hi cos-top
For those who haven't heard the news yet, Helio Fagundes passed
away on 30 July. For those not fully familiar with his pioneering
work in pushing for cosmic topology as an observational field within
cosmology/extragalactic astronomy, here is the ADS list of his work:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=%20author%3A%22fagundes%2C%20h%22&so…
His first paper with a closed hyperbolic spatial section and an urge
to make observational tests with quasars seems to be his 1982 paper:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982LMaPh...6..417F
Boud
hi cos-top
Do there exist any hyperbolic multiply connected constant-curvature
compact spaces for which the fundamental domain is a cube (with flat
faces, of course) for some points in the space? Or is there a proof
that this is impossible?
We know that there are (at least) two such spherical spaces, that
Peter Kramer calls C_2 and C_3:
Kramer09: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/2009PhyS...80b5902K/
Are there any hyperbolic ones?
Cheers
Boud
[Reminder - this is an opt-in list - you can get info at
http://cosmo.torun.pl/mailman/listinfo/cos-top for unsubscribing or
subscribing; information should be included in this email for doing
these or other operations via email.]
Date: 13 Dec 2013
Time: 10:30am
Location: Burlington House, London <
http://www.ras.org.uk/about-the-ras/burlington-house>
We are pleased to announce a Royal Astronomical Society Specialist
Discussion meeting on topology.
General relativity connects the local geometry of spacetime to the energy
contents, but the topology of space is unconstrained. Moreover, it is
expected that any theory linking quantum mechanics and relativity is likely
to exhibit topology change at scales that may have become cosmologically
relevant.
Cosmological observations have shown that the Universe is very nearly flat,
and that the topology is trivial nearly out to the last scattering surface,
but we have no direct measurement of its topology on scales larger than
that. This discussion meeting will give an overview of current research in
mathematical topology, its application to cosmology and particle physics,
and a discussion of recent observations from Planck and other missions.
Confirmed keynote speakers include Jeff Weeks (independent) and Philip
Candelas (Oxford).
hi cosmic topologists,
Today we have *two* cosmic topology articles on arXiv on the same day!
(1) http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5880
Cosmic microwave anisotropies in an inhomogeneous compact flat universe
Authors: R. Aurich, S. Lustig
This shows that the half-turn space E_2 also seems to provide a nice
fit, at least with the S_60deg statistic, to the WMAP 7yr data, and it
even seems to be a bit better than T^3.
(2) http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5825
Multipole analysis in cosmic topology
Authors: Peter Kramer
This seems to claim that the author has found 3 new spherical
3-manifolds, "N8, N9, N10". It's not clear to me if he claims that
they can be given constant curvature, but maybe it's obvious to
someone who knows the mathematics a bit better. i had thought that
the constant curvature spherical 3-manifolds were already completely
classified.
Are N8, N9, and N10 new constant-curvature spherical 3-manifolds, in
addition to those in Gausmann et al. 2001 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0106033 ?
cheers
boud
hi everyone on cos-top,
The Ulm group continue to work on T^3 models - here's a nice new
paper:
http://arXiv.org/abs/0903.3133
Other news: there's an observational signature of cosmic topology
which occurs for flat compact models but not for curved compact models
(assuming standard physical components of the Universe in both cases).
The good news for cosmic topology in general: this observational
signature has been detected to extremely high significance! :)
The bad news for the Poincare space: this observational signature has
been detected to extremely high significance! :(
Details: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0975
A Poincare space is certainly not excluded by the argument, but it
would require an exotic explanation for the observational signature
rather than a simple explanation. Occam's razor suggests that we may
have to accept T^3 (or another flat compact space).
Anyway, see the paper to find out what this observational signature
is.
cheers
boud
Dear cos-top friends,
It seems that not only is there at least some interaction
between cosmic topology and gravity - the residual gravity
acceleration effect as derived heuristically for the 1-torus
and 3-torus[1], but the effect distinguishes 3
well-proportioned spaces (T^3, S^3/T^*, S^3/O^*) as special in
that the effect cancels to third order in the Taylor
expansion, and even more interesting, the Poincare
dodecahedral space cancels even better than these other three
well-proportioned spaces. The effect in S^3/I^* cancels down
to fifth order in the Taylor expansion![2] In this sense, it's
better balanced than the other spaces. Maybe we could say that
the former three spaces are well-proportioned and
"well-balanced", while the Poincare space is well-proportioned
and "super-well-balanced"?
This dynamical/geometrical/topological result is independent
of the empirical arguments in favour of the Poincare space.
Enjoy! :)
boud
PS: There'll be a cosmic topology session at the
12-th Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Paris, 12-18 July 2009.
http://www.icra.it/MG/mg12/en/
Contact Marek Demianski and register if you're interested.
