sign in sign up
<<
Home , Milne model

arXiv:1306.1809v1 [astro-ph.CO] 7 Jun 2013 alkrt unietecnomlpr ftespacetime the of part by conformal advocated the technique the quantize integral [4], to Penrose Narlikar path of the Deser formalism of twistor Arnowitt, in application the integral of [3], path Misner method and of quantization [2], use Hawking canonical and the Gibbons the [1], ap- by advocated covariant DeWitt S. manifestly Euclidean B. the of mention apply proach may and one solve proper, to how years, eighty on consensus than principles. no more quantum still of is De- efforts there dedicated interactions. fundamental the the- other spite field the quantum the the by describing with supported ory GR also unite is as to view researchers failure This many apparent theory. by the considered of failure is a sectors dark the of and physics poses . fundamental energy non- between confrontation dark no serious mysterious a now, dark the dur- these until Additionally, of universe is, any sectors. for the there evidence of However, laboratory or dynamics gravitational turns. the to their in believed ing are roles which energy, major dark play and matter dark ton, etnwcmoet nteeeg-testensor is energy-stress the success in indepen- this components completely However, new three dent admits universe. one provided the achieved to the system from ranging solar describe phenomena to believed gravitational is all and accurately century a almost for experts by mns h ayapoce oqatmgravity quantum to approaches many the Amongst requirement the GR, of success remarkable the Despite hoyo eea eaiiy(R a enscrutinized been has (GR) relativity general of Theory hoiswihd o eur h akscoso h standar the of sectors dark the makes require not This do cosmology. which and whic theories energy, physics dark t fundamental Moreover, and between matter unidentified. co tion remain dark the and inflaton, of evidence of percent laboratory form or 95 the than in More be ingr ‘dark’. to the mainly of are understanding which theoretical model, our haunt to continue yais ti hw htvroscsooia observatio theory cosmological te such various one energy-stress that of the shown framework wherein is theory It a dynamics. of requiremen of out the way terms possible that in a cosmology, appears of indicative It is tensor, pr conte gravitation. energy-stress may this of In which grail’ coincidences means. ‘holy possible interesting all unnoticed, from hitherto theory final be’ ‘would fflcigtesadr cosmology. standard the afflicting prah oevr h oe vdstehrzn ans a flatness horizon, the evades model the Moreover, approach. eeo nih bu h ol-efia theory. final words: stu would-be Key to the worthwhile about be insight would develop it nevertheless, gravitation, of ntepeetstain twudb motn ogi insig gain to important be would it situation, present the In growth tremendous shown has cosmology observational While huhMlester sa nopee hnmnlgclt phenomenological incomplete, an is theory Milne’s Though .INTRODUCTION I. uiu xlnto fSm omlgclPhenomena Cosmological Some of Explanation Curious A ..908 aaea,ZC eio mi:vishwa@matematic Email: Mexico, ZAC, Zacatecas, 98068, C.P. nddAcad Unidad hoeia omlg-Csooia bevtos-Alter - observations Cosmological cosmology- Theoretical e ´ iad Matem de mica − h in oe,wtotrqiigtedr etr ftest the of sectors dark the requiring without model, Milne the a oa Vishwakarma Gopal Ram − a ´ infa- ia,UiesddAut Universidad ticas, diinly oeln-tnigpolm ftestan- the sectors. of dark the problems requiring long-standing without some model, Additionally, Milne cos- framework various the ap- the that in of standard explained note be to the can interesting observations of mological be would sectors observations It dark the proach. the of invoking insight explanations gain without alternative to useful the prove may framework about which the model, in Milne’s of theoretical, and observational dences, cosmology. standard the requiring of without sectors observations dark the the fi- explain the to expect theory would observations nal one Obviously, the labora- them. from confronting hand, the guidelines by than other requiring speculative the physics, more tory on is side and, theoretical more non-repeatable hand, the one are are