Why does light travel radially in the FRW universe?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the propagation of light in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe and the assumption that the angular component, dΩ, vanishes for light rays. While it is argued that light rays are directed towards the center and thus have dΩ = 0, others challenge this by noting that curvature can bend light, allowing rays with non-zero angular motion to still reach the observer. The debate highlights the implications of curvature on light propagation and the validity of the original assumption in different geometries. The conversation emphasizes the need to consider how coordinate systems can affect the perception of light paths in curved spacetime. Ultimately, the relationship between light propagation and curvature remains a complex topic in cosmological models.
center o bass
Messages
545
Reaction score
2
When deriving different properties from the FRW-metric $$ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2 (d\chi^2 + S_k^2(\chi) d\Omega^2)$$ -- considering the propagation of light such that ##ds^2 = 0## -- one always assumes ##d\Omega = 0##. But how do we know that ##d\Omega## always vanish for propagating light?
 
Space news on Phys.org
This is obvious for k=0; but why is it also true for the other geometries?
 
center o bass said:
When deriving different properties from the FRW-metric $$ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2 (d\chi^2 + S_k^2(\chi) d\Omega^2)$$ -- considering the propagation of light such that ##ds^2 = 0## -- one always assumes ##d\Omega = 0##. But how do we know that ##d\Omega## always vanish for propagating light?
In general, light rays will have non-zero angular motion. But as we are orienting the coordinate system such that we are at the center, the only light rays we see are the ones that are pointed directly towards the center. If they had non-zero ##d\Omega##, then they wouldn't be pointed directly at the center and we wouldn't see them.

Curvature doesn't change this argument at all.
 
Sounds like somebody is trying to backdoor a personal theory here.
 
Chalnoth said:
In general, light rays will have non-zero angular motion. But as we are orienting the coordinate system such that we are at the center, the only light rays we see are the ones that are pointed directly towards the center. If they had non-zero ##d\Omega##, then they wouldn't be pointed directly at the center and we wouldn't see them.

Curvature doesn't change this argument at all.

I do not see why the argument that "the only light rays we see are the ones that are pointed directly towards the center" remains true when curvature is added to the picture. This is because curvature bends light; which is indeed the reason why we can see stars that are really behind the sun (the first successful test of GR). The light that travel from these stars certainly must have dΩ≠0 for otherwise they would be absorbed by it (the sun).
 
What do you think the ##\chi## coordinate describes?

You could very well have light rays traveling along geodesics with ##d\Omega\neq 0## just as you can have straight lines in ##\mathbb R^2## that do not cross the origin. However, given a straight line you can always choose your coordinate system such that it does cross the origin.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top