Why "expanding space"?

nutgeb

As far as I can tell, Bunn & Hogg don't actually calculate any numerical values. What they suggest should be calculated is an integration of small proper distances in nearly flat local inertial frames. They would not suggest calculating a global velocity using SR because of course there is no global SR inertial frame in a gravitating FRW model.

Since, unlike SR Doppler redshift, classical Doppler shift is a linear equation, it seems to me that integrating a nearly infinite series of classical Doppler shifts is not going to yield a fundamentally different numerical redshift value than is obtained by calculating a single global classical Doppler shift.
Interesting statement. What would you calculate to be the difference in the numerical value of the two kinds of proper distance for an object which emitted light at (z+1)=256 which we are receiving now?
If you intend to compute the numerical value of the difference between "cosmological proper distance" and "SR proper distance" (and the corresponding recession velocity differential) without reference to cosmological time or any other time coordinate system, be my guest. Show me a numerical value that isn't associated with a time coordinate (or with a cosmic density value, which is merely a surrogate for cosmological time in the FRW model).

Ich

No, they don't suggest that you actually calculate redshift that way. That'd be pretty messy, and we know the result from the much simpler calculation in FRW-coordinates, where you can exploit the symmetries of a cosmological spacetime. And it's not an integration of small proper distances, it's an integration (actually an infinite product, not an infinite sum) of small redshifts. But no need to calculate, just imagine the process to get a different view on cosmological redshift.

No. Classical Doppler shift depends on absolute speed, or your speed through the medium. Here, for each state of motion, you are supposed to be at rest wrt "the medium". It's a numerical approximation, valid at each point, not a statement about the true nature of doppler shifts.
Take an empty spacetime (age: 13.7 GY), as there exists an relatively easy unambiguous answer.
Flat speed now: 0.999969
cosmological speed now: 255
Flat distance now: 13.69958 GLY
cosmological distance now: 3493.5 GLY
If you're going to stop the expansion now (cosmological time), the flat distance (now the only sensible one) would be 10^110 GLY. Pretty far away, but that's the distance you have to travel if you want to reach this observer. The real distance, so to speak.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not proposing that I have some magical new coordinates that must be used instead of the usual ones. I merely point out that cosmological coordinates are just coordinates, admittedly very usual and in a sense preferred ones, but coordinates. If you can't plug those values in the standard equations, well, that's not nescessarily because relativity doesn't work anymore. Those coordinates give "nonsensical" answers even if SR works perfectly fine.
Of course cosmological coordinates are not nonsensical, but they are in no way Minkowski coordinates, and if they behave strangely - no, thats not necessarily because of different physics, it#s because coordinates do whatever you (or they) want.
I'm so insisting because I experienced that even experts often fail to distinguish between coordinates and physics. Just have a look at the Davis&Lineweaver paper, a famous one, a good one, and often cited. Section 4.2: horribly uninformed and wrong. These are supposed to be educational papers.
I do explicitly not intend so, except for special cases. And I do not propose a different better set of coordinates. As I said, I just want to point out that physics is coordinate independent, and if you can gain insight from a different set of coordinates: do so!

Old Smuggler

It's irrelevant because it confuses the issue (see below). The issue we are discussing is whether or not spectral shifts observed between comoving observers in any FRW model can reasonably be interpreted as due to motion in flat space-time for small distances/times.
Yes, for the empty FRW model that representation is equivalent - but it gives you the false impression
that you can use such an representation approximately for all FRW models to correctly decide the issue we are discussing.
Space curvature is not so important in itself, but in context of the FRW models, it is useful since it immediately tells
you whether or not the expansion includes an element of "motion". This is precisely because the empty FRW model shows the only possible
foliation of Minkowski space-time representing isotropic expansion, and that the geometry of the hypersurfaces is hyperbolic.

Another important point about keeping the original foliation is that this makes it easy to identify the comoving observers since those observers move orthogonally to these hypersurfaces. However, if you try to represent any FRW model as Minkowski space-time foliated by flat hypersurfaces, the world lines of the particles representing the expansion will not in general coincide with the comoving observers' world lines.
Here is where you go awry.

