- #1

- 3,581

- 107

After an abortive start in the new IR Forum I am beginning a new thread on the

There has already been many posts on the subject in PF and I apologise for any repetition, but having been asked to post it here in A&C I here make a clean start!

The published papers are:-

On Two Self Creation Cosmologies

http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775

and here:

http://novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1869

Abstract from that most recent paper:

1. gr-qc/0212111 ] The Principles of Self Creation Cosmology and its Comparison with General Relativity[/URL]

2. gr-qc/0302026 ]Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B[/URL]

3. gr-qc/0302088 ]The derivation of the coupling constant in the new Self Creation Cosmology[/URL]

4. astro-ph/0401136] The Self Creation challenge to the cosmological concordance model[/URL]

5. gr-qc/0405094] Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory[/URL]

The reason why I am posting on PF at all is because I value your informed and constructive criticism. From my Profile you will read: "I am a published independent researcher in cosmology". The key word here is

The theory is completely equivalent to GR

The cosmological solution requires a homogeneous density; therefore the result differs from GR.

A finite but

[tex]\Omega_m = 2/9[/tex] (0.22)

[tex]\Omega_ L = 1/9[/tex] (0.11) (false vacuum)

[tex]\Omega_{total} = 1/3[/tex] (0.33)

1. GPB Geodetic precession

GPB gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession

2. LIGO interferometer 8km light path deflected towards the Sun by

Also a 'Space Interferometer Experiment' is suggested in my papers that will test the same effect.

Deviation from the EEP by solid objects; 10cm Aluminium block

3. Casimir force 'bottoming out' detectable somewhere in the Solar field between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.(depending on instrument sensitivity)

SCC predicts the maximum Casimir force to be a function of space-time curvature.

4. Pioneer Spacecraft anomalous Sunwards acceleration of

5. Earth decrease in day relative ancient solar eclipses (lunar orbit) at rate

The following is an extract from my introduction to the “Comparison of the Mainstream and the Self Creation Freely Coasting models” thread and matches my work with a largely Indian team who have worked on what they call the "

The FCM is an empirical model, proposed by a team at the University of Delhi, in which the universe expands strictly linearly with time

1. A coasting cosmology

2. Freely Coasting Cosmology

3. A Concordant “Freely Coasting” Cosmology

4. A case for nucleosynthesis in slowly evolving models

5. Nucleosynthesis in a Simmering Universe

and a PhD thesis available on the physics ArXiv:

6. GRAVITATIONAL LENSING IN STANDARD AND ALTERNATIVE COSMOLOGIES

However the shortfall of this concordant empirical theory is that

Independently from the Indian team’s work I have developed SCC as an alternative gravitational theory that modifies GR to include a ‘non-minimally connected scalar field’.There are seven papers and eprints that are referred to above.(There have also been 47 other author citations in peer-reviewed journals.)

The SCC scalar field follows that in the theory of Brans Dicke (BD) and is coupled to the distribution of matter in motion in the universe in order to fully incorporate Mach’s Principle. SCC modifies BD in that it allows the scalar field to act on particles and thus violates the equivalence principle. The presence of the scalar field in BD and SCC perturbs space-time. This is the reason BD is not concordant with solar system experiments. However in SCC the scalar field force operates on particles, but not photons, and

SCC has two conformal frames of measurement, the Jordan frame in which particle masses increase with gravitational potential energy and in which gravitational trajectories and cosmological evolution are calculated, and the Einstein frame in which particle masses are constant and in which other physics is most easily described.

The cosmological solution is not in general a vacuum solution, therefore SCC cosmology differs from that of GR. The empty universe solution reduces to the GR Milne model. When the Jordan conformal frame cosmological solution, (which turns out to be the same as Einstein's original cylindrical static model) is transformed into the SCC Einstein conformal frame it turns out to be a strictly linearly expanding solution - that is

Two differences with the LCDM standard model of GR is that the FCM predicts a baryon density of around 0.2 closure density, in other words there is no need for exotic Dark Matter, and the primordial output of the BB had high metallicity compared to the standard GR BBN. In other words DM does actually exist but originally it was baryonic and only now resides in some dark form. The question for the FCM and the SCC theory is: "In what form is this matter today?"

