Length of ruler in expanding Universe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of an expanding universe on the proper length of a ruler, particularly in the context of cosmological models and the behavior of rigid objects. Participants explore theoretical aspects of length measurement in an expanding universe, including the application of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric and the effects of cosmic expansion on measurements of time and distance.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a ruler's proper length remains equal to its comoving length in an expanding universe, while others question this assumption based on the ruler's rigidity and the nature of cosmic expansion.
  • There is a discussion about the applicability of the FRW metric, with some arguing it is only valid under specific conditions of homogeneity and isotropy, which may not hold at smaller scales, such as within galaxies.
  • One participant mentions that the strong nuclear force within the ruler can counteract the effects of cosmic expansion, suggesting that the ruler does not expand with the universe.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that applying the concept of comoving length to non-expanding objects is nonsensical, advocating for a distinction between proper length and comoving length.
  • Participants explore the idea of using a rigid ruler to define intervals of time, leading to the conclusion that an astronaut's measurement of time may differ from cosmological time due to the expansion of the universe.
  • There are concerns raised about the definition of distance in cosmology, particularly regarding the notion of proper distance and its dependence on the cosmological model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the relationship between proper length, comoving length, and the effects of cosmic expansion. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the implications of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific assumptions about the cosmological model, the validity of the FRW metric at different scales, and the interpretation of distance measurements in a curved spacetime context.

  • #31
johne1618 said:
Actually I still have a query about all this. Here is another way of putting my argument.

Light travels on a null geodesic, ds=0, so that its path obeys the relationship
<br /> a \ dx = dt<br />
So at the present time with a=1 light travels 1 light-second in 1 second of cosmological time.

But at a future time with a=2 light travels 2 light-seconds in 1 second of cosmological time.

If a future observer is going to measure a constant speed of light then his time scale must change so that light travels the 2 light-seconds in 2 of his seconds.

Therefore the future observer's clock must run twice as fast as our present clock (which by definition runs on cosmological time).

Actually I now accept my argument is wrong after all for the reason that Chalnoth pointed out!

The null geodesic for light gives
<br /> a(t) \ dx = c \ dt<br />
where I am retaining c for clarity.

dx is an interval of comoving distance and dt is an interval of cosmological time.

Now an interval of proper distance ds at any time t is given by
<br /> ds=a(t) \ dx.<br />
Therefore the above geodesic can be written simply as
<br /> ds = c \ dt<br />
which is true for any cosmological time t.

Thus light travels at a constant velocity c for all observers who simply use cosmological time.

To illustrate the situation as I now see it:

For a=1
<br /> dx = c \ dt \\<br /> ds = dx = c \ dt<br />
For a=2
<br /> 2 \ dx = c \ dt \\<br /> dx = c \ dt / 2 \\<br /> ds = 2 \ dx = 2 \cdot (c \ dt / 2) = c \ dt<br />
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K