Arxiv:2102.11823V2 [Gr-Qc] 13 May 2021 Tivations, Which Can Be Found in [10] and in Numerous Lectures of Penrose Available Even in the Public Media

POINCARE-EINSTEIN APPROACH TO PENROSE’S CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOLOGY PAWEŁ NUROWSKI Dedicated to Robin C. Graham for the occasion of his 65th birthday Abstract. We consider two consecutive eons in Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and study how the matter content of the past eon determines the matter content of the present eon by means of the reciprocity hypothesis of Roger Penrose. We assume that the only matter content in the final stages of the past eon is a spherical wave described by Einstein’s equations with a pure radiation energy momentum tensor and with a cosmological constant. Using the Poincare-Einstein type of expansion to determine the metric in the past eon, applying the reciprocity hypothesis to get the metric in the present eon, and using the Einstein equations in the present eon to interpret its matter content, we show that the single spherical wave from the previous eon in the new eon splits into three portions of radiation: the two spherical waves, one which is a damped continuation from the previous eon, the other is focusing in the new eon as it encountered a mirror at the Big Bang surface, and in addition a lump of scattered radiation described by the statistical physics. 1. Introduction Our common view of the Universe is that it evolves from the initial singularity to its present state, when we observe the presence of the positive cosmological constant [11, 12, 13]. This has the remarkable consequence that the Universe will eventually become asymptotically de Sitter spacetime. This in particular means that the ‘end of the Universe’ - a hypersurface where all the null geodesics will end bounding the spacetime in the future - will be spacelike [9]. Moreover, it will be conformally flat, pretty much the same as the initial boundary of the Universe - the Big Bang [17]. This fundamental facts led Roger Penrose to a cosmology theory proposal termed by him Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). The proposal has a lot of physical mo- arXiv:2102.11823v2 [gr-qc] 13 May 2021 tivations, which can be found in [10] and in numerous lectures of Penrose available even in the public media. In this introduction we will only mention its mathematical background, which will be needed to explain our results. The main feature of CCC is that it states that its universe consists of eons, each being a time oriented spacetime, whose conformal compactifications have spacelike null infinities I . We recall that the future/past null infinity is a boundary I +/I − of spacetime, where all the future/past null geodesics end. To avoid confusions in understanding CCC we first emphasize that: Date: May 14, 2021. The research was funded from the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 with project registration number 2019/34/H/ST1/00636. 1 2 PAWEŁ NUROWSKI • CCC says nothing about this what is the physics in a given eon when the physical age of it is normal; normal here means that the eon is neither too young nor too old. CCC tells what is going on when an eon is either about to die, or had just been born. • In particular, CCC does not require that the eons have the same history! It is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, and not Conformal Periodic Cosmology! The framework for CCC was recently shaped by Paul Tod, which can be briefly described as follows (see: [18], for details): • The universe consists of eons, each being a time oriented spacetime, whose conformal compactifications have spacelike I − and I + . The Weyl tensor of the 4-metric on each I is zero. • Eons are ordered, and the conformal compactifications of consecutive eons, say the past one and the present one, are glued together along I + of the past eon, and I − of the present eon. • The manifold M of these glued eons is the universe. The CCC, as for- mulated by Tod in [18], tells what is mathematical structure of the CCC universe in the neighborhood of matching surfaces of any two consecutive eons. Each such surface is, in Penroses’s imaginative language, a wound of the universe. The neighborhood of each wound, consisting of a time portion of the past eon and a time portion of the present eon, is a bandage region of the universe - a (conformal) time sandwich in the universe, in which each wound is bandaged to heal the trauma of the (conformal) transition through the Big Crunch/Big Bang. • Each bandage region is equipped with the following three metrics, which are conformally flat at the wound: – a Lorentzian metric g which is regular everywhere, – a Lorentzian metric gˇ, which represents the physical metric of the present eon, and which is singular at the wound, – a Lorentzian metric g^, which represents the physical metric of the past eon, and which infinitely expands at the wound. • In a bandage region, the three metrics g, gˇ and g^, are conformally related on their overlapping domains. ǧ=Ω²g g ĝ=1 g Ω² POINCARE-EINSTEIN APPROACH TO CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOLOGY 3 • How to make this relation specific is debatable, but Penrose proposes that 1 (1.1) gˇ = Ω2g andg ^ = g; with Ω ! 