DOCSLIB.ORG

2.1 Basics of the Relativistic Cosmology: Global Geometry and the Dynamics of the Universe Part I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2.1 Basics of the Relativistic Cosmology: Global Geometry and the Dynamics of the Universe Part I 1 2.1 Basics of the Relativistic Cosmology: Global Geometry and the Dynamics of the Universe Part I 2 Special Relativity (1905) • A fundamental change in viewing the physical space and time, now unified in spacetime • Postulates equivalence among all unaccelerated frames of reference (inertial observers) • Reconciles classical electrodynamics and coordinate and velocity transformations • Novel effects: – c is the maximum velocity – Lorentz contraction – Time dilation – Equivalence of mass and energy – Explains the anomalous precession of Mercury’s orbit 3 General Relativity (1915) • An even more fundamental change regarding the space and time, and matter/energy, connecting them • Postulates equivalence among all frames of reference (including accelerated ones), and is thus the theory of gravity Presence of mass/energy determines the geometry of space Geometry of space determines the motion of mass/energy • Introduces curvature of space, predicting a number of new effects: – Light deflection by masses – Gravitational redshift etc. etc. 4 The Equivalence Principle Mach’s Principle: The gravitational interaction of mass in the universe causes all inertial forces. In an empty universe, there would be no inertia. Einstein argued that gravity can be regarded as an inertial force: “A frame linearly accelerating relative to an inertial frame in special relativity is locally identical to a frame at rest in a gravitational field”. He explored this idea in a famous thought experiment with elevators and rockets. The equivalence principle results in two effects: • Light should be blue/redshifted in a gravitational field • Light paths in a gravitational field should be curved 5 Einstein already predicted the gravitational deflection of light in 1911. Here is his letter to G. E. Hale in 1913, asking him about the possibility of observing the light deflection around the Sun. 6 Confirmation of the GR Eddington’s 1919 eclipse observations “confirmed” Einstein’s relativistic prediction of a = 1.78 arcsec Later observations have provided more accurate evidence of light deflection due to the influence of GR 7 General Relativity Remember the key notion: Presence of mass/energy determines the geometry of space Geometry of space determines the motion of mass/energy Thus, the distribution of the matter and energy in space must be consistent with its spatial geometry Mathematical expression of that statement is given by the Einstein equation(s) Their derivation is well beyond the scope of this class, but here is just a little flavor… 8 The Einstein Equation(s) A tensor equation - a shorthand for 16 partial differential eqs., connecting the geometry and mass/energy density: Gµn = where: Spacetime Gµn = The Einstein tensor Matter geometry distribution Rµn = The Ricci tensor gµn = The metric tensor R = The Ricci scalar Tµn = The stress-energy tensor Homogeneity and isotropy requirements reduce this set of 16 eqs. to only 1, G00 = T00 , which becomes the Friedmann Equation 9 Introducing the Cosmological Constant Gravitation is an attractive force, so what is to prevent all matter and energy falling to one gigantic lump? Einstein introduced a negative potential term to balance the attractive gravity: l could be thought of as an integration constant, or a new constant of nature, or a new aspect of gravity The Einstein Equations now become: This is the cosmological constant. Note that the theory does not specify its value, or even the sign! 10 The Equivalence Principle is: A. All men are created equal B. All inertial frames are equivalent C. Mass is equivalent to energy D. The laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames E. Two sides of an equation are the same 11 2.2 Basics of the Relativistic Cosmology: Global Geometry and Dynamics of the Universe Part II 12 The Cosmological Principle Relativistic cosmology uses some symmetry assumptions or principles in order to make the problem of “solving the universe” viable. The Cosmological Principle states that At each epoch, the universe is the same at all locations and in all directions, except for local irregularities Therefore, globally the Universe is assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic at any given time; and its dynamics should be the same everywhere