arxiv Cosmic acceleration as the solution to the cosmological constant
problem

© All Rights Reserved

2 vues

arxiv Cosmic acceleration as the solution to the cosmological constant
problem

© All Rights Reserved

- Cosmology Primer
- No Big Bang, No Beginning of Time, No Inflating Universe
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (A)
- Cosmology at the Crossroads
- Beginning and End
- LCDM Cosmology Through the Lens of Einstein's Static Universe: The Mother of Lambda
- Cuauhtemoc Campuzano, Sergio del Campo and Ramón Herrera- Curvaton reheating in tachyonic inflationary models
- Pedro Frazão- Cosmological Perturbations In A New Type Of Chaplygin Gas
- 3C36old Notes
- 0108259
- Geometry and Destiny
- 7-1-chase
- Lesson plan 6.docx
- unit 2 - big bang - lesson 1
- Anisotropic open system cosmology
- Theory of Cosmological Structure Formation
- final rough draft
- Dynamical Systems and Cosmology - A. A. Coley.pdf
- 1703.06144
- Cosmology, Inflation, And the Physics of Nothing

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

problem

Philip D. Mannheim

Department of Physics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269

mannheim@uconnvm.uconn.edu

Abstract

In this paper we provide both a diagnosis and resolution of the cosmological

constant problem, one in which a large (as opposed to a small) cosmological

constant can be made compatible with observation. We trace the origin of

the cosmological constant problem to the assumption that Newtons constant

G sets the scale for cosmology. And then we show that once this assumption

is relaxed (so that the local G as measured in a local Cavendish experiment

is no longer to be associated with global cosmology), the very same cosmic

acceleration which has served to make the cosmological constant problem so

very severe instead then serves to provide us with its potential resolution. In

addition, we present an alternate cosmology, one based on conformal gravity

(a theory which explicitly possesses no fundamental G), and show that once

given only that there is to be cosmic acceleration in the conformal theory

(i.e. once given only that in the theory the sign of is to specifically be

the negative one suggested by spontaneous symmetry breaking), then that

alone, no matter how big might actually be in magnitude, is sufficient to

not only make the actually measurable contribution (t0) of to current

era cosmology naturally be of order one today, but to even do so in a way

which is fully compatible with the recent high z supernovae cosmology data.

Cosmology can thus live with either a fundamental G or with the large (and

even potentially negative) associated with elementary particle physics phase

transitions but not with both.

I. DIAGNOSIS OF THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT PROBLEM

The recent discovery [1,2] of a cosmic acceleration has made the already extremely disturbing cosmological constant problem even more vexing than before. Specifically, a phenomenological fitting to the new high z supernovae Hubble plot data using the standard

Einstein-Friedmann cosmological evolution equation

R 2 (t) + kc2 = R 2 (t)(M (t) + (t))

astro-ph/9910093/v2,

April 4, 2000

(1)

where M (t) = 8GM (t)/3c2 H 2 (t) is due to ordinary matter (viz. matter for which M (t) =

A/Rn (t) where A > 0 and 3 n 4) and where (t) = 8G/3cH 2 (t) is due to a

cosmological constant , has revealed that not only must the current era (t0 ) actually

be non-zero today, it is even explicitly required to be of order one. Typically, the allowed

parameter space compatible with the available data is found to be centered on the line

(t0) = M (t0 ) + 1/2 or so with (the presumed positive) M (t0) being found to be limited

to the range (0, 1) and (t0) to the range (1/2, 3/2) or so, with the current (n=3) era

deceleration parameter q(t0) = (n/2 1)M (t0) (t0 ) thus having to approximately lie

within the (1/2, 1) interval. Thus, not only do we find that the universe is currently

accelerating, but additionally we see that with there being no allowed (t0) = 0 solution

at all (unless M (t0 ) could somehow be allowed to go negative), the longstanding problem

of trying to find some way by which (t0 ) could be quenched by many orders of magnitude

from both its quantum gravity and particle physics expectations (perhaps by making it

vanish altogether) has now been replaced by the need to find a specific such mechanism

which in practice (rather than just in principle) would explicitly put (t0 ) into this very

narrow (1/2, 3/2) box. Not only is it not currently known how it might be possible to

actually do this, up to the present time no mechanism has been identified which might even

fix the sign of the standard model (t0 ) let alone its magnitude.

As such, the new supernovae data pose problems for both quantum and classical gravitational physics, but since the problems (familiar as they are) are somewhat different in the

two cases it is useful to discuss them independently. As regards first the quantum gravity

and elementary physics cosmological constant problem, we note that while it actually preceded the new high z data (see e.g. [3,4] for a review of the prior situation) the new data

have actually compounded the problem. Specifically, with quantum gravity being associated

with the Planck temperature kTP L = (

hc5 /G)1/2 and with elementary particle physics being

associated with a hadronic physics vacuum breaking scale,1 the expectation of fundamental

physics is that the ratio (t)/M (t) should be absolutely enormous. With the insertion

of this ratio into the Friedmann cosmological evolution equation of Eq. (1) then leading to

violent conflict with observation (even prior to the new high z data in fact), we see that as

it stands, the standard theory is explicitly in disagreement with data, and stress the point

now to emphasize that this is not merely a fine tuning problem (such as the one we will

encounter below when we discuss the classical gravitational physics cosmological constant

problem), but rather it constitutes the actual observational failure of an explicit prediction

of the standard theory (with a possible 120 orders of magnitude discrepancy potentially

being the largest disagreement ever recorded by any known theory). Now prior to the new

high z data it was widely hoped that might somehow be quenched, with some symmetry

principle perhaps bringing it down to zero identically, or with some dynamical mechanism

perhaps making it negligibly small. While neither of these possibilities has yet been achieved

in any convincing, universally accepted way, the situation was suddenly made all the more

1 We

can represent such a vacuum breaking scale by a typical effective temperature TV , a temperature which is then overwhelmingly larger than the effective temperature (of order a factor of ten

or so times the current temperature T (t0 ) of the universe) that would be associated with a black

body with critical density C (t0 ) = 3c2H 2(t0 )/8G.

complicated by the new high z data since this yet to be established mechanism would now

not only have to quench both the quantum gravity and the particle physics contributions

to (i.e. not just either but both), but also it would have to actually leave the quenched

with a very small but nonetheless non-vanishing component so that the current value of

the (t0)/M (t0) ratio might then be of order one instead.

Beyond the fact that such a quenching has yet to be achieved, it is important to note

that cosmology actually puts additional explicit demands on any such mechanism above and

beyond simply requiring the quenched to be such that the current value of (t0)/M (t0 )

comes out correctly. Specifically, suppose that some explicit quenching does take place in

the very early Planck temperature dominated quantum gravity universe (some candidate

mechanisms such as wormhole effects [5] which might be able to do this are discussed in

[3,4]), so that at the end of that era (or at the end of a subsequent but still early inflationary

universe era [6]) takes some particular value (this value might even be due to a fundamental

or anthropically induced cosmological constant which simply appears in the fundamental

gravitational action as an a priori fundamental constant). As the ensuing universe then

expands and cools it will potentially go through a whole sequence of elementary particle

physics phase transitions, in each one of which the vacuum energy would be lowered (this

being the definition of a phase transition). The residual from the early universe quenching

would then have to be such that it would just almost (but not quite completely) cancel the

net drop in vacuum energy due to all the particle physics phase transitions (transitions that

would occur only after the early universe quenching had already taken place - unless each

such phase transition is to be accompanied by its own quenching that is), so that just today,

i.e. conveniently just for our own particular epoch, (t0) would then be of order one.

Difficult as this is to even conceive of let alone demonstrate in an explicit dynamical model,

we note, however, that even if such a delicate balancing were to actually take place, the

resulting universe would then be one in which there could not have been any such delicate

cancellation prior (or near) to the very last phase transition. Thus in epochs prior or near to

the very last phase transition there could well have been substantial cosmological constant

contributions, to thus potentially give the universe a history and cosmology very different

from the standard one.

