• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  In a perturbative FRW cosmology, why do constant-density hypersurfaces define a good gauge?

+ 5 like - 0 dislike

It appears to be common in the discussion of perturbative FRW cosmologies to choose a gauge using hypersurfaces for special values of some quantity, like surfaces of constant density $\rho$, constant inflaton field $\phi$, or zero spatial curvature $\Psi = 0$.

What guarantees that this foliates spacetime?

It seems clear that in general there may be local density spikes that appear and disappear, so the constant density surface isn't space-like. Further, I don't think monotonicity of these quantities (perhaps because we're assuming small perturbations?) is a sufficient condition to guarantee foliation because monotonicity itself doesn't appear to be a gauge-invariant condition. (If the density $\rho$ were to be monotonically decreasing with respect to some choice of time coordinate $t$, there is another set of coordinates $x$ and $t$ for which it is not.)

Alternatively, am I wrong in thinking that this is expected to define a foliation in general? Maybe the only thing that matters is that you can define local gauge-invariant quantities (e.g., spatial curvature on constant-density hypersurfaces $-\zeta = \Psi + (H/\dot{\bar{\rho}})\delta \rho$), and it's not necessary that this defines a preferred coordinate system.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2015-09-06 15:12 (UTC), posted by SE-user Jess Riedel
asked Sep 4, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Jess Riedel (220 points) [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights