How Can Scale-Related Mass Transform Our Understanding of Cosmological Problems?

[wolram]

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 anyone is interested maybe they could explain some of the maths.

 

[Garth]

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.

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

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

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:

Such an assumption, however, would express the trust in the validity of one of the most fundamental laws of physics - the conservation of energy – combined with the belief that this law also holds true for the universe.

They have (almost) rediscovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_creation_cosmology ! (except the SCC universe is conformally flat with k = +1)

Garth

 

[wolram]

When ever i see a statement 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 anyone knows what a (vacuum fluctuation) is.

 

[Garth]

When ever i see a statement 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 anyone knows what a (vacuum fluctuation) is.

Quite.

Garth

 

[wolram]

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?

 

[Garth]

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?

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

 

[Chronos]

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

 

[Gate2]

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