DOCSLIB.ORG

Frame Covariance and Fine Tuning in Inflationary Cosmology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FRAME COVARIANCE
AND FINE TUNING
IN INFLATIONARY COSMOLOGY

A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science and Engineering

2019 By
Sotirios Karamitsos
School of Physics and Astronomy

Contents

  • Abstract
  • 8

  • 9
  • Declaration

Copyright Statement Acknowledgements 1 Introduction
10 11 13

1.1 Frames in Cosmology: A Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.2 Modern Cosmology: Frames and Fine Tuning . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.3 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

  • 2 Standard Cosmology and the Inflationary Paradigm
  • 20

2.1 General Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.2 The Hot Big Bang Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.1 The Expanding Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.2 The Friedmann Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.2.3 Horizons and Distances in Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3 Problems in Standard Cosmology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3.1 The Flatness Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.3.2 The Horizon Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2
2.4 An Accelerating Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.5 Inflation: More Questions Than Answers? . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.5.1 The Frame Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.5.2 Fine Tuning and Initial Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

  • 3 Classical Frame Covariance
  • 48

3.1 Conformal and Weyl Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.2 Conformal Transformations and Unit Changes . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.3 Frames in Multifield Scalar-Tensor Theories . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.4 Dynamics of Multifield Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

  • 4 Quantum Perturbations in Field Space
  • 70

4.1 Gauge Invariant Perturbations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.2 The Field Space in Multifield Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 4.3 Frame-Covariant Observable Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.1 The Potential Slow-Roll Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.3.2 Isocurvature Effects in Two-Field Models . . . . . . . . . 83

  • 5 Fine Tuning in Inflation
  • 88

5.1 Initial Conditions Fine Tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5.2 Parameter Fine Tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.3 Trajectory Fine Tuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

  • 6 Models of Inflation
  • 97

6.1 Single-Field Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.1.1 Induced Gravity Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.1.2 Higgs Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6.1.3 F(R) Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

3
6.2 Multifield Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.2.1 Minimal Two-Field Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 6.2.2 Non-minimal Two-Field Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 6.2.3 F(ϕ, R) Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

  • 7 Beyond the Tree Level
  • 122

7.1 The Conventional Effective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 7.2 The Vilkovisky Effective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 7.3 The De Witt Effective Ection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 7.4 The Conformally Covariant Vilkovisky–De Witt Formalism . . 132

  • 8 Conclusions
  • 137

140 147
A Frame-Covariant Power Spectra Bibliography

4

List of Tables

2.1 Evolution of energy density and scalar factor for different eras of the Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.2 Density parameters for different components of the Universe
[53, 55]. The total radiation density is the sum of the photon density and the neutrino density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.1 Conformal weights and scaling dimensions of various framecovariant quantities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

6.1 Observable inflationary quantities for the minimal two-field model at N = 60. Note that the running of the tensor spectral index αT is not quoted in [54], as no tensor modes were measured by PLANCK. It is derived from the consistency relation (4.42) with transfer angle Θ = 0, and serves as a constraint on a possible future measurement of αT , in the slow-roll approximation. The parameter βiso is constrained by assuming different nondecaying isocurvature modes: (i) the cold dark matter density isocurvature mode (CDI), (ii) the neutrino density mode (NDI), and (iii) the neutrino velocity mode (NVI). . . . . . . . . . . . 113

6.2 Observable inflationary quantities for the non-minimal model at N = 60. The limits on these quantities from 2015 PLANCK data [54] are the same as in Table 6.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5

List of Figures

1.1 Illustration of quantisation in different frames. It is not im-

JF 1−loop
EF 1−loop

  • mediately obvious that Γ
  • = Γ
  • . Figure reproduced

from [14]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.1 Schematic representation of the metric expansion of the Universe. As time passes, the “density” uniformly decreases such that points recede from each other at a speed proportional to their distance (Hubble’s law). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.1 Probability that a randomly selected value for the α-attractor potential corresponds to an initially inflationary trajectory in the slow-roll approximation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.2 Trajectory flow between two isochrone surfaces N(ϕ) = N1 and
N(ϕ) = N2 in field space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

