2
$\begingroup$

I'm confused about the different ways of writing the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric using the normalised and non-normalised scale factor. Peacock, for example, (see equation 3.13) gives $$c^{2}\,\mathrm d\tau^{2}=c^{2}\,\mathrm dt^{2}-R^{2}\left(t\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm dr^{2}}{1-kr^{2}}+r^{2}\,\mathrm d\psi^{2}\right),$$ where $R\left(t\right)$ is the non-normalised scale factor and $k=0,\,\pm1$.

He then gives an alternative form using $a$, the dimensionless, normalised scale factor, where $a\left(t\right)\equiv R\left(t\right)/R_{0}$ so $$c^{2}\,\mathrm d\tau^{2}=c^{2}\,\mathrm dt^{2}-a^{2}\left(t\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm dr^{2}}{1-k\left(Ar\right)^{2}}+r^{2}\,\mathrm d\psi^{2}\right),$$ where $A=1/R_{0}$. This surely means that the $kA^2$ term no longer equals 0, +1 or -1. However, and this is what loses me, I've also seen (equation 1, here: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept02/Reid/Reid2.html) the metric as $$c^{2}\,\mathrm d\tau^{2}=c^{2}\,\mathrm dt^{2}-a^{2}\left(t\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm dr^{2}}{1-kr^{2}}+r^{2}\,\mathrm d\psi^{2}\right),$$ where $a(t)$ is dimensionless and $k$ again equals 0, +1 or -1. What am I misunderstanding? Thank you.

ADDITIONAL EDIT

I can get from the first to the second metric by making the substitutions $R\rightarrow R/R_{0}$, $r\rightarrow rR_{0}$, $k\rightarrow k/R_{0}^{2}$. But I can't see how I can get to the third metric, where not only does (presumably - it's described as being "dimensionless") $a\left(t\right)\equiv R\left(t\right)/R_{0}$ but also $k$ still equals 0, +1 or -1.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The $a$ in the second form is the same as the $R$ before. Don't pay too much attention to the names of things. $\endgroup$ – Javier Jun 29 '18 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Javier - how can they be the same if they're different equations, and if they are the same how can the third equation be true? $\endgroup$ – Peter4075 Jun 29 '18 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ You might be interested in this answer of mine: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/397279/…. What matters is the form of the equations, not the names of the variables. $\endgroup$ – Javier Jun 29 '18 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Javier - OK, thanks for that. So are you saying that in order for the third metric I give to be correct we need to rescale the radial coordinate $r$? $\endgroup$ – Peter4075 Jun 29 '18 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ It really depends. You can't tell just from the form of the metric, because there is still some coordinate freedom. If you want $k \in \{-1,0,1\}$, then $r$ must be adimensional and hence rescaled, and $a$ will be a length. But you can have $k$ be just any real number, and $r$ will be a length. $\endgroup$ – Javier Jun 29 '18 at 19:34
4
+100
$\begingroup$

In the first expression:

  • $R$ has dimensions of length
  • $r$ and $k$ have no dimensions
  • $k$ is scaled so it's $-1$, $0$, or $1$

To go from the first expression to the second expression, we define $$r' = r R_0, \quad k' = k / R_0^2, \quad a(t) = R(t) / R_0$$ where I'm denoting the new variables with a prime just to be extra clear. Then

  • $r'$ has dimensions of length and $k'$ has dimensions of inverse length squared
  • $a$ has no dimensions

These are the two main conventions for the FRW metric. Your third example is a bit unusual, because it tries to set $k'$ to $-1$, $0$, or $1$, which doesn't make any sense because $k'$ has dimensions.

However, $k'$ is a constant, so we can use it to define our unit of length. Taking positive curvature for concreteness, this means that rather than measuring lengths in meters, we measure in a unit system where the numeric value of $k'$ is $1 \, (\text{length unit})^{-2}$. Another way of saying this is that this example is setting $k' = 1$ in the same sense that you may set $c = 1$ in special relativity. You can always do this by defining your unit system appropriately, but then naive dimensional analysis will stop working, and you'll have to put the $k'$'s and $c$'s back in at the end to get valid numbers out.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Defining $k' = 1$ - sneaky! That's the most underhand, duplicitous thing I've heard since the Brexit campaign promised that the EU need us more than we need them. But it makes sense (defining $k' = 1$, that is). Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Peter4075 Jul 1 '18 at 11:40

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.