[1] RBBSJ, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602159 Astron.Astrophys.463:861
[2] RR 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3402, subm A&A
Dear Marcelo, everyone,
The topic of Steven Weinberg's rather not-fully-accurate page 9 of his new
book is IMHO rather well-suited to discussing on our public mailing
list rather than privately - this has nothing to do with revealing
unpublished results that we're still working on, it's about correcting
some inaccurate statements regarding cosmic topology.
i also think it would be worth it that the effort we spend in
explaining things to Steven Weinberg can potentially help educate
others directly, i.e. those who may read the mailing list archives or
get pointed there by Big Brother Google Inc. An alternative (and
reasonable) place to discuss this IMHO would be
http://cosmocoffee.info, which is a phpBB based forum for cosmology
research in general, while this mailing list is a mailman mailing
list specifically for cosmic topology.
Anyway, to people who do not have a copy of the book "Cosmology" published
by Steven Weinberg a few days/weeks ago, just email one of us in private
and we can send you a scan of page 9 ("for educational and research purposes
only", to avoid any problems with copyright etc.).
My general opinion:
Yes, i think it would be a good idea to send a message to Steven, and
a consensus message signed by several of us would be a good idea. However,
it would require a bit of work, since ideally it should be:
* clear
* complete
* well-referenced
* but also... reasonably short
This is not so easy, especially keeping it short while satisfying the first
three criteria...
i've posted a suggested draft on our wiki:
http://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/SWeinbergCosmologyPage9Response
and i'm also posting the same initial draft text below here. Personally, i
don't see that there's a huge hurry - i don't imagine OUP issuing a second
edition on a time scale of days or weeks - so i haven't suggested any
time scale. My suggestion is we give people a week or so to update/correct/
complain. If we wait too long, it will soon by the northern summer break
and not much point expecting anyone to respond quickly.
If you want to correct/edit my suggested text and/or sign it, please speak
up! i've tried to be complete in the reference list while limiting to
the precise problems in Steven's text.
cheers
boud
suggested text, openly editable at
http://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/SWeinbergCosmologyPage9Response
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Steven,
We are glad that your cosmology text published by Oxford University
Press a few months ago (March 2008) is, to the best of our knowledge,
the first graduate level type cosmology text in which it is clearly
stated that there are many more than three possible shapes for the
spatial section of our Universe, assuming that the
Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric is correct apart from
density perturbations. Nevertheless, some of the statements on page 9
of your book are probably not as accurate as they could be. Here are
some suggestions which should hopefully clarify these issues.
1. "There is no sign of [the same patterns of the distribution of
matter and radiation in opposite directions] in the observed
distribution of galaxies or cosmic microwave background
fluctuations, so any periodicity lengths such as |L_i| must be
larger than about 10^10 light years."
* It is correct that based on cosmic microwave background
constraints (WMAP), it is clear that the in-diameter of
the Universe (see e.g. Fig. 10 of Luminet & Roukema 1999
for various definitions of the comoving size of the
Universe) is greater than 2 h^-1 Gpc.
* However, on a scale of about 12-15 h^-1 Gpc, a large
number of papers have been recently published which
suggest that, in particular, a Poincare dodecahedral space
(for K=+1) or an equi-length 3-torus model (for K=0)
better fit the WMAP data than an infinite K=0 model. There
is not yet any clear consensus on what the data tell us -
some papers argue that the infinite K=0 model cannot be
significantly rejected based on the WMAP data. Please see
the reference list below for the main papers in this
series.
2. "[Most 3-manifolds] ... seem ill-motivated. In imposing
conditions of periodicity we give up the rotation (though not
translation) symmetry that led to the Robertson-Walker metric in
the first place, so there seems little reason to impose these
periodicity conditions while limiting the local spacetime
geometry to that described by the Robertson-Walker metric."
* This is a little unclear. If by "symmetry" you mean the
existence of isometries in the covering space, then there
are no global translation symmetries at all for K=-1 or
K=+1. Translations only exist for K=0. (Clifford
translations exist for some K=+1 spaces, but that's a
separate issue.) If you want to retain translational
isometries in 3-space, then only K=0 is possible, and your
words would seem to describe both K=-1 and K=+1 simply
connected spaces as "ill-motivated".
* More importantly, the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker
(FLRW) metric only requires local homogeneity and
isotropy, not global homogeneity and isotropy. The FLRW
metric is intrinsically local, it's about the limit of
what happens towards a point. To write this in terms of
practical observational cosmology statistics, consider a
more realistic model of the Universe, i.e. with a
perturbed FLRW metric rather than a perfectly homogeneous
one. In this model, "local homogeneity and isotropy" means
that various n-point auto-correlation functions of
structure tracers within a "neighbourhood" of a Gpc or so
should give identical results to within observational
uncertainties. This is what is observed, but it does not
constrain global homogeneity and isotropy. So it is
unclear why a multiply connected 3-manifold with an FLRW
metric is in any way "limited" or "ill-motivated".
* We are only aware of one paper so far showing that global
topology could have an effect (albeit small) on the FLRW
metric through the addition of an additional acceleration
effect (Roukema et al. 2007).
Best regards,
Boud Roukema, ...