As an explicit example of how potentially severe a problem this might be, we note that

a standard electroweak or grand-unified symmetry breaking phase transition, for instance,

can generically be described by an effective Ginzburg-Landau theory with potential

V (, T ) = g4/2 2 (T )2,

(2)

where is the relevant order parameter and where 2 (T ) is typically given [7] by a form

such as 2 (T ) = g(TV2 T 2) in a convenient normalization. When the temperature T is less

than the transition temperature TV , the potential V (, T ) possesses a non-trivial minimum

away from the origin in which it takes the temperature dependent value

Vmin (T < TV ) = g(TV2 T 2)2 /2,

(3)

a value which is expressly negative (with respect to the zero value which Vmin (T > TV )

takes above the critical temperature), with the zero temperature Vmin (T = 0) taking the

convenient negative value gTV4 /2 in our normalization. To this potential we must now add

on an extra residual potential from the early universe of the form

3

(4)

Vtot (T < TV ) = Vmin (T < TV ) + Vres = gTV2 (T 2 T 2(t0 )) g(T 4 T 4 (t0))/2 + T 4(t0 ) (5)

and a current era Vtot (T (t0)) which would then nicely be of order the energy density in order

matter (generically given as T 4(t0 )) today.2 However, as we immediately see, in the nucleosynthesis era where TV T T (t0), the total vacuum energy density Vtot (T ) would then

be given by gTV2 T 2 in leading order and (with g being related to the standard Higgs and vec2

tor boson masses as g e2 MH2 /MW

) would thus be substantially larger than the black body

energy density at the same temperature T . Since the temperature dependence of a standard

k = 0 radiation era cosmology with non-zero is given by T 2/T 2 = (8G/3c2 )(T 4 + c),

we see that the very validity of standard big bang nucleosynthesis is now contingent on an

explicit demonstration that vacuum terms such as gTV2 T 2 are not in fact of relevance in the

nucleosynthesis era.3 It thus not sufficient to simply find a mechanism which quenches the

cosmological constant once (in some particular chosen epoch). Rather one needs renewed,

temperature dependent, quenching each and every time there is phase transition or new contribution to the vacuum energy.4 This then is quantum gravitational cosmological constant

problem.

Further, even independent of any of the above quantum considerations, the new high

z data pose a problem for Eq. (1) even when considered purely from the viewpoint of

phenomenological classical physics alone. Specifically, even if we ignore the above phase

transition issue, so that the temperature T (t) then uninterruptedly evolves adiabatically as

1/R(t), the current closeness to one of the ratio (t)/M (t) entails that in the early universe

this same ratio would have had to have been fantastically small, with a standard Friedmann

universe then only being able to evolve into its current state if this ratio had been extremely

fine tuned in the early universe (this is the fine tuning problem to which we referred above,

being one of having to adjust initial conditions to incredible accuracy, rather than one of

having to remove an explicit conflict with data). Moreover, this particular fine tuning would

have to be above and beyond that imposed by the flat (k (t) = kc2/R 2 (t) ' 0) inflationary

universe model since inflation only constrains the sum of M (t) and (t) to be one and

does not fix their ratio.5 This then is the classical gravitational cosmological constant

2 Why

exactly the residual early universe Vres should explicitly depend on the current temperature

T (t0 ) so that just our particular epoch of observers would see only the quenched energy density

T 4(t0 ) remains of course to be explained.

3

While it had generally been recognized [8] that Vtot(T > TV ) Vres would not compete with the

black body energy density at temperatures above the phase transition temperature TV , it appears

not to have been appreciated that there could still be a problem below it.

4 While

Vres can cancel the leading term in Vmin (T < TV ), because it is temperature independent

it leaves the next to leading term untouched.

5 While

there is still some question as to the extent of the region in the (M (t0 ), (t0 )) parameter

problem, and as we see, at the present time neither inflationary nor quantum cosmology

can readily accommodate the new high z data at all (i.e. neither a very early quantum

cosmology phase nor an early universe inflationary phase have yet been shown capable of

producing a subsequent Robertson-Walker phase whose onset value of /M would then

be the particular fantastically small one now required by data), with the early universe

now needing to be fine tuned all over again. Now while a solution to both the classical

and the quantum mechanical cosmological constant problems might yet be found within

standard gravity, the above described situation is so disquieting (with the cosmological

constant problem having resisted solution for such a very long time now) as to suggest that

in fact there might actually be something basically wrong with the whole standard picture,

a viewpoint to which we shall return below. Moreover, since the elementary particle physics

cosmological constant problem is a clash between two different branches of physics, gravity

and particle physics, we should not immediately assume that it is the particle physics side

which needs addressing. Rather, the indications of particle physics could well be correct,

with its contribution to actually being as big as it would appear to be, with the problem

then having to lie on the gravitational side instead. And indeed, in the following we shall

explicitly explore the implications for cosmology of actually being a very big rather than

a very small quantity. Thus, with attempts to quench not having been successful thus far,

we instead turn the issue around and explore below whether it is possible for cosmology to

accommodate a large instead.

In order to try to isolate the primary cause of all the above problems (so as to then know

exactly where it is that the standard theory is running into problems, with a view to then

identifying what explicitly needs to be done - either in standard gravity itself or beyond),

we shall now present as general a diagnosis of the problem as would appear possible. Thus

= 0) would have

we note that in any cosmology with a big bang, the early universe R(t

to be divergent (or at least be extremely large), with Eq. (1) then requiring the quantity

(M (t = 0) + (t = 0)) to be equal to one no matter what the value of the spatial

curvature k. Thus, given the radically different temporal behaviors of M (t) and (t),

in standard gravity we see directly that no cosmology, flat or non-flat, could ever evolve

into one in which (t0) ' M (t0) ' O(1) today without extreme fine tuning. Thus it

is actually the very fact of the big bang itself which is bringing standard cosmology to so

= 0) does start off divergent, it must diminish as

severe a current impasse. Further, if R(t

the universe begins to evolve, with the early universe thus decelerating. Since the current

universe now appears to be accelerating, the Friedmann universe fine tuning problem can

space which is allowed by the supernovae data, the one thing in the data that appears to be definitive

is that the point (1, 0) is overwhelmingly excluded. Since this is the only point which standard

classical cosmology is capable of reaching today without a fine tuning of Eq. (1), no change in the

supernovae data would appear likely to lead to a standard cosmology without some form or other

of fine tuning problem. Moreover, even a change in the data that might actually eliminate any

need for an explicit non-vanishing (t0 ) would still leave us with an M (t0) which would need to

be fine tuned to some value less than one, as well as with an k (t0) which could then no longer be

negligible. And even in that case we would of course still need to explain why would then have

been quenched to zero.

be viewed as the need to adjust parameters in such a way that the cosmology can exhibit

diametrically opposite deceleration and acceleration behaviors in differing epochs. Since the

big bang singularity itself derives from the fact that standard gravity is always attractive

(since G controls standard gravity on all distance scales including those much larger than

the solar system one on which standard gravity was first established) while acceleration is

more naturally associated with repulsion (cf. the high z data solution in which M (t0) is

taken to be negative), it is thus suggestive that we might be able to more readily balance

the early and current universes if there were no initial singularity at all, and if cosmological

gravity in fact got to be repulsive in all epochs, with the universe then expanding from some

= 0) = 0 instead. To achieve such

initial (but still very hot) state characterized by R(t

a singularity free cosmology, and to hope to decouple locally attractive gravity from such

cosmological repulsion would thus appear to require the removal of G from the fundamental

= 0) were indeed to vanish, the initial values of

gravitational action.6 Moreover, if R(t

(t = 0) and M (t = 0) would then both be infinite, and thus potentially never require

fine tuning at all. Thus we identify the very presence of G in the fundamental gravitational

action as a primary cause of the cosmological constant problem, an issue whose implications

we shall address in detail below.

To continue with the above analysis, we note further that if the apparently currently

accelerating universe continues to accelerate indefinitely, then, no matter what may or may

not have occurred in the early universe, in the very late universe R(t)

will actually become

arbitrarily large, with Eq. (1) then requiring the quantity (M (t) + (t)) to tend to one

at very late times, again independent of the value of k. However, because of their differing

time behaviors, we see that in the very late universe it would precisely be (t) which would

then have to tend to one no matter what its early universe value. Thus at very late times

the cosmological constant problem would actually get solved, and would in fact get solved

by cosmology itself (i.e. no matter how big might actually be, in universes whose fate

it is to accelerate at late times, there will eventually come a time in which the measurable

consequence of (t) will be that it will make a contribution to the expansion of the universe

which will be of order one). Thus even while the discovery of cosmic acceleration makes

the cosmological constant problem more acute, nonetheless, its very existence also suggests

a possible resolution of the issue. We shall thus explore this option, first (Sec. II) as a

generic cosmological effect, and then (in Sec. III) use it to obtain an explicit solution to the

cosmological constant problem in an explicitly solvable cosmological model.

