How Do Light Cones Differ in Accelerating vs. Decelerating Expansions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cancer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Universe
Cancer
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone!
I'm solving some GR problems and I have a question.
The problem is that we have a metric like the FRW metric but in 1+1 dimensions, i.e.:
ds^2 = -dt \otimes dt + a(t)^2 dx \otimes dt
Where a(t)=t^{1/\epsilon} (for t>0) and a(t)=(-t)^{1/\epsilon} (for t<0).
We take a vector V^\mu = dx^\mu / d\lambda and apply it to the metric as ds^2 (V,V)=0.
For t>0 we get:
dt = \pm a(t) dx \rightarrow x(t) = \pm \frac{t^{1-1/\epsilon}}{1-1/\epsilon}
Ok, having all this said (until this point everything is correct, is part of the exercise) here's my problem.
For \epsilon >1 we have a decelerating expansion and we get, for instance for \epsilon = 2:
t = x^2
(Up to some constant I don't care)
I can more or less understand this result, it's similar to the light cone in Minkowski's, and it gets more stretched with time as the expansion gets decelerated.

Let's go to the case 0 < \epsilon < 1. In this case, for instance for \epsilon = 1/2, we get
t=x^{-1}
I don't understand this case, the light-cone from the future and the past are not even conected.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg
Imagine this image but with the red lines in both side of the axis.

Does anyone have an explanation to this fact? I don't see why the accelerating and the decelerating expansions give us so different light-cones!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
At the beginning I thought that the second case could be because a(0)=0 (even though t=0 is not defined...), so every observer is like conected at t=0... but then I wouldn't understand the first case! Because both are expansions, they should look like similar.
 
Did you notice that you also happened to change sign on the ##\pm##? If you draw the light cone from any given point (including the constant you neglected), all of the past at t = 0 is going to be included. Similarly, for t smaller than 0, all space at t=0 will be in the future light cone. In particular, for t > 0, this means all of space for t < 0 is within the past light cone.
 
Yeah, but why that doesn't happen in the first case? :(

In addition, if we take \epsilon =1 \rightarrow a(t) = t, then:
dt = \pm t dx \rightarrow \ln (t)=\pm x \rightarrow t = \exp (\pm x)
That case is also reaaally weird, as you have line cossing in the future and in the past...

Thanks for the answer ;)
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top