Is Light Speed Consistent in Conformal Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johne1618
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmological Time
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the consistency of light speed in conformal time within a flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric. It establishes that while a light beam appears to travel further as the Universe expands, this perception is reconciled when both observers measure time in conformal units. The relationship between cosmological time and conformal time is defined by the equation dt = a(t) dτ, leading to the conclusion that light speed remains constant at c=1 for both observers when conformal time is used. This insight is crucial for understanding the implications of cosmic expansion on light propagation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric
  • Knowledge of null geodesics in general relativity
  • Familiarity with cosmological time and conformal time concepts
  • Basic grasp of the speed of light in physics (c=1)
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of conformal time in cosmology
  • Study the properties of null geodesics in curved spacetime
  • Investigate the Friedmann equations and their applications
  • Learn about the Lightcone calculator and its uses in cosmological models
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists interested in the relationship between light propagation and cosmic expansion, as well as those studying general relativity and its implications in modern cosmology.

johne1618
Messages
368
Reaction score
0
Let us assume a flat FRW metric
<br /> ds^2=-dt^2+a(t)^2(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2).<br />
where t is cosmological time, x,y,z are comoving space coordinates, the speed of light c=1 and a(t_0)=1 at the present cosmological time t_0.

Imagine a light beam traveling in the x-direction. It travels on a null geodesic ds=0 therefore its path obeys the relation
<br /> a(t)dx=dt<br />
Therefore at the present time t_0 during an interval of cosmological time dt the light beam travels a proper distance a(t_0)dx=dx.

Now imagine a time t in the future when the Universe has expanded by a factor a(t).

During the same interval of cosmological time dt the light beam now travels a proper distance a(t)dx.

Thus, in the future, the light beam travels further in the same interval of cosmological time and therefore its speed seems to have increased according to an observer at the present time t_0.

I think this paradox is resolved if the time interval the later observer at time t measures expands by the same factor of a(t) according to the present observer.

Let us assume that observers actually measure time in units of conformal time d\tau such that
<br /> dt = a(t) d\tau<br />
Then for the later observer at cosmological time t we have
<br /> \frac{a(t) dx}{dt} = \frac{a(t) dx}{a(t) d\tau} = \frac{dx}{d\tau} = 1<br />
This agrees with the speed of light measured by the present observer at cosmological time t_0
<br /> \frac{a(t_0)dx}{dt}=\frac{dx}{a(t_0)d\tau}=\frac{dx}{d\tau}=1<br />
Thus if we assume that both observers measure conformal time \tau rather than cosmological time t then both will agree with the other's measurement of the speed of light.
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
Here's a picture showing conformal time (in the bottom frame). You've probably seen it many times but's still worth glancing at now and then I find. Jorrie has it in his signature along with Lightcone calculator.
attachment.php?attachmentid=59673&stc=1&d=1371572194.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Davis.jpg
    Davis.jpg
    66.2 KB · Views: 617
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
907
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K