II. GENERIC SOLUTION TO THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT PROBLEM

In order to see how we might be able to capitalize on the behavior of universes which

accelerate at late times, it is very instructive [9] to analyze de Sitter geometry in a purely

kinematic way which requires no commitment to any particular dynamical equation of mo-

6 If

then only be an effective, low energy parameter, with the very high temperature universe then

being controlled by some altogether different (and possibly even repulsive) scale instead.

tion. Specifically, suppose we know only that a given geometry is de Sitter, i.e. that its

Riemann tensor is given by

R = (g g g g ).

(6)

R g R /2 = 3g ,

(7)

(8)

obtain q(t) = (t) = 1 + kc2 /R 2 (t), with q(t) and (t) then being found [9] to be given

by

(t, < 0, k < 0) = q(t, < 0, k < 0) = tan2(()1/2ct),

(t, = 0, k < 0) = q(t, = 0, k < 0) = 0,

(t, > 0, k < 0) = q(t, > 0, k < 0) = tanh2(1/2 ct),

(t, > 0, k = 0) = q(t, > 0, k = 0) = 1,

(t, > 0, k > 0) = q(t, > 0, k > 0) = coth2 (1/2ct)

(9)

in the various allowed cases. As we thus see, when the parameter is positive, each associated solution corresponds (because of the absence of any explicit M matter term) to a

permanently accelerating universe, and that in each such universe (t, > 0) will eventually reach one no matter how big the parameter might be, and independent in fact of

whether or not G even appears in the cosmological evolution equations at all.7 Moreover,

while (t, > 0, k > 0) will only come down to one at very late times, quite remarkably, the

negative spatial curvature (t, > 0, k < 0) is bounded between zero and plus one at all

times, no matter how large might be. Thus unlike the unbounded < 0 case, we see that

when is greater or equal to zero, (t) is either bounded at all times or approaches a bound

at late times. Late time accelerating 0 de Sitter cosmologies will thus, without any

fine tuning at all, always quench the contribution of a cosmological constant to cosmology

no matter how large may be, and even no matter what form the underlying gravitational

theory might take. We thus we distinguish between quenching and quenching (t), while

noting that only the latter is actually required by known cosmological observations. Thus,

the parameter need not itself be small, and in fact the larger it is, the faster (t, > 0)

will then approach its asymptotic value.

In passing it is instructive to note that this particular quenching of (t) is also familiar in

the standard inflationary universe model where a positive cosmological constant dominated

I.e. no matter how large might be, the Hubble parameter always adjusts itself to be accordingly

large so that (t = , > 0) is then equal to one - for instance in the familiar flat k = 0 case

R(t)/R(t)

= 1/2c at all times.

cosmology rapidly quenches k (t) = 1 (t) with (t) rapidly becoming one. Now

while this quenching of k (t) is the major achievement of inflation, inflationary cosmology

was always faced with the (still not fully resolved) task of then disposing of this now large

(equal to unity in fact) (t) some time during the inflation exit transition to a subsequent

Robertson-Walker era, an era which would (ideally) then acquire an M (t) with the desired

value of one. In addition to this still not fully understood task, we now see that given the

new high z data, this exit transition must now not quite quench (t) completely, but must

instead make it fantastically small, so that it could then build itself back up to order one

today. Inflationary cosmology thus requires an (t) which first rises to one, then fine tunes

itself almost to zero, and then rises back to one once again. Thus even while an epoch of

inflationary acceleration nicely provides for an (t) equal to one, it is naturally only able

to do so at what might now possibly be the wrong time (unless inflation can naturally do it

twice that is), since independent of whether or not one should have had an (t) of order

one in the early universe, it is precisely an (t0) of order one today which is what appears

to be needed now.

Thus we propose that no matter what may or may not have happened in the early

universe (standard inflation or whatever), it is late universe acceleration which can naturally

resolve the cosmological constant problem, with a late universe de Sitter phase (either in

addition to or instead of an early universe one) then being able to naturally solve the

cosmological constant problem. Moreover, in such a situation need not itself be small,

and thus even if its associated temperature TV really is as big as suggested by elementary

particle physics, even so, (t) will still eventually approach one. Thus given these remarks,

it would appear that the key task then is to find a cosmology in which the current era

is already sufficiently late. As regards finding any such cosmology we are immediately

confronted with the fact that M (t0 ) is not zero today. Thus, in order to able to implement

our above ideas, the cosmological constant problem has to be converted from being one of

needing to quench into being one of needing to find a way in which M (t0) can be naturally

quenched instead. In order to actually try to achieve this alternate quenching, we note first

that the ratio M (t)/ (t) is actually independent of Newtons constant G, with its current

value being the gravity independent quantity M /c ' T 4 (t0)/TV4 . Moreover, not only is this

ratio independent of G, the only place where G does appear in cosmology is in the Friedmann

evolution equation where it fixes the overall normalization of both (t) and M (t), i.e. it

determines exactly just how big a contribution to cosmological evolution is to be made by

any given source of energy density. Thus we see that if we want to dominate cosmology

today with an effective contribution to cosmological evolution which is to be of order one,

we must in turn suppress the contribution of M to current cosmology, something we can

(drastic as it may initially seem) do if we can remove G from the cosmological evolution

equation and replace it by an effective coupling constant which is altogether smaller. Thus

we need not modify or M themselves. Rather, we need only change their effect on

cosmology. Thus just as in our discussion of the implications of the existence of a big bang,

we are again led to consider removing G from cosmology, and are again led to a G which is

to only be an effective low energy parameter, with this then enabling itself to actually be

as big as elementary particle physics seems to imply, while still providing us with a current

With these remarks we have now concluded our diagnosis of the cosmological constant

problem and provided what we believe to be useful pointers for future attacks on the problem,

pointers that could prove helpful in trying to find a solution even within standard gravity

itself (a G which evolves with temperature is certainly conceivable within standard gravity though perhaps not one which might also change sign as it evolves). However, since we are

not currently aware of how to actually naturally implement the above ideas within standard

gravity, in the following, we shall instead turn to an alternate gravitational theory and show

that the above (t) bounding mechanism will precisely be found to occur in the conformal

gravity theory, a theory which has recently been advanced as an alternative to standard

gravity and its familiar dark matter paradigm, a theory in which G does not in fact set the

scale for cosmology. Beyond being of interest in and of itself (with it being quite remarkable

that there even exists any theory at all in which (t) and M (t) can both be naturally

quenched), our study can also be viewed simply as an existence theorem which shows that

it is actually possible to construct a model which explicitly realizes all the ideas we have

presented above.

III. EXPLICIT SOLUTION TO THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT PROBLEM

In attempting to go beyond standard second order gravity, even within the confines of

covariant, pure metric based theories of gravity, we immediately realize that the choice is

vast, since we can in principle consider covariant theories based on derivative functions of the

metric of arbitrarily high order. However, given our previous remarks, within this infinite

family of higher order derivative gravitational theories, one of them is immediately singled

out, namely conformal gravity,9 a theory which can immediately lead to a cosmology free of

intrinsic scales at sufficiently high enough temperatures precisely because its gravitational

action possesses no fundamental scale at all. As such, conformal gravity emerges as a

potential gravitational analog of the Weinberg-Salam-Glashow electroweak theory, with it

immediately being suggested [11,12] that in it Newtons constant G might be generated as a

8 An

on all distance scales, is that then the Planck length no longer need control quantum gravity.

Consequently, as long as the mechanism which is to remove G from cosmology does so without

inducing any new quantum gravity scale itself, the quantum gravity contribution to the cosmological

constant would then be under control, leaving us with only the need to have to deal with the

elementary particle physics contribution TV .

