"TImescape" models

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the "Timescape" cosmological models, which are suggested to be superior to the Lambda-CDM model according to recent articles. Participants express a need for clarity on whether these models are based on standard General Relativity (GR) or alternative theories. Key references include lecture notes by David Wiltshire and a peer-reviewed paper discussing the implications of supernovae on cosmological models. The conversation also critiques the limitations of GR testing, particularly in relation to neutron stars and gravitational wave emissions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with cosmological models, specifically Lambda-CDM
  • Knowledge of neutron stars and binary pulsars
  • Basic grasp of statistical homogeneity in cosmology
NEXT STEPS
  • Review David Wiltshire's lecture notes on Timescape models at arXiv
  • Examine the implications of supernovae on cosmological models as discussed in the paper from the MNRAS
  • Explore the Physics Forums thread on models without dark energy for additional insights at Physics Forums
  • Investigate the role of galactic voids in cosmological structures and their impact on dark matter theories
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physics students interested in advanced cosmological models and the implications of General Relativity in large-scale structures.

pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,441
Reaction score
1,606
Some popular news articles mention https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/537/1/L55/7926647?login=false, "Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models" as suggesting that "Timescape" cosmological models may be superior to the Lambda-CDM model. My question relates to what is being tested, the so-called "Timescape model", which I've never heard of before. The popular news reporting and description of them is predictably pretty awful as one might expect, though the part about them being only statistically homogeneous (as opposed to the standard FLRW models) did come through.

Does anyone have any idea of what the "Timescape" models referred to in this paper are about? For starters, are they based on standard GR, or something else? Peer-reviewed but introductory references would be most desired, but I'll take what I can get, if I get anything.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
pervect said:
Does anyone have any idea of what the "Timescape" models referred to in this paper are about? For starters, are they based on standard GR, or something else? Peer-reviewed but introductory references would be most desired, but I'll take what I can get, if I get anything.
Try these lecture notes by David Wiltshire, in particular starting with section 4:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.3787
And here are slides from a talk based on the above notes:
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/91239324-879f-439a-8ccf-f00a2cb419b6/content
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby, Ibix and PeroK
renormalize said:
these lecture notes by David Wiltshire
I see a very odd statement at the start of section 2.1 of this paper:

"General relativity is only well tested for isolated systems – such as the solar system or binary pulsars – for which ##T^\mu{}_\nu = 0##."

This is basically saying that only vacuum solutions centered on isolated masses are well tested. I don't think this is true. For the solar system, it's true that the isolated bodies whose interiors have nonzero stress-energy--the Sun and planets--also have negligible GR corrections to Newtonian gravity in their interiors. But that's not true of pulsars: those are neutron stars, and GR corrections are significant in the structure of neutron stars, and pulsar observations allow us to test GR predictions about neutron star structure, as well as GR predictions about changes in orbital parameters due to gravitational wave emission (which is what "binary pulsars" refers to).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: javisot
I started this thread on this topic earlier this year, which you may find interesting.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: renormalize
phyzguy said:
I started this thread on this topic earlier this year, which you may find interesting.

Thanks - I did find the thread interesting. The previous papers had too much distracting wordage on things I found irrelevant, like Mach's principle for my taste.

Your summary seems a lot more intelligible with much more focus. Or perhaps it was just that it was simple enough for me to understand. I still don't know how one might get actual numbers on the effect, and I probably won't get that far, sadly.

I would expect that it's the largest structures that would be important, and the galactic voids are arguably very large structures.

I don't think this approach will do much about the dark matter problem, though. That shows up at the galactic scale with galactic rotation curves.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K