So I have been following various derivations of the FRW metric and have a bit of confusion due to varying convention...(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Would it be correct to say that curvature K can be expressed as both [tex]K = \frac{k}{a(t)^2}[/tex] and [tex]K = \frac{k}{R(t)^2}[/tex] where k is the curvature parameter?

If so, is it correct to say that the spatial line element for the k = 1 (closed) case may be expressed as

[tex]

dl^2=\frac{dr^2}{1-\frac{r^2}{R(t)^2}}+ r^2d\Omega^2

[/tex]

If I then sub

[tex]

r =R(t)\sin(\chi)

[/tex],

using the fact that the full line element is

[tex]

ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2dl^2

[/tex]

I find

[tex]

ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2R(t)^2[d\chi^2 + \sin^2(\chi) d\Omega^2]

[/tex]

but the texts I have read state the metric to be

[tex]

ds^2 = dt^2 - R(t)^2[d\chi^2 + \sin^2(\chi) d\Omega^2]

[/tex]

or

[tex]

ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2[d\chi^2 + \sin^2(\chi) d\Omega^2]

[/tex]

so I am clearly misunderstanding something with my extra factor, anyone able to clear things up for me?

Thanks in advance.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# FRW metric, convention misunderstanding?

Loading...

Similar Threads for metric convention misunderstanding |
---|

I Observational Evidence for Metric Expansion of Space? |

Insights A Journey Into the Cosmos - FLRW Metric and The Friedmann Equation - Comments |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**