4.3 Article

The Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric

Journal

MODERN PHYSICS LETTERS A
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S021773232250016X

Keywords

General relativity; FLRW metric; cosmology; lapse function

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper significantly advances the discussion by using the Local Flatness Theorem in general relativity to prove the dependence of gtt in FLRW on the expansion dynamics. It argues that gtt cannot be arbitrarily chosen without ensuring its consistency with the energy-momentum tensor.
The Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric used to describe the cosmic spacetime is based on the cosmological principle, which assumes homogeneity and isotropy throughout the Universe. It also adopts free-fall conditions via the selection of a constant lapse function, g(tt) = 1, regardless of whether or not the chosen energy-momentum tensor T-alpha beta produces an accelerated expansion. This is sometimes justified by arguing that one may shift the gauge, if necessary, transforming the time dt to a new coordinate dt ' equivalent to root g(tt) dt, thereby re-establishing a unitary value for g(t ' t '). Previously, we have demonstrated that this approach is inconsistent with the Friedmann equations derived using comoving coordinates. In this paper, we advance this discussion significantly by using the Local Flatness Theorem in general relativity to prove that gtt in FLRW is inextricably dependent on the expansion dynamics via the expansion factor a(t), which itself depends on the equation-of-state in T-alpha beta. One is therefore not free to choose gtt arbitrarily without ensuring its consistency with the energy-momentum tensor. We prove that the use of FLRW in cosmology is valid only for zero active mass, i.e. rho + 3p = 0, where rho and p are, respectively, the total energy density and pressure in the cosmic fluid.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available