6.1 End-of-inflation curve for the minimal two-field model (6.42) with m2/(λMP2 ) = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

6.2 Field space trajectories and isochrone curves for the minimal two-field model (6.42). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

6.3 Sensitivity parameter Q for the minimal model (6.42) at N =

∗

60 to boundary conditions given by ϕ0. The dashed line corresponds to Q = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

∗

6
6.4 Power spectrum normalisation for the minimal two-field model (6.42) with λ = 10−12 and m/MP = 10−6 at N = 60 for different boundary conditions in terms of ϕ0 and the corresponding horizon crossing values ϕ . Solid lines correspond to the theoretical

∗

predictions while the horizontal line corresponds to the observed power spectrum PRobs given in (6.15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

6.5 Predictions for the inflationary quantities r, n , α , αT , fNL

  • R
  • R

and βiso in the minimal model (6.42) for boundary condition given by ϕ0/MP = 0.496. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

6.6 Evolution of ω and η¯ss along the inflationary trajectory with ϕ0 = 0.495 for the minimal two-field model (6.42). . . . . . . . 113

6.7 End-of-inflation curve for the non-minimal model (6.47)with m = 5.6 × 10−6 MP , λ = 10−12, and ξ = 0.01. . . . . . . . . . . . 115

6.8 Field space trajectories and isochrone curves for the non-minimal two-field model (6.47). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

6.9 Power spectrum normalisation for the non-minimal two-field model (6.47) with m = 5.6 × 10−6MP , λ = 10−12, and ξ = 0.01 for different boundary conditions in terms of ϕ0 and the corresponding horizon crossing values ϕ . Solid lines correspond to

∗

the theoretical predictions while the horizontal dashed lines correspond to the allowed band for the observed power spectrum PRobs given in (6.15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

  • 6.10 Predictions for the inflationary quantities r, n , α , αT , fNL
  • ,

  • R
  • R

and βiso in the non-minimal two field model (6.47) for boundary conditions admissible under normalisation of P to the observed

R

power spectrum PRobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.11 Sensitivity parameter Q for the non-minimal two-field model (6.47)

∗

to boundary conditions given by ϕ0. The dashed line corresponds to Q = 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

∗

6.12 Evolution of ω and η¯ss along the observationally viable inflationary trajectories for the non-minimal two-field model (6.47). . 119

7

Abstract

This thesis presents the development of a fully covariant approach to scalartensor theories of gravity in the context of inflation, as well as a covariant treatment of trajectory fine tuning in multifield models. Our main result is the introduction of frame covariance as a way to confront the frame problem in inflation. We treat the choice of a gravitational frame in which a theory is presented as a particular instance of gauge fixing. We take frame covariance beyond the tree level by virtue of the Vilkovisky–De Witt formalism, which was originally developed with the aim of removing the gauge and reparametrisation ambiguities from the path integral. Adopting an analogous approach, we incorporate conformal covariance to the Vilkovisky–De Witt formalism, demonstrating that the choice of a conformal frame is not physically important. This makes it possible to define a unique action even in the presence of matter couplings. We therefore show that even if the matter picture of the Universe may appear different in conformally related models, the underlying theory is independent of its frame representation. We further examine the relation between parameter fine tuning and initial condition fine tuning. Even though conceptually distinct, they both adversely affect the robustness of using established particle physics models to drive inflation. As a way to remedy this, we note that the presence of additional scalar degrees of freedom can “rescue” particular models that are ruled out observationally by shifting the burden of fine tuning from the parameters to the choice of slow-roll trajectory. We refer to this uniquely multifield phenomenon as “trajectory fine tuning”, and we propose a method to quantify the sensitivity of multifield models to it. We illustrate by presenting examples of both single-field and multifield models of inflation, as well as F(R) and F(ϕ, R) theories.

Wordcount: 28617

8

Declaration

I declare that no portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

9

Copyright Statement

The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.

Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.