Take a flat FRW model as an example. Here the original foliation is the same as for Minkowski space-time. The comoving observers in the flat FRW model move orthogonally to the flat hypersurfaces. But the particles in the Minkowski representation
do not. This means that these particles do not represent the comoving observers - this is a set of
different observers irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
All I am saying is that any spectral shift can reasonably be interpreted as a Doppler shift in flat space-time only if this shift is also present in the tangent space-time. That is, take the 4-velocity of
the emitter and parallel transport it along the null curve to a nearby receiver. Calculate the spectral shift. Do the same procedure in the tangent space-time. If the spectral shifts coincide to the relevant
accuracy, the shift can reasonably be interpreted as a Doppler shift in flat space-time. If not, it cannot.
Yes, but this yields the generalized Doppler shift. It does not imply that the generalized Doppler shift can always reasonably be interpreted as due to motion in flat space-time.
Sorry, but this is too vague in the context of the issue we are discussing. Please clarify.
I cannot see that this is relevant for the issue we are discussing.
No. Contributions to the generalized Doppler shift come both from motion and from curvature effects. You cannot eliminate curvature effects the way you think, because they act via the connection
coefficients and thus are non-negligible in general. Besides, there is the problem of correctly representing the comoving observers in the tangent space-time mentioned above.

Again an illustrating example is a FRW model with flat space sections. What you really do here, is to transform the space-time curvature of the FRW model into a velocity field in Minkowski space-time. That might not be so bad, but when you then claim that the space-time curvature of the FRW model were negligible to begin with ("of higher order"), and that the corresponding spectral shift must be interpreted as due to motion in flat space-time, it is just crazy.

Your comment on the classical Doppler effect is irrelevant.
Rather than parallel transporting the emitter's 4-velocity along the null curve to the receiver in one
go, one may indeed do the transport via many intervening comoving observers. But this does not
change anything - as long as each observed frequency is passed along, the total generalized Doppler effect is unaffected, and so is its interpretation.
I'm not out to convince anybody of anything - that is a waste of time in my experience.
However, if you can convince yourself, that's another matter. Tomorrow seems to be an extremely
appropriate day for it.

nutgeb

No, I don't want to just "imagine the process" Bunn & Hogg use, because I'm convinced it's wrong. It is wrong to use accumulated SR Doppler shifts to calculate cosmological redshift, because SR Doppler shift includes an element of SR time dilation which has no place in the light path between a clock-synchronized emitter and observer in the FRW model. It is also wrong to use accumulated non-SR classical Doppler shifts for the same purpose, because this approach cannot be demonstrated to yield even a remotely correct numerical result.
If one is at rest wrt the medium in each adjacent observer's small local space along a light path, then each such observer must measure 0 classical Doppler shift. An infinite accumulation of 0's is 0, clearly an invalid result. That approach is a dead end.
I don't follow what your definition of "cosmological speed" and "cosmological distance" are in this context. Your empty spacetime has no gravity, so no two observers should be able to have recession velocities > c with respect to each other, regardless of how you parse it.
What specifically is your problem with the cited passage?

Ich

You're going in circles. Comoving observers still are not synchronized, time dilatation still can be ignored, and the approch with classical redshifts still yields correct results, as sketched in #37.
That was hard work, quoting out of context to make sure you can deliberately misunderstand the rest. Or did you really not understand what I was saying? If so, I apologize.
Today, I can't follow neither, because I forgot the logarithm yesterday. The (hopefully) correct values are:
Flat speed now: 0.999969
cosmological speed now: 5.545
Flat distance now: 13.69958 GLY
cosmological distance now: 76 GLY
If you're going to stop the expansion now (cosmological time), the flat distance (now the only sensible one) would be 1754 GLY.
You're getting close. Go to Ned Wrights calculator and enter zero density everywhere. See what happens, and click on "comoving radial distance" for an explanation.
Davis & Lineweaver fail to correctly state the SR-only case. That's obviously the empty universe with H~1/t (not H=const.), and it's excluded by SN data alone by 3 standard deviations, not 28 or whatever they claim.

