Is the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker space-time conformally flat?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) space-time is conformally flat when expressed in terms of a new time coordinate, known as conformal time (τ). By defining τ as τ = ∫(1/a(t)) dt, where a(t) is the scale factor, the metric can be transformed to a form that aligns with the Minkowski metric. This transformation simplifies the metric to a diagonal form, confirming its conformal flatness. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the function Ω(t) as a function of time only, rather than spatial coordinates.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) space-time metrics
  • Knowledge of conformal transformations in general relativity
  • Familiarity with differential equations and coordinate transformations
  • Basic concepts of tensor calculus and metric tensors
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of conformal transformations in general relativity
  • Learn about the implications of conformal time in cosmological models
  • Explore the derivation of the FRW metric and its applications in cosmology
  • Investigate the role of the scale factor a(t) in the evolution of the universe
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on cosmology and general relativity, will benefit from this discussion. It is also valuable for anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of space-time metrics and their transformations.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



A space-time is said to be conformally flat if there is a frame in which the metric is g_{ab} = \Omega^2 \eta _{ab} \text{ with } \eta_{ab} the metric in Minkowski.

Is the general Friedmann-Robertson-Walkers space-time with line element
ds^2 = -dt^2 +a^2(t)(dx_1^2 + \ldots + dx_n^2)
conformally flat?


Homework Equations



ds^2 = g_{ij} dx_i dx_j


The Attempt at a Solution



We can easily use the symmetry of the metric and the line element to find that the metric in FRW spacetime is

\begin{bmatrix}<br /> -1 &amp; 0 &amp; \ldots &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; a^2(t) &amp; \ldots &amp; 0\\<br /> \vdots &amp; \vdots &amp;\ddots &amp; \vdots\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; \ldots &amp; a^2(t) \end{bmatrix}

Now we weren't told what \Omega^2 was in the question, but when I asked my TA he said that it was a real-valued function from spacetime coordinates. He also told me that I should make a change of coordinates. I've tried using the definition of the line element, and taking derivatives with respect to time, but to no avail. I attempted using

dt^2 = \Omega^2 d\tau^2
a^2(t)dx_i^2 = \Omega^2 d\xi_i^2 \quad \forall i = 1\ldots n

to try and solve for a coordinate transformation, but again I just ended up getting integrals of \Omega which were at best, complex valued. A few of my class-mates and I have been pondering this question for a bit, and we just can't seem to find the trick. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Try a change of variable t, i.e. t=f(\tau)
 
You have a problem with your metric expressions. You want e.g. dt^2 = \Omega(t)^2 d\tau^2. Now just separate the variables to get a definition of tau. And just take \Omega(t)=a(t).
 
Yes yes, sorry about that typo. I'll go and fix that now. Anyway, like I've stipulated, I've already done that, but it didn't seem to offer me a reasonable solution; I'll have a look at it again.
 
Why can we just assume that \Omega is just a function of a single variable rather than over the whole space-time? Furthermore, wouldn't \Omega need to be a function of \tau rather than t? Since otherwise we would have that t is a function of itself - which is certainly possible, but makes it somewhat impossible to solve for t in order to properly evaluate the change of coordinates.
 
Last edited:
If we do assume that \Omega is a function of \tau alone, then the associated metric has cross-terms that lie outside of the diagonal - making it very difficult to associate to the Minkowski metric. Granted, I might be doing all of this wrongly...
 
I'll work something out and maybe you can tell me where I'm going wrong. Let's limit ourselves to two space.

Using the previous equations, we get that
\frac{d\tau}{dt} = \frac{1}{a(t)}

\frac{d\xi}{dx} = 1

Thus
\tau = \int \frac{dt}{a(t)}

\xi=x

Then if we define the vector F = \begin{bmatrix} \displaystyle\int \frac{dt}{a(t)} \\ x \end{bmatrix}, the metric is

g^{ij} = \begin{bmatrix} <br /> \frac{dF}{dt}\frac{dF}{dt} &amp; \frac{dF}{dx}\frac{dF}{dt} \\<br /> \frac{dF}{dt}\frac{dF}{dx} &amp; \frac{dF}{dx}\frac{dF}{dx} \end{bmatrix}<br /> = \begin{bmatrix}<br /> \frac{1}{a^2(t)} &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 \end{bmatrix}
 
What do the spatial coordinates have to do with it? Your metric is already conformally flat in them. You just have to redefine the time coordinate, which you have already done once you get rid of that confusing xi. tau is called 'conformal time'. And not without reason. If it's any help you can find any omega you want. It doesn't HAVE to be a function of the spatial coordinates. And for FRW a function only of time is fine.
 
Last edited:
I'll take your word for it, but it just seems to me like it should've been more complicated. I understand what you're saying just fine and it makes sense. Perhaps I'm just over analyzing the problem.

Edit: Yeah, now that I think about it I don't know why I assumed that the transformation needed to affect the spatial coordinates. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Well, you've defined tau such that dt = a(t) d\tau. Just put that into the metric. You could also write down the change in the metric due to that coordinate change by doing the partial derivatives and the formal tensor change of variables thing. But you'll get the same answer. It really isn't as hard as you were expecting.
 
  • #11
Apparently it was indeed much simpler. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K