Proper distance problem/interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter deneve
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proper distance
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a confusion regarding the interpretation of comoving coordinates and the integration limits in a cosmological context. The original poster is using Barbara Ryden's work but is puzzled by the integration of light rays and the treatment of distances versus coordinates. A key clarification is that the coordinate r remains constant for comoving objects, while the scale factor a(t) changes the actual distance over time. The response emphasizes that the diagram should reflect that the galaxy's position remains fixed at coordinate r, and the distances should be adjusted according to the scale factor. This understanding helps resolve the original poster's conceptual error.
deneve
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Hi I'm trying to put some notes together but have run into an anomaly which I seem to have overlooked in the past but puzzles me now. I've included a jpg file of the page I've written up so far with the problem indicated right at the end. I'm using Barbara Ryden's book as my source, but it doesn't really matter because all the other texts I've looked at concur with her and not me so I must be wrong!

In the attached file you'll see my picture of the observer (moving up the ct axis) and the curved line of a galaxy slowly moving away from the observer due to the scale factor. (galaxy is commoving).
dp(t) = a(t)r is what I am using and derive this by integrating over the commoving distance r which I've fixed at a(t0)=1 so that dp(t) = a(t0)r = r at t0. Ryden then considers the light ray moving from the distant galaxy by setting ds2=0 in the metric to get cdt/a = -dr. Now comes my problem. She integrates the left hand side of this from te to t0 and the right hand integral from r to zero - so far so good but If you look at my diagram though, the RHS integral should start at a value smaller than r - namely at the position marked with an A and corresponding to not r, but a(te)r. Ryden ignores this difference on the limits cf her equation 3.39 on p40 if you have the book. she clearly states (after removing the - sign and switching the limits) that
integral from te to t0 of cdt/a = integral 0 to r of dr

I'm clearly missing something really obvious here. It may be that my interpretation of the spacetime diagram is wrong. I'm really struggling to make any more progress. Any help would be gratefully received. I think I'm making a conceptual error of som sort that needs straightening out. Kind thanks to anyone who responds.
 

Attachments

  • Image (92).jpg
    Image (92).jpg
    29.2 KB · Views: 449
Space news on Phys.org
deneve said:
If you look at my diagram though, the RHS integral should start at a value smaller than r

No. ##r## isn't a distance, it's a coordinate. For a "comoving" object, ##r## never changes; all that changes is the scale factor ##a(t)##, so a "comoving" object at ##r## is a distance ##a(t) r## away from a "comoving" object at the spatial origin at time ##t##. So the object emitting the light is always at coordinate ##r##, and the integral on the RHS is over coordinates, not distances.
 
PeterDonis said:
No. ##r## isn't a distance, it's a coordinate. For a "comoving" object, ##r## never changes; all that changes is the scale factor ##a(t)##, so a "comoving" object at ##r## is a distance ##a(t) r## away from a "comoving" object at the spatial origin at time ##t##. So the object emitting the light is always at coordinate ##r##, and the integral on the RHS is over coordinates, not distances.

Hi PeterDonis Thank you for that but I'm still puzzled as to how I should change my diagram to make what you say more clear.

Kind regards. Thank you.
 
deneve said:
I'm still puzzled as to how I should change my diagram to make what you say more clear.

Remove the dotted lines marked "r"; they're wrong. The worldline of the galaxy emitting the light is the "grid line" marking coordinate location ##r##. The "grid" expands as the universe expands. The distances marked on the diagram, corresponding to ##a(t) r## at different times ##t##, are correct; but they don't correspond to a change in where the galaxy is relative to the "grid line" marking coordinate location ##r##--the galaxy is always at coordinate location ##r##, so it is always on the "grid line" ##r##.
 
Thank you PeterDonis. I think I get this now thanks to your kind help. I'll try and have another think through it this evening and then see if it still makes sense. I'm really grateful for your help. Many thanks.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top