<blockquote>
  <p>I was wondering if it were possible to have a Universe that were isotropic but NOT homogeneous OR a Universe that were homogeneous but NOT isotropic. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Most people will be happy with the <a href="http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm" rel="noreferrer">UC Berkeley</a> definition that says homogeneous means <em>"looks the same at every location"</em> and isotropic means <em>"looks the same in every direction"</em>. And some will know that as per <a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm" rel="noreferrer">Ned Wright's article</a>, these attributes aren't quite the same: </p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/KnPzb.gif" alt="enter image description here"> </p>

<p>He says <em>"the figure above shows a homogeneous but not isotropic pattern on the left and an isotropic but not homogeneous pattern on the right</em>".  However as far as I know pictures like this just don't apply to our universe scattered with galaxies.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My spidey sense is telling me that it is possible that a Universe could be isotropic but not homogeneous.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My spidey sense is telling me some guy 46 billion light years away might say the universe is <em>neither</em> isotropic nor homogeneous. Because when he looks up, half the night sky is black or something. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Surely, by default, if a Universe is homogenous then it follows that it has to be isotropic? </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I agree with the gist of that. IMHO if an observer sees a homogeneous universe, he sees an isotropic universe too. Yes, one can find <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/isotropic-vs-homogeneous.173731/" rel="noreferrer">hypothetical scenarios</a> wherein the universe is homogeneous but not isotropic. But they're only hypothetical. And let's not forget that it's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric#General_metric" rel="noreferrer">only an assumption</a>. If you lived in a forest would you assume that the world was covered in trees? Which look the same at every location and in every direction? It isn't a particularly scientific  assumption. For all you know some guy lives near the edge of the forest. I think you're better off saying <em>we just don't know</em>. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T21:27:37.063Z
Just to make a point regarding the LHS diagram of a homogenous but not isotopic Universe, surely it's not the same in every location? Because you could either be a brick or part of the grout? Red and white, respectively.
MichaelJRoberts
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T21:34:17.923Z
In similar vein you could either be in a galaxy or I the intervening space, or even in a star or not. What we're talking about is large-scale homogeneity. The universe isn't homogeneous or isotropic on the smaller scale. If it was, there wouldn't even be any gravity. Read [this](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22) where Einstein described a gravitational field as space that was _"neither homogeneous nor isotropic"_.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T21:49:01.360Z
Still can't accept that those two diagrams represent the two distinct descriptions, I know they aren't yours. Just don't see it.
MichaelJRoberts
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T22:16:22.923Z
Don't worry about it Mike, because like I said, as far as I know pictures like that just don't apply to our universe scattered with galaxies.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T22:18:30.290Z
Of course. I do often wonder, however, that with the fluctuations in the CMB and the measured dipole isotropy surely we can no longer underpin our "world" (Universe) view with the cosmological principle?
MichaelJRoberts
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T22:32:57.580Z
The CMB fluctuations are miniscule, see [this](http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html) NASA article. And the universe didn't contract when it was small and dense, because there's no overall gravitational field, because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. See the Einstein link above where he described a gravitational field as space that's neither homogeneous nor isotropic. But it's important not to get carried away with some "principle", and start claiming it must be like the forest that goes on forever. We just don't know what some guy 46billion light years away sees.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T08:11:55.147Z
A guy 46 Gyr ago wouldn't see half the sky as black, because [Big Bang didn't happen at a point](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point).
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T08:26:58.850Z
@pela : the big bang is thought to have occurred 13.8 Gyr ago.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T09:24:24.873Z
@JohnDuffield: Ha ha, sorry. I meant "Gly". Anyway, I think I misinterpreted your statement: I thought you meant "a guy just after Big Bang", but I guess you mean "in principle, our observable Universe could be all there is, and it could be empty outside it". Which in principle is true, albeit weird. I'm sorry, please disregard my comment.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T13:39:07.333Z
@pela : no problem. The universe might well be bigger than the observable universe. But since people say space is expanding and it was [once the size of a grapefruit](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=universe+the+size+of+a+grapefruit&cad=h), I envisage there is no space beyond it. No empty void, just _no space_. It's hard to imagine, it's weird, but I really dislike the idea of infinite space. Especially at the time of the big bang.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T19:38:29.940Z
@JohnDuffield: When people talk about how little the Universe was in the past, they always refer to the observable Universe (unless they misunderstand). I acknowledge that the idea of an infinite universe is disturbing, but I suppose you'd agree that the idea of an infinite universe that was once finite would be even more disturbing.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T20:59:21.953Z
@pela : it's only recently that people have started saying the observable universe was once the size of a grapefruit. See articles like [this](http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html) where the author says the linear dimensions of the universe were circa 10cm, about the size of a grapefruit. I think the idea of an infinite universe that was once finite can't be right. And that the idea of an infinite universe that was always infinite is incompatible with big bang cosmology because an infinite universe can't expand. And that it's a turtles-all-the-way-down non-answer.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T21:27:03.473Z
@JohnDuffield: I think the idea is older than this article. Anyway, I agree that an infinite universe must always have been infinte. However, an infinite universe most definitely is not incompatible with Bag Bang. Nothing forbids an infinite universe to expand.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T21:33:22.620Z
@pela : I disagree, I think an infinite universe absolutely cannot expand. But let's talk about that another time, in another question.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-15T07:24:15.110Z
@JohnDuffield: Sounds like a good idea :)
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T21:24:50.987Z
2016-01-12T21:24:50.987Z
John Duffield
<p>Within the framework of General Relativity there are important solutions of the Einstein equations that are (a) homogeneous but anisotropic and (b) inhomogeneous yet isotropic (about a single point).  </p>

