Article View: sci.astro
Article #3448Re: Local Expansion - Why not?
From: Ethan T. Vishniac
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:42
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:42
54 lines
3177 bytes
3177 bytes
Thomas Clarke asks: >My intuition goes something like this. Imagine two small particles >in empty space. According to GR as applied to the big-bang (BB) >cosmology [steady-state cosmology too, I would dare say], two >observers using electromagnetic means (are there any other) would >observe a steadily increasing seperation as the universe expands. > >Now insert a large gravitating body between the two observers, and put >them into orbit around the body. Their observations will now show >no increase in seperation. > >Why? My intution (and TVF's apparently) says there should be no >difference between the two cases. Let the body's mass go to zero, >continuity then implies there should then be no expansion even with >the body absent. Actually, this is a good example and helps make everything clear. If space is really empty then there are two (equally valid) descriptions of the universe. One is Minkowski space and one is the zero density BB model. They are related by a simple transformation given (among many other places) in the Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation by Lightman, Press, Price, and Teukolsky. The BB model is the future lightcone of a single event in empty space, with the surface of the lightcone corresponding to the initial singularity in the BB model. Now if I put two particles down I have to specify their initial velocities with respect to each other. If they are at rest in the BB model, then they are moving apart in the Minkowski metric. If they are at rest in the Minkowski metric, then they are falling together in the BB metric, just fast enough to cancel the "expansion of space". If they are tied together by rubber bands, tractor beams, nuclear forces etc. then in Minkowski space this looks totally unremarkable, but in BB model it is 'nonlinear small scale structure defying the expansion of the universe'. Of course, either description is equally good, but the result is perhaps more obvious in the Minkowski metric. The point this illustrates is the 'expansion of space' in the BB models is a consequence of initial conditions rather than some long range mysterious force due to the rest of the universe. In fact, as a consequence of Birkhoff's theorem we can see that no such force exists. The expansion of the universe is due to its initial expansion and can be reversed locally without residual effects. -- "Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur, tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel Ethan T. Vishniac, Dept. of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas, 78712 ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1jp4lnINN8uu@emx.cc.utexas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!emx.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mailReferences:
<1993Jan22.150751.10486@cs.ucf.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!emx.cc.utexas.edu!not-for-mail From: ethan@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Re: Local Expansion - Why not? Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:42:47 -0600 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas Lines: 54 Message-ID: <1jp4lnINN8uu@emx.cc.utexas.edu> References: <1993Jan22.150751.10486@cs.ucf.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: emx.cc.utexas.edu