Microsoft Word - Shutext-arXiv.docNational Tsing Hua University Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan
E-mail: shu@stat.nthu.edu.tw
2
Abstract
In the late 1990s, observations of Type Ia supernovae led to the astounding
discovery that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. The explanation
of this anomalous acceleration has been one of the great problems in physics
since that discovery. In this article we propose cosmological models that can
explain the cosmic acceleration without introducing a cosmological constant into
the standard Einstein field equation, negating the necessity for the existence of
dark energy. There are four distinguishing features of these models: 1) the speed
of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the
evolution of the universe, 2) time has no beginning and no end, 3) the spatial
section of the universe is a 3-sphere, and 4) the universe experiences phases of
both acceleration and deceleration. One of these models is selected and tested
against current cosmological observations of Type Ia supernovae, and is found to
fit the redshift-luminosity distance data quite well.
3
I. INTRODUCTION
In the late 1990s, observations of Type Ia supernovae made by two groups, the
Supernova Cosmology Project [1] and the High-z Supernova Search Team [2],
indicated that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. The current
mainstream explanation of the accelerating expansion of the universe is to introduce a
mysterious form of energy—the so called dark energy that opposes the self-attraction
of matter. Two proposed forms for dark energy are the cosmological constant, which
can be viewed physically as the vacuum energy, and scalar fields, sometimes called
quintessence, whose cosmic expectation values evolve with time. Currently, in the
spatially flat Λ CDM model of cosmology, dark energy accounts for nearly
three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe [3]. The introduction of dark
energy raises several theoretical difficulties, and understanding the anomalous cosmic
acceleration has become one of the greatest challenges of theoretical physics. There
are a number of excellent review papers on this issue [4-6].
In this article we propose cosmological models that can explain the accelerating
universe without introducing a cosmological constant into the standard Einstein field
equation, negating the necessity for the existence of dark energy. There are four
distinguishing features of these models:
4
i The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary
with the evolution of the universe.
i Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big
crunch singularity.
i The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere, ruling out the possibility of a
flat or hyperboloid geometry.
i The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.
One of these models is selected and tested against the current cosmological
observations, and is found to fit the redshift-luminosity distance data quite well.
This article has the following structure: In the next section, the cosmological
models are developed, with the details of the calculations presented in the Appendix.
In Sec. 3, the dynamical evolution of the universe is determined by solving the
Einstein field equation under various conditions. In Sec. 4, a selected model is tested
against the observations of Type Ia supernovae. Four data sets available in the
literature are included in the test. Finally, the results are discussed in Sec. 5.
Throughout this article we follow the sign conventions of Wald [7]. In particular,
we use metric signature − + + + , define the Riemann and the Ricci tensors by
equations (3.2.3) and (3.2.25) of Wald [7] respectively, and employ abstract index
notation to denote tensors. Greek indices, running from 0 to 3, are used to denote
5
components of tensors while Latin indices are used to denote tensors. Einstein’s
summation convention is assumed.
II. COSMOLOGICAL MODELS
A cosmological model is defined by specifying: 1) the spacetime geometry
determined by a metric gab , 2) the mass-energy distributions described in terms of a
stress-energy-momentum tensor Tab , and 3) the interaction of the geometry and the
mass-energy, which is depicted through a field equation.
A. The spacetime metric
Under the assumption that on the large scale the universe is homogeneous and
isotropic and expressed in the synchronous time coordinate and co-moving spatially
spherical/hyperbolic coordinates ( , , , )t ψ θ φ , the line element of the spacetime
metric gab takes the form [7]
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2
2
d d d
ψ ψ θ θ
ψ ψ θ θ
(2.1)
where c is the speed of light and the three options listed to the right of the left
bracket correspond to the three possible spatial geometries: a 3-sphere, 3-dimensional
6
flat space, and a 3-dimensional hyperboloid, respectively. The metric of form (2.1) is
called the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric.
We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space
in spacetime. It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the
universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in
accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with
cosmic time. Denoting the speed of light as a function of cosmic time by ( )tc , we
modify the FRW metric as
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2
2
d d d
ψ ψ θ θ
ψ ψ θ θ
B. The stress-energy-momentum tensor
The universe is assumed to contain both matter and radiation. The content of the
universe is described in terms of a stress-energy-momentum tensor Tab . We shall
take Tab to have the general perfect fluid form
2T u u g ,ab a b abP P c
ρ = + +
where ua , ρ and P are, respectively, a time-like vector field representing the
4-velocity, the proper average mass density, and the pressure as measured in the
instantaneous rest frame of the cosmological fluid.