One clue is the ubiquitous presence of

1. re-ionisation in the IGM and

2. metallicity in early Lyman alpha forests.

These may be evidence of a fairly isotropic background of PopIII stars that formed at around z = 20. From the paper A very extended re-ionisation epoch? there is also a suggestion that there was a late period of Pop III star re-ionisation that finished at z>=10.5. This would then date the end of such stars, the ‘transition red shift’.

As a comparison therefore, the active lifetime of Pop III stars in the two models is calculated to be: (Using LCDM values for the GR model)

For the onset of metallicity, i.e. 'ignition' of Pop III stars, z = 20

t

t

for the transition period, i.e. the end of Pop III stars, z = 10.5

t

t

Thus the active lifetime of Pop III stars is

However how massive are PopIII and how many of them were there? The SCC speculation is that given the primordial gas (PG) had some metallicity

that the first PopIII stars could be smaller than the standard model allows. Metallicity is important in radiating away heat to allow the proto-stars to collapse. The range ([10

Will this idea work, that is does the hypothesis that DM consists largely of IMBHs fit observation?

Garth

*published*theory of Self Creation Cosmology.There has already been many posts on the subject in PF and I apologise for any repetition, but having been asked to post it here in A&C I here make a clean start!

The published papers are:-

On Two Self Creation Cosmologies

http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775

and here:

http://novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1869

Abstract from that most recent paper:

You may not be able to access these, however there is free access of the last two of these papers on the physics ArXiv and the published work can be recovered from there as follows:Self Creation Cosmology An Alternative

Gravitational Theory

Garth A Barber

June 10, 2004

Abstract

A question is raised about the premature acceptance of the standard cosmological model, the LambdaCDM’ paradigm; the non-metric, or semi-metric, theory of Self Creation Cosmology is offered as an alternative and shown to be as equally concordant as the standard model with observed cosmological constraints and local observations. In self-creation the Brans Dicke theory is modified to enable the creation of matter and energy out of the self contained gravitational and scalar fields; such creation is constrained by the local conservation of energy so that rest masses vary whereas the observed Newtonian Gravitation ’constant’ does not. As a consequence there is a conformal equivalence between self-creation and General Relativity in vacuo, which results in the predictions of the two theories being equal in the standard tests. In self-creation test particles in vacuo follow the geodesics of General Relativity. Nevertheless there are three types of experiment that are able to distinguish between the two theories. There are also other local and cosmological observations that are readily explained by self-creation, such as the anomalous sunwards acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft and a secular spinning up of the Earth’s rotation that both ’coincidentally’ echo Hubble’s constant. Moreover, the most significant feature of self-creation is that it is as consistent with cosmological constraints in the distant supernovae data, the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies and primordial nucleo-synthesis, as the standard paradigm. Unlike that model, however, it does not require the addition of the undiscovered physics of Inflation, dark non-baryonic matter, or dark energy. Nevertheless it does demand an exotic equation of state, which requires the presence of false vacuum energy at a moderate density determined by the field equations. Consequently it is able to interface gravitation and quantum theories without creating a ’Lambda’ problem. In self-creation there are two frames of interpretation of observational data, which depend on whether energy or energy-momentum is to be conserved and whether photons or atoms respectively are chosen as the invariant standards of measurement. In the former frame the universe is stationary and eternal with exponentially shrinking rulers and accelerating atomic clocks, and in the latter frame the universe is freely coasting, expanding linearly from a Big Bang with rigid rulers and regular atomic clocks. A novel representation of space-time geometry is suggested. As the theory is readily falsifiable it is recommended that all three of the definitive experiments be performed at the earliest opportunity.

