6
$\begingroup$

I am trying to derive the Fermi normal coordinates formula for a FRW Universe given in Eq. (4) of a paper by Nicolis et al (2008): $$ds^2\approx -[1-(\dot{H}+H^2)|{\bf x}|^2]dt^2+[1-{1\over 2}H^2|{\bf x}|^2]d{\bf x}^2$$

They start with a FRW metric: $$ ds^2=-d\tau^2+a^2(\tau)d{\bf y}^2 $$ and perform the coordinate change $$ \tau=t-{1\over 2}H|{\bf x}|^2, \quad {\bf y}={{\bf x}\over a} [1+{1\over 4}H^2|{\bf x}|^2], $$ To derive their Eq. (4), I use the metric transformation formula given in Eq. (5.69) of Dodelson's Modern Cosmology: $$ \tilde{g}_{\alpha\beta}(\tilde{x}){\partial \tilde{x}^\alpha \over \partial x^\mu}{\partial \tilde{x}^\beta \over \partial x^\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}(x). $$ I take the tilde coordinates as the FRW ones. So for $\mu=\nu=1$, I have: $$ \frac{1}{16} |{\bf x}|^2 \left(9 (x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2\right) H^4+\frac{1}{2} |{\bf x}|^2 H^2+1=g_{1,1} $$ I then take the limit that $|\vec{x}| H\ll 1$ to get $$ g_{11}\approx1 + {1\over 2} H^2 |{\bf x}|^2 $$ which differs from their result by a minus sign. Any help in explaining this discrepancy would be greatly appreciated.

Update: I was able to get their result using the Mathematica package TensoriaCalc which has a coordinate change command. This confirms Nicolis et al are correct and I am doing something wrong in my calculation.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @igael I don't think I ever have $g_{11}\approx 1-{1\over 2}H^2x_1^2$. $\endgroup$ – Virgo Aug 15 '16 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Virgo: I was wrong, sorry. With $z =\frac{x_1^2 H^2}{2} , p=|\vec{x}|^2 H^2$ , I get $g_{11} = \frac{p^2}{16}+\frac{p z}{2}+\frac{p}{2}+z^2+1 \approx 1+\frac {p}{2}+(z^2+\frac {p z}{2})$ instead of $\approx 1+\frac{p}{2}$ or $\approx 1-\frac{p}{2}$. If it's not too boring for you, could you please expand your approximation ? $\endgroup$ – user46925 Aug 15 '16 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Virgo : mathjax doesn't render the same in comments ... without mathjax : g11= p²/16 + pz/2 + p/2 + z² + 1 ( followed by correct renderring ) $\endgroup$ – user46925 Aug 15 '16 at 21:00
  • $\begingroup$ @igael I think you can drop the $z^2$ and $pz$ term as we are assuming $xH\ll1$ $\endgroup$ – Virgo Aug 15 '16 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ formally, it is p which is very small. In p²/16 + pz/2 + p/2 + z², p² is very small, pz too and z² , I don't know ( I don't know the implicit formalism with links $x_1$ to $|\vec{x}$ ). Sorry and thanks $\endgroup$ – user46925 Aug 15 '16 at 22:32
1
$\begingroup$

There's a small subtlety. As stated by the authors in the paper, in the given transformation law $a$ and $H$ are evaluated at $t$ rather than at $\tau$. Thus the formula you get is almost right but $a(\tau)$ and $a(t)$ don't cancel, so actually $$g_{11} = \left(\frac{a(\tau)}{a(t)}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{1}{2}H^2|\mathbf x|^2\right)$$ Then using the transformation law above, $$a(\tau)=a\left(t-\frac{1}{2}H|\mathbf x|^2\right)\approx a(t)-\frac{1}{2}H|\mathbf x|^2 \dot a(t)$$ Therefore $$g_{11} = \left(1-\frac{1}{2}H^2|\mathbf x|^2 \right)^2\left(1+\frac{1}{2}H^2|\mathbf x|^2\right)\approx 1-\frac{1}{2}H^2|\mathbf x|^2$$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.