Note: the Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the Universe appears the same at all times and it is unchanging - it is also homogeneous in time - this is the basis of the “Steady State” model 13 Homogeneity and Isotropy Homogeneous but not isotropic Isotropic at but not homogeneous Homogeneous and Isotropic 14 So, is the Universe Really Homogeneous and Isotropic? Globally, on scales larger than ~ 100 Mpc, say, it is - so the cosmological principle is valid Distribution on the sky ! of 65000 distant radio sources from the Texas survey, a cosmological population … and of course the CMBR, uniform to better than ∆T/T < 10-5, after taking the dipole out 15 So, is the Universe Really Homogeneous and Isotropic? But not so on scales up to ~ 100 Mpc, as shown by the large-scale structure … and that is OK 16 What is the Global Geometry of the Universe? Generally, it can be curved The curvature will depend on its matter-energy content … … and it will determine its global dynamics and evolution 17 Metric and Spacetime Geometry of space can be generally defined through the metric, enabling one to compute the distance between any two points: where gab is the metric tensor. Indices {a,b} run 0 to 3, for the spacetime (0 is the time dimension, 1,2,3 are the spatial ones, i.e., xyz) In a simple Euclidean geometry, it is a diagonal unit tensor (matrix): gaa = 1, ga≠b = 0, where {a,b} = {1,2,3} The metric coefficients gab are generally functions of the spacetime position, and a proper theory of spacetime has to specify these functions 18 Metric: Quantifying the Geometry • The geometry of spacetime is completely specified by a metric, gµn • A special relativistic, Euclidean case is the Minkowski metric: • A general case for a GR, homogeneous and isotropic universe is the Robertson-Walker metric: where k = –1,0,+1 for a (negative,flat,positive) curvature19 Robertson-Walker Metric Polar coordinates are useful if all directions are equal (space is isotropic): 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ds = c dt − R (t)[[dr + S k ( r ) d ϕ ] where $ sin r, (k =1) Positive space curvature ! Negative space curvature Sk (r)= #sinh r, (k = −1) ! " r, (k = 0) Flat (Euclidean) space If the spatial dimensions expand or contract with time: & dr 2 # ds2 c2dt 2 a2 (t) r 2d 2 r 2 sin d 2 = − $ 2 + θ + θ φ ! %1− kr " R(t) a t ≡ where ( ) is the scale factor 20 R0 Robertson-Walker Metric is: A. Metric in a Euclidean space B. General expression of a spacetime metric C. General metric in polar coordinates D. A special case for a homogeneous and isotropic space E. How far can Robertson walk 21 2. 3 The Expanding Universe 22 Expansion Relative to What? Comoving and Proper Coordinates There are fundamentally two kinds of coordinates in a GR cosmology: • Comoving coordinates = expand with the universe Examples: – Unbound systems, e.g., any two distant galaxies – Wavelengths of massless quanta, e.g., photons • Proper coordinates = stay fixed, space expands relative to them. Examples: – Sizes of atoms, molecules, solid bodies – Gravitationally bound systems, e.g., Solar system, stars, galaxies … 23 Expansion into What? Into itself. There is nothing “outside” the universe (Let’s ignore the multiverse hypothesis for now) A positive curvature universe is like the surface of a sphere, but in one extra dimension. Its volume is finite, but changes with the expansion of space. A flat or a negative curvature universe is infinite in all directions; the comoving coordinate grid stretches relative to the proper coordinates In either case, there is no “edge”, and there is no center (homogeneity and isotropy) 24 Quantifying the Kinematics of the Universe We introduce a scale factor, R(t) commonly denoted as R(t) or a(t): a spatial distance between any two unaccelerated frames which move with their comoving coordinates t This fully describes the evolution of a homogeneous, isotropic universe Computing R(t) and various derived quantities defines the cosmological models. This is accomplished by solving the Friedmann Equation 25 The Cosmological Redshift 26 Redshift as Doppler Shift 27 Cosmological Redshift A more correct approach is to note that the wavelengths of photons expand with the universe: The two approaches are actually equivalent 28 Propagation of Light Our view of the Universe depends upon the propagation of light through the curved space. To understand this, we need to consider the paths of null geodesics. Suppose an observer sits at r=0. Consider radial light rays. Given that ds=0, then Suppose a light ray is emitted at a time t1 at a distance r1 and is received today (r=0) at t0 29 Propagation of Light Remembering that for a comoving source at distance r, the coordinate is fixed, then Hence, in an expanding universe there will be a redshift 30 Hubble’s Law If we consider a nearby source, then we can write then Hence, we can see we can derive Hubble’s law from the Robertson-Walker metric. Hubble’s “constant” H(t) gives the instantaneous expansion rate. 31 Is Energy Conserved in an Expanding (or Contracting) Universe? • Consider energies of photons • Consider potential energies of unbound systems 32 Cosmological Redshift is: A. The Doppler effect due to the universal expansion B. A consequence of General Relativity C. A measure of the expansion factor D. Due to the curvature of space E. Due to the non-conservation of energy 33 2.4 The Friedmann Equation 34 Deriving the Friedmann Equation Can derive the evolution of R(t) using mostly Newtonian mechanics, provided we accept two results from General Relativity: 1) Birkhoff’s theorem: for a spherically symmetric system, the force due to gravity at radius r is determined only by the mass interior to that radius.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3 the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Metric
    3 The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric 3.1 Three dimensions The most general isotropic and homogeneous metric in three dimensions is similar to the two dimensional result of eq. (43): dr2 ds2 = a2 + r2dΩ2 ; dΩ2 = dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ; k = 0; 1 : (46) 1 kr2 − The angles φ and θ are the usual azimuthal and polar angles of spherical coordinates, with θ [0; π], φ [0; 2π). As before, the parameter k can take on three different values: for k = 0, 2 2 the above line element describes ordinary flat space in spherical coordinates; k = 1 yields the metric for S , with constant positive curvature, while k = 1 is AdS and has constant 3 − 3 negative curvature. As in the two dimensional case, the change of variables r = sin χ (k = 1) or r = sinh χ (k = 1) makes the global nature of these manifolds more apparent. For example, − for the k = 1 case, after defining r = sin χ, the line element becomes ds2 = a2 dχ2 + sin2 χdθ2 + sin2 χ sin2 θdφ2 : (47) This is equivalent to writing ds2 = dX2 + dY 2 + dZ2 + dW 2 ; (48) where X = a sin χ sin θ cos φ ; Y = a sin χ sin θ sin φ ; Z = a sin χ cos θ ; W = a cos χ ; (49) which satisfy X2 + Y 2 + Z2 + W 2 = a2. So we see that the k = 1 metric corresponds to a 3-sphere of radius a embedded in 4-dimensional Euclidean space. One also sees a problem with the r = sin χ coordinate: it does not cover the whole sphere.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Gravitational Redshift from Rotating Body
    An analysis of gravitational redshift from rotating body Anuj Kumar Dubey∗ and A K Sen† Department of Physics, Assam University, Silchar-788011, Assam, India. (Dated: July 29, 2021) Gravitational redshift is generally calculated without considering the rotation of a body. Neglect- ing the rotation, the geometry of space time can be described by using the spherically symmetric Schwarzschild geometry. Rotation has great effect on general relativity, which gives new challenges on gravitational redshift. When rotation is taken into consideration spherical symmetry is lost and off diagonal terms appear in the metric. The geometry of space time can be then described by using the solutions of Kerr family. In the present paper we discuss the gravitational redshift for rotating body by using Kerr metric. The numerical calculations has been done under Newtonian approximation of angular momentum. It has been found that the value of gravitational redshift is influenced by the direction of spin of central body and also on the position (latitude) on the central body at which the photon is emitted. The variation of gravitational redshift from equatorial to non - equatorial region has been calculated and its implications are discussed in detail. I. INTRODUCTION from principle of equivalence. Snider in 1972 has mea- sured the redshift of the solar potassium absorption line General relativity is not only relativistic theory of grav- at 7699 A˚ by using an atomic - beam resonance - scat- itation proposed by Einstein, but it is the simplest theory tering technique [5]. Krisher et al. in 1993 had measured that is consistent with experimental data. Predictions of the gravitational redshift of Sun [6].