Ich

Exactly.
Actually, I can use the model to first order precision. I'll explain the procedure later.
This is a point where I brought confusion into the discussion by referring to "flat" approximations. The approximation I have in mind neglects second order terms and thus describes a flat spacetime. But that does not mean that it uses a foliation where space is flat, it simply is insensitive to curvature.
I agree.
No, I transform explicitly time-dependent coordinates to coordinates with the standard minkowski interval. That has nothing to do with spacetime curvature. It's just a coordinate transformation accompanied by a linearization. In the new coordinates, comoving observers have a definite velocity. If this had to do with curvature, the linearization you eliminate these velocities.
Specificly, here's the procedure:
I start with the FRW metric ds² = dt² - a(t)²dr². Depending on the details of the spacetime and the transformation I use, the other two space dimensions deviate from flat space in second order. that doesn't bother me, I'm after first order effects only.
Now, at a specific epoch t0, I can linearize the funktion a(t) by setting a(t)=const. * (t-t0'), where
[tex](t_0-t_0')=1/H_0=a/ \dot a[/tex]
and the constant ensures that a(t0)=1.
Now that a(t) is linear, I can get rid of it by the same transformations that bring the empty FRW coordinates to Minkowski coordinates, i.e.
[tex]t_{FRW} = \sqrt{t_{mink}^2 - x^2}[/tex]
[tex]r = 1/H_0 \tanh^{-1}(x/t_{mink})[/tex]
In these standard coordinates, comoving observers have the claimed velocities. That works because these velocities are proportional to [tex]\dot a[/tex] and independent of [tex]\ddot a[/tex]. They are not a curvature effect.

Old Smuggler

You have assumed that the effects of curvature must be in [tex]\ddot a[/tex] or higher order terms
and that [tex]\dot a[/tex] is always independent of curvature effects. That assumption is quite wrong.
The point is that the affine connection is curved in general. This means that the Riemann tensor is non-zero, but also that there are curvature effects via non-zero connection coefficients.
For a flat connection, the non-zero connection coefficients can be eliminated via a suitable coordinate
transformation. That cannot be done (globally) in a curved manifold.

To illustrate this point; for a flat FRW model the time-dependent connection coefficients are proportional to [tex]\dot a[/tex]. The only difference between the line elements of Minkowski space-time on the one hand and of the flat FRW model on the other (using standard coordinates), is the presence of a time-dependent scale factor. Yet the latter line element yields non-zero connection coefficients proportional to [tex]\dot a[/tex]. The coordinate systems used are the same, so the non-zero connection coefficients cannot be blamed on a coordinate effect in flat space-time. The only reasonable explanation is that the non-zero connection coefficients (and thus [tex]\dot a[/tex]) comes from curvature. This means that your assumption that [tex]\dot a[/tex] is independent of curvature effects is incorrect.

If you do not agree with this, we should agree to disagree.

I see that I wrote somewhere that the interpretation of spectral shifts in a non-empty, open FRW
model can always be interpreted as motion in flat space-time for small times/distances. In light of
my subsequent posts this view would be wrong - for a non-empty open FRW model the spectral shift
should be interpreted as a mix of curvature effects and velocity in flat space-time. Also some
comments on the initial-value problem for open FRW models were a bit misleading. Otherwise,
what I have written in this discussion should be reasonably correct (except some minor nitpicks).

Anyway, since it is now quite clear at what points we disagree, we should round off this discussion.

By the way, it's All April Fool's Day today. Do you consider yourself fooled?

sylas

Say what? The SR only case is that redshifts are a function of velocity using the Doppler shift. A major difference between SR models of the redshift and expansion models is that an assumption of homogeneity has different implications for observations from deep space.

I suspect you are mixing up definitions of H. In conventional GR based cosmology, H can be defined as (da/dt)/a where a is the scale factor (wrt to present) and t is a proper time co-ordinate. H~1/t is the nice simple solution you get for an empty universe using GR.

In SR, you can't define H in terms of a scale factor, because SR doesn't have expansion of space. However, you can assume that particles with recession velocity v are at a distance proportional to v. That is, we all started out close together and have been moving apart at constant velocities. The particle with redshift z has recession velocity [(1+z)^2-1]/[(1+z)^2+1].c, and it is at distance given by recession velocity by some constant time T by its recession velocity, on the assumption that everything started out from close together; that is, v is proportional to distance. H can be defined as the relationship between distance and v.

Now of course, under this assumption, the value of "H" for an observer at different times is proportional to 1/t. We can't test that, because we can't take observations billions of years apart in time.

