Author 
Message 
Ben RudiakGould science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 382

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Birkhoff's theorem with cosmological constant



Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
Quote:  http://de.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0508052

Surely the result of this paper is (a) obvious, and (b) wrong in practice.
It's obvious because interacting systems always exhibit the allornothing
behavior that the author describes as unexpected. Either the system is bound
or it's unbound, and in the latter case the pieces can be treated as
noninteracting except during a brief interval of close approach.
It's wrong in practice because comoving objects have no tendency whatsoever
to separate in an expanding universe, not even at the extremely slow Hubble
rate. As soon as you've disturbed a particle from rest with respect to the
usual FRW coordinates, its former state of motion becomes irrelevant. It's
totally wrong to treat the expansion as a force, as the author does in
equation (5). Maybe the dark energy works differently, but that's a separate
issue.
Am I wrong about any of this?
 Ben 

Back to top 


Arkadiusz Jadczyk science forum beginner
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 21

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject:
Re: Birkhoff's theorem with cosmological constant



On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:42:43 +0000 (UTC), pervect
<pervect.29qve4@physicsforums.com> wrote:
Quote:  Birkhoff's theorem says that any vacuum solution of Einstein's equations
must be static, and asymptotically flat.
One of the consequences of Birkhoff's theorem is that the gravitational
field inside any spherical shell of matter is zero, even if the shell is
expanding.
But what happens if we allow a cosmological constant? Can we still say
that the field inside a spherical shell of matter (including expanding
shells) is zero if we assume that the universe has a nonzero
cosmological constant?

Perhaps the paper "General NonStatic Spherically Symmetric Solutions of
Einstein Vaccum Field Equations with Lambda" by Soheila Gharanfoli, Amir
H. Abbassi
http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9906049
will be of some help?
ark

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
 

Back to top 


Phillip Helbigremove C science forum addict
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 88

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:22 am Post subject:
Re: Birkhoff's theorem with cosmological constant



In article <4fvimnF1ld31aU2@individual.net>, "Jonathan Thornburg 
remove animal to reply" <jthorn@aei.mpgzebra.de> writes:
Quote:  pervect <pervect.29qve4@physicsforums.com> wrote:
I am
addressing the question of the effect (if any) of the cosmological
expansion on the orbits of the Solar system.
You might also find
http://de.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0508052
of interest:
Title: In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand?
Authors: Richard H. Price
Abstract:
The expansion of the universe is often viewed as a uniform stretching
of space that would affect compact objects, atoms and stars, as well
as the separation of galaxies. One usually hears that bound systems
do not take part in the general expansion, but a much more subtle
question is whether bound systems expand partially. In this paper, a
very definitive answer is given for a very simple system: a classical
``atom'' bound by electrical attraction. With a mathemical description
appropriate for undergraduate physics majors, we show that this
bound system either completely follows the cosmological expansion,
or  after initial transients  completely ignores it. This
``all or nothing'' behavior can be understood with techniques of
juniorlevel mechanics. Lastly, the simple description is shown
to be a justifiable approximation of the relativistically correct
formulation of the problem.

Check out as well
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0104349
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0310808
for related ideas. 

Back to top 


ebunn@lfa221051.richmond. science forum beginner
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 38

Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:22 am Post subject:
Re: Birkhoff's theorem with cosmological constant



In article <pervect.29qve4@physicsforums.com>,
pervect <pervect.29qve4@physicsforums.com> wrote:
Quote:  Birkhoff's theorem says that any vacuum solution of Einstein's equations
must be static, and asymptotically flat.

It can't say this, because this isn't true. Think of a vacuum
solution consisting of a little pulse of gravitational radiation
whizzing along. It's not static. You need to add the magic words
"spherically symmetric."
Birkhoff's theorem doesn't apply when there's a cosmological
constant. One way to see this is to look at John Baez's and my
formulation of Einstein's equation:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/
Suppose you've got a sphericallysymmetric vacuum solution with
nonzero cosmological constant. In our formulation we treat the
cosmological constant (if any) as a form of "matter"  that is, we
slide it over to the right side of the Einstein equation rather than
the left. So this vacuum solution will have nonzero energy density
and pressure. In particular, the combination rho + 3P is nonzero.
As we explain, that means that a little ball of test particles
that's initially at rest will change in volume over time. In
this case, it will expand, with (d^2V/dt^2)/V proportional to the
value of the cosmological constant.
In the solar system context, this must end up meaning that there's an
"antiHooke's Law" force on the planets due to the cosmological
constant: the effective force on the particles in a shell of radius R
is proportional to R.
In suitable units, the cosmological constant is the same order of magnitude
as 1/D^2 where D is the hubble length. I guess that a planet
with an orbital radius R must have a cosmologicalconstantinduced
acceleration of order Rc^2/D^2. Compare that with the ordinary gravitational
acceleration: GM/R^2 where M is the mass of the Sun. The ratio is
(cosmological constant term) / (ordinary acceleration) ~ R^3/(D^2 M)
dropping boring terms like G and c. In round numbers, R is 10^(11) m
for the Earth, D is 10^(26) m, and M is 10^3 m. So the cosmological
constant's effect on the Earth's orbit is about a part in 10^(22).
Quote:  http://tinyurl.com/gonxz