    [Show full text]
  • Gravitational Redshift/Blueshift of Light Emitted by Geodesic
    Eur. Phys. J. C (2021) 81:147 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08911-5 Regular Article - Theoretical Physics Gravitational redshift/blueshift of light emitted by geodesic test particles, frame-dragging and pericentre-shift effects, in the Kerr–Newman–de Sitter and Kerr–Newman black hole geometries G. V. Kraniotisa Section of Theoretical Physics, Physics Department, University of Ioannina, 451 10 Ioannina, Greece Received: 22 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 January 2021 / Published online: 11 February 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract We investigate the redshift and blueshift of light 1 Introduction emitted by timelike geodesic particles in orbits around a Kerr–Newman–(anti) de Sitter (KN(a)dS) black hole. Specif- General relativity (GR) [1] has triumphed all experimental ically we compute the redshift and blueshift of photons that tests so far which cover a wide range of field strengths and are emitted by geodesic massive particles and travel along physical scales that include: those in large scale cosmology null geodesics towards a distant observer-located at a finite [2–4], the prediction of solar system effects like the perihe- distance from the KN(a)dS black hole. For this purpose lion precession of Mercury with a very high precision [1,5], we use the killing-vector formalism and the associated first the recent discovery of gravitational waves in Nature [6–10], integrals-constants of motion. We consider in detail stable as well as the observation of the shadow of the M87 black timelike equatorial circular orbits of stars and express their hole [11], see also [12]. corresponding redshift/blueshift in terms of the metric physi- The orbits of short period stars in the central arcsecond cal black hole parameters (angular momentum per unit mass, (S-stars) of the Milky Way Galaxy provide the best current mass, electric charge and the cosmological constant) and the evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes, in orbital radii of both the emitter star and the distant observer.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hypothesis About the Predominantly Gravitational Nature of Redshift in the Electromagnetic Spectra of Space Objects Stepan G
    A Hypothesis about the Predominantly Gravitational Nature of Redshift in the Electromagnetic Spectra of Space Objects Stepan G. Tiguntsev Irkutsk National Research Technical University 83 Lermontov St., Irkutsk, 664074, Russia [email protected] Abstract. The study theoretically substantiates the relationship between the redshift in the electromagnetic spectrum of space objects and their gravity and demonstrates it with computational experiments. Redshift, in this case, is a consequence of a decrease in the speed of the photons emitted from the surface of objects, which is caused by the gravity of these objects. The decline in the speed of photons due to the gravity of space gravitating object (GO) is defined as ΔC = C-C ', where: C' is the photon speed changed by the time the receiver records it. Then, at a change in the photon speed between a stationary source and a receiver, the redshift factor is determined as Z = (C-C ')/C'. Computational experiments determined the gravitational redshift of the Earth, the Sun, a neutron star, and a quasar. Graph of the relationship between the redshift and the ratio of sizes to the mass of any space GOs was obtained. The findings indicate that the distance to space objects does not depend on the redshift of these objects. Keywords: redshift, computational experiment, space gravitating object, photon, radiation source, and receiver. 1. Introduction In the electromagnetic spectrum of space objects, redshift is assigned a significant role in creating a physical picture of the Universe. Redshift is observed in almost all space objects (stars, galaxies, quasars, and others). As a consequence of the Doppler effect, redshift indicates the movement of almost all space objects from an observer on the Earth [1].
    [Show full text]
  • The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium
    The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium Koki Kakiichi M¨unchen2016 The High Redshift Universe: Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium Koki Kakiichi Dissertation an der Fakult¨atf¨urPhysik der Ludwig{Maximilians{Universit¨at M¨unchen vorgelegt von Koki Kakiichi aus Komono, Mie, Japan M¨unchen, den 15 Juni 2016 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Simon White Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Jochen Weller Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung:Juli 2016 Contents Summary xiii 1 Extragalactic Astrophysics and Cosmology 1 1.1 Prologue . 1 1.2 Briefly Story about Reionization . 3 1.3 Foundation of Observational Cosmology . 3 1.4 Hierarchical Structure Formation . 5 1.5 Cosmological probes . 8 1.5.1 H0 measurement and the extragalactic distance scale . 8 1.5.2 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) . 10 1.5.3 Large-Scale Structure: galaxy surveys and Lyα forests . 11 1.6 Astrophysics of Galaxies and the IGM . 13 1.6.1 Physical processes in galaxies . 14 1.6.2 Physical processes in the IGM . 17 1.6.3 Radiation Hydrodynamics of Galaxies and the IGM . 20 1.7 Bridging theory and observations . 23 1.8 Observations of the High-Redshift Universe . 23 1.8.1 General demographics of galaxies . 23 1.8.2 Lyman-break galaxies, Lyα emitters, Lyα emitting galaxies . 26 1.8.3 Luminosity functions of LBGs and LAEs . 26 1.8.4 Lyα emission and absorption in LBGs: the physical state of high-z star forming galaxies . 27 1.8.5 Clustering properties of LBGs and LAEs: host dark matter haloes and galaxy environment . 30 1.8.6 Circum-/intergalactic gas environment of LBGs and LAEs .
    [Show full text]
  • FRW Cosmology
    17/11/2016 Cosmology 13.8 Gyrs of Big Bang History Gravity Ruler of the Universe 1 17/11/2016 Strong Nuclear Force Responsible for holding particles together inside the nucleus. The nuclear strong force carrier particle is called the gluon. The nuclear strong interaction has a range of 10‐15 m (diameter of a proton). Electromagnetic Force Responsible for electric and magnetic interactions, and determines structure of atoms and molecules. The electromagnetic force carrier particle is the photon (quantum of light) The electromagnetic interaction range is infinite. Weak Force Responsible for (beta) radioactivity. The weak force carrier particles are called weak gauge bosons (Z,W+,W‐). The nuclear weak interaction has a range of 10‐17 m (1% of proton diameter). Gravity Responsible for the attraction between masses. Although the gravitational force carrier The hypothetical (carrier) particle is the graviton. The gravitational interaction range is infinite. By far the weakest force of nature. 2 17/11/2016 The weakest force, by far, rules the Universe … Gravity has dominated its evolution, and determines its fate … Grand Unified Theories (GUT) Grand Unified Theories * describe how ∑ Strong ∑ Weak ∑ Electromagnetic Forces are manifestations of the same underlying GUT force … * This implies the strength of the forces to diverge from their uniform GUT strength * Interesting to see whether gravity at some very early instant unifies with these forces ??? 3 17/11/2016 Newton’s Static Universe ∑ In two thousand years of astronomy, no one ever guessed that the universe might be expanding. ∑ To ancient Greek astronomers and philosophers, the universe was seen as the embodiment of perfection, the heavens were truly heavenly: – unchanging, permanent, and geometrically perfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Unified Approach to Redshift in Cosmological/Black Hole
    Unified approach to redshift in cosmological /black hole spacetimes and synchronous frame A. V. Toporensky Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetsky Prospect, 13, Moscow 119991, Russia and Kazan Federal University, Kremlevskaya 18, Kazan 420008, Russia∗ O. B. Zaslavskii Department of Physics and Technology, Kharkov V.N. Karazin National University, 4 Svoboda Square, Kharkov 61022, Ukraine and Kazan Federal University, Kremlevskaya 18, Kazan 420008 Russia† S. B. Popov Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetsky Prospect, 13, Moscow 119991, Russia Usually, interpretation of redshift in static spacetimes (for example, near black holes) is opposed to that in cosmology. In this methodological note we show that both explanations are unified in a natural picture. This is achieved if, considering the static spacetime, one (i) makes a transition to a synchronous frame, and (ii) returns to the original frame by means of local Lorentz boost. To reach our goal, we consider arXiv:1704.08308v3 [gr-qc] 1 Mar 2018 a rather general class of spherically symmetric spacetimes. In doing so, we construct frames that generalize the well-known Lemaitre and Painlev´e–Gullstand ones and elucidate the relation between them. This helps us to understand, in an unifying approach, how gravitation reveals itself in different branches of general relativity. This framework can be useful for general relativity university courses. PACS numbers: 04.20.-q; 04.20.Cv; 04.70.Bw ∗Electronic address: [email protected] †Electronic address: [email protected] 2 I. INTRODUCTION Though the calculation of redshifts in General Relativity (GR) has no principal diffi- culties, their interpretation continues to be a source of debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Observation of Exciton Redshift-Blueshift Crossover in Monolayer WS2
    Observation of exciton redshift-blueshift crossover in monolayer WS2 E. J. Sie,1 A. Steinhoff,2 C. Gies,2 C. H. Lui,3 Q. Ma,1 M. Rösner,2,4 G. Schönhoff,2,4 F. Jahnke,2 T. O. Wehling,2,4 Y.-H. Lee,5 J. Kong,6 P. Jarillo-Herrero,1 and N. Gedik*1 1Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States 2Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Bremen, P.O. Box 330 440, 28334 Bremen, Germany 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, United States 4Bremen Center for Computational Materials Science, Universität Bremen, 28334 Bremen, Germany 5Materials Science and Engineering, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan 6Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States *Corresponding Author: [email protected] Abstract: We report a rare atom-like interaction between excitons in monolayer WS2, measured using ultrafast absorption spectroscopy. At increasing excitation density, the exciton resonance energy exhibits a pronounced