However -- and THIS is the key point you seem to be missing -- H is defined here as a common feature of all observations, no matter how distant they may be. In GR the function H is a function of proper time, and so when you look into deep space you are seeing things when H was larger. Given information about time between events in deep space (SN data, for example) you can put strong constraints on the development of the scale factor over time. That is, there is a function from z to age, and from age to the scale factor, and from that to a value for H which was in play at the time the photon left whatever we are observing.

But in the SR model, H is a description of the observation, and it is identical for every particle we observe. When we look at distant particles, we are looking back in time, but the H is the same for all those particles. THAT's what is meant by constant H, I am pretty sure.

Davis and Lineweaver is excellent as an educational tutorial, helping to clear up all kinds of common popular misconceptions. It's perfectly normal to think they've done something wrong; and this is precisely because they tackle popular and entrenched misconceptions. If you think that they have made a mistake, you are probably in a good position to be learning something.

Cheers -- Sylas

Ich

No. I approximated the scalar function a(t) by its tangent at the point of interest, therefore there are no first order deviations. That's not an assumption, that's basic calculus. All deviations are of second order in cosmological time, therefore at most second order also in private time and private space.
That's not a point, as these are second order contribuions.
So what? It can be done locally, and that's what we are talking about. More to the point, I actually showed how it is done locally, so unless you're objecting to specific points in the transformation, there's no use telling me that curved space is not globally flat. I know this.
But you should know also that, in suitable coordinates, spacetime can be, locally and to first order, approximated by flat minkowski spacetime with zero connection coefficients (to be sure: first order). You simply have to find the correct local tranformation, and then show that lines of constant r have the appropriate velocity in these coordinates. That's what I have done, maybe you should try also.
Wow, the line element is different, but the coordinates are the same. Now that's interesting.
And what does "flat FRW model" mean? The empty one? One with flat space?
Yeah, I also get more and more the impression that this discussions makes no sense.

In light of your previous writings, which were consistent with basic premises of GR (equivalence principle), observations (we actually see nearby galaxies receding), and the paper we're discussing, you should re-think this statment:
because now you're struggling with all three points.
I admit, I had the impression already back in March. Someone knowledgeable denying either the existence of local inertial frames or Hubble's law (you see, it's a first order effect in the local frame), maybe there's some spacetime fooliation going on.
Anyway, it was fun.

cheers
Ich

Ich

With all respect, I suspect that you're missing a crucial point: The empty expanding universe is a valid FRW solution, with [tex]\Omega_{\Lambda} = \Omega_M = 0[/tex], and it's only 3 sigma away from LCDM. Empty spacetime is flat. SR can handle a flat spacetime, you simply have to use a different set of coordinates. Predicted observations, such as redshift of test particles, are independent of the choice of coordinates.
Maybe you want to read what Ned Wright has to say, or you want to convince yourself.
Start with FRW coordinates (a(T)=T, T0=age of the universe)
[tex]ds^2=dT^2-T^2dr^2[/tex]
and apply the transformations
[tex]
T = \sqrt{t^2 - x^2}
[/tex]
[tex]
r = T_0 \tanh^{-1}(x/t)
[/tex]
You'll get
[tex]ds^2=dt^2-dx^2[/tex]
and you can perform the necessary calculations (redshift, luminositiy distance, angular size distance...) purely in SR.
Ha, that's what I'm telling crackpots all along.
Pease understand that I'm not trying to sell a pet theory of mine. Davis&Lineweavers' analysis contradicts textbook wisdom, you can convince yourself if you're familiar with th idea of a metric, you can read what other authorities in the field have to say. Or you can take the fact that even Old Smuggler, who disagrees generally with everything I say, agrees with me as evidence with the status of a mathematical proof.
Really, I'm not doing original research here, that chapter is simply wrong.

sylas

That is not what is meant by an SR model. I do know about the FRW solutions.

The SR model described in Davis and Lineweaver is the model obtained by taking redshift as due to motions in a simple non-expanding space, and calculated as Doppler shift.

That's DIFFERENT from the FRW solution with an empty universe.

There's no error in the Davis and Lineweaver paper on this point, because they are quite clear on what they mean by SR model. It's not just taking an FRW solution and applying SR. It's taking redshift as being a Doppler shift in non-expanding space.