The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the

University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.

aspx?DocID=24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http:

//www.library.manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The Uni-

versity’s policy on Presentation of Theses.
10

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my supervisor Apostolos Pilaftsis for his guidance and support throughout my doctorate. His experience, insight, and attention to detail have been invaluable during my stay in Manchester and my first steps in research. I wholeheartedly appreciate both his patience during the early stages of my PhD and the many skills he has since imparted to me. I would also like to thank Fedor Bezrukov, whose work on Higgs inflation was the catalyst for my first venture in research and with whom I have had plenty of stimulating discussions.

I would like to thank everybody in the Theory Office for both the physics discussions as well as always keeping the office lively and interesting. These
´include Daniele Teresi, Ren´e Angeles-Martinez, Graeme Nail, Alex Powling,

Daniel Burns, Matthew De Angelis, Kiran Ostrolenk, Kieran Finn, Chris Shepherd, and Jack Holguin. I would especially like to thank Daniel Burns for the countless questions he so patiently answered during my first couple of years, Kieran Finn for the incisive and thought-provoking questions he asked me in turn, and the both of them for the amazing collaboration opportunities they provided me with.

Finally, I would like to thank the entire Manchester Particle Physics Group for making the department an especially friendly and welcoming environment to work in.

11
12

I dedicate this thesis to my parents. If they hadn’t gifted me a book titled
Physics for Children when I was eight years old,
I may have never set forth to write it.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Humans have always been fascinated with the Great Questions, and there is arguably no question greater than that of our place in the Universe. In their attempts to formulate an answer as to why and how we came to be here, ancient cultures devised a wide range of imaginative narratives known as cosmogonic myths. Examples include the creation of the world by an all-powerful being, its birth by a pair of “world parents” or a cosmic “egg”, or even its creation from the primordial chaos itself. These myths permeated almost every facet of cultural life at the time [1], which made them uniquely anthropocentric: they begin and end with humanity and its place in the Universe in mind. As a result, many early pictures of cosmology placed Earth in a prominent position at the very center of the cosmos. This stands in sharp contrast to the modern view that there is nothing special about our position in the Universe, which came to be after several paradigm shifts spanning millennia of history.

1.1 Frames in Cosmology: A Historical Overview

There are many ways to motivate the idea that the Earth does not enjoy a privileged place in the Universe. Ultimately, it may be argued that it stems from the idea that the laws of Nature should be identical under different observers. Indeed, if Nature does not unduly privilege any particular observer over any other, it follows that there should be no preferred frame of reference. Thus, it makes no sense to ascribe any special importance to the position of the Earth, much less put it in the very center of the Universe. As such, we

13
14

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

understand today that physical laws must be frame independent. The journey from a frame-dependent to a frame-independent formulation of laws of Nature arguably began with the geocentrism-heliocentrism debate in ancient Greece, which is one of the earliest examples of a debate on whether a particular frame of reference is inherently better suited to describing the world. The very realisation that both geocentrism and heliocentrism are simply different frames of reference was one of the key steps in understanding the notion that there can be different but physically equivalent ways to describe the Universe.

The geocentric model was first proposed by Plato in the Timaeus, and subsequently refined by Aristotle [2]. It described a system in which the Earth is stationary at the centre of the Universe. In the Aristotelean model, earth (the heaviest element) is surrounded by layers of water, air, and fire, while the other planets (made of aether) are confined in celestial spheres concentric with the Earth. This model was later further refined by Ptolemaeus in the Almagest, which superseded previous work on astronomy [3]. In an attempt to explain retrograde motion, Ptolemaeus suggested that the trajectories of celestial bodies are confined to epicycles, whose centers further orbited the Earth in concentric spheres known as deferents. However, in this model, the centers of the epicycles moved at a constant speed, contrary to observations. As such, Ptolemy went on to suggest that planets moved in a circle around the Earth, but their motion was uniform around a point named the equant. This model was quite unwieldy, but it was consistent with Aristotelean philosophy and its predictions sufficiently matched observations. Thus, the Ptolemaic model became the gold standard for cosmology throughout the Middle Ages and most of the Renaissance.

