Are Bianchi IX Models Truly Homogeneous Yet Not Isotropic?

befj0001
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
In a Bianchi IX universe the metric must be invariant under the SO(3) group acting on the 3-sphere. Hence, the metric must be translation invariant in the spatial parts, where t=constant. This implies that the metric must take the form such that:

ds^2 = dt^2 - g_ij(t)(x^i)(x^j), where g is a function of t alone. Am I right about all this?

What concerns me is that someone told me that the metric:

ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t)(dx)^2 + b^2(t)(dy)^2 + (b^2sin^2y+a^2cos^2y)(dz)^2 - 2a^2cosydxdz

belong to the Bianchi IX models. But this doesn't seem right?!

Am I right about the Biachi IX models being homogeneous but not necesseraly isotropic?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
befj0001 said:
What concerns me is that someone told me that the metric:

ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t)(dx)^2 + b^2(t)(dy)^2 + (b^2sin^2y+a^2cos^2y)(dz)^2 - 2a^2cosydxdz

belong to the Bianchi IX models. But this doesn't seem right?!
Why don't you just write down a few of the Killing vectors and calculate their commutators?
 
Bill_K said:
Why don't you just write down a few of the Killing vectors and calculate their commutators?

Yes, the Lie algebra is isomorphic to SO(3). But what does it imply about the geometry of the universe? The spatial part being homogeneous under the action of SO(3) doesn't say anything to me!

I think like this: Since the underlying space of SO(3) is a 3-sphere, and then if the spatial part of the universe is a 3-sphere, the metric would be invariant under ordinary spatial translations just like the Minkowski space is invariant under ordinary spatial translations. But since Minkowski space is flat and noncompact, translation invariance is instead asociated by the Euclidean group of translations not SO(3). Am I on the right track?

My concern about the above metric was that I thought the x,y,z coordinates were cartesian coordiantes locally on the 3-sphere. Instead they are coordinates on the perpendicular coordinate axis witch span the entire four-manifold. Right?
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts?
 
befj0001 said:
Any thoughts?
Well the first thing that should hit you in the face about this metric is that it is independent of both x and z. Which tells you there are two obvious Killing vectors, and furthermore that they commute. So the isometry group is not SO(3)! There may be four Killing vectors, not just three.
 
Last edited:
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top