1

In the book physical foundations of cosmology, it says that Hubble's Law is unique and a problem seems to be a hint of proving that.

In order for a general expansion law,v=f(r,t), to be the same for all observers, the function f must satisfy the relation $$f(\bf{r_{CA}}−\bf{r_{BA}},t) = f(\bf{r_{CA}},t)−f(\bf{r_{BA}},t),$$ where ABC are three points in space. Show that the only solution of this equation is given by the Hubble law.

With a little help from a Taylor approximation, I can convince myself that $f$ should be a linear function without a constant. But it seems to me that this is not good enough for a proof. How can one prove it in a more mathematical way? Thanks!

Geor
  • 11

2 Answers2

2

First, since $t$ does not enter into the given relation we suppress the time-dependence of $f$. Additionally, while the problem presumably assumes ordinary 3D space I'll consider $f$ as a function $\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$ (i.e., $n$-dimensional space). Now let $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{r}_{CA}-\mathbf{r}_{BA}=\mathbf{r}_{CB}$, $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{r}_{BA}$ and rearrange the relation as $$f(\mathbf{x})+f(\mathbf{y})=f(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y})$$ Since the points $A,B,C$ are arbitrary, the above relation should likewise be valid for arbitrary real $\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}$. It is easy to see that the $f(\mathbf{x}):=\mathbf{c}\cdot \mathbf{x}=\sum_{i=1}^n c_i x_i$ is a solution for any $\mathbf{c}\in\mathbb{R}^n$ which I take to be the desired "Hubble law". Is this the only solution?

This is a multidimensional version of Cauchy's (additive) functional equation. Via the MathOverflow question here, the multidimensional version (assuming continuous $f$) appears in Kuczma's An Introduction to the Theory of Functional Equations and Inequalities. Quoting from the answer to the aforementioned Q&A: "[Theorem 5.52] shows that the only continuous solutions are precisely the functions of the form $\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}:(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^n c_i x_i$ with $c_1,\ldots,c_n\in\mathbb{R}$." The proof is a straightforward extension of the one-variable version; this has appeared on MSE many times (see for instance Martin Sleziak's summary here) so I won't consider this further.

What if we drop the condition of continuity? In that case there do exist nontrivial solutions to Cauchy's additive functional equation. However, these solutions are well-known to be quite pathological; in particular, such functions are known to not be measurable. For a summary of basic results on Cauchy's functional equation in the 1D case, see Martin Sleziak's summary as referenced above; for more definitive results in the multidimensional case, Kuczma seems the appropriate reference.

Semiclassical
  • 18,592
0

I spent a lot of time reading about Hubble's Law only to find that in a math context this problem isn't too hard to explain.

This function says that the change in $r$ corresponds to a constant change in $f$. So, let $x=\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}\frac{dt}{dr}$. Since we assume that $t$ is a constantly changing function, it's derivative with respect to $r$ is 0. this means that $x=\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}$. We can integrate this function with respect to $r$ \begin{gather} \int \frac{\partial f}{\partial r}\,dr=\int x\,dr = xr + c \end{gather}

I am unsure of as to why $c$ would be set to 0. There's probably an argument in there somewhere but I'm physics'd out for the day.

Eoin
  • 6,049
  • I am not certain if the assertion "the change in r corresponds to a constant change in f" is valid directly from the relation. I am quite sure f must be continuous and then assume that it's also differentiable and analytic, which I find rather unsettling... As for $c$, if you are still interested, here is how I managed it. Say on A (B), I observe B (A), at $\bf{r}$ ($-\bf{r}$), moving away from me at volocity of $H\bf{r}+\bf{c}$($-H\bf{r}+\bf{c}$). So $c$ should go to 0. – Geor Aug 09 '14 at 15:55