<p>Class (a) are the Bianchi Cosmologies which are most simply described as homogeneous fluids that have different expansion rates in different directions, or some form of rotation.  There don't appear to be any simple descriptions of these but at a technical level it's hard to beat George Ellis' Cargese lectures: <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9812046.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9812046.pdf</a></p>

<p>Class(b) solutions are the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) solutions which have the same non-uniform density distribution in all directions about one point.  See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Tolman_metric" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Tolman_metric</a> </p>

<p>Our present universe is on average both homogeneous and isotropic, but both types of solution (a) and (b) nonetheless play an important role in cosmology. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-20T08:32:50.110Z
2016-01-20T08:32:50.110Z
JonesTheAstronomer
<p>Neither of the two cases are completely inconceivable:</p>

<h2>A homogeneous, anisotropic universe</h2>

<p>A universe with galaxies spread evenly all over, but all spinning in the same direction. This universe would look the same no matter where you lived, but have a net angular momentum, so looking in one direction you'd see all galaxies spinning along your line of sight, and in another direction, you'd see them spinning perpendicular to this direction.</p>

<p>Another example is a universe that had been permeated by density waves in one direction. In this direction, you'd see the density of galaxies alternating between high and low, and perpendicular hereto you'd see a constant density.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/sXHCv.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/sXHCv.png" alt="homo-noniso"></a></p>

<p>Yesterday's papers on <a href="http://arxiv.org" rel="nofollow noreferrer">arXiv</a> included a paper (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04965v1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schucker 2016</a>) that discusses the the possibility that we might live in another type of homogeneous, anisotropic universe, namely one in which the observed expansion rate depends upon the direction in which you look. This is called a "Bianchi I universe", and isn't just a hypothetical curiosity (although the results of this paper is statisically non-significant). See also <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/5301/jonestheastronomer">@JonesTheAstronomer</a>'s answer.</p>