Heliocentric models had been proposed by the Pythagoreans as early as the 4th century BC and by Aristarchus in the 3rd century BC [4], but they did not gain widespread acceptance until the so-called Copernican Revolution. Nicolaus Copernicus explained the apparent retrograde motion of the planets by making the radical suggestion that they orbit the Sun along with the Earth. This proposal was met with resistance by the Church, and so the Ptolemaic system remained as the dominant cosmological model. Tycho Brahe, motivated in part by scripture, attempted to reconcile the Copernican and the Ptolemaic models by suggesting that the Earth is orbited by Mercury, Venus, and the Sun, which is in turn orbited by the rest of the planets [5]. This so-called Tychonic model was not popular with astronomers until Galileo’s observation of the phases of Venus confirmed that it does orbit the Sun. The Catholic

1.2. MODERN COSMOLOGY: FRAMES AND FINE TUNING

15
Church had been reluctantly tolerant of heliocentric ideas up until that point, as long as the implication was that they were only mathematical tools to help study orbital mechanics. However, they would not abide the suggestion the Earth is not actually at the centre of the Universe, leading to Galileo’s wellknown trial and his recanting of heliocentrism. It would not be until Newton’s law of universal attraction that geocentric models were finally eclipsed and the heliocentric system saw widespread acceptance.

The long history of the debate between the geocentric and heliocentric systems was characterised by the gradual acceptance of the idea that the Earth does not occupy a special place in the Universe and no observer is more privileged than any other. This concept is known as the Copernicean principle, and can be gleaned by comparing the Ptolemaic, Copernicean and Tychonic systems: their descriptions of the motion of celestial bodies are identical. They are entirely equivalent in the sense that it is impossible to distinguish between them via observations [6]. Thus, in a certain sense, these systems are not physically distinct models but rather distinct frames of the same underlying model. Certain frames might be more physically intuitive than others: the non-inertial Earth frame of reference in the Ptolemaic system requires the addition of fictitious forces in order to constrain the movement of the planets on the epicycles, for instance. However, there is no inherent reason to prefer one frame over the other apart from convenience and ease of calculation.

Recommended publications
  • PDF Solutions

    PDF Solutions

    Solutions to exercises Solutions to exercises Exercise 1.1 A‘stationary’ particle in anylaboratory on theEarth is actually subject to gravitationalforcesdue to theEarth andthe Sun. Thesehelp to ensure that theparticle moveswith thelaboratory.Ifstepsweretaken to counterbalance theseforcessothatthe particle wasreally not subject to anynet force, then the rotation of theEarth andthe Earth’sorbital motionaround theSun would carry thelaboratory away from theparticle, causing theforce-free particle to followacurving path through thelaboratory.Thiswouldclearly show that the particle didnot have constantvelocity in the laboratory (i.e.constantspeed in a fixed direction) andhence that aframe fixed in the laboratory is not an inertial frame.More realistically,anexperimentperformed usingthe kind of long, freely suspendedpendulum known as a Foucaultpendulum couldreveal the fact that a frame fixed on theEarth is rotating andthereforecannot be an inertial frame of reference. An even more practical demonstrationisprovidedbythe winds,which do not flowdirectly from areas of high pressure to areas of lowpressure because of theEarth’srotation. - Exercise 1.2 TheLorentzfactor is γ(V )=1/ 1−V2/c2. (a) If V =0.1c,then 1 γ = - =1.01 (to 3s.f.). 1 − (0.1c)2/c2 (b) If V =0.9c,then 1 γ = - =2.29 (to 3s.f.). 1 − (0.9c)2/c2 Notethatitisoften convenient to write speedsinterms of c instead of writingthe values in ms−1,because of thecancellation between factorsofc. ? @ AB Exercise 1.3 2 × 2 M = Theinverse of a matrix CDis ? @ 1 D −B M −1 = AD − BC −CA. Taking A = γ(V ), B = −γ(V )V/c, C = −γ(V)V/c and D = γ(V ),and noting that AD − BC =[γ(V)]2(1 − V 2/c2)=1,wehave ? @ γ(V )+γ(V)V/c [Λ]−1 = .
  • Hubble's Evidence for the Big Bang

