For a Schwarzschild black hole, there is no "fixed point". But the rotational KVFs are still there and the spacetime is still spherically symmetric.
If you give it a small enough mass, yes--but then you're making the spacetime very close to just being flat.cianfa72 said:the volume of such "ordinary object" can be taken in principle as infinitesimal.
They are about the center of mass of the object. If the spacetime is spherically symmetric, the object must be, which means the rotational KVFs exist inside the object as well as outside. No need to make the object infinitesimal in size.cianfa72 said:the 3 rotational KVFs are about that "location", I believe.
For a 2-surface the maximally symmetric condition requires ##2*3/2=3## independent isometries.PAllen said:homogeneity does not imply isotropy (there can be the 'same' preferred direction at every point, e.g. a cylinder for a case of 2-surface geometry)
Yes, this is homogeneous but nowhere isotropic.cianfa72 said:For a 2-surface the maximally symmetric condition requires ##2*3/2=3## independent isometries.
In the case of the cylinder there are only 2 KVFs (the translation KVFs) and no global "rotation" KVF about any point (i.e. any linear combination with constant coefficients of the 2 independent KVFs doesn't result in a "rotation" KVF about any point).
Nevertheless for the cylinder ##\mathbb S^1 \times \mathbb R##, as explained in this video at minute 36:00, the Killing equation has a third local solution that, however, cannot be globally extended as smooth KVF on the entire manifold.PAllen said:Yes, this is homogeneous but nowhere isotropic.
Yes, this is obvious when you consider that the metric of the cylinder is flat: it's the same as the metric of the Euclidean plane. So locally it must have the same solutions to Killing's equation as the flat Euclidean plane does.cianfa72 said:for the cylinder ##\mathbb S^1 \times \mathbb R##, as explained in this video at minute 36:00, the Killing equation has a third local solution
Yes, because the global topology of the cylinder is different from that of the Euclidean plane.cianfa72 said:that, however, cannot be globally extended as smooth KVF on the entire manifold.
In other words there is not any finite diffeomorphism/isometry that "rotate" points about any point on the cylinder.PeterDonis said:Yes, because the global topology of the cylinder is different from that of the Euclidean plane.
No, there is not any global isometry that does that for the entire cylinder. But there are local isometries that do it for finite open regions centered on some chosen point.cianfa72 said:In other words there is not any finite diffeomorphism/isometry that "rotate" points about any point on the cylinder.
Ah ok, yes. Just take a finite open region and unroll it on the plane.PeterDonis said:But there are local isometries that do it for finite open regions centered on some chosen point.
Yes.cianfa72 said:Just take a finite open region and unroll it on the plane.