Paper detail

De Sitter and Schwarzschild-De Sitter According to Schwarzschild and De Sitter

When de Sitter first introduced his celebrated spacetime, he claimed, following Schwarzschild, that its spatial sections have the topology of the real projective space RP^3 (that is, the topology of the group manifold SO(3)) rather than, as is almost universally assumed today, that of the sphere S^3. (In modern language, Schwarzschild was disturbed by the non-local correlations enforced by S^3 geometry.) Thus, what we today call "de Sitter space" would not have been accepted as such by de Sitter. There is no real basis within classical cosmology for preferring S^3 to RP^3, but the general feeling appears to be that the distinction is in any case of little importance. We wish to argue that, in the light of current concerns about the nature of de Sitter space, this is a mistake. In particular, we argue that the difference between "dS(S^3)" and "dS(RP^3)" may be very important in attacking the problem of understanding horizon entropies. In the approach to de Sitter entropy via Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime, we find that the apparently trivial difference between RP^3 and S^3 actually leads to very different perspectives on this major question of quantum cosmology.

preprint2003arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.