    Hubble's Evidence for the Big Bang

    Hubble’s Evidence for the Big Bang | Instructor Guide Students will explore data from real galaxies to assemble evidence for the expansion of the Universe. Prerequisites ● Light spectra, including graphs of intensity vs. wavelength. ● Linear (y vs x) graphs and slope. ● Basic measurement statistics, like mean and standard deviation. Resources for Review ● Doppler Shift Overview ● Students will consider what the velocity vs. distance graph should look like for 3 different types of universes - a static universe, a universe with random motion, and an expanding universe. ● In an online interactive environment, students will collect evidence by: ○ using actual spectral data to calculate the recession velocities of the galaxies ○ using a “standard ruler” approach to estimate distances to the galaxies ● After they have collected the data, students will plot the galaxy velocities and distances to determine what type of model Universe is supported by their data. Grade Level: 9-12 Suggested Time One or two 50-minute class periods Multimedia Resources ● Hubble and the Big Bang WorldWide Telescope Interactive ​ Materials ● Activity sheet - Hubble’s Evidence for the Big Bang Lesson Plan The following represents one manner in which the materials could be organized into a lesson: Focus Question: ● How does characterizing how galaxies move today tell us about the history of our Universe? Learning Objective: ● SWBAT collect and graph velocity and distance data for a set of galaxies, and argue that their data set provides evidence for the Big Bang theory of an expanding Universe. Activity Outline: 1. Engage a. Invite students to share their ideas about these questions: i. Where did the Universe come from? ii.
  • The Big-Bang Theory AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602

    The Big-Bang Theory AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602

    AST-101, Ast-117, AST-602 The Big-Bang theory Luis Anchordoqui Thursday, November 21, 19 1 17.1 The Expanding Universe! Last class.... Thursday, November 21, 19 2 Hubbles Law v = Ho × d Velocity of Hubbles Recession Distance Constant (Mpc) (Doppler Shift) (km/sec/Mpc) (km/sec) velocity Implies the Expansion of the Universe! distance Thursday, November 21, 19 3 The redshift of a Galaxy is: A. The rate at which a Galaxy is expanding in size B. How much reader the galaxy appears when observed at large distances C. the speed at which a galaxy is orbiting around the Milky Way D. the relative speed of the redder stars in the galaxy with respect to the blues stars E. The recessional velocity of a galaxy, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light Thursday, November 21, 19 4 The redshift of a Galaxy is: A. The rate at which a Galaxy is expanding in size B. How much reader the galaxy appears when observed at large distances C. the speed at which a galaxy is orbiting around the Milky Way D. the relative speed of the redder stars in the galaxy with respect to the blues stars E. The recessional velocity of a galaxy, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light Thursday, November 21, 19 5 To a first approximation, a rough maximum age of the Universe can be estimated using which of the following? A. the age of the oldest open clusters B. 1/H0 the Hubble time C. the age of the Sun D.
  • The Discovery of the Expansion of the Universe

    The Discovery of the Expansion of the Universe

    galaxies Review The Discovery of the Expansion of the Universe Øyvind Grøn Faculty of Technology, Art and Design, Oslo Metropolitan University, PO Box 4 St. Olavs Plass, NO-0130 Oslo, Norway; [email protected]; Tel.: +047-90-94-64-60 Received: 2 November 2018; Accepted: 29 November 2018; Published: 3 December 2018 Abstract: Alexander Friedmann, Carl Wilhelm Wirtz, Vesto Slipher, Knut E. Lundmark, Willem de Sitter, Georges H. Lemaître, and Edwin Hubble all contributed to the discovery of the expansion of the universe. If only two persons are to be ranked as the most important ones for the general acceptance of the expansion of the universe, the historical evidence points at Lemaître and Hubble, and the proper answer to the question, “Who discovered the expansion of the universe?”, is Georges H. Lemaître. Keywords: cosmology history; expansion of the universe; Lemaitre; Hubble 1. Introduction The history of the discovery of the expansion of the universe is fascinating, and it has been thoroughly studied by several historians of science. (See, among others, the contributions to the conference Origins of the expanding universe [1]: 1912–1932). Here, I will present the main points of this important part of the history of the evolution of the modern picture of our world. 2. Einstein’s Static Universe Albert Einstein completed the general theory of relativity in December 1915, and the theory was presented in an impressive article [2] in May 1916. He applied [3] the theory to the construction of a relativistic model of the universe in 1917. At that time, it was commonly thought that the universe was static, since one had not observed any large scale motions of the stars.
  • Cosmology and Religion — an Outsider's Study