9

Conformal gravity is a locally conformal invariant theory of gravity (i.e. one which is invariant

under any and all local conformal stretchings g 2 (x)g of the geometry), which has as its

R

uniquely allowed gravitational action the Weyl action IW = g d4x(g)1/2C C where

C is the conformal Weyl tensor [10] and where g is a purely dimensionless gravitational

coupling constant, and which consequently has gravitational field equations which are fourth order

derivative equations of motion.

low energy effective parameter in much the same manner as Fermis constant GF is generated

in the electroweak theory, with G as measured in a low energy Cavendish experiment then

indeed nicely being decoupled from the hot early universe. However, it turns out that the low

energy limit of conformal gravity need not emerge in precisely this fashion since [13] it is not

in fact necessary to spontaneously break the conformal gravity action down to the EinsteinHilbert action (i.e. down to the standard theory equations of motion). Rather [13] it is

only necessary to obtain the solutions to those equations in the kinematic region (viz. solar

system distance scales) where those standard solutions have been tested. Thus, as had been

noted by Eddington [14] already in the very early days of relativity, the standard gravity

vacuum Schwarzschild solution is just as equally a vacuum solution to higher derivative

gravity theories as well, since the vanishing of the Ricci tensor entails the vanishing of its

derivatives as well. And indeed, with variation of the conformal gravity action leading to

the equation of motion [15]

(g)1/2IW /g = 2g W = T /2

(10)

where W is given by

W = g (R );; /2 + R; ; R; ; R;; 2R R + g R R /2

2g (R); ; /3 + 2(R );; /3 + 2R R /3 g (R)2 /6,

(11)

and where T is the associated energy-momentum tensor, we confirm immediately that the

Schwarzschild solution is indeed a vacuum solution to conformal gravity despite the total

absence of the Einstein-Hilbert action in the purely gravitational piece IW of the conformal

action. Standard gravity is thus seen to be only sufficient to give the standard Schwarzschild

metric phenomenology but not at all necessary, with it thus being possible to bypass the

Einstein-Hilbert action altogether as far as low energy phenomena are concerned. 10 As we

shall show in detail below, it is precisely this aspect of the theory which will lead us to

a demarcation between the high and low energy regions which is very different from that

present in the electroweak case.

While conformal gravity itself is indeed an old idea, almost as old as General Relativity

itself in fact, it is only recently that its potential role in cosmology and astrophysics appears

to have been emphasized, with it having been found capable of addressing so many of the

problems (such as dark matter) which currently afflict standard gravity (see [9] and references

therein). As noted above, it has as a motivation the desire to give gravity a dimensionless

coupling constant and a local invariance structure, to thereby make it analogous to the three

10

Since higher derivative theories have different continuations to larger distances [13], we see that

the standard Schwarzschild solar system distance scale wisdom is compatible with many differing

extrapolations to larger distances, with standard gravity giving only one particular possible such

extrapolation. And indeed, it has been argued [16,13] that this is actually the origin of the dark

matter problem, with standard gravity simply giving an unsatisfactory extrapolation to galactic

distance scales and beyond. Interestingly, the conformal gravity extrapolation [17] has been found

to provide for a satisfactory explanation of galactic rotation curve systematics without the need to

introduce any galactic dark matter.

10

other fundamental interactions. And indeed as stressed in [18], the local conformal symmetry

invoked to do this then not only excludes the existence of any fundamental mass scales such

as a fundamental cosmological constant, even after mass scales are induced by spontaneous

breakdown of the conformal symmetry, the (still) traceless energy-momentum tensor then

constrains any induced cosmological constant term to be of the same order of magnitude

as all the other terms in T , neither smaller nor larger. Thus, unlike standard gravity,

precisely because of its additional symmetry, conformal gravity has a great deal of control

over the cosmological constant (essentially, with all mass scales - of gravity and particle

physics both - being jointly generated by spontaneous breakdown of the scale symmetry,

conformal gravity knows exactly where the zero of energy is), and it is our purpose now

to show that it is this very control which then provides for both a natural solution to the

cosmological constant problem and for a complete accounting of the new high z data.

The cosmology associated with conformal gravity was first presented in [19] where it

was shown, well in advance of the recent high z data, to be a cosmology with an effective

negative G, with the associated repulsion yielding a cosmology which was then found to

possess no flatness problem and thus be free of the copious amounts of cosmological dark

matter required in the standard theory. Subsequently [9], the cosmology was shown to

possess no horizon problem or universe age problem, and to also be capable of producing

cosmic repulsion through negative spatial curvature. To discuss conformal cosmology it is

convenient to consider the conformal matter action

IM =

h

(x)( + (x)) gS ]

d4 x(g)1/2[S S /2 + S 4 S 2 R /12 + i

(12)

for generic massless scalar and fermionic fields, a matter action which contains up to only

second order derivative functions of the matter fields.11 In this matter action we have

introduced a dimensionful scalar field S(x) which is to serve to spontaneously break the

conformal symmetry, and have, for simplicity, taken it to be a fundamental, conformally

coupled, purely macroscopic field. Nonetheless, this scalar field could just as easily be

generated microscopically as the dynamical expectation value of some elementary particle

multilinear condensate, with S(x) then being an effective Ginzburg-Landau field. Moreover,

in such a case, not only would there be the standard T = 0 elementary particle physics

contribution to S(x) due to a condensation of the filled negative energy modes of the relevant

elementary particles, but at non-zero temperatures there could also be a condensation of the

11

The same conformal invariance which forces the pure gravity Weyl action IW to be fourth order

also obliges the matter action IM to be a familiar second order quantity. In fact since actions such

R

as IM = d4x(g)1/2(F F )2 are both coordinate invariant and locally gauge invariant, they

are not in fact excluded by these particular invariances, with it being only scale invariance which

actually ensures their (otherwise simply assumed) absence in the standard SU (3) SU (2) U (1)

model of quarks and leptons. Hence it is actually scale invariance which obliges the standard

model to actually be second order, and thus renormalizable, in the first place. And moreover, if

the spontaneous breakdown of the standard model is generated by a gauge mediated interaction

such as hypercolor rather than by a fundamental tachyonic scalar field, the entire standard particle

physics IM would then actually possess no fundamental scale at all.

11

N occupied positive energy modes of these same particles as well. This latter condensation

would then lead to an effective, temperature dependent order parameter which would be

of order N in magnitude (the magnetization of a ferromagnet is, for example, proportional

to the number of positive energy spins present in a crystal), as well as to an effective

Vmin (T < TV ) which would, according to Eq. (3), explicitly be negative.12 In such a case the

effective would be negative, and would necessarily have to be so in fact in conformal gravity,

since in a theory with an underlying conformal symmetry, the (dimensionful) vacuum energy

density has to be zero identically in the scale invariant S(x) = 0 high temperature regime

above all scale generating phase transitions since an exact conformal symmetry ensures the

absence of any fundamental cosmological constant.13 Consequently, we shall incorporate

this aspect of conformal gravity in the following by considering cosmologies based on a

fundamental scalar field whose quartic self coupling coefficient is preferentially taken to

actually be negative, and find that it is precisely such negative which leads to cosmic

acceleration in the conformal theory.

For the above matter action, when the scalar field acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation

value (an expectation value which can always be rotated into a spacetime constant S 0 by

an appropriate local conformal transformation), the entire energy-momentum tensor of the

of the fermions) to take the form

T = Tkin

h

S02 (R g R /2)/6 g h

S04 ;

(13)

12 Since

the free energy density of a ferromagnet is a non-extensive function of the number of spins

which is dependent only on the particle number density and the mean magnetization per spin, the

identification of S(x) with a cosmological analog of the total magnetization of a ferromagnet and

the simulation of the analog of the large quantity Vmin (T < TV ) by the equally large c

hS 4(x)

together then entail that a positive frequency mode cosmological condensation would generate an

effective coupling constant which itself would be of order 1/N 4.

13 In

passing we note that this particular aspect of the theory is even manifest in the event of

dynamical symmetry breaking in scale invariant theories such as QED with no fundamental electron

mass, theories which also enjoy the scale invariance that is being considered here for gravity. In

such theories, it was found [2025] that even though the scale symmetry is destroyed by the bad

ultraviolet behavior of perturbation theory, nonetheless it gets restored non-perturbatively by a

Gell-Mann Low eigenvalue for the coupling constant, at which the Greens functions of the theory

then scale with anomalous dimensions. Additionally, it was noted [26] that in such theories the

same anomalous dimensions which serve to soften the short distance behavior of the massless

theory then cause the massless theory to become more badly behaved in the infrared, with such

infrared behavior then being found to lead to a dynamical double well effective potential of the

form (m) = m2 [ln(m2/M 2 ) 1], and to drive the theory to the non-trivial minimum at m = M

where the potential takes the expressly negative value min (m = M ) = M 2 , with the fermion

then acquiring a non-zero dynamical mass M . Since the unbroken (m = 0) is zero, we see that

non-perturbative dynamical symmetry breaking in scale invariant theories leads to an explicitly

negative vacuum energy density (and even to an explicit Ginzburg-Landau structure [27]), just as

desired.