<h2>An inhomogeneous, isotropic universe</h2>

<p>As John Rennie has taught us, <a href="https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point">Big Bang didn't happen at a point</a>. However, <em>if</em> it did, <em>and</em> we happened to live in the central region, we could observe the same in all directions, but see a gradually thinnening universe, or maybe increasing to some point and then decreasing, depending on exactly how this exsplosion came about. This scenario <em>would</em> however imply that we inhabit a special place in the universe, which would make Kopernikus sad. If a universe is isotropic from more than one location, is must also be homogeneous.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/sjDXh.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/sjDXh.png" alt="inhomo-iso"></a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T18:26:19.557Z
Nice pictures,  pela, +1. But I have to say we don't actually see galaxies like the above. As for JR's answer, "the universe doesn't have a centre" is an unsupported claim which is arguably at odds with "there is no space outside the universe".
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T19:33:46.753Z
@JohnDuffield: No no, I didn't mean that we see galaxies like the above. My point is that such universes in principle are physically conceivable — we simply find observationally that we happen not to live in such a universe. In contrast, it's harder to imagine a universe where, say, galaxies lie in narrow streams pointing out from a common center, such as Ned Wright's left figure.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T19:33:52.403Z
As for JR's answer, there is plenty of observational evidence (no proofs, of course, as is always the case in physics), and I don't understand what you mean that it's at odds with "there is no space outside the universe"
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T13:28:41.350Z
We have plenty of observational evidence that the universe is s expanding, and that it's at least 46 billion light years in radius. But we don't have any actual observational evidence that the universe doesn't have a centre. John Rennie said _"there is no space outside the universe that it is expanding into"._  And some say it used to be the size of a grapefruit. That "grapefruit" had a centre, and it wasn't surrounded by space, because it was all of space. A [raisin cake](https://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/hubble_pudding.html) has a centre too.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T14:44:48.923Z
@JohnDuffield: Yes, the "grapefruit" had a center, just like the observable Universe has a center, namely us. It _wasn't_ all of space, just as the observable Universe isn't all of space. If it were, our Universe would be closed with a strong positive curvature, which definitely is ruled out by observations. I agree that space _could_ be finite, but if so, it _must_ be much, much larger than the observable Universe, lest we'd observe a $\Omega_\mathrm{tot}\gg1$.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T14:46:47.323Z
Wrt. a center or not, I'll give you that there isn't evidence that the whole Universe doesn't have a center, other than if so, the cosmological principle which gives many meaningful predictions is wrong, and everybody will be sad. There isn't evidence for a center either, though.
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T14:50:33.913Z
Also, I just noticed that I drew all galaxies in the first figure with leading arms, altough I've just claimed that this is very rare in a comment to [this question](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/13213/percentage-of-galaxies-rotating-with-tailing-arms). Fordømt…
pela
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-14T21:12:56.963Z
I disagree with the claim about the strong positive curvature and the much-larger universe, and I won't be said if the cosmological principle is wrong. We maybe need a new question to tease this out. No probs re the galaxies.
John Duffield
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-13T09:17:50.747Z
2016-01-21T09:37:21.410Z
2017-04-13T12:59:07.017Z
pela
<p>Just more of a conceptual question on the mutual inclusivity of the cosmological principle. That is to say, I was wondering if it were possible to have a Universe that were isotropic but NOT homogeneous OR a Universe that were homogeneous but NOT isotropic. </p>

<p>My spidey sense is telling me that it is possible that a Universe could be istropic but not homoegenous.</p>

<p>Surely, by default, if a Universe is homogenous then it follows that it has to be isotropic?   </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T20:47:59.483Z
Does [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/153015/93058) help at all? Interesting look at isotropy vs homogeneity in materials
costrom
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T20:50:14.403Z
I'm thinking that we can have istropy in an inhomogeneous material (varying layers of density or concentric density rings, for example), but surely once we have homogeneity in a medium, then it is also istropic by default?
MichaelJRoberts
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-12T20:52:49.503Z
@costrom P.S. It helped, a little.
MichaelJRoberts
<cosmology><cosmological-principle><homogeneity>
On the cosmological principle
MichaelJRoberts
# On the cosmological principle

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-01-12)

Just more of a conceptual question on the mutual inclusivity of the cosmological principle. That is to say, I was wondering if it were possible to have a Universe that were isotropic but NOT homogeneous OR a Universe that were homogeneous but NOT isotropic.

My spidey sense is telling me that it is possible that a Universe could be istropic but not homoegenous.

Surely, by default, if a Universe is homogenous then it follows that it has to be isotropic?

**Tags:** cosmology, cosmological-principle, homogeneity
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Does [this](http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/153015/93058) help at all? Interesting look at isotropy vs homogeneity in materials  
> **username_0**: I'm thinking that we can have istropy in an inhomogeneous material (varying layers of density or concentric density rings, for example), but surely once we have homogeneity in a medium, then it is also istropic by default?  
> **username_0**: @costrom P.S. It helped, a little.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-01-13. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

Neither of the two cases are completely inconceivable:

## A homogeneous, anisotropic universe

A universe with galaxies spread evenly all over, but all spinning in the same direction. This universe would look the same no matter where you lived, but have a net angular momentum, so looking in one direction you'd see all galaxies spinning along your line of sight, and in another direction, you'd see them spinning perpendicular to this direction.

Another example is a universe that had been permeated by density waves in one direction. In this direction, you'd see the density of galaxies alternating between high and low, and perpendicular hereto you'd see a constant density.

[![homo-noniso](https://i.sstatic.net/sXHCv.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/sXHCv.png)

Yesterday's papers on [arXiv](http://arxiv.org) included a paper ([Schucker 2016](http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04965v1)) that discusses the the possibility that we might live in another type of homogeneous, anisotropic universe, namely one in which the observed expansion rate depends upon the direction in which you look. This is called a "Bianchi I universe", and isn't just a hypothetical curiosity (although the results of this paper is statisically non-significant). See also [@JonesTheAstronomer](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/5301/jonestheastronomer)'s answer.

## An inhomogeneous, isotropic universe

As John Rennie has taught us, [Big Bang didn't happen at a point](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point). However, *if* it did, *and* we happened to live in the central region, we could observe the same in all directions, but see a gradually thinnening universe, or maybe increasing to some point and then decreasing, depending on exactly how this exsplosion came about. This scenario *would* however imply that we inhabit a special place in the universe, which would make Kopernikus sad. If a universe is isotropic from more than one location, is must also be homogeneous.

[![inhomo-iso](https://i.sstatic.net/sjDXh.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/sjDXh.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Nice pictures,  pela, +1. But I have to say we don't actually see galaxies like the above. As for JR's answer, "the universe doesn't have a centre" is an unsupported claim which is arguably at odds with "there is no space outside the universe".  
> **username_3**: @JohnDuffield: No no, I didn't mean that we see galaxies like the above. My point is that such universes in principle are physically conceivable — we simply find observationally that we happen not to live in such a universe. In contrast, it's harder to imagine a universe where, say, galaxies lie in narrow streams pointing out from a common center, such as Ned Wright's left figure.  
> **username_3**: As for JR's answer, there is plenty of observational evidence (no proofs, of course, as is always the case in physics), and I don't understand what you mean that it's at odds with "there is no space outside the universe"  
> **username_2**: We have plenty of observational evidence that the universe is s expanding, and that it's at least 46 billion light years in radius. But we don't have any actual observational evidence that the universe doesn't have a centre. John Rennie said _"there is no space outside the universe that it is expanding into"._  And some say it used to be the size of a grapefruit. That "grapefruit" had a centre, and it wasn't surrounded by space, because it was all of space. A [raisin cake](https://www.wwu.edu/depts/skywise/hubble_pudding.html) has a centre too.  
> **username_3**: @JohnDuffield: Yes, the "grapefruit" had a center, just like the observable Universe has a center, namely us. It _wasn't_ all of space, just as the observable Universe isn't all of space. If it were, our Universe would be closed with a strong positive curvature, which definitely is ruled out by observations. I agree that space _could_ be finite, but if so, it _must_ be much, much larger than the observable Universe, lest we'd observe a $\Omega_\mathrm{tot}\gg1$.  
> **username_3**: Wrt. a center or not, I'll give you that there isn't evidence that the whole Universe doesn't have a center, other than if so, the cosmological principle which gives many meaningful predictions is wrong, and everybody will be sad. There isn't evidence for a center either, though.  
> **username_3**: Also, I just noticed that I drew all galaxies in the first figure with leading arms, altough I've just claimed that this is very rare in a comment to [this question](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/13213/percentage-of-galaxies-rotating-with-tailing-arms). Fordømt…  
> **username_2**: I disagree with the claim about the strong positive curvature and the much-larger universe, and I won't be said if the cosmological principle is wrong. We maybe need a new question to tease this out. No probs re the galaxies.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-01-12. Score: 6

> I was wondering if it were possible to have a Universe that were isotropic but NOT homogeneous OR a Universe that were homogeneous but NOT isotropic.

Most people will be happy with the [UC Berkeley](http://www.universeadventure.org/big_bang/expand-balance.htm) definition that says homogeneous means *"looks the same at every location"* and isotropic means *"looks the same in every direction"*. And some will know that as per [Ned Wright's article](http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm), these attributes aren't quite the same:

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/KnPzb.gif)

He says *"the figure above shows a homogeneous but not isotropic pattern on the left and an isotropic but not homogeneous pattern on the right*". However as far as I know pictures like this just don't apply to our universe scattered with galaxies.

> My spidey sense is telling me that it is possible that a Universe could be isotropic but not homogeneous.

My spidey sense is telling me some guy 46 billion light years away might say the universe is *neither* isotropic nor homogeneous. Because when he looks up, half the night sky is black or something.

> Surely, by default, if a Universe is homogenous then it follows that it has to be isotropic?

