Can FLRW metric be taken to describe stretching in time rather than space?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores whether the FLRW metric can describe time stretching instead of space expansion, focusing on the scaling factor a(t)^2. It highlights that using conformal time allows both time and space to be scaled uniformly, making light rays behave similarly to those in special relativity. The consensus suggests that while theoretically possible, redefining space as static and time as variable would challenge the stability of atomic structures and necessitate significant changes to existing physical laws. Ultimately, the traditional view of space expansion is preferred due to its alignment with established atomic behavior. The conversation emphasizes the complexities and implications of altering fundamental concepts in cosmology.
themos
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I hope the title makes sense. I see a factor a(t)^2 in from of the space part of the metric. Is it equivalent to scaling the time part? If so, is there an advantage in abandoning notion of "expansion" of space in favour of time "speeding up" or "slowing down"?
 
Space news on Phys.org
themos said:
I hope the title makes sense. I see a factor a(t)^2 in from of the space part of the metric. Is it equivalent to scaling the time part? If so, is there an advantage in abandoning notion of "expansion" of space in favour of time "speeding up" or "slowing down"?

Welcome to Physics Forums!

Conformal time is related to this, but I don't think this is what you mean. When conformal time is used, "time" and space are scaled by the same factor. Take a flat universe with

ds^2 = dt^2 - a \left(t\right)^2 \left( dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 \right)

and define conformal time \eta by

dt = a \left(t\right) d \eta .

Then,

ds^2 = a \left(t\right)^2 \left( d\eta^2 - dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 \right).

On spacetime diagrams that use conformal time, light rays are straight lines just like in special relativity, which is often useful. For light

ds^2 = 0

gives

d \eta = \pm \sqrt{dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2}

or, for example,

\eta = x + const

for light in the x-direction.
 
themos said:
I hope the title makes sense. I see a factor a(t)^2 in from of the space part of the metric. Is it equivalent to scaling the time part? If so, is there an advantage in abandoning notion of "expansion" of space in favour of time "speeding up" or "slowing down"?
The reason why we usually take space as expanding and not time is that we consider atoms to be stable.

If we were to instead take space as static, then yes, we would have to scale the time coordinate. But then we would find that atoms change in size with time. That's not to say that this is wrong, but it is contrary to our usual conception of atoms, and would require some serious rewriting of the laws of physics to get everything to work out properly. So I'm not entirely sure that this would be useful.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top