Hmm. That gives a ratio of 10^(44), which looks suspiciously like the
square of the value I got. I think that we're actually both right and
that despite different appearances we're calculating two different
things.
Ned Wright really knows his stuff, so if he vouches for it that
increases my confidence that they've got things right.
Quote: 
which predicts a very, very small cosmological effect to the arguments
presented in
http://tinyurl.com/fsh4h
which predict no effect at all.

It doesn't look to me like that's what that paper says. It looks like
it says that the effect is negligibly small for realistic values of
Lambda, which is true. Are you sure these two papers disagree with
each other?
Quote:  I wish to argue that what is important
is the total mass contained within a sphere of radius R of the sun,

That's pretty much right, if you replace the word "mass" with
"mass and pressure," since pressure also gravitates in general relativity,
and if you include the Lambda term in your accounting of mass and pressure.
Quote:  and
that the bulk of the expanding universe does not contribute at all to
any solar system expansion.

The bottom line is that there is an effect in principle but in practice
it's negligible.
Ted

[Email me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.] 

Back to top 


Jonathan Thornburg  rem science forum beginner
Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 41

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject:
Re: Birkhoff's theorem with cosmological constant



pervect <pervect.29qve4@physicsforums.com> wrote:
Quote:  I am
addressing the question of the effect (if any) of the cosmological
expansion on the orbits of the Solar system.

You might also find
http://de.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0508052
of interest:
Title: In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand?
Authors: Richard H. Price
Abstract:
The expansion of the universe is often viewed as a uniform stretching
of space that would affect compact objects, atoms and stars, as well
as the separation of galaxies. One usually hears that bound systems
do not take part in the general expansion, but a much more subtle
question is whether bound systems expand partially. In this paper, a
very definitive answer is given for a very simple system: a classical
``atom'' bound by electrical attraction. With a mathemical description
appropriate for undergraduate physics majors, we show that this
bound system either completely follows the cosmological expansion,
or  after initial transients  completely ignores it. This
``all or nothing'' behavior can be understood with techniques of
juniorlevel mechanics. Lastly, the simple description is shown
to be a justifiable approximation of the relativistically correct
formulation of the problem.
ciao,

 "Jonathan Thornburg  remove animal to reply" <jthorn@aei.mpgzebra.de>
MaxPlanckInstitut fuer Gravitationsphysik (AlbertEinsteinInstitut),
Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
 quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam 

Back to top 


pervect science forum beginner
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:42 am Post subject:
Birkhoff's theorem with cosmological constant



Birkhoff's theorem says that any vacuum solution of Einstein's equations
must be static, and asymptotically flat.
One of the consequences of Birkhoff's theorem is that the gravitational
field inside any spherical shell of matter is zero, even if the shell is
expanding.
But what happens if we allow a cosmological constant? Can we still say
that the field inside a spherical shell of matter (including expanding
shells) is zero if we assume that the universe has a nonzero
cosmological constant?
Some context might help explain why I am asking this question. I am
addressing the question of the effect (if any) of the cosmological
expansion on the orbits of the Solar system. I want to justify
ignoring the gravitational effect of the homogeneous part of the
universe on the solar system via Birkhoff's theorem.
I'm a bit unclear about the applicability of Birkhoff's theorem to the
case with the cosmological constant, unfortunately  and the universe
in the latest models does have a cosmological constant.
Ultimately I want to reconcile the approach taken in
http://tinyurl.com/gonxz
mentioned in Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ:
http://tinyurl.com/5lxs
which predicts a very, very small cosmological effect to the arguments
presented in
http://tinyurl.com/fsh4h
which predict no effect at all. I wish to argue that what is important
is the total mass contained within a sphere of radius R of the sun, and
that the bulk of the expanding universe does not contribute at all to
any solar system expansion.
To do this successfully, I need to know if Birkhoff's theorem does work
in the presence of a cosmological constant.

pervect
Did you hear about the man who stayed up all night to watch the sun
rise?
AB CADEFFG HEJDKH LD MAN, D=N, H=D

pervect's Profile: http://www.physicsforums.com/forums/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=14402
View this thread: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124195 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:27 am  All times are GMT

