B Why do we use expanding metric?

stoper
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Why do we use spatially expanding metric to measure the size of the expanding universe?
Being material observers, we do not expand with the universe. Our ruler for measuring its increasing size does not expand either - its scale does not change. If I identify the ruler with a metric, then from my perspective it should be invariant both spatially and temporally. If it expanded with the universe, then its size measured with this ruler would be constant.

Why then do we use a metric with the spatial scale expanding with the universe and constant temporal scale to measure the increasing size of the universe?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
stoper said:
TL;DR: Why do we use spatially expanding metric to measure the size of the expanding universe?

Being material observers, we do not expand with the universe. Our ruler for measuring its increasing size does not expand either - its scale does not change. If I identify the ruler with a metric, then from my perspective it should be invariant both spatially and temporally. If it expanded with the universe, then its size, as measured by this ruler, would be constant.

Why then do we use a metric with the spatial scale expanding with the universe and constant temporal scale to measure the increasing size of the universe?
What do you mean when you say that the "spatial scale" expands with the universe?
 
jbriggs444 said:
What do you mean when you say that the "spatial scale" expands with the universe?
Scale factor.
 
stoper said:
Why then do we use a metric with the spatial scale expanding with the universe and constant temporal scale to measure the increasing size of the universe?
You don't have to. You can rescale your length scale to match the expansion - this is called co-moving coordinates. And then you can further rescale your time coordinate to make light have constant coordinate velocity - this is called conformal time.

However, it's very common to want to identify spatial coordinate differences with ruler measures and temporal coordinate differences with clock measures, so the default description used in most texts is the one where we measure time with our clocks and distance with our rulers.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K