7
C. The field equation
In a cosmology where the speed of light is assumed constant, the interaction
between the curvature of spacetime at any event and the matter content at that event is
depicted through Einstein’s field equation
4
1
GR c
π≡ − = (2.3)
where R ab is the Ricci tensor, R is the curvature scalar, and G is the Newtonian
gravitational constant. In a cosmology with a varying c and varying G , one needs a
new field equation for attaining consistency [8]. Noting that 2/G c is the conversion
factor that translates a unit of mass into a unit of length, we postulate that c and G
vary in such a way that 2( ) ( )/G t c t must be absolutely constant with respect to the
cosmic time t . We can make 2( ) ( )/ 1G t c t = by choosing proper units of mass and
length. Accordingly, we speculate that in a cosmology with a varying c and
varying G , the field equation describing the interaction between the spacetime
geometry and the distribution of mass-energy is given as
( )2 *1
2 G R 8 1 T 8 T ,gab ab ab ab abR cπ π≡ − = ≡ (2.4)
where ( )* 2T 1 Tab abc≡ . Due to the Bianchi identity, the contravariant tensor * T ab
satisfies the equation of motion
* T 0 .ab a∇ =
* 0T 0 ,μ μ∇ =
which, after some straightforward algebra (see Appendix, section 1 and 2), yields
2
a a
i
Thus, for a universe composed of pressure-free dust ( 0)P = we have
3( ) ( ) 0, d t a t dt
ρ =
3 constant ( ) ( ) ,t a tρ = (2.5)
while for a universe composed of dust and radiation 2( / 3)P cρ= we obtain
4 constant( ) ( ) .t a tρ = (2.6)
Equations (2.5) and (2.6) express conservation of mass-energy.
III. DYNAMICS OF THE UNIVERSE
In this section we determine the dynamical behavior, which is characterized by
the functions ( )ta and ( )tc in metric (2.2), of a universe as described by our
cosmological models. To obtain predictions for the dynamical evolution, we substitute
metric (2.2) into the field equation (2.4) and solve for ( )ta and ( )tc . Computing the
components of Gab in terms of ( )ta and ( )tc , and then plugging the expressions
9
for them into equation (2.4), after some tedious but straightforward calculation (see
Appendix, section 1 and 3), we arrive at the evolution equations for a homogeneous
and isotropic universe:
aa c
π ρ •
c cc c a a a a
π ρ •• • •
, (3.2)
where k 1= for the 3-sphere, k 0= for flat space, and k 1= − for the hyperboloid.
Using equation (2.5) or, respectively equation (2.6), we rewrite equation (3.1), for a
universe composed of dust only, as
2 ( ) k ( ) ( )
, (3.3)
where 34 ( ) ( ) / 3M t taπρ≡ , which is constant by equation (2.5); while for a
universe composed of dust and radiation, as
2
• = −
,
where 4' 4 ( ) ( ) / 3M t taπρ≡ , which is constant by equation (2.6).
There are two unknown functions, ( )tc and ( )ta , to be determined. To solve
equations (3.2) and (3.3) we need a further postulate on the relationship between ( )tc
and ( )ta . For this we argue as follows: When converting the magnitude of increment
in time, dt , into that in length, Nature needs a universal standard to refer to. Noting
10
that the concept of time arises from the observation that the distribution of
mass-energy contained in the universe is dynamic and the rate of change, ( )tρ• , of
the cosmological density is the very quantity that manifests the dynamicity of a
homogeneous universe, we postulate that ( )tρ• is the standard taken by Nature. If
the distribution was static, ( ) 0tρ• ≡ , the concept of time would have no meaning.
The cosmological density plays the role of ultimate clock in a homogeneous universe.
Accordingly, when being converted into that in length, the magnitude of increment in
time, dt , is normalized with ( )tρ• . The conversion between time and length can
then be expressed as
0 | ( ) |td t dtρκ
i ,
where 0κ is constant with respect to the cosmic time t . Since the speed of light in a
vacuum ( )c t is viewed as simply a conversion factor between time and length in
spacetime, we also have the conversion
( ) c t d td t .
