Universal expansion velocity SR or GR?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the applicability of Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) in understanding the velocities of distant receding galaxies, particularly in the context of universal expansion. Participants explore whether SR can be used when velocities approach the speed of light and the implications of universal expansion on the concept of velocity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether velocities due to universal expansion can be treated as traditional velocities, suggesting that they may not fit the conventional definitions used in SR.
  • One participant argues that the expansion of the universe means galaxies are not simply moving away from each other, but rather that space itself is expanding, which complicates the application of SR.
  • Another participant notes that GR is necessary because distant galaxies can recede at speeds greater than the speed of light, a scenario not permitted in SR.
  • Concerns are raised about the flatness of spacetime required for SR, with one participant suggesting that in cosmological contexts, spacetime is not flat, thus complicating the use of SR.
  • There is a mention of the Milne model as a framework that helps clarify the differences between SR and GR, although its applicability to the real universe is questioned.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to calculate gravitational forces from distant masses using either rest mass or relativistic mass in the context of Newton's gravitational equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether SR can be applied to the velocities of distant galaxies, with multiple competing views on the roles of SR and GR in this context. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the proper framework to use.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in defining velocity in cosmological contexts, noting that the concept may depend on the choice of coordinates. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the implications of spacetime curvature on the application of SR and GR.

duordi
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
If I want to consider the velocity of distant receding galaxies which may be receding at velocities close to the speed of light can I use SR? I know you are not suppose to use SR with when velocities are close to the speed of light. If a velocity is due to universal expansion does that make a difference? It would seem not, but I am not sure if a velocity due to universal expansion is really a velocity, just like relitivistic mass is not really mass.
It is a poor example, I know, but it helps with the point.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
duordi said:
If I want to consider the velocity of distant receding galaxies which may be receding at velocities close to the speed of light can I use SR?
No, I don't think you're just allowed to do that, because actually the galaxies are not (only) moving away from us, but the universe expands ("space is being created in between"). A famous analogy is that of coins on a balloon: if you inflate the balloon, the distance between the coins increases, while they are not actually moving relative to each other (if you'd draw a grid on the balloon, the coordinates of the coins would not change). But to an observer on one of those coins, it would seem that the other ones were moving away from him (in all directions, making it seem he was himself at the center of the expansion). In fact, it is possible to have them receding faster than the speed of light, I believe, because there is not actual "motion" involved in the normal sense.

I know you are not suppose to use SR with when velocities are close to the speed of light.
I think you said that the wrong way 'round (or I just understood it that way). SR is exactly meant for the regime where v ~ c.

I am not sure if a velocity due to universal expansion is really a velocity, just like relitivistic mass is not really mass.
As I explained, AFAIK it's not. But not in the same what that "relativistic mass is not really mass".
 
A consequence of GR is that you cannot compare velocities at different spacetime points. The term "speed of recession" is not what it sounds like.
 
Well then GR is out and SR is Ok.
Another question.

In SR, can I calculate gravitational force from a distant mass by using its rest mass or its relativistic mass in Newton’s Gravitation equation?
I don’t think I am suppose to do this.

How can I calculate an acceleration or a force caused by a very distant mass?
Is it possible?
 
duordi said:
If I want to consider the velocity of distant receding galaxies which may be receding at velocities close to the speed of light can I use SR?
I think you must use GR because, IIRC, distant receding galaxies can be receding at velocities much greater than the speed of light. This is possible in GR, but not in SR.
 
I think the problem with using SR is that the spacetime has to be flat, and in the cosmology we observe it is not. In a flat spacetime, say where you only had a "Big Bang" of test particles with no appreciable gravity, you might be able to get away with SR and just note that your perceptions of distant regions are highly length contracted relative to what they perceive locally (a la the "Milne" model), so if you wanted to have a test-particle equivalent of a cosmological principle, you'd have to include that carefully. You would be using a coordinatization where the recession speeds are never superluminal. Note that whether they are faster than c in our own universe is also a coordinate dependent issue-- I believe this was genneth's point that the concept of velocity is not terribly meaningful at distantly separated points, it is just a choice of coordinates. But in our universe, if you choose comoving-frame coordinates where the local coordinate charts follow the gradual separating of the galaxy clusters, the recession rate is faster than c for the most distantly observed galaxies. Could you get that by using comoving frame coordinates in flat spacetime? Perhaps you could.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for mentioning the Milne Model.
I have read several articles about it.
Although it may not be a serious contender for the real universe condition it made the difference between SR and GR results much easier to understand.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
752
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K