    Cosmology and Religion — an Outsider's Study

    Cosmology and Religion — An Outsider’s Study (Big Bang and Creation) Dezs˝oHorváth [email protected] KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics (RMKI), Budapest and Institute of Nuclear Research (ATOMKI), Debrecen Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 1/46 Outline Big Bang, Inflation. Lemaître and Einstein. Evolution and Religion. Big Bang and Hinduism, Islam, Christianity. Saint Augustine on Creation. Saint Augustine on Time. John Paul II and Stephen Hawking. Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 2/46 Warning Physics is an exact science (collection of formulae) It is based on precise mathematical formalism. A theory is valid if quantities calculated with it agree with experiment. Real physical terms are measurable quantities, words are just words. Behind the words there are precise mathematics and experimental evidence What and how: Physics Why: philosopy? And theology? Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 3/46 What is Cosmology? Its subject is the Universe as a whole. How did it form? (Not why?) Static, expanding or shrinking? Open or closed? Its substance, composition? Its past and future? Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 4/46 The Story of the Big Bang Theory Red Shift of Distant Galaxies Henrietta S. Leavitt Vesto Slipher Distances to galaxies Red shift of galaxies 1908–1912 1912 Dezs˝oHorváth: Cosmology and religion Wien, 10.03.2010 – p. 5/46 Expanding Universe Cosmological principle: if the expansion linear A. Friedmann v(B/A) = v(C/B) ⇒ v(C/A)=2v(B/A) the Universe is homogeneous, it has no special point.
  • The Universe of General Relativity, Springer 2005.Pdf

    The Universe of General Relativity, Springer 2005.Pdf

    Einstein Studies Editors: Don Howard John Stachel Published under the sponsorship of the Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University Volume 1: Einstein and the History of General Relativity Don Howard and John Stachel, editors Volume 2: Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity Abhay Ashtekar and John Stachel, editors Volume 3: Studies in the History of General Relativity Jean Eisenstaedt and A.J. Kox, editors Volume 4: Recent Advances in General Relativity Allen I. Janis and John R. Porter, editors Volume 5: The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity John Earman, Michel Janssen and John D. Norton, editors Volume 6: Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity Julian B. Barbour and Herbert Pfister, editors Volume 7: The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity Hubert Goenner, Jürgen Renn, Jim Ritter, and Tilman Sauer, editors Volume 8: Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879–1909 Don Howard and John Stachel, editors Volume 9: Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’ John Stachel Volume 10: Einstein Studies in Russia Yuri Balashov and Vladimir Vizgin, editors Volume 11: The Universe of General Relativity A.J. Kox and Jean Eisenstaedt, editors A.J. Kox Jean Eisenstaedt Editors The Universe of General Relativity Birkhauser¨ Boston • Basel • Berlin A.J. Kox Jean Eisenstaedt Universiteit van Amsterdam Observatoire de Paris Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica SYRTE/UMR8630–CNRS Valckenierstraat 65 F-75014 Paris Cedex 1018 XE Amsterdam France The Netherlands AMS Subject Classification (2000): 01A60, 83-03, 83-06 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The universe of general relativity / A.J. Kox, editors, Jean Eisenstaedt. p.
  • Near-Death Studies and Modern Physics