By comparing the right hand sides of these two conversions, we conclude
( ) 1 | ( ) | t tc ρ •
, (3.4)
where κ is constant with respect to the cosmic time t . We are now ready to solve
equations (3.2) and (3.3) for ( )a t and ( )c t . Given equations (2.5) and (3.4),
equation (3.2) is redundant, so equation (3.3) is all we need to arrive at a solution. We
will solve equation (3.3) for the universe composed of pressure-free dust and with
spatially 3-sphere geometry ( k 1= ) explicitly and discuss the other cases briefly.
Substituting (3.4) into equation (3.3) yields
2 2
Ma a aκ
Simplifying and preparing (3.5) for integration results in
− = ± −
⇒ ( )1 / 2 1 / 4 7 / 42 Md dt a a aκ − = ± −
⇒ ( )1 / 2 1 / 4 7 / 42Mdt da a aκ − −= ± −
⇒ ( )1 / 2 1 / 4 7 / 42Mdt daa aκ − − −= ± − .
Carrying out the integration leads to
( )1 / 2 1 / 4 7 / 4
2
( )1 / 2
M M
aaκ = ± − < ≤
. (3.6)
12
We have chosen the time origin ( 0)t = to be that when a achieves its maximum
value 2M . Setting 1/ 22 3 Mκσ ≡ and solving equation (3.6) for a in terms of t ,
we finally arrive at
. (3.7)
In this model, ( )ta is the hyper-radius of the universe at cosmic time t . The radius
will get smaller and smaller as t approaches ±∞, however it can never reach zero,
and therefore, time has no beginning and no end, and there is neither a big bang nor a
big crunch singularity. Setting 2( ) /( ) Mtt aγ = , the universe is accelerating in the
epoch when ( ) 7 / 8tγ < and is decelerating when ( ) 7 / 8tγ > . The graph of
2( ) / Mta versus /t σ is displayed in Figure 1.
13
FIG. 1. The evolution of the universe composed of pressure-free dust and with spatially 3-sphere geometry. The hyper-radius of the universe, ( )a t , can never reach zero. The universe is accelerating in the epoch when 7 / 8γ < and is decelerating when 7 / 8.γ >
From equations (3.4) and (3.7), the speed of light in a vacuum, as a function of
cosmic time t , can be calculated as
( )2 1 / 34 / 3
( ) 4 ( )
. (3.8)
Since the speed of light c , wavelength λ , and frequency ν are related by c λν= ,
a varying c could be interpreted in different ways. We assume that a varying c
arises from a varying λ with ν kept constant. We further assume that the relation
14
between the energy E of a photon and the wavelength λ of its associated
electromagnetic wave is given by equation ( ) / ( )E t tη λ= , where η is a constant
that does not vary over cosmic time. Consequently, from relation ( ) ( ) /t c tλ ν= , it
follows that [ ] ( )( ) / ( ) h tE t c t ν νη ≡= . Therefore, the so called Planck’s constant h
actually varies with the evolution of the universe.
Following the same procedure as above, the solutions for the other five cases are
given as follows:
i For a universe composed of pressure-free dust and with spatially flat
geometry,
2
1
2 , 0 ( ) /
− .
We have chosen the time origin ( 0)t = to be that when a reaches the value 2M .
In this case ( )ta will blow up at a finite future time t σ= . The graph of 2( ) / Mta
versus /t σ is displayed in Figure 2.
i For a universe composed of pressure-free dust and with spatially hyperboloid
geometry,
15
( ) 2
1
at a u u duσ − −= + < < ∞∫ .
3 / 4 3/4
= − + <
Solving equation (3.9) for a in terms of t yields
( ) ( )3 / 4
( ) / M tt
− − .
In this case (0) 2Ma = and ( )ta will blow up at a finite future time ( )3/ 42 1t σ= − .
The graph of 2( ) / Mta versus /t σ is displayed in Figure 2.
FIG. 2. The dynamics of two versions of the universe composed of pressure-free dust: with spatially flat geometry, and with spatially hyperboloid geometry. In both universes ( )a t can never reach zero and will blow up at a finite future time.
16
i For a universe composed of dust and radiation, and with spatially 3-sphere
geometry,
( ) 1
Ma
or equivalently
( ) 2 2 '
1 / 4 3 / 2 2 ' (1 / 2) 1 , 0( ) / ' Ma
Mau u ut a dσ − −= ± − < ≤∫ ,
where
5
( ) ' ( ')
=
≡ .
We have chosen the time origin ( 0)t = to be that when a achieves its maximum
value 2 'M . In this case 1( ) | | , as t t ta − →±∞∼ .
i For a universe composed of dust and radiation, and with spatially flat
geometry,
1
− .
In this case (0) 2 'Ma = and ( )a t will blow up at a finite future time 't σ= .
i For a universe composed of dust and radiation, and with spatially hyperboloid
geometry,
( ) 1
Ma
17
u u ut a dσ − −= +∫ .
In this case (0) 2 'Ma = and ( )a t will blow up at a finite future time before
't σ= .
From these results, we see that a spatially flat or spatially hyperboloid geometry
is not feasible to describe our universe, since in each case ( )ta will blow up at a
finite future time.
IV. THE COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT AND DATA FITTING
In this section we test the model for the universe composed of pressure-free dust
and with spatially 3-sphere geometry against cosmological observations. Theoretical
predictions of luminosity distance as a function of redshift will be compared with
cosmological observations of Type Ia supernovae. Four data sets available in the
literature are included in the test: 1) 18 supernovae from the Calán/Tololo Supernova
Survey [1], 2) 42 Type Ia supernovae discovered by the Supernova Cosmology
Project [1], 3) 44 supernovae assembled by Astier et al. (2006) [3], and 4) 73 Type Ia
supernovae discovered by the Supernova Legacy Survey [3].
18
Suppose that a photon of frequency (wavelength) eν ( eλ ) is emitted at cosmic
time et by an isotropic observer E with fixed spatial coordinates ( , , )E E Eψ θ φ ,
and further suppose this photon is observed at time ot by another isotropic observer
O at fixed co-moving coordinates. We may take O to be at the origin of our spatial
coordinate system. Let oν ( oλ ) be the frequency (wavelength) measured by this
second observer. The redshift factor, z , is given by
( ) / ( ) ( )1 . ( ) / ( ) ( )
o o o o o
e e e e e
c t c t a tz c t c t a t
λ ν λ ν
+ ≡ = =
Substituting the expression for ( )ta in (3.7) and that for ( )tc in (3.8) into the above
equation yields
By setting
( ) ( ) 2 , ( ), and ( ) , e e o ot t M t taγ γ γ γ γ≡ ≡ ≡
equation (4.1) can be simplified as
( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )3 1/ 4 3 1/ 41 / 1 / 1 1 1 / 1 / 1 .e e o ozγ γ γ γ− = + − (4.2)
From metric (2.2) and the fact that 0d d ds θ φ= = = along the photon path, we
have
19
( ) ( )1 / 2 1 / 21 1( )
( ) 2 tan 1 / 1 tan 1 / 1
o
e
t
t a t c dt γ γ− − = − − − ∫ . (4.3)
The proper distance between E and O at cosmic time ot is
( )P ( )o Ed z a t ψ≡ ,
and the luminosity distance between E and O at cosmic time ot is evaluated as
( ) ( )L ( ) 1 s i no Ed z a t z ψ= +
( )2 ( ) 1 s i no EM t zγ ψ= + . (4.4)
In the data sets included in this test, the luminosity distance is given as the
stretch-luminosity corrected effective B-band peak magnitude [1], effective Bm , and the
magnitude-redshift relation is expressed as
B LM 5 log ( ) 25 , effective B d zm = + +
where BM is a parameter believed to be constant for all supernovae of Type Ia
[9-11]. From equations (4.3) and (4.4), our model will predict the theoretical value
, ( ) o
m zγ β with unknown parameters oγ and β as follows:
( ) [ ]( ) ,,5 log 1+z sin ( ) , o
effective B o oz m zm γ βγβ γ= + ≡
where BM 5log 2 25Mβ ≡ + + and
[ ] ( ) ( )1 / 2 1 / 21 1, 2 ta n 1 ( ) 1 ta n 1 1 .o e oz zγ γ γ− − ≡ − − − (4.5)
For a given oγ , the quantity ( )e zγ in (4.5), as a function of redshift factor z , is defined
implicitly by equation (4.2). The best-fit parameters are determined by minimizing the
20
quantity
( ) 0
∑ i
( ) 0
n
γ βγ β < ≤ ≥ =
= ∑ i
where ( ) 1 2z , , , , ... , ,i im i n= are the observations and
( ) 0
0
z m z
m m zz zd m m γ β γ β σ σ≥
−− ≡ + i
Figure 3 shows the Hubble diagram of corrected effective rest-frame B magnitude as
a function of redshift z for the 177 supernovae contained in the test data sets. The
theoretical predictions, , ( ) o
m zγ β , of the model, with 0.001oγ = and 49.321β = , fit
the observations quite well.
