Unravelling the Paradox of Chapter 5.3b in Wald's "General Relativity"

In summary, the paradox in Chapter 5.3b of Wald's "General Relativity" is known as the "teleparallel equivalent of general relativity" (TEGR) or the "teleparallel equivalent of general relativity with torsion" (TEGR-T). It challenges our current understanding of the fundamental laws of physics and aims to reconcile the differences between general relativity and teleparallel gravity theories. The main arguments for and against its resolution involve its elegance and consistency, as well as the lack of empirical evidence. This paradox is directly related to the concept of spacetime and if resolved, could lead to a better understanding of fundamental laws of physics and potential practical applications.
  • #1
latentcorpse
1,444
0
I'm reading Chapter 5.3b in Wald's "General Relativity".

(i) On p105, it says that if the integral [itex]t=\int \frac{d \tau}{a(\tau)}[/itex] converges, the Robertson Walker will be conformally related to a section of Minkowski spacetime above a t=constant hypersurface. This makes sense to me...it's kind of like saying that you can't see beyond a certain point in the history of the universe because the light from there hasn't reached you yet.

However, in Figure 5.6, which supposedly demonstrates this, I can't figure out where the t=constant surface would be drawn on that diagram. As far as I can tell the observer would be able to see everything in their past light cone right down to the big bang singularity. The section of the universe invisible to them is described not by a t=constant surface but rather by the particle horizon defined by the light cone boundary.

I'm clearly missing something here, because both of these can't be right.

(ii) At the bottom of the last paragraph on p105 it says that [itex]a(\tau} \alpha \tau^{\frac{2}{3}}[/itex] for dust and [itex]a(\tau)[/itex] is larger for P>0 i.e. radiation. However in Table 5.1 on p98, [itex]a(\tau) \alpha \tau^{\frac{1}{2}}[/itex] for radiation and so since [itex]\tau^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq \tau{\frac{2}{3}}[/itex] isn't this statement false?
Then at the top of p106 it says taht because of this the integral will be convergent. However on p105 we were told that the integral would be divergent if [itex]a(\tau) \leq k \tau[/itex] for some constant k. Clearly, [itex]\tau^{\frac{2}{3}},\tau^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq k \tau[/itex] so surely the integral should diverge?

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
(i) The t=constant surface in Figure 5.6 would be drawn by taking a vertical slice of the diagram at the point where the observer's past light cone intersects the Big Bang singularity. This would represent the boundary between the parts of the universe visible to the observer and those that are not.(ii) The statement is not false; it is saying that for dust, a(\tau) \alpha \tau^{\frac{2}{3}}, and for radiation, a(\tau) is larger than \tau^{\frac{2}{3}}. In other words, if we consider both dust and radiation together, then a(\tau) \alpha \tau^{\frac{2}{3}} for dust and a(\tau) > \tau^{\frac{2}{3}} for radiation. The integral will be convergent when a(\tau) > k\tau because the integral will approach a limit as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$. However, for a(\tau) \leq k\tau, the integral will diverge as $\tau \rightarrow \infty$, which is what is being stated on p105.
 

FAQ: Unravelling the Paradox of Chapter 5.3b in Wald's "General Relativity"

What is the paradox in Chapter 5.3b of Wald's "General Relativity"?

The paradox in Chapter 5.3b of Wald's "General Relativity" is known as the "teleparallel equivalent of general relativity" (TEGR) or the "teleparallel equivalent of general relativity with torsion" (TEGR-T). It is a theoretical framework that attempts to reconcile the differences between general relativity and teleparallel gravity theories.

What is the significance of this paradox in the field of physics?

The paradox in Chapter 5.3b of Wald's "General Relativity" is significant because it challenges our current understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. It also has the potential to provide a more complete and unified theory of gravity.

What are the main arguments for and against the resolution of this paradox?

The main argument for the resolution of this paradox is that it provides a more elegant and consistent framework for understanding the relationship between gravity and spacetime. However, some argue against the resolution, stating that it is based on mathematical assumptions and lacks empirical evidence.

How does this paradox relate to the concept of spacetime?

This paradox is directly related to the concept of spacetime as it aims to reconcile the differences between general relativity, which describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime, and teleparallel gravity, which describes gravity as the torsion of spacetime.

What are the potential implications of resolving this paradox?

If this paradox is resolved, it could lead to a better understanding of the fundamental laws of physics and potentially open up new avenues for research and discovery. It could also have practical applications, such as improving our ability to make precise measurements and predictions in astrophysics and cosmology.

Back
Top