    Near-Death Studies and Modern Physics

    Near-Death Studies and Modern Physics Craig R. Lundahl, Ph.D. Western New Mexico University Arvin S. Gibson Kaysville, UT ABSTRACT: The fields of near-death studies and modern physics face common dilemmas: namely, how to account for the corroborative nature of many near death experiences or of the anthropic disposition of the universe without allow ing for some otherworldly existence and/or some guiding intelligence. Extreme efforts in both fields to explain various phenomena by contemporary scientific methods and theories have been largely unsuccessful. This paper exposes some of the principal problem areas and suggests a greater collaboration between the two fields. Specific illustrations are given where collaborative effort might be fruitful. The paper also suggests a broader perspective in performing the research, one that places greater emphasis on an otherworldly thrust in future research. Efforts to explain the near-death experience (NDE) have tended to fo cus on theories to explain the NDE as a biological, mental, psychological or social phenomena and theories that explain it as a real occurrence. These attempts have been proposed by researchers and theorists from a number of different fields. They tend to fall into a number of cat egories of explanation that include cultural, pharmacological, physio logical, neurological, psychological, and religious. These many attempts at explanation include such factors as prior social or cultural conditioning (Rodin, 1980), drugs and sensory de privation (Grof and Halifax, 1977; Palmer, 1978; Siegel, 1980), cere bral anoxia or hypoxia, temporal lobe seizures, and altered states of Craig R. Lundahl, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Business Admin istration and Chair Emeritus of the Department of Social Sciences at Western New Mexico University in Silver City, New Mexico.
  • Dark Matter in the Universe

    Dark Matter in the Universe

    INTRODUCTION TO COSMOLOGY ALEXEY GLADYSHEV (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research & Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology) RUSSIAN LANGUAGE TEACHER PROGRAMME CERN, November 2, 2016 Introduction to cosmology History of cosmology. Units and scales in cosmology. Basic observational facts. Expansion of the Universe. Cosmic microwave background radiation. Homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe. The Big Bang Model. Cosmological Principle. Friedmann-Robertson- Walker metric. The Hubble law. Einstein equations. Equations of state. Friedmann Equations. Basic cosmological parameters. The history of the Universe from Particle physics point of view. The idea of inflation. Problems and puzzles of the Big Bang Model. The Dark Matter. Cosmology after 1998. The accelerating Universe. The Dark Energy and cosmological constant. November 2, 2016 A Gladyshev “Introduction to Cosmology” 2 What is Cosmology ? COSMOLOGY – from the Greek κοσμος – the World, the Universe λογος – a word, a theory studies the Universe as a whole, its history, and evolution November 2, 2016 A Gladyshev “Introduction to Cosmology” 3 Cosmology before XX century ~ 2000 BC Babylonians were skilled astronomers who were able to predict the apparent motions of the Moon, planets and the Sun upon the sky, and could even predict eclipses ~ IV century BC The Ancient Greeks were the first to build a “cosmological model” within which to interpret these motions. They developed the idea that the stars were fixed on a celestial sphere which rotated about the spherical Earth every 24 hours, and the planets, the Sun and the Moon, moved between the Earth and the stars. November 2, 2016 A Gladyshev “Introduction to Cosmology” 4 Cosmology before XX century II century BC Ptolemy suggested the Earth-centred system.
  • 216305165.Pdf

    216305165.Pdf

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Caltech Authors - Main General Relativity as a Hybrid theory: The Genesis of Einstein’s work on the problem of motion Dennis Lehmkuhl, Einstein Papers Project, California Institute of Technology Email: [email protected] Forthcoming in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics Special Issue: Physical Relativity, 10 years on Abstract In this paper I describe the genesis of Einstein’s early work on the problem of motion in general relativity (GR): the question of whether the motion of matter subject to gravity can be derived directly from the Einstein field equations. In addressing this question, Ein- stein himself always preferred the vacuum approach to the problem: the attempt to derive geodesic motion of matter from the vacuum Einstein equations. The paper first investigates why Einstein was so skeptical of the energy-momentum tensor and its role in GR. Drawing on hitherto unknown correspondence between Einstein and George Yuri Rainich, I then show step by step how his work on the vacuum approach came about, and how his quest for a unified field theory informed his interpretation of GR. I show that Einstein saw GR as a hybrid theory from very early on: fundamental and correct as far as gravity was concerned but phenomenological and effective in how it accounted for matter. As a result, Einstein saw energy-momentum tensors and singularities in GR as placeholders for a theory of matter not yet delivered. The reason he preferred singularities was that he hoped that their mathemat- ical treatment would give a hint as to the sought after theory of matter, a theory that would do justice to quantum features of matter.
  • The Consciousness Revolution in Science