12

with the complete solution to the scalar field, fermionic field, and gravitational field equations

of motion in a background Robertson-Walker geometry (viz. a geometry in which the Weyl

tensor and W both vanish) then reducing [9] to just one relevant equation, namely

T = 0,

(14)

a remarkably simple condition which immediately fixes the zero of energy. On rewriting this

condition in the form

h

S02(R g R /2)/6 = Tkin

g h

S04 ,

(15)

we thus see that the evolution equation of conformal cosmology looks identical to that of

standard gravity save only that the quantity

hS02 /12 has replaced the familiar c3 /16G.

With this homogeneous and isotropic, global scalar field S0 filling all space and acting

cosmologically, we see that this change in sign compared with standard gravity leads to

a cosmology in which gravity is globally repulsive rather than attractive. Because of this

change in sign, conformal cosmology thus has no initial singularity (i.e. it expands from a

finite minimum radius), and is thus precisely released from the standard big bang model

constraints described earlier. Similarly, because of this change in sign the contribution of

M (t) to the expansion of the universe is now effectively repulsive, to nicely mesh with the

phenomenological high z data fits in which M (t) was allowed to go negative. Apart from

a change in sign, we see that through S0 there is also a change in the strength of gravity

compared to the standard theory. It is this feature which will prove central to the solution

to the cosmological constant problem which we present below.

Despite the fact that conformal gravity has now been found to be globally repulsive,

nonetheless, it is important to note that in the conformal theory local solar system gravity

can still be attractive; with it having been specifically found [13] that for a static, spherically

symmetric source such as a star, the conformal gravity field equation of Eq. (10) reduces to a

fourth order (i.e. not a second order) Poisson equation 4g00 = 3(T 00 T rr )/4g g00 f (r),

R

R

with solution g00(r) = 1 2 /r + r where = drf (r)r4 /12 and = drf (r)r2 /2.

With the coupling constant g in the Weyl action IW simply making no contribution in

highly symmetric cosmologically relevant geometries where C and W vanish, and

with the sign of being directly given by the sign of this thus cosmologically irrelevant

g , we see that locally attractive and globally repulsive gravity are now decoupled and

thus able to coexist. Local gravity is thus fixed by local sources alone, sources which are

only gravitational inhomogeneities in the otherwise homogeneous global cosmological background, i.e. sources which are characterized by small, local variations in the background

scalar field S(x), variations which themselves are completely decoupled from the homogeneous, constant, cosmological background field S0 itself. It is thus the distinction between

homogeneity and inhomogeneity which provides the demarcation between local and global

gravity, to thus now enable us to consider repulsive cosmologies which are not incompatible

with the attractive gravity observed on solar system distance scales.

Given the equation of motion T = 0, the conformal cosmology evolution equation is

then found to take the form (on setting = h

S04 )

M (t) +

(t))

R 2 (t) + kc2 = 3R 2 (t)(M (t) + (t))/4S02 L2P L R 2 (t)(

13

(16)

M (t) and

(t)), with the deceleration parameter now being

(Eq. (16) serves to define

M (t)

(t). As we see, precisely because the underlying

given as q(t) = (n/2 1)

conformal invariance forces the conformal T to be of the standard second order form, Eq.

(16) is found to be remarkably similar in form to Eq. (1), with conformal cosmology thus

only containing familiar ingredients. As an alternate cosmology then, conformal gravity

thus gets about as close to standard gravity as it is possible for an alternative to get while

nonetheless still being different. Moreover, even though that had not been its intent, because

of this similarity, we see that phenomenological fits in which M (t) and (t) are allowed

to vary freely in Eq. (1) are thus also in fact phenomenological fits to Eq. (16), with the

various (t) simply being replaced by their barred counterparts. In order to see whether

(t0 ) =

M (t0)+1/2 window, it is necessary

conformal gravity can thus fit into the relevant

to analyze the solutions to Eq. (16). Such solutions are readily obtained [9], and can be

classified according to the signs of and k. In the simpler to treat high temperature era

where M (t) = A/R4 = T 4 the complete family of solutions is given as

R2 (t, < 0, k < 0) = k(1 )/2 + ksin2(()1/2ct)/,

R2 (t, = 0, k < 0) = 2A/k

hcS02 kc2t2 ,

R2 (t, > 0, k < 0) = k( 1)/2 ksinh2(1/2ct)/,

R2 (t, > 0, k = 0) = (A/

hcS04 )1/2cosh(21/2 ct),

R2 (t, > 0, k > 0) = k(1 + )/2 + ksinh2(1/2ct)/,

(17)

c)1/2. Similarly

the associated deceleration parameters take the form

q(t, < 0, k < 0) = tan2(()1/2ct) 2(1 )cos(2()1/2ct)/sin2(2()1/2 ct),

q(t, = 0, k < 0) = 2A/k 2h

c3S02 t2,

q(t, > 0, k < 0) = tanh2(1/2 ct) + 2(1 )cosh(21/2ct)/sinh2(21/2 ct),

q(t, > 0, k = 0) = 1 2/sinh2 (21/2 ct),

q(t, > 0, k > 0) = coth2 (1/2ct) 2(1 )cosh(21/2 ct)/sinh2(21/2 ct).

(18)

Now while Eq. (17) yields a variety of temporal behaviors for R(t), it is of great interest

= 0) being zero (rather than infinite)

to note that every single one of them begins with R(t

just as desired above, and that each one of the solutions in which is negative (viz. > 0)

is associated with a universe which permanently expands (only the > 0 solution can

recollapse, with conformal cosmology thus correlating the long time behavior of R(t) with

the sign of rather than with the sign of k). We thus need to determine the degree to which

the permanently expanding universes have by now already become permanently accelerating.

To this end we note first from Eq. (18) that with being greater than one when is

negative, both the > 0, k < 0 and the > 0, k = 0 cosmologies are in fact permanently

accelerating ones no matter what the values of their parameters. To explore the degree to

which they have by now already become asymptotic, as well as to determine the acceleration

properties of the > 0, k > 0 cosmology, we note that since each of the solutions given in

Eq. (17) has a non-zero minimum radius, each associated > 0 cosmology has some very

large but finite maximum temperature Tmax given by

14

2

Tmax

( > 0, k < 0)/T 2 (t, > 0, k < 0) = 1 + 2sinh2(1/2ct)/( 1),

2

Tmax

( > 0, k = 0)/T 2 (t, > 0, k = 0) = cosh(21/2 ct),

2

Tmax

( > 0, k > 0)/T 2 (t, > 0, k > 0) = 1 + 2sinh2 (1/2ct)/( + 1),

(19)

with all the permanently expanding ones thus necessarily being way below their maximum

temperatures once given enough time. To obtain further insight into these solutions it is

convenient to introduce an effective temperature according to c

hS04 = TV4 . In terms of

this TV we then find that in all the < 0 cosmologies the energy density terms take the

form

(t) = (1 T 2/T 2 )1 (1 + T 2T 2 /T 4 )1 ,

max

max

V

4

4

(20)

4

4

for the k < 0 case, and where ( 1)/( + 1) = Tmax

/TV4

where ( 1)/( + 1) = TV4 /Tmax

for the k > 0 case. With being greater than one, we find that for the k > 0 case TV

is greater than Tmax, for k = 0 TV is equal to Tmax, and for k < 0 TV is less than Tmax,

with the energy in curvature (viz. the energy in the gravitational field itself) thus making

a direct contribution to the maximum temperature of the universe. Hence, simply because

the temperature Tmax is overwhelmingly larger than the current temperature T (t0) (i.e.

simply because the universe has been expanding and cooling for such a long time now), we

see that, without any fine tuning at all, in both the k > 0 and k = 0 cases (i.e. cases

(t0 ) is already at its asymptotic limit of one

where TV Tmax T (t0)), the quantity

today, that M (t0) is completely suppressed, and that the deceleration parameter is given

by q(t0) = 1.

