0
$\begingroup$

In the paper Backreaction in late-time cosmology by Thomas Buchert and Syksy Rasanen, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 62 (2012) 57-79, in eq .2.2 the covariant divergence:

$$\nabla_\alpha u^\alpha$$

is written as the volume expansion rate. Now just from dimensional analysis:

$$[\nabla_\alpha u^\alpha]=[\partial_\alpha u^\alpha]=[\frac{\partial}{\partial x^\alpha}\frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau}]=[\frac{ d^2 x^\alpha}{d\tau^2}\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial x^\alpha}]=[\frac{a^\alpha}{u^\alpha}]$$

Using this the volume expansion rate of FLRW metric comes as:

$$\frac{\ddot a(t)}{\dot a(t)}$$

For all three spatial directions:

$$3\frac{\ddot a(t)}{\dot a(t)}$$

From Friedmann equation for a dust (pressureless) and spatially flat:

$$2\frac{\ddot a}{ a}+H^2=0$$

but for FLRW it is $3H(t)$. Am I missing something?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Okk from the continuity equation we find $$\nabla •v=\frac{\partial \rho}{\rho \partial t}$$ ,in this case $\rho$ is the mass per unit volume so ,$$\nabla•v=\frac{\partial M(t)}{M(t)\partial t}$$ ,and for 4-D spacetime it is the covariant divergence.is it?? $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2019 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ Your equation $2\ddot{a}/a+H^2=0$ seems to me like it's either wrong or else you need more context to explain what you're talking about. In the Friedmann equations, $\ddot{a}/a$ is not generically predicted to be a constant. Do you have in mind some specific equation of state, such as a vacuum-dominated cosmology? $\endgroup$
    – user4552
    Mar 7, 2019 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ The equation is $$2\frac{\ddot a}{a}+(\frac{\dot a}{a})^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=-8\pi Gp$$ and for pressureless dust in a spatially flat universe it reduces to the above,it is obtained for FLRW metric from the Einstein's field equations.$$R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{Rg_{\mu \nu}}{2}=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu}$$ $\endgroup$ Mar 8, 2019 at 3:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Rather than answering in comments, please edit your question to provide the relevant information. $\endgroup$
    – user4552
    Mar 8, 2019 at 14:03

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

Buchert's formalism is worked out in comoving coordinates $x$, in which we have that $u^\alpha=a\dot{y}^\alpha$ with $y$ the standard Eulerian spatial coordinates on the spatial hypersurface defined by $t=\text{constant}$. Incorporating this into your dimensional analysis should fix the problem. This is a matter of 'accounting', and seeing where the scale parameter $a$ pops up in the variables expressed in the comoving coordinates.

This is in line with their derivation. As from that Equation (2.2) in Buchert & Rasanen (2012) tells us directly $$ \nabla_\alpha u^\alpha = \frac{1}{3} {h_\alpha}^\alpha \Theta + {\omega_\alpha}^\alpha, $$ as the shear tensor $\sigma_{\alpha \beta}$ is traceless, and the vorticity tensor $\omega_{\alpha \beta}$ is dimensionless.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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