1. gr-qc/0212111 ] The Principles of Self Creation Cosmology and its Comparison with General Relativity[/URL]

2. gr-qc/0302026 ]Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B[/URL]

3. gr-qc/0302088 ]The derivation of the coupling constant in the new Self Creation Cosmology[/URL]

4. astro-ph/0401136] The Self Creation challenge to the cosmological concordance model[/URL]

5. gr-qc/0405094] Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory[/URL]

The reason why I am posting on PF at all is because I value your informed and constructive criticism. From my Profile you will read: "I am a published independent researcher in cosmology". The key word here is

*independent*it is very difficult to obtain valued and informed criticism if you are no longer in a university department. PF is for me a "physics department coffee lounge" where ideas can be suggested and knocked down or otherwise. I value that.__Predictions of the Theory__The theory is completely equivalent to GR

*in vacuo*, therefore all tests to date which compare the geodesics of test particles and photons with observation are concordant with*both*GR and SCC.The cosmological solution requires a homogeneous density; therefore the result differs from GR.

**R(t) ~ t****k =+1**A finite but

*conformally*flat model concordant with WMAP CMB anisotropies spectrum. (Not only first peak but also lack of large angle anisotropies)[tex]\Omega_m = 2/9[/tex] (0.22)

[tex]\Omega_ L = 1/9[/tex] (0.11) (false vacuum)

[tex]\Omega_{total} = 1/3[/tex] (0.33)

1. GPB Geodetic precession

**SCC: 5.5120 arcsec/yr**

GR: 6.6144 arcsec/yrGR: 6.6144 arcsec/yr

GPB gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession

**SCC = GR = 0.0409 arcsec/yr**2. LIGO interferometer 8km light path deflected towards the Sun by

**2 x 10**vertically.^{-12}metresAlso a 'Space Interferometer Experiment' is suggested in my papers that will test the same effect.

Deviation from the EEP by solid objects; 10cm Aluminium block

*in vacuo*violation of EEP at**one part in 10**, three orders of magnitude smaller than present experimental sensitivity.^{-17}3. Casimir force 'bottoming out' detectable somewhere in the Solar field between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.(depending on instrument sensitivity)

SCC predicts the maximum Casimir force to be a function of space-time curvature.

4. Pioneer Spacecraft anomalous Sunwards acceleration of

**cH = 6.6 x 10**^{-8}cm/sec^{2}5. Earth decrease in day relative ancient solar eclipses (lunar orbit) at rate

**H = 6 x 10**^{-4}secs/day/century.*NB. Last two may have been already observed.*The following is an extract from my introduction to the “Comparison of the Mainstream and the Self Creation Freely Coasting models” thread and matches my work with a largely Indian team who have worked on what they call the "

__Freely Coasting Model__(FCM)".__Introduction to FCM__The FCM is an empirical model, proposed by a team at the University of Delhi, in which the universe expands strictly linearly with time

**R[t] ~ t**. Its motivation was the realisation that such a model would not require inflation to explain the horizon, flatness or smoothness problems of GR as they would not exist in the first place. It was then realized that the model was surprisingly concordant with cosmological constraints without the further addition of concepts such as DM or DE that remain undiscovered in laboratory physics. There have been several papers published and PhD’s gained exploring this alternative cosmological paradigm, viz:1. A coasting cosmology

2. Freely Coasting Cosmology

3. A Concordant “Freely Coasting” Cosmology

4. A case for nucleosynthesis in slowly evolving models

5. Nucleosynthesis in a Simmering Universe

and a PhD thesis available on the physics ArXiv:

6. GRAVITATIONAL LENSING IN STANDARD AND ALTERNATIVE COSMOLOGIES

However the shortfall of this concordant empirical theory is that

__it requires a mechanism to deliver the strict linear expansion__.Independently from the Indian team’s work I have developed SCC as an alternative gravitational theory that modifies GR to include a ‘non-minimally connected scalar field’.There are seven papers and eprints that are referred to above.(There have also been 47 other author citations in peer-reviewed journals.)

