How come equations don't account for

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter schlynn
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between equations that describe the curvature of space and the expansion of the universe. Participants explore whether existing equations adequately account for the effects of space expanding, particularly at relativistic speeds, and seek clarification on the purpose and applicability of various metrics in cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why equations involving curvature do not seem to include the expansion of space, especially at high velocities.
  • Another participant asserts that the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric does account for the expansion of space.
  • There is a discussion about the purpose of equations in describing the expanding universe, with inquiries into whether other equations also consider space expansion.
  • A participant suggests that the original question may need rephrasing for clarity regarding the intent behind asking about equations that describe the expanding universe.
  • One participant explains that the FLRW solutions assume a homogeneous and isotropic universe, which inherently describes an expanding universe, while contrasting it with the Schwarzschild solution that describes a non-expanding universe.
  • It is noted that while the Schwarzschild solution is useful for describing spacetime near a star, it does not account for expansion, which is relevant on larger scales.
  • A participant expresses a realization that their initial conclusion about the equations was based on limited information and acknowledges the complexity of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether certain equations account for the expansion of space, and there is no consensus on the adequacy of these equations in various contexts.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the applicability of different solutions to Einstein's equations, particularly in relation to the assumptions made about the distribution of matter and energy in the universe.

schlynn
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
How come equations don't account for...

How come equations that involve the curvature of space don't include the fact that space is expanding. I mean, if its expanding near the speed of light, it seems like it would have some effect.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I think there may be some misunderstanding, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lema%C3%AEtre-Robertson-Walker_metric" does account for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Isn't that equations purpose to describe the expanding universe though? Are there any other equations that take account of the expanding of space?
 


You are now asking: "Are there any equations that don't describe the expanding universe that describe the expanding universe?"

Perhaps you need to rephrase and make it clear exactly what you are attempting to ask for.
 


schlynn said:
Isn't that equations purpose to describe the expanding universe though? Are there any other equations that take account of the expanding of space?
There's a general set of equations that tell you how spacetime curves in response to any possible distribution of matter and energy. For the particular distribution of matter and energy in the FLRW metric (and other similar metrics), the curvature of spacetime will be such that you get "expanding space".
 


The solutions of Einstein's equation that you can find in GR books all deal with highly idealized situations. Examples: The FLRW solutions are what you get when you assume that spacetime can be sliced into a one-parameter family of spacelike hypersurfaces that are all homogeneous and isotropic. (We can think of as them as representing space at different times). There are three such solutions. All of them describe an expanding universe. The Schwarzschild solution is what you get when you assume that spacetime is completely empty except for a spherical, non-rotating distribution of mass that has existed forever, and will continue to exist forever. There is only one such solution. The universe it describes isn't expanding.

If we're trying to describe spacetime near a star, it's pointless to use anything but the Schwarzschild solution. Spacetime can't be exactly Schwarzschild of course, since there are other things in the universe, but it's going to be a lot more like Schwarzshild than like FLRW for example, since space isn't at all homogeneous near the star. The universe is only homogeneous on very large scales.

So the correct solution describing spacetime near a star of finite life span in a universe where there are lots of other stars, distributed in galaxies and clusters of galaxies such that the large-scale structure is approximately homogeneous and isotropic, should almost certainly contain some amount of expansion, but it's likely to be ridiculously tiny. (Actually the expansion per year of a region the size of the solar system is very small in the FLRW solutions too. What I meant is that the expansion in the correct solution is likely to be ridiculously tiny compared to that).

I'm saying "likely" because I don't think these things have been proved conclusively yet.
 
Last edited:


Thank you for the replys. I just saw some equations and realized they didn't account for it. But now I see the error, I can't make a conclusion like I did from just a few equations.
 

Similar threads

Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K