Missing step in the derivation of the Robertson-Walker metric

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Roy_1981
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Metric
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the Robertson-Walker (RW) metric, specifically addressing the exclusion of "dtdr" terms in the metric formulation. The RW metric is expressed as ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t) dσ^2, where dσ^2 = d^2 + f^2(r)(dθ^2 + sin^2θ dφ^2). Participants reference Carroll's lecture notes on General Relativity and emphasize the importance of spatial homogeneity and isotropy in allowing the metric to be foliated into spacelike slices. The conversation also touches on the implications of synchronous coordinates and the conditions under which metric terms can be simplified.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity concepts, particularly the Robertson-Walker metric.
  • Familiarity with spatial homogeneity and isotropy in cosmological models.
  • Knowledge of synchronous coordinates and their application in metric simplification.
  • Basic grasp of Killing vector fields and their significance in spacetime metrics.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Robertson-Walker metric in detail, focusing on the implications of spatial homogeneity and isotropy.
  • Explore synchronous coordinates and their role in simplifying metrics in General Relativity.
  • Investigate the properties of Killing vector fields and their relationship to stationary and static spacetimes.
  • Review Chapter 8 of Carroll's lecture notes on General Relativity for a deeper understanding of metric formulations.
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, theoretical physicists, and students of General Relativity seeking to understand the derivation and implications of the Robertson-Walker metric in cosmological models.

  • #31
Roy_1981 said:
Thats actually not true, you can put a dtdr term, it does not violate spatial isotropy or homogeneity. dtdφ of course does, which is why I did not put in the metric I mentioned in my original post.

This is false. An irremovable r dependence violates homogeneity, an irremovable angular dependence violates isotropy. Thus they are on equal footing.

Just as an aside, homogeneity (everywhere) does not imply isotropy, but isotropy (everywhere) implies homogeneity.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Just to tie up a couple of my earlier posts:

(#21) https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/missing-step-in-the-derivation-of-the-robertson-walker-metric.980564/#post-6262656 links a paper which is based on and subsumes Weinberg's theorem. This paper actually implements and makes rigoruous the approach I described (#16) https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/missing-step-in-the-derivation-of-the-robertson-walker-metric.980564/#post-6262586. It first (beginning of proof of theorem 5.1) establishes that synchronous coordinates are achievable in a neighborhood without any homogeneity or isotropy assumptions. Then, in several steps, reaches the global further simplified metric as the most general form given isotropy and homogeneity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K