    The Consciousness Revolution in Science

    Jim Beichler ASCSI/SFF Conference Presentation 6 October 2018 The Consciousness Revolution in Science The inner workings of the primal cosmic mish-mash which yields our senses of spirit, consciousness and our interpretations of nature/physics James E. Beichler Abstract: It is no coincidence that the many theoretical physicists are ‘suggesting’ that our final physical reality could be time, bits, a hologram, a computer program, information, 1s and 0s, mathematics, or some other intangible quantity while many consciousness scientists and philosophers suggest that human consciousness might be time, bits, a hologram, a computer program, information, 1s and 0s, mathematics, or some other intangible quality. They are making these ridiculous claims independent of each other because each group is facing their own inabilities to move forward, and they are both grasping at straws, in this case the same straws. They are both facing conundrums of thought and do not realize that they are confusing the advance of science rather than advancing science. In the meantime, neuroscientists, technicians and engineers are developing machines that read peoples’ minds and developing brain/machine interfaces and advanced computer AI that seems to render the questions regarding human consciousness and spirituality either even more important or completely irrelevant. This is the mish-mash that is the present state of science, but a revolution, not only in physics and science, but in human thought and evolution itself, that will change all of this is on the offing.
  • Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 of 5

    Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Page 1 of 5

    Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 5 Georges Lemaître From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Georges Lemaître Lemaître ( lemaitre.ogg 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur . Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. [1][2] Contents 1 Biography 2 Work 3 Namesakes 4 Bibliography 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links Biography Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, priest and scientist Born 17 July 1894 After a Charleroi, Belgium classical education at Died 20 June 1966 (aged 71) a Jesuit Leuven, Belgium secondary Nationality Belgian school (Collège du Fields Cosmology, Astrophysics Sacré-Coeur, Institutions Catholic University of Louvain Charleroi), Lemaître began studying civil engineering at the Catholic University of Louvain at the age of 17. In 1914, he interrupted his studies to serve as an artillery officer in the Belgian army for the duration of World War I. At the end of hostilities, he received the Military Cross with palms. According to the Big Bang theory, the After the war, he studied physics and mathematics, and began universe emerged from an extremely to prepare for priesthood. He obtained his doctorate in 1920 dense and hot state (singularity). Space with a thesis entitled l'Approximation des fonctions de itself has been expanding ever since, plusieurs variables réelles ( Approximation of functions of carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a several real variables ), written under the direction of Charles rising loaf of bread.
  • Cyclic Models of the Relativistic Universe: the Early History

    Cyclic Models of the Relativistic Universe: the Early History

    1 Cyclic models of the relativistic universe: the early history Helge Kragh* Abstract. Within the framework of relativistic cosmology oscillating or cyclic models of the universe were introduced by A. Friedmann in his seminal paper of 1922. With the recognition of evolutionary cosmology in the 1930s this class of closed models attracted considerable interest and was investigated by several physicists and astronomers. Whereas the Friedmann-Einstein model exhibited only a single maximum value, R. Tolman argued for an endless series of cycles. After World War II, cyclic or pulsating models were suggested by W. Bonnor and H. Zanstra, among others, but they remained peripheral to mainstream cosmology. The paper reviews the development from 1922 to the 1960s, paying particular attention to the works of Friedmann, Einstein, Tolman and Zanstra. It also points out the role played by bouncing models in the emergence of modern big-bang cosmology. Although the general idea of a cyclic or oscillating universe goes back to times immemorial, it was only with the advent of relativistic cosmology that it could be formulated in a mathematically precise way and confronted with observations. Ever since Alexander Friedmann introduced the possibility of a closed cyclic universe in 1922, it has continued to attract interest among a minority of astronomers and physicists. At the same time it has been controversial and widely seen as speculative, in part because of its historical association with an antireligious world view. According to Steven Weinberg, “the oscillating model … nicely avoids the problem of Genesis” and may be considered philosophically appealing for that reason (Weinberg 1977: 154).