I agree with the gist of that. IMHO if an observer sees a homogeneous universe, he sees an isotropic universe too. Yes, one can find [hypothetical scenarios](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/isotropic-vs-homogeneous.173731/) wherein the universe is homogeneous but not isotropic. But they're only hypothetical. And let's not forget that it's [only an assumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric#General_metric). If you lived in a forest would you assume that the world was covered in trees? Which look the same at every location and in every direction? It isn't a particularly scientific assumption. For all you know some guy lives near the edge of the forest. I think you're better off saying *we just don't know*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Just to make a point regarding the LHS diagram of a homogenous but not isotopic Universe, surely it's not the same in every location? Because you could either be a brick or part of the grout? Red and white, respectively.  
> **username_2**: In similar vein you could either be in a galaxy or I the intervening space, or even in a star or not. What we're talking about is large-scale homogeneity. The universe isn't homogeneous or isotropic on the smaller scale. If it was, there wouldn't even be any gravity. Read [this](http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22) where Einstein described a gravitational field as space that was _"neither homogeneous nor isotropic"_.  
> **username_0**: Still can't accept that those two diagrams represent the two distinct descriptions, I know they aren't yours. Just don't see it.  
> **username_2**: Don't worry about it Mike, because like I said, as far as I know pictures like that just don't apply to our universe scattered with galaxies.  
> **username_0**: Of course. I do often wonder, however, that with the fluctuations in the CMB and the measured dipole isotropy surely we can no longer underpin our "world" (Universe) view with the cosmological principle?  
> **username_2**: The CMB fluctuations are miniscule, see [this](http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html) NASA article. And the universe didn't contract when it was small and dense, because there's no overall gravitational field, because the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. See the Einstein link above where he described a gravitational field as space that's neither homogeneous nor isotropic. But it's important not to get carried away with some "principle", and start claiming it must be like the forest that goes on forever. We just don't know what some guy 46billion light years away sees.  
> **username_3**: A guy 46 Gyr ago wouldn't see half the sky as black, because [Big Bang didn't happen at a point](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/136860/did-the-big-bang-happen-at-a-point).  
> **username_2**: @pela : the big bang is thought to have occurred 13.8 Gyr ago.  
> **username_3**: @JohnDuffield: Ha ha, sorry. I meant "Gly". Anyway, I think I misinterpreted your statement: I thought you meant "a guy just after Big Bang", but I guess you mean "in principle, our observable Universe could be all there is, and it could be empty outside it". Which in principle is true, albeit weird. I'm sorry, please disregard my comment.  
> **username_2**: @pela : no problem. The universe might well be bigger than the observable universe. But since people say space is expanding and it was [once the size of a grapefruit](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=universe+the+size+of+a+grapefruit&cad=h), I envisage there is no space beyond it. No empty void, just _no space_. It's hard to imagine, it's weird, but I really dislike the idea of infinite space. Especially at the time of the big bang.  
> **username_3**: @JohnDuffield: When people talk about how little the Universe was in the past, they always refer to the observable Universe (unless they misunderstand). I acknowledge that the idea of an infinite universe is disturbing, but I suppose you'd agree that the idea of an infinite universe that was once finite would be even more disturbing.  
> **username_2**: @pela : it's only recently that people have started saying the observable universe was once the size of a grapefruit. See articles like [this](http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html) where the author says the linear dimensions of the universe were circa 10cm, about the size of a grapefruit. I think the idea of an infinite universe that was once finite can't be right. And that the idea of an infinite universe that was always infinite is incompatible with big bang cosmology because an infinite universe can't expand. And that it's a turtles-all-the-way-down non-answer.  
> **username_3**: @JohnDuffield: I think the idea is older than this article. Anyway, I agree that an infinite universe must always have been infinte. However, an infinite universe most definitely is not incompatible with Bag Bang. Nothing forbids an infinite universe to expand.  
> **username_2**: @pela : I disagree, I think an infinite universe absolutely cannot expand. But let's talk about that another time, in another question.  
> **username_3**: @JohnDuffield: Sounds like a good idea :)  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-01-20. Score: 2

Within the framework of General Relativity there are important solutions of the Einstein equations that are (a) homogeneous but anisotropic and (b) inhomogeneous yet isotropic (about a single point).

Class (a) are the Bianchi Cosmologies which are most simply described as homogeneous fluids that have different expansion rates in different directions, or some form of rotation. There don't appear to be any simple descriptions of these but at a technical level it's hard to beat George Ellis' Cargese lectures: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9812046.pdf>

Class(b) solutions are the Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) solutions which have the same non-uniform density distribution in all directions about one point. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Tolman_metric>

Our present universe is on average both homogeneous and isotropic, but both types of solution (a) and (b) nonetheless play an important role in cosmology.


---