The luminosity distance with z arising from Doppler shifts for particles receding with at uniform velocity from a common origin event is different from that in the empty FRW model.

Cheers -- Sylas

Wallace

I hope I can contribute here. I think you (sylas and ich) are both basically right.

The empty FRW universe is indeed only 'ruled out' at 3 sigma, but as sylas suggests this is not the model D&L mean by saying 'SR model', they are referring to a particular assumption, valid at low redshift, that gives a bogus result at high redshift.

The point that leads to disagreement is actually a bit subtle. In post #61 ich makes a conformal tranformation between the empty FRW metric and a Minkowski like metric. This is all well and good, however this is only valid radially. If you put the angular terms back into the first line you will see that your transformation does not return a fully conformally Minkowski metric. This means that you cannot use this to determine either the angular diameter or luminosities distances. You need to do a more complex fully conformal transformation in order to do this.

Some technical details of this can be found here.

I*think* that the error in the SR model the D&L discuss is that if you work through the details, you can see that that way we define distance in the SR model violates simultaneity, which is why it is okay for small distances but gets worse and worse the further you go.

So yes, a *correct* SR model is identical to an empty FRW universe and to work out the relationship between the FRW co-ordinates and the co-ordinates of this model you need to do the fully conformal transfomation, but D&L are talking about a model that, due to the misidentification of the meaning of co-ordinates, is only a low redshift approximation.

I hope that helps!

Ich

No, the SR model they use is, frankly, BS. Read this:
A non accelerating universe has [tex]\dot a = const.[/tex], thus H=1/t. Constant H is the de Sitter universe, nothing to do with SR, and the extreme case of an accelerating universe.
Please try to understand my point: in the empty universe, the only difference between "expanding space" and "constant velocity in non-expanding space" is a coordinate transformation. That's nothing more than just taking an FRW solution and applying SR.
No, if "uniform velocity" means what it should for particles receding from a common origin.
Now this is your claim, please back it up with calculations. You are probably in a good position to be learning something.

Wallace

Hmm, good point. I guess the best we can say then is that D&L introduce a very bad model and then demonstrate that it doesn't fit the data. I'm not sure that they intended it to be a 'correct' model in the sense of it correctly using relativity (SR and GR are of course identical if the universe is empty), I think they were trying to show that a mugs 'SR' model doesn't work, but maybe it was a bit too muggy.

I really think the points of agreement are much more than those of disagreement here, stemming from maybe some loose terminology. I think we can all agree that the 23 sigma model from D&L is not a 'correct' SR model. The disagreement appears to be just how incorrect it is, yes?

Ich

Stop, no! I just match coordinates locally to first order, and drop all the higher order terms. It's neither valid radially nor in the transverse directions, if you're looking at higher orders.
What I'm doing here is an exact coordinate transformation. The angular directions (hyperbolic to flat space) transform correctly, no need to bend the laws of physics. We're talking about a flat spacetime in both cases.
Of course you can. The hyperbolic space in FRW coordinates stems solely from the definition of the radial coordinate as being measured by comoving observers. If you "fix" that, everything is ok again.
Yes, they talk about the wrong model and therefore come to wrong conclusions. I think this is most clearly seen in the passage I quoted before, where they identify "not accelerated" with "constant H", which is bogus.

Wallace

Alright, I don't want to introduce additional disagreement. As you say, minkowski space and an empty FRW metric are both flat space-times (they have a vanishing Ricci scalar). You can transform between these two co-ordinate systems, without being forced to be vaild only to a given order, via a fully conformal transformation.
Right, this 'fixing' is exactly what the transformation does.

I get what you are saying, any co-ordinate transformation is exact, so if your original space-time is flat the transformed one is as well. Just pointing out that the one you suggest doesn't work, on it's own to relate FRW co-moving co-ordinates to their Minkowski counterparts. Clearly you agree with this point, it just wasn't clear to me what you were demonstrating with it original, but now I see.

Ich

Yes, it's a strawman.
They say "the best we can do", so I'd say that they simply didn't know better. I'm convinced that this section would look quite different if they'd write it today.
Of course. D&L claim incorrectly that the "Doppler/SR interpretation" is ruled out by 23 sigma by SNIa observations alone, I (we) say it's ruled out by ~3 sigma. Taking other observations into account, I think we're rather getting back to 23 sigma.