Does GR say anything about solid angle deficit?

Jonathan Scott
Gold Member
Messages
2,345
Reaction score
1,185
We describe mass as creating "curvature" in the universe. Taking a simplified lower dimensional analogy, the universe at a point in time could be seen on average as being like the surface of a ball, but at a more detailed level the surface could consist of shallow cones (made of locally flat material) around rounded locations corresponding to masses. With this model, the proportion of the total mass enclosed within any loop would be equal to the total angular deficit around that loop as a proportion of 4 pi.

When GR is used to derive the shape of space around a central object, as in the Schwarzschild solution, the assumption is made that space at a sufficient distance from the central mass is flat. However, I feel that since the universe is finite, some property similar to the angular deficit should probably apply, so the exact limit would not be flat but rather something like a 3D cone, representing a fraction of a finite universe. (That is, the space would be locally flat, like a paper cone, but would be missing a finite angle around a central object).

For example, one hypothesis by analogy with the ball model might be that there would be a solid angle deficit equal to 8 pi times the fraction of the total mass of the universe enclosed by a surface.

I'm only familiar with GR being used for cosmological solutions and for local central solutions, and not anything in between. Is there any known GR result which might relate to this "solid angle deficit" or any similar way of describing the shape of space at a boundary which encloses a large amount of mass but is at a large distance from the central mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wow, I have trouble getting my head around that. Are you perhaps talking about 'parallel transport' or holonomy ? If you're not familiar with those terms, try doing a look-up.

If you think the universe is finite, have a look at the Robertson-Walker space-time with k = 0. At any given time, the spatial part has constant curvature.
 
Last edited:
Mentz114 said:
Wow, I have trouble getting my head around that. Are you perhaps talking about 'parallel transport' or holonomy ? If you're not familiar with those terms, try doing a look-up.

If you think the universe is finite, have a look at the Robertson-Walker space-time with epsilon=0. I think it's conformally flat.

This FAQ http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

suggests the bulk of the recent evidence points towards a universe with positive curvature and therefore a closed and finite universe.
 
Hi Kev:

that's an interesting link. I don't have a view on whether the universe is bounded/unbounded, I just thought the OP could investigate his problem in a GR cosmological context. It would be interesting work out whether a vector is parallel transported around a circle radius r in a FLRW space-time.

M
 
OK, I've looked up parallel transport and holonomy, and yes, it's related to that. However, this is obviously very closely related to the concept of "angular deficit" (as in Descarte's law of closure deficit), sometimes called "angular defect", yet there seem to be very few references which link the two.

I've now found that Greg Egan has a web page called "General Relativity in 2+1 dimensions" which does mention all of these terms and uses a very similar model to the one I described in the first post in this thread. However, I've not been able to find anything about this in the usual space-time dimensions.
 
Last edited:
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top