__Self Creation Cosmology__The SCC scalar field follows that in the theory of Brans Dicke (BD) and is coupled to the distribution of matter in motion in the universe in order to fully incorporate Mach’s Principle. SCC modifies BD in that it allows the scalar field to act on particles and thus violates the equivalence principle. The presence of the scalar field in BD and SCC perturbs space-time. This is the reason BD is not concordant with solar system experiments. However in SCC the scalar field force operates on particles, but not photons, and

*corrects*this perturbation. The geodesics of test particles and photons are the same in SCC as GR. SCC is concordant with all experiments to date, however there are several tests that easily falsify the theory, which do not test whether trajectories follow GR geodesics . One of these tests is being carried out at present, the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment, and the results will be known next year.SCC has two conformal frames of measurement, the Jordan frame in which particle masses increase with gravitational potential energy and in which gravitational trajectories and cosmological evolution are calculated, and the Einstein frame in which particle masses are constant and in which other physics is most easily described.

The cosmological solution is not in general a vacuum solution, therefore SCC cosmology differs from that of GR. The empty universe solution reduces to the GR Milne model. When the Jordan conformal frame cosmological solution, (which turns out to be the same as Einstein's original cylindrical static model) is transformed into the SCC Einstein conformal frame it turns out to be a strictly linearly expanding solution - that is

__it provides the linear expansion mechanism for the FCM__.Two differences with the LCDM standard model of GR is that the FCM predicts a baryon density of around 0.2 closure density, in other words there is no need for exotic Dark Matter, and the primordial output of the BB had high metallicity compared to the standard GR BBN. In other words DM does actually exist but originally it was baryonic and only now resides in some dark form. The question for the FCM and the SCC theory is: "In what form is this matter today?"

One clue is the ubiquitous presence of

1. re-ionisation in the IGM and

2. metallicity in early Lyman alpha forests.

These may be evidence of a fairly isotropic background of PopIII stars that formed at around z = 20. From the paper A very extended re-ionisation epoch? there is also a suggestion that there was a late period of Pop III star re-ionisation that finished at z>=10.5. This would then date the end of such stars, the ‘transition red shift’.

As a comparison therefore, the active lifetime of Pop III stars in the two models is calculated to be: (Using LCDM values for the GR model)

For the onset of metallicity, i.e. 'ignition' of Pop III stars, z = 20

t

_{z=20}=**182 Myrs.**in GRt

_{z=20}=**657 Myrs.**in SCCfor the transition period, i.e. the end of Pop III stars, z = 10.5

t

_{z=10.5}=**450 Myrs.**in GRt

_{z=10.5}=**1.31 Gyrs.**in SCCThus the active lifetime of Pop III stars is

**~270 Myrs**in GR and**~650 Myrs**in SCC, i.e. over twice as long. Note that if this late re-ionisation period does not in fact exist then the transition period is much earlier and the Pop III lifetimes drastically reduced.However how massive are PopIII and how many of them were there? The SCC speculation is that given the primordial gas (PG) had some metallicity

**[Fe/H] = log**_{10}(N_{Fe}/N_{H})_{PG}- log_{10}(N_{Fe}/N_{H})_{Solar}= -5that the first PopIII stars could be smaller than the standard model allows. Metallicity is important in radiating away heat to allow the proto-stars to collapse. The range ([10

^{2}- 10^{4}]M_{solar}) is suggested as they would leave behind IMBHs or the same mass range and this range seems to be concordant with observation. So DM consists of a background of IMBHs in the range [10^{2}- 10^{4}]M_{solar}.Will this idea work, that is does the hypothesis that DM consists largely of IMBHs fit observation?

Garth

Last edited by a moderator: