Observable universe radius for distant observers

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












4












$begingroup$


The radius of the observable universe is about 46 Gly. Is that figure true for all current observers in our universe? Is it true if the universe is finite or infinite, flat or curved?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    The radius of the observable universe is about 46 Gly. Is that figure true for all current observers in our universe? Is it true if the universe is finite or infinite, flat or curved?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      The radius of the observable universe is about 46 Gly. Is that figure true for all current observers in our universe? Is it true if the universe is finite or infinite, flat or curved?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      The radius of the observable universe is about 46 Gly. Is that figure true for all current observers in our universe? Is it true if the universe is finite or infinite, flat or curved?







      cosmology space-expansion observable-universe






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Mar 9 at 10:11









      Peter4075Peter4075

      1,12432042




      1,12432042




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          If the universe has a FLRW metric, then there is a cosmological time $t$ that all observers at rest relative to CMB or the matter in the universe will experience at the same rate. This is true regardless of the curvature and whether the universe is infinite or merely unbounded.



          The radius of the observable universe (in co-moving coordinates) is calculated by integrating $$r=c int_0^t fracdua(u)$$ (where $a(t)$ is the scale factor) from the start to the present cosmological time. All observers with the same $t$ will agree on $r$.



          The slightly conceptually tricky part is defining "all current observers". We can define current observers to mean "all observers at rest relative to the matter or CMB that see the same scale factor $a(t)=1$ as us (i.e. have the same cosmological time $t$)" and get a well-defined slice of constant $t$ across the space-time manifold. This is less arbitrary and problematic than talking about simultaneity in special relativity, where there is nothing to compare to and no real simultaneity (everybody have their own present-time slices across spacetime, all equally valid). In a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology there is a frame of reference that is shared.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Peter4075
            Mar 9 at 15:47










          • $begingroup$
            @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Mar 9 at 16:25











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465439%2fobservable-universe-radius-for-distant-observers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          If the universe has a FLRW metric, then there is a cosmological time $t$ that all observers at rest relative to CMB or the matter in the universe will experience at the same rate. This is true regardless of the curvature and whether the universe is infinite or merely unbounded.



          The radius of the observable universe (in co-moving coordinates) is calculated by integrating $$r=c int_0^t fracdua(u)$$ (where $a(t)$ is the scale factor) from the start to the present cosmological time. All observers with the same $t$ will agree on $r$.



          The slightly conceptually tricky part is defining "all current observers". We can define current observers to mean "all observers at rest relative to the matter or CMB that see the same scale factor $a(t)=1$ as us (i.e. have the same cosmological time $t$)" and get a well-defined slice of constant $t$ across the space-time manifold. This is less arbitrary and problematic than talking about simultaneity in special relativity, where there is nothing to compare to and no real simultaneity (everybody have their own present-time slices across spacetime, all equally valid). In a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology there is a frame of reference that is shared.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Peter4075
            Mar 9 at 15:47










          • $begingroup$
            @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Mar 9 at 16:25















          4












          $begingroup$

          If the universe has a FLRW metric, then there is a cosmological time $t$ that all observers at rest relative to CMB or the matter in the universe will experience at the same rate. This is true regardless of the curvature and whether the universe is infinite or merely unbounded.



          The radius of the observable universe (in co-moving coordinates) is calculated by integrating $$r=c int_0^t fracdua(u)$$ (where $a(t)$ is the scale factor) from the start to the present cosmological time. All observers with the same $t$ will agree on $r$.



          The slightly conceptually tricky part is defining "all current observers". We can define current observers to mean "all observers at rest relative to the matter or CMB that see the same scale factor $a(t)=1$ as us (i.e. have the same cosmological time $t$)" and get a well-defined slice of constant $t$ across the space-time manifold. This is less arbitrary and problematic than talking about simultaneity in special relativity, where there is nothing to compare to and no real simultaneity (everybody have their own present-time slices across spacetime, all equally valid). In a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology there is a frame of reference that is shared.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Peter4075
            Mar 9 at 15:47










          • $begingroup$
            @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Mar 9 at 16:25













          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          If the universe has a FLRW metric, then there is a cosmological time $t$ that all observers at rest relative to CMB or the matter in the universe will experience at the same rate. This is true regardless of the curvature and whether the universe is infinite or merely unbounded.



          The radius of the observable universe (in co-moving coordinates) is calculated by integrating $$r=c int_0^t fracdua(u)$$ (where $a(t)$ is the scale factor) from the start to the present cosmological time. All observers with the same $t$ will agree on $r$.



          The slightly conceptually tricky part is defining "all current observers". We can define current observers to mean "all observers at rest relative to the matter or CMB that see the same scale factor $a(t)=1$ as us (i.e. have the same cosmological time $t$)" and get a well-defined slice of constant $t$ across the space-time manifold. This is less arbitrary and problematic than talking about simultaneity in special relativity, where there is nothing to compare to and no real simultaneity (everybody have their own present-time slices across spacetime, all equally valid). In a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology there is a frame of reference that is shared.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          If the universe has a FLRW metric, then there is a cosmological time $t$ that all observers at rest relative to CMB or the matter in the universe will experience at the same rate. This is true regardless of the curvature and whether the universe is infinite or merely unbounded.



          The radius of the observable universe (in co-moving coordinates) is calculated by integrating $$r=c int_0^t fracdua(u)$$ (where $a(t)$ is the scale factor) from the start to the present cosmological time. All observers with the same $t$ will agree on $r$.



          The slightly conceptually tricky part is defining "all current observers". We can define current observers to mean "all observers at rest relative to the matter or CMB that see the same scale factor $a(t)=1$ as us (i.e. have the same cosmological time $t$)" and get a well-defined slice of constant $t$ across the space-time manifold. This is less arbitrary and problematic than talking about simultaneity in special relativity, where there is nothing to compare to and no real simultaneity (everybody have their own present-time slices across spacetime, all equally valid). In a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology there is a frame of reference that is shared.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 9 at 11:55









          Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

          10.1k21530




          10.1k21530











          • $begingroup$
            Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Peter4075
            Mar 9 at 15:47










          • $begingroup$
            @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Mar 9 at 16:25
















          • $begingroup$
            Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
            $endgroup$
            – Peter4075
            Mar 9 at 15:47










          • $begingroup$
            @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Mar 9 at 16:25















          $begingroup$
          Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
          $endgroup$
          – Peter4075
          Mar 9 at 15:47




          $begingroup$
          Shouldn't that be $r=cint_0^tfracdta(t)$?
          $endgroup$
          – Peter4075
          Mar 9 at 15:47












          $begingroup$
          @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Mar 9 at 16:25




          $begingroup$
          @Peter4075 - I prefer to use a different variable of integration than the variable upper limit to limit confusion. Some texts use $t'$ but that looks like a derivative, and $tau$ looks like a proper time.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Mar 9 at 16:25

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f465439%2fobservable-universe-radius-for-distant-observers%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown






          Popular posts from this blog

          How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

          How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?