redshift followed by an anomalous blueshift. Using both material-realistic computation and phenomenological modeling, we attribute this observation to plasma effects and an attraction-repulsion crossover of the exciton-exciton interaction that mimics the Lennard- Jones potential between atoms. Our experiment demonstrates a strong analogy between excitons and atoms with respect to inter-particle interaction, which holds promise to pursue the predicted liquid and crystalline phases of excitons in two-dimensional materials. Keywords: Monolayer WS2, exciton, plasma, Lennard-Jones potential, ultrafast optics, many- body theory Table of Contents Graphic Page 1 of 13 Main Text: Excitons in semiconductors are often perceived as the solid-state analogs to hydrogen atoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmic Microwave Background
    1 29. Cosmic Microwave Background 29. Cosmic Microwave Background Revised August 2019 by D. Scott (U. of British Columbia) and G.F. Smoot (HKUST; Paris U.; UC Berkeley; LBNL). 29.1 Introduction The energy content in electromagnetic radiation from beyond our Galaxy is dominated by the cosmic microwave background (CMB), discovered in 1965 [1]. The spectrum of the CMB is well described by a blackbody function with T = 2.7255 K. This spectral form is a main supporting pillar of the hot Big Bang model for the Universe. The lack of any observed deviations from a 7 blackbody spectrum constrains physical processes over cosmic history at redshifts z ∼< 10 (see earlier versions of this review). Currently the key CMB observable is the angular variation in temperature (or intensity) corre- lations, and to a growing extent polarization [2–4]. Since the first detection of these anisotropies by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite [5], there has been intense activity to map the sky at increasing levels of sensitivity and angular resolution by ground-based and balloon-borne measurements. These were joined in 2003 by the first results from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)[6], which were improved upon by analyses of data added every 2 years, culminating in the 9-year results [7]. In 2013 we had the first results [8] from the third generation CMB satellite, ESA’s Planck mission [9,10], which were enhanced by results from the 2015 Planck data release [11, 12], and then the final 2018 Planck data release [13, 14]. Additionally, CMB an- isotropies have been extended to smaller angular scales by ground-based experiments, particularly the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) [15] and the South Pole Telescope (SPT) [16].
    [Show full text]
  • Gravitational Redshift/Blueshift of Light Emitted by Geodesic Test Particles
    Eur. Phys. J. C (2021) 81:147 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08911-5 Regular Article - Theoretical Physics Gravitational redshift/blueshift of light emitted by geodesic test particles, frame-dragging and pericentre-shift effects, in the Kerr–Newman–de Sitter and Kerr–Newman black hole geometries G. V. Kraniotisa Section of Theoretical Physics, Physics Department, University of Ioannina, 451 10 Ioannina, Greece Received: 22 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 January 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract We investigate the redshift and blueshift of light 1 Introduction emitted by timelike geodesic particles in orbits around a Kerr–Newman–(anti) de Sitter (KN(a)dS) black hole. Specif- General relativity (GR) [1] has triumphed all experimental ically we compute the redshift and blueshift of photons that tests so far which cover a wide range of field strengths and are emitted by geodesic massive particles and travel along physical scales that include: those in large scale cosmology null geodesics towards a distant observer-located at a finite [2–4], the prediction of solar system effects like the perihe- distance from the KN(a)dS black hole. For this purpose lion precession of Mercury with a very high precision [1,5], we use the killing-vector formalism and the associated first the recent discovery of gravitational waves in Nature [6–10], integrals-constants of motion. We consider in detail stable as well as the observation of the shadow of the M87 black timelike equatorial circular orbits of stars and express their hole [11], see also [12]. corresponding redshift/blueshift in terms of the metric physi- The orbits of short period stars in the central arcsecond cal black hole parameters (angular momentum per unit mass, (S-stars) of the Milky Way Galaxy provide the best current mass, electric charge and the cosmological constant) and the evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes, in orbital radii of both the emitter star and the distant observer.