on where, they events universe science, the the of of observations theory a branches the in all important Though, in direction. a important final play this are can be’ in Observations ‘would role means. the would crucial possible about it all insight from circumstances, gain theory present to the important range In be wide a addresses phenomena. successfully of it if even gravitation theory workable and cannot gravity. complete quantum they a of delivered concepts, have abstract to interesting claim many methods to and these quantization led of Although problems formal in [7]. the at- gravity emphasized gravity have the of quantum properties finally loop quantum and the the [6] describe to M-theory tempts 11-dimensional birth the giving GR, to and mechanics quantum theo- reconcile string to of ries approach multi-dimensional the [5], metric h rsn ae natssm upiigcoinci- surprising some unearths paper present The of theory final the be cannot and not is GR Hence, h rsn rssapaigi h standard the in appearing crisis present the yteecicdne,wihmyhl us help may which coincidences, these dy fteseuaiedr etr ythe by sectors dark speculative the of t edr nrypssasrosconfronta- serious a poses energy dark he scnb xlie aifcoiyi the in satisfactorily explained be can ns v sflt eeo nih bu the about insight develop to useful ove det ftecnodnecosmological concordance the of edients praht xli h observations. the explain to approach d dtecsooia osatproblems constant cosmological the nd srde o lyadrc oei the in role direct a play not does nsor t h rsn ae ihihssome, highlights paper present the xt, er,adcno etefia theory final the be cannot and heory, togcs odsoe alternative discover to case strong a tn fteeeg-testno has tensor energy-stress the of ntent onthv n non-gravitational any have not do h vrtels eae epmysteries deep decade, last the over taotterqieet fthe of requirements the about ht o ´ oad Zacatecas, de noma aieexplanations. native as.reduaz.mx andard 2 dard cosmology can also be circumvented in this model. which transforms the line element (2) to a form conformal Although, Milne’s model does not supply a complete the- to a static form of (2): ory of gravitation and is unable to answer why the matter 2 should not curve the , nevertheless, it would be 2 2τ/t0 2 2 2 2 dr 2 2 2 2 ds = e c dτ c t0 + r (dθ + sin θ dφ ) , worthwhile to study the above-mentioned coincidences,  − 1+ r2  which may provide useful clues about the hitherto un- (4) known character of the would-be final theory. As Milne’s where t0 is a constant with the significance that τ = 0 model is not a widely known theory, we describe briefly when t = t0. While the line element (2) uses the comov- its main features in the following. ing coordinates and a cosmic time, the metric (4) uses the locally defined measures of space and time [12]. Besides the , Milne made an- other assumption that matter is conserved (which is ev- II. MILNE’S MODEL idently suggested by ordinary physics). This implies that the equation of hydrodynamic continuity applies and the density of matter decreases with time in the uni- The Milne model is a special relativistic cosmological verse whose invariant border advances at the speed of model which was introduced by in light. The zero of t-time scale is a fundamental 1935 [8]. It is a deductive theory based on Milne’s kine- in the theory when the separation of the fundamental matic relativity [9] in which information is deduced only (co-moving) observers vanishes, proposing a physical ex- from the cosmological principle (together with the ba- plosion of matter. In τ-time scale, this event takes place sic properties of spacetime and the propagation of light). in the infinite past, owing to its logarithmic dependence The greatest achievement of the kinematic relativity is on t, as is indicated by (3). the possibility of the existence of different time scales. It should be noted that the line element (2) results Although there is an infinity of these possible time scales, as a natural consequence of kinematic relativity, and has two are of outstanding importance. One is the local time nothing to do with GR. However, as the same solution (2) scale, say τ, in which the observers appear to be at rest is obtained in the