Clarifying Robertson-Walker Metric Math Objects

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter space-time
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Metric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Robertson-Walker metric, specifically the treatment of the scale factor R(t) in the context of deriving Christoffel symbols and Ricci tensors. The user is uncertain whether to treat R(t) as a constant or as a function of x0 (where x0 = ct). The consensus is that R(t) should be treated as a function of x0 to ensure proper curvature in the metric, as omitting the c term leads to incorrect assumptions about the metric's behavior.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Robertson-Walker metric
  • Familiarity with general relativity concepts, including Christoffel symbols and Ricci tensors
  • Knowledge of differential calculus in the context of tensor analysis
  • Experience with metric tensor notation and manipulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Christoffel symbols in the context of the Robertson-Walker metric
  • Learn about the implications of scale factors in cosmological models
  • Explore the relationship between curvature and the scale factor in general relativity
  • Investigate the mathematical treatment of time-dependent functions in metric tensors
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on cosmology and general relativity, as well as mathematicians interested in tensor calculus and differential geometry.

space-time
Messages
218
Reaction score
4
Here is the Robertson Walker metric:

ds2= (cdt)2 - R2(t)[dr2/(1- kr2) + r2(dθ2 + sin2(θ)dΦ2)]

This metric is seen and discussed in this link: http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr328/Notes/Metrics/metrics.html

Now I am in the process of deriving the general relativistic mathematical objects for this metric such as the Christoffel symbols, Ricci tensor, etc... However, one thing is bothering me.

As you can see both in the link and at the top of this post, they did not omit the c term using the c=1 convention in the first term of the metric. However, that scale factor R(t) only has t in it and not ct.

This bothers me because I am on the fence about whether I should treat R(t) as a constant when deriving my Christoffel symbols or if I should treat it as a function of x0 and differentiate accordingly when deriving my Christoffel symbols. Note that x0 = ct , x1= r , x2=θ , x3 = Φ

It is possible that they may be assuming that c=1 inside of the R(t) function and that is why they omit the c there, or it could just simply be that R(t) is not a function of x0 and I should just treat it as a constant when differentiating terms of my metric tensors.

Which option is the correct choice?

For those who need clarification on what I am asking, here is a numerical example:

The metric tensor element g11 = -R2(t)/(1- kr2)

While deriving the Christoffel symbols, one of the derivatives I will have to take is:
∂g11 /∂x0

If I treat the term -R2(t) as a function of x0, then the above derivative would evaluate to be:

-2R(t)R'(t)/(1- kr2) where R'(t) is simply the derivative of R(t) with respect to t.

However, if I treat the term -R2(t) as a constant, then the derivative is 0.

Which case is the correct case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think your difficulty is in ##x^0=ct##. Just drop the ##c## there. ##R(t)## is a function of ##x^0##. If not you get no curvature as you say.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: space-time

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K