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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter themos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric Space Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric, specifically the factor a(t)^2 in the spatial component. Participants explore whether this factor can be viewed as scaling the time component instead of describing spatial expansion. The consensus indicates that while conformal time can relate time and space scaling, the traditional view of space expansion is favored due to the stability of atomic structures. Abandoning the notion of spatial expansion in favor of time dynamics would necessitate significant revisions to established physical laws.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric
  • Familiarity with conformal time and its implications in cosmology
  • Basic knowledge of spacetime diagrams and their use in physics
  • Concepts of atomic stability and its relevance to cosmological models
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of conformal time in cosmological models
  • Explore the mathematical derivation of the FLRW metric
  • Investigate the stability of atomic structures in varying cosmological frameworks
  • Study the impact of scaling time versus space on physical laws
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics interested in the foundations of cosmological metrics and the implications of time and space scaling in the universe.

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

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

and define conformal time [itex]\eta[/itex] by

[tex]dt = a \left(t\right) d \eta .[/tex]

Then,

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

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

[tex]ds^2 = 0[/tex]

gives

[tex]d \eta = \pm \sqrt{dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2}[/tex]

or, for example,

[tex]\eta = x + const[/tex]

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K