framework of the standard cosmology and the universe presents a static appearance. The sec- for an empty universe, it is generally (mis)believed that ond time-scale is universal or cosmic, say t, in which the the Milne model represents an empty universe, which is relative motion of the observes is non-zero but unaccel- not correct. All one can say, in the language of GR, erated (as it is a special relativistic theory). The cos- is that matter does not curve the spacetime in the geo- mic time can be identified with the time given by the metric analogue of Milne model. The presence of matter Robertson-Walker (RW) line element without curving spacetime in Milne’s theory, indicates that this theory is fundamentally different from GR and 2 2 2 2 2 dr 2 2 2 2 should not be viewed within the usual understanding of ds = c dt S (t) + r (dθ + sin θ dφ ) . 1 − 1 kr2  an empty universe in GR . Despite its remarkable suc- − (1) cess on the kinematic front, the historical development which is deduced from the assumptions of homogeneity of Milne’s model has left the theory in a curiously unfin- and isotropy as required by the cosmological principle. In ished state [12]. When the theory was invented, it met order to make the motion of the observers uniform, Milne with great hostility and was criticized severely, though considered the S = ct in (1). Now, k = 1 is often unjustly, and sometimes frivolously. the only choice to make the line element (1) compatible− with the Minkowskian metric, since with S = ct, the resulting 4-dimensional spacetime from (1) is flat only III. COMPATIBILITY OF MILNE’S MODEL when k = 1 and the 3-space is hyperbolic. Hence, the WITH OBSERVATIONS t-time in Milne’s− model is given by The standard interpretation of the cosmological obser- 2 vations is provided in the framework of an evolving uni- 2 2 2 2 2 dr 2 2 2 2 ds = c dt c t 2 + r (dθ + sin θ dφ ) . (2) verse. For this reason, and also to compare the results of − 1+ r  the cosmological tests performed on Milne’s model vis- a-vis those on the standard cosmology, we consider the One may check that the transformations t¯ = t√1+ r2, t-time scale of the Milne model given by the line element r¯ = ctr indeed reduce the line element (2) to a mani- (2), in terms of which the universe appears dynamic. In festly Minkowskian form in the coordinates t,¯ r,θ,φ¯ (see page 140 in [10]). The τ-time is related with the t-time through the transformation 1 The appearance of a flat spacetime in the presence of matter is also not impossible in the conventional GR approach. For exam- t ple, it has been shown in [11] that conformally coupled matter τ = t0 ln , (3) t0  does not always curve spacetime. 3 order to study the cosmological observations, we need to define the luminosity- and the angular diameter- dis- tances in the Milne model. We note that solution (2) provides uniquely, without requiring any input from the matter fields, the luminosity distance dL of a source of z as

−1 dL = cH0 (1 + z) sinh ln(1 + z) , (5) { } where H0 represents the present value of the Hubble pa- rameter H = S/S˙ . Hence, the angular diameter distance 2 is given by dA = dL/(1 + z) .

A. Supernovae Observations FIG. 1: The ‘new gold sample’ of 182 SNeIa from Riess et al. [14] is compared with some best-fitting models. The solid curve corresponds to the Milne model and the dashed curve Let us first consider the observations of supernovae of corresponds to the spatially-flat ΛCDM model Ωm = 1−ΩΛ = type Ia (SNeIa), which render the dark energy as an in- 0.34 ± 0.04. dispensable ingredient of the standard cosmology. An SNIa occurs when a carbon-oxygen white dwarf star in a binary system accretes enough mass from its companion parameters: χ2/DoF = 158.75/180= 0.88 and Q = 87% to reach a critical mass and hence undergoes a thermonu- obtained for the values Ωm =1 ΩΛ =0.34 0.04. The clear explosion in its core. Because of the near uniformity best-fitting models, the one given− by (5) and± the ΛCDM of the mass of the white dwarf stars, controlled by the one, have been compared with this sample of data in Fig. Chandrasekhar limit, the SNeIa produce nearly the same 1. peak luminosity. This allows them to be used as standard candles to measure the distance to their host