0 on the wound: Ω2 This is called reciprocity hypothesis. • The metric gˇ in the present eon is a physical metric there. Likewise, the metric g^ in the past eon is a physical metric there. • Of course, the metric gˇ in the present eon, and the metric g^ in the past eon, as physical spacetime metrics, should satisfy Einstein’s equations in their spacetimes, respectively. To answer a natural question on how to make a model of Penrose’s bandaged region of two eons, one needs a function Ω, vanishing on some spacelike hypersurface, and a regular Lorentzian 4-metric g, such that if gˇ = Ω2g satisfies Einstein equa- 1 tions with some physically reasonable energy momentum tensor, then g^ = Ω2 g also satisfies Einstein equations with possibly different, but still physically reasonable energy momentum tensor. This is a question similar to the question posed and solved by H. Brinkman [2]. In 1925 he asked ‘when in a conformal class of metrics there could be two nonisometric Einstein metrics?’. Brinkman found all such metrics in dimension four. In every signature. In CCC the problem is similar. On one hand it seems even simpler: the same function Ω should lead to two conformally related but different solutions gˇ = Ω2g and g^ = Ω−2g of Einstein equations, with a prescribed energy momentum tensor on the M^ part, and a reasonable energy momentum tensor on the other Mˇ . This creates a highly overdetermined system of PDEs, which may have no solutions at all, or may create algebraic constraints on the unknown variables, resulting in obtaining the solutions in explicit form (see Section 2.2 for an example of such a situation). On the other hand, the problem is not so easy, because the three metrics as in (1.1) obtained from the process of solving Einstein equations on both sides of the Big Crunch/Big Bang hypersurface I must be conformally flat on I . This last requirement is automatically satisfied e.g. if one looks for the metrics g, gˇ and g^ which are conformally flat everywhere in the bandage region. It is a reasonable simplifying assumption if one wants to test implications of Penrose’s CCC proposal in particular situations, such as in the case of metrics conformal to the Robertson-Walker metrics (see Section 2 of the present paper). However to see the implications of the the full CCC setting, the assumption of conformal flatness of the whole bandage region is too strong, and in the general case one is led to consider the full initial value problem on a conformally flat spacelike hypersurface I for the Einstein equations with a particular energy momentum tensor for one of the physical metrics g^ or gˇ. This can be in principle done by considering results of Friedrich [4, 5] for the conformal data on I applied to the Starobinsky expansion [15] as proposed in the context of CCC by Tod [17]. In the present paper, rather than the Starobinsky expansion we use the Poincare-Einstein type of expansion generalizing for the purpose of CCC the approach to conformal geometry due to Fefferman and Graham [3]. In our Section 3, we first formulate this Poincare- Einstein approach to CCC, and then in Section 4 we use our new approach to see what’s going on with a spherical wave passing from the past eon to the present one if it is obeying these newly established rules of CCC. 4 PAWEŁ NUROWSKI In Section 2 we describe how to produce conformally flat bandage models of CCC. Throughout the rest of the article, and in particular in Section 4 we abandon the conformal flatness everywhere, and create a physically appealing and satisfac- tory CCC bandage region model which is conformally flat at the Big Bang/Big Crunch hypersurface only. 2. Conformally flat models in Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology To illustrate various CCC bandage region concepts in conformally flat case we will assume in this entire Section that all the three bandage metrics g^, g and gˇ are conformal to Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (2.1) gtest = −dt + Ω (t)r0 dχ + sin χ dθ + sin θdφ with (locally) spherical spatial sections κ = 1. Before passing to the CCC details we recall the relevant information about this metric and a perfect fluid. 2.1. Polytropic perfect fluid in FLRW spherical cosmology. It is convenient R dt to introduce a conformal time η = Ω(t) so that the FLRW metric (2.1) looks 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 gtest = Ω (η) − dη + r0 dχ + sin χ(dθ + sin θdφ ) ; 2 i.e.

Load more