21
FIG. 3. Hubble diagram for: (a) 62 low-redshift Type Ia supernovae, 18 from the Calán/Tololo Supernova Survey (Data Set 1) and 44 assembled by the Supernova Legacy Survey (Data Set 3), and (b) 115 high-redshift Type Ia supernovae, 42 discovered by the Supernova Cosmology Project (Data Set 2) and 73 by the Supernova Legacy Survey (Data Set 4). The solid curve is the theoretical value
, ( ) o
m zγ β as predicted by our model with parameters 0.001oγ = and 49.321β = .
V. DISCUSSION
In the Friedmann cosmology [12], a homogeneous and isotropic universe must
have begun in a singular state. Hawking and Penrose [13] proved that singularities are
22
generic features of cosmological solutions only if general relativity is correct and the
universe is filled with as much matter and radiation as we observe. The prediction of
singularities represents a breakdown of general relativity. Many authors felt that the
idea of singularities was repulsive and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. There
were therefore a number of attempts [14-17] to avoid the conclusion that there had
been a big bang, but were all abandoned eventually. Negating the existence of
singularities restores beauty to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.
Cosmological constant Λ was introduced into the field equation of gravity by
Einstein as a modification of his original theory to ensure a static universe. After
Hubble’s redshift observations [18] indicated that the universe is not static, the
original motivation for the introduction of Λ was lost. However, Λ has been
reintroduced on numerous occasions when it might be needed to reconcile theory and
observations, in particular with the discovery of cosmic acceleration in the 1990s.
With our models successfully explaining the accelerating universe without the
introduction of Λ , the concept of cosmological constant shall be discarded again
from the point of view of logical economy, as suggested by Einstein [19].
Beginning with Dirac [20] in 1937, some physicists have speculated that several
so called physical constants may actually vary. Theories for a varying speed of light
(VSL) have been proposed independently by Petit [21-23] from 1988, Moffat [24] in
23
1993, and then Barrow [25] and Albrecht and Magueijo [26] in 1999 as an alternative
way to cosmic inflation [27-29] of solving several cosmological puzzles such as the
flatness and horizon problems (for a detailed discussion of these problems, see
Weinberg [30] , section 4.1). For reviews of VSL, see Magueijo [31]. In the standard
big bang cosmological models, the flatness problem arises from observation that the
initial condition of the density of matter and energy in the universe is required to be
fine-tuned to a very specific critical value for a flat universe. With our models
asserting that the spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere, the flatness problem
disappears automatically. The horizon problem of the standard cosmology is a
consequence of the existence of the big bang origin and the deceleration in the
expansion of the universe. Without the big bang origin and with the universe being
accelerating in the epoch when ( ) 7 / 8tγ < , our models may thus provide a solution to
the horizon problem.
Essentially, this work is a novel theory about how the magnitudes of the three
basic physical dimensions, mass, time, and length are converted into each other, or
equivalently, a novel theory about how the geometry of spacetime and the distribution
of mass-energy interact. The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of
the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke by postulating that
4
| | t G tt
Since there are three basic physical dimensions, any cosmological model
requires two constants. Einstein took c and G as the two constants, whereas we
assert that the two constants are κ , the factor relating to the conversion between time
and length, and τ , the conversion factor between mass and length. These two
constants, κ and τ , together with η , the constant relating the energy of a photon
and the wavelength of its associated electromagnetic wave, can be used to define the
natural units of measurement for the three basic physical dimensions. Using
dimensional analysis, we obtain:
3 4 th e n a tu ra l u n i t o f m a s s η
τκ ≡i
4 T h e n a tu ra l u n i t o f t im e 1 τηκ
≡i .