    [Show full text]
  • AST4220: Cosmology I
    AST4220: Cosmology I Øystein Elgarøy 2 Contents 1 Cosmological models 1 1.1 Special relativity: space and time as a unity . 1 1.2 Curvedspacetime......................... 3 1.3 Curved spaces: the surface of a sphere . 4 1.4 The Robertson-Walker line element . 6 1.5 Redshifts and cosmological distances . 9 1.5.1 Thecosmicredshift . 9 1.5.2 Properdistance. 11 1.5.3 The luminosity distance . 13 1.5.4 The angular diameter distance . 14 1.5.5 The comoving coordinate r ............... 15 1.6 TheFriedmannequations . 15 1.6.1 Timetomemorize! . 20 1.7 Equationsofstate ........................ 21 1.7.1 Dust: non-relativistic matter . 21 1.7.2 Radiation: relativistic matter . 22 1.8 The evolution of the energy density . 22 1.9 The cosmological constant . 24 1.10 Some classic cosmological models . 26 1.10.1 Spatially flat, dust- or radiation-only models . 27 1.10.2 Spatially flat, empty universe with a cosmological con- stant............................ 29 1.10.3 Open and closed dust models with no cosmological constant.......................... 31 1.10.4 Models with more than one component . 34 1.10.5 Models with matter and radiation . 35 1.10.6 TheflatΛCDMmodel. 37 1.10.7 Models with matter, curvature and a cosmological con- stant............................ 40 1.11Horizons.............................. 42 1.11.1 Theeventhorizon . 44 1.11.2 Theparticlehorizon . 45 1.11.3 Examples ......................... 46 I II CONTENTS 1.12 The Steady State model . 48 1.13 Some observable quantities and how to calculate them . 50 1.14 Closingcomments . 52 1.15Exercises ............................. 53 2 The early, hot universe 61 2.1 Radiation temperature in the early universe .
    [Show full text]
  • Hubble's Diagram and Cosmic Expansion
    Hubble’s diagram and cosmic expansion Robert P. Kirshner* Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Contributed by Robert P. Kirshner, October 21, 2003 Edwin Hubble’s classic article on the expanding universe appeared in PNAS in 1929 [Hubble, E. P. (1929) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 15, 168–173]. The chief result, that a galaxy’s distance is proportional to its redshift, is so well known and so deeply embedded into the language of astronomy through the Hubble diagram, the Hubble constant, Hubble’s Law, and the Hubble time, that the article itself is rarely referenced. Even though Hubble’s distances have a large systematic error, Hubble’s velocities come chiefly from Vesto Melvin Slipher, and the interpretation in terms of the de Sitter effect is out of the mainstream of modern cosmology, this article opened the way to investigation of the expanding, evolving, and accelerating universe that engages today’s burgeoning field of cosmology. he publication of Edwin Hub- ble’s 1929 article ‘‘A relation between distance and radial T velocity among extra-galactic nebulae’’ marked a turning point in un- derstanding the universe. In this brief report, Hubble laid out the evidence for one of the great discoveries in 20th cen- tury science: the expanding universe. Hubble showed that galaxies recede from us in all directions and more dis- tant ones recede more rapidly in pro- portion to their distance. His graph of velocity against distance (Fig. 1) is the original Hubble diagram; the equation that describes the linear fit, velocity ϭ ϫ Ho distance, is Hubble’s Law; the slope of that line is the Hubble con- ͞ stant, Ho; and 1 Ho is the Hubble time.
    [Show full text]