Deriving Max Symmetric Space from Spherically Symmetric - Sean M. Carroll

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric from the spherically symmetric metric as presented in Sean M. Carroll's Lecture Notes on General Relativity. The confusion arises from the transition between equations 8.4 and 7.20, specifically regarding the treatment of the function ##\beta(t,r)##. It is clarified that equation 8.4 represents a spatial slice of constant time, where the time dependence has been factored out, leading to the conclusion that ##\beta(t,r) = \beta(r)##. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the differences in metric forms between chapters 7 and 8.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric
  • Knowledge of tensor calculus and metric tensors
  • Ability to interpret equations in the context of General Relativity
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric in detail
  • Review the differences between spherically symmetric and vacuum solutions in General Relativity
  • Learn about the implications of the metric tensor in cosmological models
  • Examine the role of scale factors in the evolution of the universe
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on General Relativity and cosmology, will benefit from this discussion. It is also valuable for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of metric derivations and their implications in the context of the universe's structure.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
I'm looking at Lecture Notes on General Relativity, Sean M. Carroll, deriving the FRW metric, and I'm a little confused with the use of eq 8.4 .

I thought instead it should be using the general form of a spherically symmetric metric, not a vacuum spherical symmetric - eq 7.13 has been derived from 8.4 by solving ##R_{uv}=0## enabling us to loose the time dependence in the function ## \beta(t,r) ## as we don't want a vacuum solution here at all?

What has enabled us to conclude ## \beta(t,r) = \beta(r) ##

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe if you actually typed out the equations you are referring to, I could help. I don't have a copy of Carroll with me though.
 
binbagsss said:
eq 7.13 has been derived from 8.4 by solving ##R_{uv}=0##

Carroll is not talking in Chapter 8 about the process that leads from eq. 7.13 to eq. 7.20 (btw, it's eq. 7.20, not 7.13, that is derived by solving ##R_{uv} = 0)##; eq. 7.13 is the form of the metric considered in Chapter 7 before that is done). The appearance of ##\beta(r)## in eq. 8.4 does not actually refer to eq. 7.20. Carroll leaves out some steps here; let's try to put them back in.

In eq. 8.1 Carroll gives the general form of the metric he will be considering, which is different from the general form he considers in Chapter 7. Eq. 8.1 has just plain ##- dt^2## in the line element, where in Chapter 7 there was a coefficient there, and eq. 8.1 splits out the time dependence of the spatial part of the metric into the function ##a^2 (t)##, which multiplies the entire spatial metric, where in Chapter 7 the time dependence (before the vacuum assumption is made to remove it in deriving eq. 7.13) is only in the ##dr^2## part of the spatial metric (and is also in the ##dt^2## term).

So in eq. 8.4, the coefficient of the ##dr^2## term only depends on ##r## because the time dependence has already been factored out; note that eq. 8.4 is an expression for ##\gamma_{ij} du^i du^j##, i.e., for the part that is multiplied by ##a^2(t)## in eq. 8.1. In other words, eq. 8.4 is the expression for the metric of a spatial slice of constant time, with the actual distance scale (the scale factor ##a(t)##) removed. The form of eq. 8.4 is just the general metric of a spherically symmetric 3-space. The appearance of ##\beta(r)## in eq. 8.4 is just a similarity of notation with Chapter 7; it does not mean that eq. 8.4 was derived the way eq. 7.20 was derived.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K