4 T h e n a tu ra l u n i t o f le n g th τη κ
≡i .
Although, from expression (3.8), the speed of light in a vacuum becomes infinite,
hence a singularity, at cosmic time 0t = , it is of interest to note that
2( ) = Mc t d t π ∞
− ∞
< ∞∫ .
In this sense, we may call the singularity a pseudo singularity.
By comparing cosmological models, we refute the claim [32] that the time
variation of a dimensional quantity such as the speed of light has no intrinsic physical
25
significance. We illustrate our point as follows: In Friedmann’s closed universe, which
resulted from the constancy of the speed of light, the time span is a closed interval,
from big bang to big crunch, while in ours the time span is an open interval, with
neither beginning nor end. The two models can be discriminated by the topological
structures of their time spansthe former is compact, whereas the latter is not [33].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Mr. Ching-Lung Huang () of the Department of
Biomedical Engineering and Environmental Sciences, National Tsing Hua University,
Taiwan, for designing computer programs for searching for the best parameters in
data fitting and for providing the figures used in this article.
26
APPENDIX
1. Calculations for the Components of c abΓ and R ab
For the case of 3-sphere geometry, in the synchronous time coordinate and
co-moving spatial spherical coordinates ( , , , )t ψ θ φ , the covariant components of
metric gab are
( ) 0 0 0 0 ( ) 0 0 0 0 ( ) sin 0
g
−
=

,
2
( ) 0 0 0 0 ( ) 0 0 0 0 ( ) sin 0
g g
t t

.
( )1 2
ρ μν νσ μσ μν∂ ∂ ∂= −+ ,
after some tedious but straightforward calculation, we find that the only non-
vanishing components of the Christoffel symbol c abΓ are
2 0 0 0 00 11 222 2
2 2 0 33 2
, ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )sin, , ( ) ( ) ( )
t t t
c
( ) , sin cos sin cos sin ( ) t t
a a ψ ψ ψ ψ θ
•
2 2 2 2 2 02 02 12 21 33 ,
( ) cos, , sin cos ( ) sin t t
a a
= = = = = −Γ Γ Γ Γ Γ
3 3 3 3 3 3 03 30 13 31 23 32
( ) cos cos, , , ( ) sin sin t t
a a
= = = = = =Γ Γ Γ Γ Γ Γ
where the dots denote derivatives with respect to t . Substituting these expressions for
the components of c abΓ into those for the components of the Ricci tensor Rab ,
R β β α β α β μν μν μ μν α μβ β ν α β β ν∂ ∂= −Γ − Γ Γ Γ Γ Γ+ ,
gives
00 ( ) ( ) ( )R 3 3 , ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t t t
a c a a c a= −
i i ii
t t
a c •
ii i i
2 2 2 22 11 33 11 , , R R sin R R sin sin θψ ψ= = and
R 0, for .μν μ ν= ≠
From R R gν λ ν μ μλ= , it follows that
0 0 2
ii i i
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
R R R 2 .t t t t t t t t t t t a a a c
a c a c a c a− = = = + +
i ii i i
t t t t t t t t t t
R c t
a a a c c a a a c a
μ μ − +
Expressed in the synchronous time coordinate and co-moving spatial
spherical/hyperbolic coordinates ( , , , )t xμψ θ φ ≡ , the 4-velocity of the fluid is
simply (1, 0, 0, 0)/ tu xμ μ = ∂ ∂ = . Hence the contravariant components of
2T u u g ab a b abP P c
ρ = + +
are
2
T 0 0 ( ) ( )sin
t P t t
P t t a
2 2 2

,
4
2
T 0 0 (
P
t t P t t
a a

.
Set * 2T T( ) ab abc t−≡ and * 2T T( ) ab abc t−≡ . From the contravariant version of the
field equation * G 8 T ab abπ= and the Bianchi identity, we see that * T ab satisfies the
29
μ μ∇ ≡ = .
From * * * * T T + T + Tbc bc b dc c bd a a ad ad∇ = ∂ Γ Γ , we obtain
2 * 00 * 00 0 * 00
0 00 ( )
1 01 11; ( ) 1 ( ) ( )
P tt t
2 02 22 ; ( ) 1 ( ) ( )
P tt t
3 03 33 ( ) 1
P tt t
P tt t
μ μ ρρ
2
a a
.