References
o "size of the Universe":
+ Luminet, J.-P., Roukema, B. F., 1999, Topology of
the Universe: Theory and Observation, NATO ASIC
Proc. 541: Theoretical and Observational Cosmology ,
117,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1999toc..conf..117L
o WMAP: PDS and 3-torus models (and other spherical models)
vs K=0 infinite model:
+ Aurich, R., Lustig, S., Steiner, F., 2005, CMB
anisotropy of spherical spaces, Classical and Quantum
Gravity, 22, 3443,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2005CQGra..22.3443A
+ Aurich, R., Lustig, S., Steiner, F., 2005, CMB
anisotropy of the PoincarĂŠ dodecahedron, Classical and
Quantum Gravity, 22, 2061,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2005CQGra..22.2061A
+ Aurich, R., Lustig, S., Steiner, F., 2006, The
circles-in-the-sky signature for three spherical
universes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 369, 240,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2006MNRAS.369..240A
+ Caillerie, S., Lachièze-Rey, M., Luminet, J.-P.,
Lehoucq, R., Riazuelo, A., Weeks, J., 2007, A new
analysis of the PoincarĂŠ dodecahedral space model,
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 476, 691,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2007A%26A...476..691C
+ Gundermann, J., 2005, Predicting the CMB power
spectrum for binary polyhedral spaces, ArXiv
Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0503014,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2005astro.ph..3014G
+ Key, J. S., Cornish, N. J., Spergel, D. N.,
Starkman, G. D., 2007, Extending the WMAP bound on the
size of the Universe, Physical Review D, 75, 084034,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2007PhRvD..75h4034K
+ Lew, B., Roukema, B., 2008, A test of the PoincarĂŠ
dodecahedral space topology hypothesis with the WMAP
CMB data, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 482, 747,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2008A%26A...482..747L
+ Luminet, J.-P., Weeks, J. R., Riazuelo, A., Lehoucq,
R., Uzan, J.-P., 2003, Dodecahedral space topology as
an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature
correlations in the cosmic microwave background,
Nature, 425, 593,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2003Natur.425..593L
+ Niarchou, A., Jaffe, A., 2007, Imprints of Spherical
Nontrivial Topologies on the Cosmic Microwave
Background, Physical Review Letters, 99, 081302,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2007PhRvL..99h1302N
+ Riazuelo, A., Weeks, J., Uzan, J.-P., Lehoucq, R.,
Luminet, J.-P., 2004, Cosmic microwave background
anisotropies in multiconnected flat spaces, Physical
Review D, 69, 103518,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2004PhRvD..69j3518R
+ Roukema, B. F., Bulinski, Z., Szaniewska, A.,
Gaudin, N. E., 2008, The optimal phase of the
generalised Poincare dodecahedral space hypothesis
implied by the spatial cross-correlation function of
the WMAP sky maps, Astronomy and Astrophysics, in
press, arXiv:0801.0006,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2008arXiv0801.0006R
+ Roukema, B. F., Lew, B., Cechowska, M., Marecki, A.,
Bajtlik, S., 2004, A hint of PoincarĂŠ dodecahedral
topology in the WMAP first year sky map, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, 423, 821,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2004A%26A...423..821R
o effect of global topology on the metric:
+ Roukema, B. F., Bajtlik, S., Biesiada, M.,
Szaniewska, A., Jurkiewicz, H., 2007, A weak
acceleration effect due to residual gravity in a
multiply connected universe, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, 463, 861,
http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2007A%26A...463..861R
----------------------------------------------------------------------
hi everyone on the cos-top mailing list,
There are at least two cosmology workshop-type meetings this northern summer
at which cosmic topology is likely to be discussed:
* Pune, Maharashtra (India, monsoon time but the monsoon in Pune is
mild (not strong) ;)
"Cosmology with CMB and LSS"
21 July - 31 Aug (full = 6 weeks = 3 * 2-week sessions, but can
stay for a shorter time)
http://icts.tifr.res.in/sites/cmb/index
* Benasque, Pyrenees (mountains on spanish/french border)
"Modern Cosmology"
27 July - 14 August 2008
http://benasque.ecm.ub.es/2008cosmology/2008cosmology.htmhttp://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=1093
Tarun Souradeep is one of the main organisers of the Pune meeting and
cosmic topology is listed for the third two-week part of the full session;
Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz are listed as participants for the
Benasque meeting.
i'm thinking of going to the Benasque meeting (leaving a day or two before
the end).
Is anyone thinking of going to one of these meetings? i can't imagine
that i'll be over two weeks together with Glenn and Dominik without having
any useful discussions on cosmic topology, and it would probably make sense
that more of us are together than less. Both the Pune and Benasque meetings
sound like they'll be as much workshops where real work will get done rather
than just standard conference presentations.
The deadlines for both are 15 April.
cheers
boud
hi everyone,
i guess maybe only Marcelo on this list is feeling +36 degrees or so
Celsius right now, but PDS +36 degrees seems now to at least
qualitatively agree with Ralf, Frank and Sven's work and the Caillerie et
al. paper.
http://arXiv.org/abs/0801.0006
In other words, we managed to kill off our previous "hint" candidate,
but another one better agreeing with other people's work has turned up.
Are we converging?
Enjoy :).
Best wishes for the New Year
boud