Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

1/R^2- scaling of mass

  1. Jun 5, 2006 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606048

    About universes with scale-related total masses and their abolition of presently outstanding cosmological problems
    Authors: H.J. Fahr, M. Heyl
    Comments: Submitted to AN. 7 pages

    Cosmological consequences of a strictly valid total energy conservation for the whole universe are investigated in this paper. Interestingly enough as one consequence of ergodically behaving universes very specific scaling laws with the diameter R of the universe can be derived for relevant cosmic quantities. Especially the 1/R^2- scaling of mass - and vacuum energy - density then automatically leads to a vanishing cosmic curvature parameter k=0 and also reveals, that for such universes no horizon problem occurs. In addition the longstanding problem of observationally indicated very low cosmic vacuum energies in contrast to the very large quantumfield estimates is easily solved when the vacuum energy density decay with 1/R^2 is taken into account reconciling presently observed vacuum energy density values with those from theoretical expectations. We also suggest why the mass of the universe can permanently increase and can in fact grow up from a Planck mass as a pure vacuum fluctuation.

    This (looks) interesting to me, i am reading it again to try and understand some of it, if any one is interested maybe they could explain some of the maths.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 5, 2006 #2

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, this is an interesting if confused paper. (They introduce an "associated Schwarzschild radius for the universe" while not acknowledging that this is inappropriate for the cosmological case.)

    Normally the dynamics of the universe's expansion is derived from its density and pressure contents via the Friedmann equations.

    [tex]\frac{dR/dt^2}{r^2} + \frac{kc^2}{R^2} = \frac{8\pi G}{3}[/tex]

    and the pressure equation (my LaTex is all screwed up here :frown:)

    This leads to the standard model. However this standard model has certain well known problems, which require Inflation, DM and DE unverified in the laboratory.

    Fahr and Heyl have forced a linear expansion solution (their equation 9) out of the Friedmann equations, taking k = 0 from the flat-space WMAP results, to derive a solution for rho.

    You do end up with a simple and remarkably concordant model, without inflation, however without a physical basis for their assumption that
    rho ~ R-2 rather than the normal rho ~ R-3. They do conclude:
    They have (almost) rediscovered SCC! (except the SCC universe is conformally flat with k = +1)

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2006
  4. Jun 6, 2006 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When ever i see a statment like this,

    We also suggest why the mass of the universe can permanently increase and can in fact grow up from a Planck mass as a pure vacuum fluctuation.

    I wonder if any one knows what a (vacuum fluctuation) is.
     
  5. Jun 6, 2006 #4

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Quite.

    Garth
     
  6. Jun 6, 2006 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    At some stage of cosmological theory some one will have to use the word perpetual, forget philosophy it is a fact, or maybe after we have gone there will be nothing for ever, philisophical ****, i know, but which do you want to think is true?
     
  7. Jun 6, 2006 #6

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is not a matter of what we want to be true but what actually is so.

    The problem is that at the limits of observation science has to give way to untestable speculation.

    To say the BB, or whatever, was the result of a "vacuum fluctuation" - nevermind the question "a fluctuation in what?" - is just as much a guess about that which "we want to think is true" as any other.

    Garth
     
  8. Jun 7, 2006 #7

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    This is another example of how easy it is to get a fundamentally unsound paper published on Arxiv. Kudos to Garth [whom I greatly respect] for blowing this nonsense out of the water
     
  9. Jul 8, 2006 #8
    A very interesting, well argued and thought out paper. It does not only reflect the ideas of E. Mach but also comes out with a mass equation for the universe which is identical to the findings of Paul Dirac. Beside the provided solutions to some major cosmological problems the conformity with Dirac is worth a deeper look into the author's arguments.

    Gate2
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?