For the > 0, k < 0 case (the only > 0 case where TV is less than Tmax) a very different

2

outcome is possible however. Specifically, since in this case the quantity (1 + T 2Tmax

/TV4 )1

is always bounded between zero and one no matter what the relative magnitudes of TV ,

Tmax and T (t), we see that as long as Tmax is very much greater than T (t0), rather than

(t0 )

having had to have already reached its asymptotic limit of one by now, the quantity

is instead only required to be bounded by it. With it thus being expressly bounded from

(t0 ) thus has to lie somewhere between zero and one today no

above, the current value of

matter how big or small TV might be; with the simple additional requirement that TV also

M (t0) will yet again be completely

be very much greater than T (t0) then entailing that

suppressed in the current era. Moreover, (t0) will take a typical value of one half should

2

(t0) not

the value of the quantity T 2(t0)Tmax

/TV4 currently be close to one. Values of

merely less than one but even appreciably so are thus readily achievable in the k < 0 case

for a continuous range of temperature parameters which obey Tmax TV T (t0) without

the need for any fine-tuning at all.14 Noting from Eq. (19) that the temporal evolution of

the > 0, k < 0 case is given by

14 Since

2

the absence of any cosmological constant contribution at all [9], viz. Tmax

= k

hS02c/2(A)1/2,

the magnitudes of Tmax and TV are thus fixable independently in the TV 6= 0 case, with the > 0,

k < 0 case TV thus not merely being smaller than Tmax, but also being capable of being naturally

very much smaller than Tmax even while still being altogether greater than T (t0 ).

15

2

4

sinh2(1/2ct) = (Tmax

/T 2 1)/(Tmax

/TV4 + 1),

(21)

(t),

R 2 (t) + kc2 = R 2 (t)

(22)

we see that in the Tmax TV T (t0) case, the current value of

2

1/2

the nicely bounded form tanh ( ct0), i.e. given precisely by the form found in the model

independent analysis of de Sitter space that was presented above. Additionally, in this

case k (t0) is then given by sech2 (1/2ct0), with negative spatial curvature then explicitly

contributing to current era cosmology (and even doing so repulsively according to [9]). 15 In

(t0 ) less than one are thus naturally achievable

the k < 0 case then we find that values of

(t0) not being able to be larger than one (no matter what the

in our model, and with

value of k) given only that is positive and that the universe is as old as it is, we see that

a conformal cosmology universe solves the cosmological constant problem simply by living

for a very long time.

Thus we see that in all three of the > 0 cases the simple requirement that Tmax T (t0),

M (t0) is completely negligible at current temperatures (it can

TV T (t0) ensures that

thus only be relevant in the early universe), with the current era Eq. (16) then reducing to

to thus not only yield as a current era conformal cosmology what in the standard theory

could only possibly occur as a very late one, but to also yield one which enjoys all the nice

purely kinematic properties of a de Sitter geometry which we identified above. Since studies

of galaxy counts indicate that the purely visible matter contribution to M (t0) is of order

one (actually of order 102 or so in theories in which dark matter is not considered), it

M (t0) will in fact be achieved if the

follows from Eq. (16) that current era suppression of

conformal cosmology scale parameter S0 is altogether larger than the inverse Planck length

L1

P L , a condition which is naturally imposable (i.e. for a continuous, non-fine-tuned, range

of parameters of the theory) and which is explicitly precisely compatible with a large rather

than a small TV , i.e. with a large rather than a small S0 .16 Comparison with Eq. (1)

15 For

completeness, we note that in the case where > 0 and k < 0, the Hubble param2

eter obeys H(t) = 1/2c(1 T 2 (t)/Tmax

)/tanh(1/2ct), with its current value thus obeying

2

2

q(t0 )H (t0 ) = c , and with the current age of the universe then being given by H(t0 )t0 =

arctanh[(q(t0 ))1/2]/(q(t0))1/2. Thus in general we see that t0 is greater than 1/H(t0) (t0 =

1/H(t0) in the k < 0 case in which = 0), with it taking the value t0 = 1.25/H(t0) when

q(t0 ) = 1/2. Thus as already noted in [9] conformal cosmologies have no universe age problem.

M (t0 ) is suppressed by large S0 it no longer matters whether

passing we note that once

M (t) is itself dominated by n = 3 matter or n = 4 radiation, since neither of them makes any

substantial contribution to the full current era conformal gravity energy-momentum tensor (with

M (t) is only of relevance in the early universe). As regards this

this suppression, in our model

suppression we recall, as noted earlier, that if the scalar field is microscopic, this same suppression

M (t0) can be generated simply by virtue of the number, N , of occupied positive energy states

of

in the universe being very large, with the negative energy modes not themselves then needing to

generate a temperature way in excess of TP L. Moreover, in such a case the parameter = 2S02

would be of order 1/N 2, with the quantity tanh2 (1/2ct0 ) not then having to be asymptotic in the

current epoch.

16 In

16

shows that current era < 0 conformal cosmology looks exactly like a low mass standard

model cosmology, except that instead of M (t0) being negligibly small (something difficult

M (t0 ) = 3M (t0)/4S 2 L2 which is negligibly

to understand in the standard theory) it is

0 PL

small instead (M (t0) itself need not actually be negligible in conformal gravity - rather, it

is only the contribution of M (t) to the evolution of the current universe which needs be

small). Hence, we see that the very essence of our work is that the same mechanism which

(t0) to be of order one today, viz. a large rather than a small = h

causes

S04 , serves at

M (t0) to decouple from current era

the same time, and without any fine tuning, to cause

17

cosmology. Thus to conclude we see that when is negative, that fact alone is sufficient

M (t0) = 0 and to 0

(t0) 1, with

(t0) coming closer

to automatically lead us to

to one half the more negative the spatial curvature of the universe gets to be.

Now while we have seen that all the three negative conformal cosmologies lead us to a

(t0 ) of order one, in order to be able to choose between them it is necessary to

current era

try to determine k. To this end we appeal [17] to an at first highly unlikely source, namely

galactic rotation curve data. Recalling that in conformal gravity the metric outside of a static

spherically symmetric source such as a star is given by g00 (r) = 1 2 /r + r, we see

that in the conformal theory the departure from Newton is found to be given by a potential

that actually grows (linearly) with distance. Hence, unlike the situation in standard gravity,

in conformal gravity it is not possible to ever neglect the matter exterior to any region of

interest, with the rest of the universe (viz. the Hubble flow) then also contributing to galactic

motions (i.e. a test particle in a galaxy not only samples the local galactic gravitational field,

it also samples that of the global Hubble flow as well). And indeed, it was found [17] that

the effect on galaxies of the global Hubble flow was to generate an additional linear potential

with a universal coefficient given by 0 /2 = (k)1/2, i.e. one which is generated explicitly

by the negative scalar curvature of the universe18 (heuristically, the repulsion associated

with negative scalar curvature pushes galactic matter deeper into any given galaxy, an effect

which an observer inside that galaxy interprets as attraction), with conformal gravity then

being found able to give an acceptable accounting of galactic rotation curve systematics (in

the data fitting 0 is numerically found to be given by 3.06 1030 cm1, i.e. to be explicitly

given by a cosmologically significant length scale) without recourse to dark matter at all.

We thus identify an explicit imprint of cosmology on galactic rotation curves, recognize

that it is its neglect which may have led to the need for dark matter, and for our purposes

M (t0) = 0 are within the region allowed by the new high z data, and while

Cosmologies with

such a situation would be hard to understand within standard gravity where M (t0 ) = 0 would

correspond to an empty universe, we see that conformal cosmology can contain ordinary matter

(M > 0) and yet still have it decouple from its current evolution.

17

18 Essentially,

a static, Schwarzschild coordinate observer in the rest frame of a given galaxy recognizes the

(conformally transformed) comoving Robertson-Walker metric ds2 = (, )[c2d 2 R2 ( )(d2 +

2d)/(1 2 02/16)2] (where (, ) = (1 + 0/4)2/R2( )(1 0/4)2) as being conformally

equivalent to the metric ds2 = (1 + 0r)c2dt2 dr2/(1 + 0r) r2 d.

17

here confirm that k is indeed negative.19 Conformal cosmology thus leads us directly to

M (t0) = 0,

(t0) = tanh2(1/2ct0), and would thus appear to lead us naturally (providing

only that < 0) right in to the region favored by the new high z data.

As regards the role played by negative in conformal cosmology, we recall that the

effect of elementary particle physics phase transitions is to lead to a vacuum energy density

Vmin (T < TV ) which is typically expected to be negative rather than positive since each

one of the many particle physics phase transitions acts to lower the vacuum energy density

some more as the universe cools. Once given such a negative (something we simulate by

taking the quartic scalar self-coupling coefficient to be negative), its effect on the evolution

of the universe then depends on the sign of the effective G. Thus, for repulsive conformal

(t) and thus to cosmic acceleration, whereas

cosmology, negative translates into positive

for the attractive standard cosmology it translates into negative (t), to then not lead to

any cosmic acceleration at all. Thus added to the challenges faced by the standard theory is

the need to explain not only why should be small, but also to explain why it should also

not in fact be negative, with the very fact of cosmic acceleration providing some support for

the central theme of our work, namely that cosmologically, the effective G is in fact negative.

