- #1
- 10,350
- 1,525
The question is in the title. I believe the answer is yes.
I agree.pervect said:I believe the answer is yes.
No, a flat slicing is not sufficient for homogeneity and isotropy, as the counterexample of Schwarzschild spacetime with Painleve coordinates shows. Nor is a flat slicing even a necessary condition for homogeneity and isotropy, since a closed FRW universe, for which spatial slices are 3-spheres, is homogeneous and isotropic and has no flat spatial slicing.andrewkirk said:I would have thought that the existence of a flat slicing for de Sitter space, as described here, implies homogeneity and isotropy.
The paper you cited isn't claiming that Schwarzschild spacetime is homogeneous. They are only claiming that it has a flat spatial slicing. The way to see that from the Painleve metric is to note that the spatial part of the metric (i.e., the part you get when you set ##dt = 0## so all the terms with a ##dt## in them vanish) is the metric for flat Euclidean 3-space.andrewkirk said:they claim that can be observed from the metric, which I can't see, since the transformed metric they present in support of that claim still depends on radius ##r##, which I would have thought implies non-homogeneity.
It isn't spelled out explicitly in any treatment I'm aware of, but the existence of global Lorentz transformations (i.e., Lorentz transformations preserving the metric globally, instead of just locally) implies zero geodesic deviation (any two geodesics that start out parallel will always remain parallel), which is equivalent to flatness.pervect said:I don't recall ever seeing flatness ever spelled out as a requirement for SR
SR simply assumes a flat spacetime manifold (the pseudo-Euclidean affine space called Minkowski space), which is fixed once and for all. In SR there are global inertial frames and any observer at rest wrt. an inertial frame by assumption describes space as a Euclidean affine space (with all its symmetries of homogeneity and isotropy).pervect said:Would it be correct to say that special relativity (SR) requires the local constancy of the speed of light, isotropy, homogoneity, and flatness? I don't recall ever seeing flatness ever spelled out as a requirement for SR, but I wouldn't regard de-Sitter space as being part of SR - and it has the other requirements I mentioned.
From what I read in the paper, if you set ##dt=0## you do not get Euclidean space as it does not have a ##dr^2## term. The ##dr## only appears together with a ##dt##.PeterDonis said:No, a flat slicing is not sufficient for homogeneity and isotropy, as the counterexample of Schwarzschild spacetime with Painleve coordinates shows. Nor is a flat slicing even a necessary condition for homogeneity and isotropy, since a closed FRW universe, for which spatial slices are 3-spheres, is homogeneous and isotropic and has no flat spatial slicing.The paper you cited isn't claiming that Schwarzschild spacetime is homogeneous. They are only claiming that it has a flat spatial slicing. The way to see that from the Painleve metric is to note that the spatial part of the metric (i.e., the part you get when you set ##dt = 0## so all the terms with a ##dt## in them vanish) is the metric for flat Euclidean 3-space.
I'm not familiar with Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates, but a Google search suggests that the formula used in the paper referred to above is wrong: they seem to have omitted a ##dr^2## term.Orodruin said:From what I read in the paper, if you set ##dt=0## you do not get Euclidean space as it does not have a ##dr^2## term. The ##dr## only appears together with a ##dt##.
Just consider setting t constant in the metric from that paper. Then you have Euclidean flat metric left, in polar coordinates. The r of polar coordinates doesn’t make it non flat. In fact, within such a t constant slice, you can trivially transform to Cartesian coordinates, getting the Euclidean flat Cartesian metric.andrewkirk said:I would have thought that the existence of a flat slicing for de Sitter space, as described here, implies homogeneity and isotropy.
But then I got confused by this paper, which appears to state that Schwarzschild spacetime, which is neither isotropic nor homogeneous, also has a flat foliation. Although they claim that can be observed from the metric, which I can't see, since the transformed metric they present in support of that claim still depends on radius ##r##, which I would have thought implies non-homogeneity.
Oops, yes, but the conclusion is still correct. I’ve seen this many times before, so my mind filled in the missing dr2 term.DrGreg said:I'm not familiar with Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates, but a Google search suggests that the formula used in the paper referred to above is wrong: they seem to have omitted a ##dr^2## term.
From page 60 of Wald's "General Relativity": "Thus, the theory of special relativity asserts that spacetime is the manifold ##\mathbb{R}^4## with a flat metric of Lorentz signature defined on it. Conversely, the entire content of special relativity as we have presented it thus far is contained in this statement, since, given ##\mathbb{R}^4## with a flat Lorentz metric, we can use the geodesics of this metric to construct global inertial coordinates, etc."pervect said:I don't recall ever seeing flatness ever spelled out as a requirement for SR
I think the paper is using unusual notation; by ##d\Omega^2## I think they mean the metric for Euclidean 3-space in spherical coordinates, not the metric of a 2-sphere in angular coordinates.Orodruin said:From what I read in the paper, if you set ##dt=0## you do not get Euclidean space as it does not have a ##dr^2## term. The ##dr## only appears together with a ##dt##.
I think it is a typo. They do write ##r^2 d\Omega^2## so it would be a very strange notation to have the ##r^2## in front when there is no ##r^2## in the ##dr^2## term.PeterDonis said:I think the paper is using unusual notation; by dΩ2 I think they mean the metric for Euclidean 3-space in spherical coordinates, not the metric of a 2-sphere in angular coordinates.
To be fair, the textbook on Relativity (Ray D'Inverno's Introducing Einstein's Relativity, Clarendon Press, 1992, p. 113) which I like most says:PeterDonis said:It isn't spelled out explicitly in any treatment I'm aware of, but the existence of global Lorentz transformations (i.e., Lorentz transformations preserving the metric globally, instead of just locally) implies zero geodesic deviation (any two geodesics that start out parallel will always remain parallel), which is equivalent to flatness.
Hm, yes, good point.Orodruin said:I think it is a typo. They do write ##r^2 d\Omega^2## so it would be a very strange notation to have the ##r^2## in front when there is no ##r^2## in the ##dr^2## term.
De-Sitter Spacetime is a mathematical model used to describe the structure and behavior of the universe. It is based on the theory of general relativity and is characterized by a constant positive curvature.
Yes, De-Sitter Spacetime is considered to be homogeneous, meaning that it has the same properties and characteristics at every point in space. This is due to the fact that it has a constant positive curvature, which does not vary throughout the universe.
Yes, De-Sitter Spacetime is also considered to be isotropic, meaning that it has the same properties and characteristics in all directions. This is due to the fact that it has a constant positive curvature, which does not favor any particular direction in space.
De-Sitter Spacetime differs from other models, such as Minkowski Spacetime or Anti-de Sitter Spacetime, in terms of its curvature. While Minkowski Spacetime has a flat curvature and Anti-de Sitter Spacetime has a negative curvature, De-Sitter Spacetime has a positive curvature.
De-Sitter Spacetime is often used in cosmology to model the early universe and its expansion. It is also used in theories such as inflation, which propose that the universe underwent a rapid period of expansion in its early stages. Additionally, De-Sitter Spacetime plays a role in the study of dark energy, as it is a possible explanation for the observed acceleration of the universe's expansion.