A Asymptotic Flatness: Minkowski Spacetime & Galaxy Scale

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Angelika10
  • Start date Start date
Angelika10
Messages
37
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
In derivation of the standard form of a spherical symmetric metric, always the assumption is made: minkowski spacetime is in the infinity. Why is this done?
In derivation of the standard form of a spherical symmetric metric, always the assumption is made: minkowski spacetime is in the infinity. Why is this done? Could it be violated/not true? For example on the galaxy scale?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Angelika10 said:
Summary:: In derivation of the standard form of a spherical symmetric metric, always the assumption is made: minkowski spacetime is in the infinity. Why is this done?

In derivation of the standard form of a spherical symmetric metric, always the assumption is made: minkowski spacetime is in the infinity. Why is this done? Could it be violated/not true? For example on the galaxy scale?
It's a question of physical viability. What you're asking is why the gravitational effect of the Sun, for example, reduces with distance and eventually becomes negligible?

If it didn't, then the Earth would be significantly affected by the gravity of every star in the galaxy; plus every star in Andromeda.

There's no evidence for this. All the evidence points at the Sun having the only really significant effect.

In terms of asymptotic behaviour, the absolute mass is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Likes Angelika10
PeroK said:
What you're asking is why the gravitational effect of the Sun, for example, reduces with distance and eventually becomes negligible?
That is not entirely true. Even in the case of a spherically symmetric mass distribution in Newtonian gravity - you still have the option of an external field with zero divergence. This field is generally not considered to be part of the effect ”from the Sun”, but it does affect the boundary conditions.

The general idea however is that you want spacetime to be essentially Minkowski space far away from any sources or singularities.
 
  • Like
Likes Angelika10
PeroK said:
It's a question of physical viability. What you're asking is why the gravitational effect of the Sun, for example, reduces with distance and eventually becomes negligible?
I fully agree for the asymptotical flatness of the solar system. It's measured with high precision.
But why do we assume the galaxy asymptotically flat?

PeroK said:
If it didn't, then the Earth would be significantly affected by the gravity of every star in the galaxy; plus every star in Andromeda.
Because flatness means "no influence of gravity" if we assume that gravity is the same as curvature of spacetime. I understand that.

But, in analogy to electrodynamics: There is "no field" the asymptotic, not "flat field", as in general relativity. Why can't we assume this? Something like "vanishing spacetime" in the infinity?
 
Orodruin said:
The general idea however is that you want spacetime to be essentially Minkowski space far away from any sources or singularities.
Yes, I see. But how do we know that it doesn't become "the opposite of minkowski" as it approaches infinity?

While deriving a metric from the standard form

##ds^2 = B(r)c^2dt^2 - A(r)dr^2 -r^2(d\theta^2 + sin^2\theta d\phi^2)##

It's always assumed that B(r) and A(r) approach to 1. I know that it's highly speculative, but could they divert from 1 in the infinity (B approching \infty, A approaching 0)?
 
Angelika10 said:
Why can't we assume this? Something like "vanishing spacetime" in the infinity?
This makes no sense.

Angelika10 said:
I know that it's highly speculative
Yes, which means it's out of bounds for PF discussion, since we do not allow discussion of personal speculations. Instead of spending time speculating, you should be spending your time learning how the models used in astronomy and cosmology actually work and why they make the assumptions they do.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
Back
Top