As regards such an effective negative cosmological G, we note that are essentially two

primary arguments which have in the past supported the contrary, G positive, cosmological

position, namely the current value of M (t0) and big bang nucleosynthesis. However, of

these two, the M (t0 ) argument now has to be discounted. Specifically, with earlier (i.e.

pre high z) data having led to a current value of M (t0 ) = 8GM (t0)/3c2 H 2 (t0) which was

tantalizingly close to one (provided one included dark matter that is), it strongly suggested

that cosmology was indeed normalized to the gravitational constant G, with cosmological

theory otherwise having to explain this closeness as an accident. And, indeed, the great

appeal of inflation was that it provided a rationale for having M (t0) be close to one today

by having M (t) be identically equal to one in each and every epoch. However, with the new

high z data, we now know that M (t0) is unambiguously less than one, and more, that it

will get ever smaller as the universe continues to accelerate. Thus, for observers sufficiently

far enough into the future M (t) will be nowhere near one, with its current closeness to

one being only an artifact of the particular epoch in which current observers happen to be

making observations (and of course without dark matter, by itself known explicitly detected

luminous matter only yields for M (t0) a value which is actually a few orders of magnitude

or so below one today).

With regard to nucleosynthesis, we note that, in principle, it only requires that the

universe had once been hot enough to have been able to trigger nuclear reactions, with it

not being at all necessary that even earlier there had been an altogether hotter big bang

phase. And indeed, it has been found [2931] that since the universe has been expanding

and cooling for such a very long time now, conformal cosmology is also capable of having

once been hot enough to have undergone nucleosynthesis; with the latest calculations [31]

19 Given

the presence of the imprint of such a cosmological scale on galaxies, it thus becomes

necessary (see also [28] for related discussion) for dark matter models to equally produce such a

scale, something which may not be all that easy in standard flat k = 0 models where no curvature

scale is available.

18

yielding the requisite amount of helium as well as the metallicity which is explicitly seen in

population II stars,20 with the inability [2931] of conformal cosmology to yield a sufficient

amount of deuterium being its only outstanding nucleosynthesis problem. Now, as regards

the production of deuterium, we note that while it is generally thought difficult to produce

post-primordially, this is not quite the case, as it is actually fairly easy to both produce and

then retain deuterium by spallation or fragmentation of light nuclei [3234], particularly if

the spallation is pre rather than post galactic.21 In fact the problem is then not one of an

underproduction of deuterium, but rather of an overproduction of the other light elements.

However, as noted by Epstein [34], if the spallation is to also take place in the early universe

with its onset occurring after the nucleosynthesis itself, then (i) in such a situation only

hydrogen and helium interactions would be of any significance, with only Z 3 nuclei then

being producible, and (ii) that in such a case the high energies involved would serve to favor

deuterium production over the lithium production which is favored at ordinary energies.

In addition to this, the authors of [31], on having found the helium abundance in their

nucleosynthesis calculations to be a rather sensitive function of the baryon to entropy ratio,

have suggested that lithium production could also be suppressed if the spallation were to take

place inhomogeneously with helium deficient clouds then spallating with helium rich ones.

In such a case, deuterium would then be produced not during nucleosynthesis itself but some

time afterwards just as inhomogeneities first begin to form in the universe.22 Since a theory

for the growth of inhomogeneities in conformal cosmology has not yet been developed, it is

not possible to currently provide a detailed analysis of this issue or assess its implications

for conformal gravity. And while one should not understate the seriousness of the deuterium

problem in conformal cosmology (indeed its viability as a cosmological model is contingent

upon a successful resolution of this very issue), nonetheless, the relative ease with which

conformal gravity deals with cosmological constant problem, the most severe problem the

standard theory faces, would appear to entitle the conformal theory to further consideration.

And even if the conformal gravity alternative were to fall by the wayside, nonetheless our

analysis of the role that G plays in the standard model cosmological constant problem would

still remain valid.

20 Even

though the cosmology expands far more slowly than the standard cosmology, nonetheless,

this gets compensated for in the conformal case due to the fact that weak interactions are then found

[31] to remain in thermal equilibrium down to much lower temperatures than in the standard case,

with its metallicity predictions then being found [31] to actually outperform those of the standard

model.

21

Even though spallation models of deuterium production were never actually ruled out, the

models were quickly set aside once it became apparent that deuterium could be produced by

standard big bang nucleosynthesis.

22

It could thus be of interest to measure the lithium to deuterium abundance ratio of high z quasar

absorbers, with the obtaining of a value for this ratio different from that expected in standard big

bang nucleosynthesis then possibly indicating the occurrence of inhomogeneous but still fairly early

universe spallation.

19

To conclude this paper, we note once again that spontaneous breakdown effects such as

those associated with a Goldstone boson pion or with massive intermediate vector bosons

seem to be very much in evidence in current era particle physics experiments, and are

thus not quenched at all apparently. Hence all the evidence of particle physics is that its

contribution to should in fact be large rather than small today. However, since in such

(t0) to still be small today, we see that the standard

a case it is nonetheless possible for

gravity fine tuning problem associated with having M (t0) ' (t0) today can be viewed as

being not so much one of trying to understand why it is (t0) which is of order one after

15 or so billion years, but rather of trying to explain why the matter density contribution to

cosmology should be of order one after that much time rather than a factor T 4/TV4 smaller.

Since this latter problem is readily resolved if G does not in fact control cosmology, but

if cosmology is instead controlled by some altogether smaller length squared scale such as

1/S02 , we see that the origin of the entire cosmological constant problem can be directly

traced to the assumption that gravity is controlled by Newtons constant G on each and

every distance scale; with the very existence of the cosmological constant problem possibly

being an indicator that the extrapolation of standard gravity from its solar system origins

all the way to cosmology might be a lot less reliable than is commonly believed.

The author wishes to thank Dr. D. Lohiya for useful discussions. This work has been

supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant No. DE-FG02-92ER40716.00.

Added Notes

(1.) In Sec. (I) we noted that the canceling of the cosmological constant term in the

current epoch does not in and of itself guarantee its irrelevance in all earlier ones. However,

as regards the particular Ginzburg-Landau mean field model discussed in Sec. (I), the

author is indebted to Dr. M. Sher for pointing out to him that, at least in the absence

of any chemical potential (such as that generatable by the condensation contemplated in

this paper of a large number of occupied positive energy modes), the one loop correction

to the classical tree approximation effective potential can actually serve to suppress the

temperature dependence of the cosmological constant contribution at temperatures below

the critical temperature TV (see L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3320 (1974); M.

Sher, Phys. Rept. 179, 273 (1989)); with it thus being necessary to check for any possible

temperature dependence to the vacuum energy in general on a case by case basis.

(2.) It is of interest to note that within the general framework of our proposal of trying

to suppress the effective cosmological G, a new mechanism may have potentially just become

available within standard gravity itself. Specifically, it was suggested recently (L. Randall

and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999); ibid. 83, 4690 (1999)) that standard

four dimensional gravity might only be a brane-localized limit of gravity in some higher large

extra dimension with the effective four-dimensional G then being determined dynamically

by the structure of the embedding in the higher dimensional space. It would thus be of

interest to explore whether such embeddings could lead to a different effective G in the

four-dimensional high and low energy limits.

(3.) Since this paper was finished we have been able to show from a study of conformal

cosmology at temperatures above all phase transitions that the sign of the spatial curvature

k of the universe is then uniquely fixed to be negative, just as desired in this paper. This

result as well as further related discussion of our work may found in P. D. Mannheim, Found.

Phys. 30, (2000), in press (gr/qc 0001011).

20

REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

S. Perlmutter et. al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999).

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989).

Y. J. Ng, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 1, 145 (1992).

S. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 310, 643 (1988).

A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3357 (1974).

S. A. Bludman and M. A. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 255 (1977).

P. D. Mannheim, Phys. Rev. D 58, 103511 (1998).

H. Weyl, Math. Zeit., 2, 384 (1918).

S. L. Adler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 729 (1982).

A. Zee, Ann. Phys. 151, 431 (1983).

P. D. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 26, 337 (1994).

A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, Eighth Edition (First Edition

1922), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K. (1960).

B. S. DeWitt, Dynamical Theory of Groups and Fields, Gordon and Breach, New York

(1965).

P. D. Mannheim and D. Kazanas, Astrophys. J. 342, 635 (1989).

P. D. Mannheim, Astrophys. J. 479, 659 (1997).

P. D. Mannheim, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 22, 289 (1990).

P. D. Mannheim, Astrophys. J. 391, 429 (1992).

K. Johnson, M. Baker and R. Willey, Phys. Rev. 136, B1111 (1964).

K. Johnson, R. Willey and M. Baker, Phys. Rev. 163, 1699 (1967).

M. Baker and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. 183, 1292 (1969).

M. Baker and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2516 (1971).

M. Baker and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2541 (1971).

K. Johnson and M. Baker, Phys. Rev. D 8, 1110 (1973).

P. D. Mannheim, Phys. Rev. D 12, 1772 (1975).

P. D. Mannheim, Nucl. Phys. B 143, 285 (1978).

S. S. McGaugh, in Proceedings of Galaxy Dynamics, A Rutgers Symposium, August

1998. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 182, edited by D.

Merritt, J. A. Sellwood, and M. Valluri, A. S. P., San Francisco (1999).

L. Knox and A. Kosowsky, Primordial Nucleosynthesis in Conformal Weyl Gravity,

Fermilab-Pub-93/322-A, astro-ph/9311006 (1993).

D. Elizondo and G. Yepes, Astrophys. J. 428, 17 (1994).

D. Lohiya, A. Batra, S. Mahajan, and A. Mukherjee, Nucleosynthesis in a Simmering

Universe, nucl-th/9902022 (1999); M. Sethi, A. Batra, and D. Lohiya, Phys. Rev. D

60, 108301 (1999).

F. Hoyle and W. A. Fowler, Nature 241, 384 (1973).

R. I. Epstein, J. M. Lattimer, and D. N. Schramm, Nature 263, 198 (1976).

R. I. Epstein, Astrophys. J. 212, 595 (1977).

21

- Cosmology PrimerTransféré parRulx Narcisse
- No Big Bang, No Beginning of Time, No Inflating UniverseTransféré partams
- The Natural Philosophy of the Cosmos (A)Transféré pardgE
- Cosmology at the CrossroadsTransféré parjohns42
- Beginning and EndTransféré parAlbaMariano
- LCDM Cosmology Through the Lens of Einstein's Static Universe: The Mother of LambdaTransféré parDr Abhas Mitra
- Cuauhtemoc Campuzano, Sergio del Campo and Ramón Herrera- Curvaton reheating in tachyonic inflationary modelsTransféré parHuntsmith
- Pedro Frazão- Cosmological Perturbations In A New Type Of Chaplygin GasTransféré parAzmerzr
- 0108259Transféré parsscript14
- 3C36old NotesTransféré parRoy Vesey
- Geometry and DestinyTransféré parJoana Creel Saenz
- 7-1-chaseTransféré parmarlonumit
- Lesson plan 6.docxTransféré parTheresa Paladin
- unit 2 - big bang - lesson 1Transféré parapi-267236155
- Anisotropic open system cosmologyTransféré parPatrícia Carvalho
- Theory of Cosmological Structure FormationTransféré parAndre Richardson
- final rough draftTransféré parapi-320112581
- Dynamical Systems and Cosmology - A. A. Coley.pdfTransféré parskad1
- 1703.06144Transféré parhumanruhul
- Cosmology, Inflation, And the Physics of NothingTransféré parJohn Bird
- Cosmology: Science between Facts and FaithTransféré pardssgss
- The Rise of Big Bang Models, From Myth to Theory and ObservationsTransféré parMiguel Fino
- A New Test for the Leading Big Bang Theory _ Quanta MagazineTransféré parzentropia
- Origin of UniverseTransféré parLambaco Earl Adam
- Brave New Universe Illuminating the Darkest Secrets of the CosmosTransféré parCarlos Mendez Perez
- Scientific RealismTransféré parPablo Ariel Gonzalez
- 7-1-chaseTransféré parumit
- Time Dilation Cosmological Models: Exegetical and Theological ConsiderationsTransféré parplotyn
- Big Bang CoCoTransféré parEnrico Cruz
- 1_Origin of Solar SystemTransféré parJohn Harris Suni

- The Second SexismTransféré parsscript14
- book reviewTransféré parsscript14
- 2015-02-13 19-15-46 Online Collaboration- Scientists and the Social Network - Nature News & CommentTransféré parsscript14
- Arbab-1999+2001-The Past Earth's Rotation.9905049v3Transféré parsscript14
- 9904049Transféré parsscript14
- 0101507.GUTH InflationTransféré parsscript14
- Lundeen Steinberg 2008 0810.4229v1 Hardy'sTransféré parsscript14
- Marchesini 2006 QCD Review.0611115v1Transféré parsscript14
- 0108254Transféré parsscript14
- 1949 Phys Lecture YukawaTransféré parsscript14
- Zeh-2002-Decoherence- Basic Concepts and Their Interpretation.9506020v3Transféré parsscript14
- 9901388Transféré parsscript14
- particle_chart.pdfTransféré parRiadh Taktak
- 9312022.Cosmology Intro.excelentTransféré parsscript14
- 0001318Transféré parsscript14
- 0108280Transféré parsscript14
- 0108201Transféré parsscript14
- 1979 Phys Lecture WeinbergTransféré parsscript14
- 0108259Transféré parsscript14
- 0104022Transféré parsscript14
- qxxxTransféré parsscript14
- 9601071Conformal CosmologyTransféré parsscript14
- 0102032Transféré parsscript14
- 9801252.Black Holes Intro.excelentTransféré parsscript14
- 1979 Phys Lecture GlashowTransféré parsscript14
- Physics Papers - Steven Weinberg (1996), Theories Of The Cosmological ConstantTransféré parjosolaz
- LatinTransféré parsscript14
- 1918 Phys Lecture Max Planck Nobel Lecture.htmTransféré parsscript14

- Market Leader Advanced TimetableTransféré parAtila Taz Almeida
- Tube Mill PatraTransféré parRitz Hindustan
- MncTransféré parMohit Kalal
- CR Education Week GoodnoeTransféré parBucksLocalNews.com
- Gravitational InteractionTransféré parHamizan Hafiz
- NCDP 2016 Scientific BrochureTransféré parVishal Raut
- Sample Assignment on Business EnvironmentTransféré parInstant Assignment Help
- Swift Code (Bic) - Bancpepl - Banco de La Nacion - Lima - Peru (Pe)Transféré parr2m2v
- QSS Brochure Sept 2017 LRTransféré parKamarul Yoe
- 091414-25552-01.dmpTransféré parcatalin
- energies-10-01357Transféré parManikanta Swamy
- 57416560 German Traitors in WW2 They Not Only Gave the Soviets Every German Plan and Important Piece of Data German Traitors Also Sabotaged Every Major OpeTransféré parMark Maloney
- Cisco Content Security Virtual Appliance Install GuideTransféré parAlexandru Luca
- lipo wang.pdfTransféré parvamgadu
- sistematica de flourensiaTransféré parB Mathias BN
- Eco Tourism White PaperTransféré parwaysandmeans
- A Transaction is Deemed to Be an Equitable MortgageTransféré parShan Khing
- Hsg80 Array Controller Acs Version 82 User Guide Ek Hsg80 Ug b01 July 1998Transféré parLeandro Villar
- Nordic Mems Support-final Report With Appendix1Transféré parGautham S Narendhar
- 06_chapter 1.pdfTransféré parSundeep Narwani
- 2014040109252984Transféré parWinapon
- she_kills_monsters_pdf.pdfTransféré parBelle Goodman
- Quectel_M10_datasheetTransféré parGsm Rana
- Inverter 12VDC to 220VAC 100 Watt by Power Transistor 2N3055Transféré parBank
- Analysis of Project PerformanceTransféré parJairo Almonte
- Ownership Limitation ProvisionsTransféré parAnonymous 3hf2TXf
- review-Neutrophil Function- from mechanisms to disease.pdfTransféré parAsish Geiorge
- 1984028Transféré parFilipe Henrique
- Bohinj Park ECO Hotel - Hotel Bohinj Park BrochureTransféré parbohinjparkhotel
- List of Indian StandardsTransféré parmahi229

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.