( ) ( )
i
⇒ 3 2( ) ( ) 3 ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 t a t t a t taρρ •
+ = i
30
ρ = ,
3 constant ( ) ( ) t a tρ = ; (A2.1)
( ) ( )
i
⇒ 4 3( ) ( ) 4 ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 t a t t a t taρρ •
+ = i
ρ = ,
thus
3. The evolution equations for the universe
Plugging the expression for R and those for the components of R ab , gab and
*T ab into the field equation
*1
2 R 8 T ,gab ab abR π− =
since the three spatial field equations are equivalent due to the homogeneity and
isotropy, we obtain just two equations:
2 2
a ca a π ρ
• = −
2 2 2
2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 12 2 8 ( ) . ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t t t t t t t t t
Pa a a a a a c a
c cc π • • • • • + − = − +
2 2
c cc c a a a a
π ρ •• • •
− = − +
.
Repeating the calculation for the cases of spatially flat and hyperboloid geometries,
we obtain the general evolution equations for homogeneous, isotropic universe:
2 2
ca a a
c cc c a a a a
π ρ •• • •
− = − +
,
where k 1= for the 3-sphere, k 0= for flat space, and k 1= − for the hyperboloid.
Equation (A3.3) can be rewritten as
2
= −
Using equation (A2.1) or, respectively, equation (A2.2), we obtain, for a universe
composed of dust only,
• = −
where 34 ( ) ( ) / 3M t taπρ≡ , which is constant by equation (A2.1); while for a
universe composed of dust and radiation,
2
• = −
where 4' 4 ( ) ( ) / 3 M t taπρ≡ , which is constant by equation (A2.2).
32
REFERENCES
[1] S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophysical Journal 517, 565 (1999). [2] A. G. Riess et al., Astronomical Journal 116, 1009 (1998). [3] P. Astier et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 447, 31 (2006). [4] J. A. Frieman, M. S. Turner, and D. Huterer, Annual Review of Astronomy and
Astrophysics 46, 385 (2008). [5] E. V. Linder, Reports on Progress in Physics 71, 056901 (2008). [6] A. Silvestri, and M. Trodden, Reports on Progress in Physics 72, 096901 (2009). [7] R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1984). [8] G. F. R. Ellis and J.-P. Uzan, American Journal of Physics 73, 240 (2005). [9] A. G. Riess, W. H. Press, and R. P. Kirshner, Astrophysical Journal 473, 88
(1996). [10] S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophysical Journal 483, 565 (1997). [11] M. M. Phillips et al., Astronomical Journal 118, 1766 (1999). [12] A. Friedmann, Zeitschrift Fur Physik 10, 377 (1922). [13] S. W. Hawking, and R. Penrose, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences 314, 529 (1970). [14] H. Bondi, and T. Gold, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108,
252 (1948). [15] F. Hoyle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108, 372 (1948). [16] F. Hoyle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 109, 365 (1949). [17] E. M. Lifshitz, and I. M. Khalatnikov, Advances in Physics 12, 185 (1963). [18] E. Hubble, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 15, 168 (1929). [19] A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
NJ., ed. Fifth, 1955), p. 127. [20] P. A. M. Dirac, Nature 139, 323 (1937). [21] J. P. Petit, Modern Physics Letters A 3, 1527 (1988). [22] J. P. Petit, Modern Physics Letters A 3, 1733 (1988). [23] J. P. Petit, and M. Viton, Modern Physics Letters A 4, 2201 (1989). [24] J. Moffat, International Journal of Modern Physics D 2, 351 (1993). [25] J. D. Barrow, Physical Review D 59, 043515 (1999). [26] A. Albrecht, and J. Magueijo, Physical Review D 59, 043516 (1999). [27] A. H. Guth, Physical Review D 23, 347 (1981). [28] A. Albrecht, and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters 48, 1220 (1982).
33
[29] A. D. Linde, Physics Letters B 108, 389 (1982). [30] S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, New York, 2008), pp.
202-208. [31] J. Magueijo, Reports on Progress in Physics 66, 2025 (2003). [32] M. J. Duff, L. B. Okun, and G. Veneziano, Journal of High Energy Physics 03,