Can we extend our inertial frame globally?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of extending an inertial frame globally in the context of general relativity and the universe's expansion. Participants explore the implications of flat versus curved space-time and the conditions under which inertial frames can be defined, particularly focusing on the relationship between local and global definitions in cosmological contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that general relativity restricts inertial frames to local definitions due to the curvature of space-time, while others suggest that if space is flat, global inertial frames could be defined for small intervals of cosmological time.
  • One participant posits that if the universe's expansion rate is constant, then space-time could be considered flat, allowing for potential global inertial frames.
  • Another participant counters that a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe would still exhibit positive curvature in static coordinates, challenging the feasibility of using special relativity globally.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of static coordinate representations for defining inertial frames, with some asserting that inertial frames must be static and others questioning the need for a static representation over time.
  • One participant emphasizes that cosmological time differs from the time used in inertial frames, complicating the definition of a global inertial frame that spans back to the Big Bang.
  • Another participant warns that attempting to define global inertial frames in an expanding universe could lead to contradictions, such as galaxies appearing to move faster than light.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the possibility of extending inertial frames globally, with no consensus reached. Some support the idea under certain conditions, while others firmly reject it based on the implications of general relativity and the nature of cosmological time.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the definitions of inertial frames, the assumptions about flat versus curved space-time, and the implications of cosmological expansion on simultaneity and inertial frame definitions.

johne1618
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
People tell me that we cannot extend our inertial frame, as defined in special relativity, across the Universe because that would be in violation of general relativity.

The problem is that general relativity says that space-time can be curved whereas a global inertial frame assumes flat space-time.

However it has been observationally verified that the Universe is spatially very close to flat.

Thus only the time-component can be curved leading to the Universe's expansion rate either accelerating or decelerating.

If the Universe's expansion rate is constant then space-time is indeed flat.

But if one is only considering a small interval of cosmological time then the Universe's expansion rate is almost constant.

Thus it seems to me that one could extend our inertial frame globally provided that one is only considering a small interval of cosmological time.

Is that correct?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Here is a better way of putting it.

General relativity says that inertial frames can only be defined locally in space-time.

But if we assume that space is flat then inertial frames can be defined globally in space provided they are only local in time.

Is that right?
 
If the Universe's expansion rate is constant then space-time is indeed flat.
Not necessarily. Generally, as you transform from expanding coordinates to "static" coordinates, space becomes positively curved. So for spacetime to be flat, the expanding space must be negatively curved by the exact right amount, which happens to be the case (surprise) only in an empty spacetime.
A spatially flat FRW Universe will always be positively curved in a static coordinate representation, therefore you can't use SR globally.
 
Ich said:
A spatially flat FRW Universe will always be positively curved in a static coordinate representation, therefore you can't use SR globally.

But do I need to use a static coordinate representation?

I don't want to define a global inertial frame for all time.

I just want to define a global inertial frame for a small interval of cosmological time.
 
Last edited:
But do I need to use a static coordinate representation?
You want an inertial frame. Inertial frames are static.
I don't want to define a global inertial frame for all time.
"Static" doesn't mean "for all time", it means "doesn't change with time". This applies also to finite times or, strictly speaking, for infinitesimal short times. Further, what I really mean by "static" is: no radial expansion, a necessary requirement for inertial frames. That is defined also for an infinitesimal short time.
I just want to define a global inertial frame for a small interval of cosmological time.
That is impossible. Cosmological time is different from the time used in inertial frames, different notion of simultaneity there. Every global "inertial frame" will now spatially extend back to the Big Bang. Portions of the universe at every cosmological time until now are part of such a frame. Maybe you want to read this page which explains the different slicing in flat spacetime.
 
johne1618 said:
Here is a better way of putting it.

General relativity says that inertial frames can only be defined locally in space-time.

But if we assume that space is flat then inertial frames can be defined globally in space provided they are only local in time.

Is that right?
No, it doesn't work this way. It's pretty easy to see that if you try to do this in an expanding universe, you quickly end up with nonsense (e.g. galaxies moving faster than light).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K