Is Self Creation Cosmology a Viable Alternative to the Standard Model?

[oldman]

What are the hassles with the self creation idea?

After an abortive start in the new IR Forum I am beginning a new thread on the published theory of Self Creation Cosmology...

I find it difficult to follow the details of this long thread, or to come to any conclusions about its central topic, namely SCC. I hasten to add that this is probably due to simple ignorance on my part. But I'm not quite sure of this.

A brief summary of the present standing of SCC in the cosmological cosmos (as it were), by someone other than its author Garth would be very helpful for one trying to assess the present situation in cosmology. If one takes Garth's comments in the links to his Arxiv papers at face value, this situation seems to me quite parlous.

Could some knowledgeable person (like Space Tiger?) perhaps lend a critical hand here?

 

[Garth]

Critical comments would be most welcome and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_creation_cosmology as well. Please feel free to sensibly edit that Wikipedia article as its NPOV is in question because there has been only one main author.

Garth

 

[caston]

Garth,

I find your work very interesting but unfortunately do not have the physics background to understand it. Are you suggesting that matter can be created?

 

[Garth]

Garth,

I find your work very interesting but unfortunately do not have the physics background to understand it. Are you suggesting that matter can be created?

Hi caston! And welcome to these Forums.

The theory actually suggests inertial mass is 'created', or rather grows exponentially with cosmological time.

The particle number is treated the same way as in the standard theory; the inertial mass of each particle, however, varies with gravitational potential energy.

To define potential energy you need a special frame of reference to measure it in, the theory also uses Mach's prinicple to define that frame as being that of the Centre of Mass/Momentum of the system.

Thus the theory modifies GR to include both the Local Conservation of Energy and Mach's Principle.

I hope this helps.

Garth

 

[caston]

Thanks Garth,

Does energy travel through time at a different speed to us?

 

[Garth]

Thanks Garth,

Does energy travel through time at a different speed to us?

Try to rephrase the question; everything 'travels through time' at the tautological rate of one second per second.

The proper time elapsed between two events A & B depends on the worldline taken between them. If an observer Ann is traveling at speed relative to Bob and Ann accelerates out and then back so both of them start at A and end at B, then Ann experiences a lesser time elapse than Bob.

If the energy you are talking about is light energy, which travels at c relative to a massive object, then it will travel on a null geodesic, and if it is, say reflected off a mirror, to arrive back at B, it will experience no time elapse.

Garth

 

[Garth]

I was at the APS April meeting at which the first results of GP(B) were presented.

The plenary session was given in the grand ballroom with about 1000 people present and the acoustics were not too great, and I have only one good ear. Francis Everitt began by explaining the geodetic effect using the paper cone model, made from a circle of card with a thin pie slice cut out, which of course demonstrates only the space-curvature part of the effect (2/3 of the total). So I just heard him say "here we have 4.4 "/yr." and my heart gave a jump, "What did he say, what did he say?"!

Even though the accuracy is not too great the data clearly shows 6.6"/yr, which is fatal to SCC. http://einstein.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/highlights/showpic.cgi?name=gyro_drift_plot.png

I am left wondering about those effects that SCC did seem to promise to explain, for not only does it have the same predictions as GR in the other standard ((1 +\gamma)G/2) tests but also the Pioneer effect (cH), a spinning up of the Earth (H), no inflation, baryonic DM and an equality between Hubble Time and the age of the universe.

I can't help thinking even post GP-B that there must be something in it.

However, if the frame-dragging results come out also as GR then there will be no doubt.

Although there is a possibility of a modified version of SCC with an undetermined and small \lambda, like BD, which would keep many of the features of the present theory.

 

[Garth]

I have now generalised the theory and am writing it up for publication.

In the General Theory of Self Creation Cosmology (GSCC) the BD coupling parameter \lambda is left as an undetermined variable.

In both SCC and GSCC the conservation equation is replaced by a 'creation equation', which is determined by the 'Principle of Mutual Interaction' (PMI). The PMI states that: "The scalar field is a source for the matter-energy field if and only if the matter-energy field is a source for the scalar field.''

As the source for the scalar field is the trace of the stress-energy tensor, the PMI is delivered by coupling this trace to the divergence of the stress-energy tensor. A detailed calculation yields:

\nabla _\mu T_{M\;\nu }^{.\;\mu }=\frac {\kappa}{8\pi} \frac {\nabla _\nu \phi }{\phi }\Box \phi =\frac {\kappa}{2} \frac {\nabla _\nu \phi }{\phi } T_{M\;}^{\;}

Where \kappa is a 'creation' coupling constant.

Note: In the Brans Dicke theory

\omega_{BD} = \frac{1}{\lambda} - \frac{3}{2}

whereas in SCC and GSCC

\omega_{SCC} = \frac{1}{\lambda} - \frac{3}{2} - \kappa

so if \frac{1}{\lambda} = \kappa

then \omega_{SCC} = - \frac{3}{2} .

In GSCC the 'creation' parameter \kappa remains equal to 1/\lambda, so \omega = -3/2 as before, and the conformal equivalence between GSCC and GR in vacuo is retained.

The two conformal frames remain as before with energy being locally conserved in the Jordan conformal frame and energy-momentum conserved in the Einstein frame. In the Jordan frame the 'rest' masses of fundamental particles are variable, subsuming gravitational potential energy, and they are constant in the Einstein frame.

There is still the same clock drift between ephemeris and atomic clocks as in the original SCC and hence the Pioneer Anomaly is still predicted by GSCC.

The GP-B geodetic prediction becomes

\Omega = [(1 - \lambda/3)6.6 + 0.25] arcsec/yr.

(I have found an extra 0.25 arc/sec/yr precession due to cosmological time dilation (clock drift) that makes the original SCC prediction 4.65 arcsec/yr not 4.4 arcsec/yr.)

The frame dragging result is still the same as in GR.

Unfortunately GSCC predicts the total mass density parameter for the universe to be

\Omega_T = \frac{1}{3\lambda} = \frac{\kappa}{3},

so if \lambda is small, i.e. if the creation parameter \kappa is large, a lot of DM and DE is required and an attractive feature of the original theory is lost.

However, if \lambda about 1/3 can be accommodated by the final GP-B geodetic result, (which is about twice the value allowed by the present published value of the geodetic precession,) then the overall density parameter would about unity and concordance with the standard \lambdaCDM model total density would be obtained.

I will post more when I have published.

Garth