galaxies be- cause the apparent magnitude of the SNeIa depends pri- B. Observations of High-Redshift Radio Sources marily on the (luminosity) distance. As the distances are model-based quantities in cosmology and since different Let us now consider the data on the angular size and cosmological models generally deviate from one another redshift of 256 radio sources with their in the at high redshifts, one can use the high-redshift observa- range 0.5 3.8 compiled by Jackson and Dodgson [16], tions to test and compare the models. As SNeIa are very which were− selected from a bigger sample of 337 ultra- bright events which can be observed from large cosmo- compact radio sources originally compiled by Gurvits logical distances (high redshifts), they provide the perfect [17]. These sources, of angular sizes of the order of a data for this purpose. few milliarcseconds (ultra-compact), were measured by It is already known that the Milne model, albeit non- the very long-baseline interferometry. The objects of the accelerating (neither deceleration), is consistent with the sample of Jackson and Dodgson are short-lived quasars observations of SNeIa without requiring any dark energy. deeply embedded inside the galactic nuclei, which are ex- As early as in 1999, the Supernova Cosmology Project pected to be free from evolution on a cosmological time team noticed from the analysis of their first-generation scale and thus comprise a set of standard rods (at least of the SNeIa data that the performance of the empty in a statistical sense). These sources are distributed into model (Ωm =0=ΩΛ) is practically identical to that of 16 redshift bins, each bin containing 16 sources. This the best-fit unconstrained cosmology with a positive Λ compilation has recently been used by many authors to [13]. Let us consider a newer dataset, for example, the test different cosmological models [18]. 2 ‘new gold sample’ of 182 SNeIa [14] , which is a reliable In order to fit this data to the Milne model, let us set of SNeIa with reduced calibration errors arising from derive the Θ z relation in the following. The (apparent) the systematics. It can be checked that the model (5) angular size− Θ of a source, of the proper diameter d, is 2 provides an excellent fit to the data with a value of χ given by per degrees of freedom (DoF) = 174.29/181 = 0.96 and 0.0688dh a probability of goodness of fit Q = 63%. Obviously the Θ(z)= milliarcseconds, (6) ΛCDM model has even a better fit as it has more free H0dA where d is measured in pc, h is the present value of the −1 −1 Hubble parameter in units of 100 km s Mpc , and dA

2 is the angular diameter distance given by dA = dL/(1 + Although various newer SNeIa datasets are available, however, 2 the way they are analyzed has left little scope for testing a the- z) , as mentioned earlier. oretical model against them. This issue has been addressed by We find that the Milne model has a satisfactory fit to 2 Vishwakarma and Narlikar in [15]. the data with χ /DoF = 20.78/15=1.39 and Q = 14%. 4

Telescope Key Project [19], equation (8) gives t0 for the Einstein-deSitter model (Ωm =1, Λ= 0)as9.18 Gyr. This cannot be reconciled with the age of the oldest glob- ular cluster estimated to be tGC = 12.5 1.2 Gyr [20] and the age of the Milky Way as 12.5 3± Gyr coming from the latest uranium decay estimates± [21]. However, for the concordance ΛCDM model with Ωm =1 ΩΛ =0.27 (as estimated by the WMAP project [22]), equation− (8) gives a satisfactory age of the universe t0 = 13.67 Gyr which is well above the age of the globular clusters. Interestingly, the Milne model also qualifies the test: giving a satisfac- tory age of the universe t0 = 13.77 Gyr (which is even slightly higher than the concordance model value). As has been mentioned earlier, the event t = 0 in FIG. 2: The data on the ultra-compact radio sources com- Milne’s model, takes place in the infinite past in τ- piled by Jackson and Dodgson [16] is compared with some time scale, owing to a logarithmic dependence of τ on best-fitting models. The solid curve corresponds to the Milne model and the dashed curve corresponds to the spatially-flat t. Hence, the age of the universe is infinite in τ-time ΛCDM model Ωm = 1 − ΩΛ = 0.21 ± 0.08. scale.

In order to compare, we find that the best-fitting ΛCDM D. CMB Observations model has a slightly better fit: χ2/DoF = 16.03/14 = 1.15 and Q = 31% obtained for the values Ωm =1 ΩΛ = Finally, let us see how the Milne model fairs against 0.21 0.08. These models are shown in Fig. 2. − ± the observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The CMB radiation is composed of the photons decoupled from the primordial matter (baryon- C. Observations of H0 and t0 photon plasma) at the redshift zdec. As the photons were in thermal equilibrium with matter in the plasma before The age of the universe t0, in the -like theories, decoupling, the size of the structures in the matter dur- is the time elapsed since the big bang. It depends on the ing the epoch of decoupling (measured by the density expansion dynamics of the model and is given by contrast), is imprinted on the radiation in the form of ∞ dz small fluctuations in its temperature with respect to a t0 = . (7) small change in the direction in the sky. Since the uni- Z0 (1 + z)H(z) verse is optically thin after this epoch, this information Hence, the Hubble parameter controls the age of the uni- remains frozen in the radiation and is seen today. Hence verse, which in tern depends on the free parameters of the observed anisotropy in the CMB temperature can be the model. For example, by the use of the Friedman quantified in terms of the size of the structures on the equation, equation (7) reduces to the following in the surface of the ‘last scatter’. For example, a region which standard cosmology: has a proper size Ldec on the surface of the last scatter, ∞ will subtend an angle θdec at the observer today, given 1 (1 + z)−1dz 0 by t = 3 2 . H0 Z0 Ωm(1 + z) +ΩΛ + (1 Ωm ΩΛ)(1 + z) − − p (8) Ldec θdec = , (9) Although t0 is a model-based parameter, a lower limit is dA(zdec) put on it by requiring that the universe must be at least as old as the oldest object in it. This is done through tGC, where dA(zdec) is the (angular diameter) distance to the the age of the globular clusters in the Milky Way which surface of the last scatter. If one considers Ldec to be −1 are among the oldest objects we so far know. The param- equal to the Hubble distance dH(tdec) = cH (tdec), o eter H0 can be estimated in a model-independent way, for equation (9) gives θdec 1 for zdec = 1100 in the stan- example, from the observations of the low-redshift SNeIa, dard cosmology. As the≈ CMB appears, in the observa- in which case the predicted magnitude of the source does tions, to be highly isotropic on all angular scales greater o not depend on the model-parameters. One can use this than 1 , the length scale of the order of dH(tdec), is usu- value to calculate the age of the universe in a particular ally interpreted in terms of a horizon (in particular, the theory which is to be compared with the age of the oldest sound horizon) giving the largest coherent structure in objects. Thus the measurements of H0 and tGC provide the universe at tdec, since this should be the largest dis- a powerful tool to test the underlying theory. tance a sound wave in the tightly coupled baryon-photon For example, by using the current measurements of fluid could have traveled since the Big Bang until the −1 −1 H0 = 71 6 km s Mpc from the Hubble Space epoch of decoupling. ± 5

A word of caution is needed here. It should be noted higher expansion rate, which also results in a larger dis- −1 that the Hubble distance defined by dH(t) = cH (t) tance to the surface of the last scatter dA(zdec)=2.11 (which is an arbitrary definition) provides only a char- Gpc, compared to dA(zdec) = 12.78 Mpc in the concor- acteristic distance scale in the universe at t and is not a dance model. The length scale Ldec is expected to grow, horizon, as it does not have any causal significance (since due to the cosmic expansion, to a L0 to- it does not arise naturally from any light propagation day, given by L0 = (1+ zdec)Ldec. Thus the present size formula). Although in the standard cosmology, the par- of our patch of homogeneity and isotropy, is 33.19 Gpc ticle horizon (as well as the ) have radii in the Milne model compared with 200.82 Mpc in the comparable to the Hubble distance dH, there are other concordance model. cosmological models which do not have any horizon. It is known from observations that the present size of Another important point to be noted is that if we inter- our patch of approximate large-scale homogeneity and pret Ldec, appearing in (9), as the sound horizon, giving isotropy is at least as big as the present-day Hubble dis- the size of the largest coherent region on the last scat- tance4. It would be worthwhile to mention here that tering surface in which the homogenizing signals passed Grishchuk [24] has found out, by combining available ob- at sound speed, then the CMB ought to exhibit large servations with plausible statistical assumptions, that the anisotropies (not isotropy) for angular scales of the order present size of this patch is significantly bigger than the of 1o or larger - a result contrary to what is observed present Hubble distance. In this context, the value of this [10, 23]. Hence, it seems that the isotropy of the CMB patch as calculated in the Milne model - about an order cannot be explained in terms of some physical process op- of magnitude higher than that in the standard cosmology erating under the principle of causality in the standard - is encouraging. paradigm [23] (the horizon problem). It is generally be- Thus, there seems a possibility, in the limited scope lieved that inflation made the universe smooth and left given by the Milne model, to explain the location of the the seeds of structures, on the surface of the last scatter, first peak in the observed angular power spectrum of of the order of the Hubble distance at that time3. CMB. Moreover, the size of the pre- Thus all one can say, permitted by the present situa- dicted by this model seems consistent with Grishchuk’s tion, is that the CMB observations fix a preferred length findings. Nevertheless, it is not possible to explain and scale for the size of the structures on the surface of last quantify the generation of the acoustic oscillations and scatter, which can be estimated in terms of the Hubble the locations of the other peaks in the framework of distance dH(tdec). For example, this length scale Ldec Milne’s model, which lacks the early universe physics. can be written as Hence, the overall explanation of CMB cannot be con- sidered satisfactory in the Milne model, compared with −1 Ldec = ndH(tdec)= ncH (tdec), (10) the standards of the corresponding explanations in the concordance cosmology. where the parameter n can be estimated from the ob- servations of the CMB. Particularly, this size can be estimated accurately by using the angular scale of the IV. ON THE PROBLEMS OF THE STANDARD first peak in the observed angular power spectrum of COSMOLOGY the CMB, which is supposed to give, with a high preci- sion, the physical scale of the density contrast during the Let us now witness some coincidences in the Milne epoch of decoupling. In terms of the Legendre multipole model registered on the theoretical front. As we see in the ℓ, where ℓ = π/θ, the WMAP observations [22] give the following, the model can circumvent the long-standing location of the first peak at ℓ = 220. This is equivalent o problems of the standard cosmology, for example, the to θdec = 0.82 . Hence, we have to solve equation (9), o horizon, flatness and the cosmological constant problems. taken together with (10), for θdec = 0.82 , which would be equivalent to fitting equation (9) (taken together with Horizon Problem: (10)) to the first peak in the angular power spectrum of the CMB observed by the WMAP project. The distance of the (particle) horizon, given by This solution, in the concordance ΛCDM model (Ωm = t ′ 1 ΩΛ =0.27), yields the value n =0.82. By considering cdt − −1 −1 dh(t)= S(t) ′ , (11) H0 =71 km s Mpc , this gives the size of the struc- Z0 S(t ) tures at tdec as Ldec = 182.4Kpc. For the Milne model, the solution yields n =7.86, giving Ldec = 30.14 Mpc. A sets a limit of the observable or the causally connected larger Ldec, in the Milne model, is a characteristic of a part of the universe at time t. As a finite value exists

3 It may be a matter of debate that if inflation made everything 4 As the size of the horizons in the standard cosmology is of the else smooth, why did it leave this significant signature of inho- order of the Hubble distance, the size of the observable universe mogeneity (see pages 251, 253 in [10]? is regarded to be of the order of the Hubble distance (≈ 4.2 Gpc). 6 for dh in the standard cosmology, this means that the example, pages 125-127 of [10]), though with a different universe has a horizon in this theory. This is in conflict meaning of its terms: with the observed smoothness of the CMB at the largest 3 2 4πS0 2 scales in all directions, indicating that even the parts S˙ G ρ0 kc + − 3 = . (13) of the universe lying outside the horizon have been in 2 S − 2 thermal contact. While, the standard cosmology has to take refuge in inflation in order to solve this problem, the The two terms on the left are respectively the kinetic problem does not exist in the Milne model, as dh = at energy and the gravitational potential energy (per unit all times in this model (as can be checked from (2)∞ and mass) in the universe. Hence, unlike GR, here the con- (11)), and the universe is always causally connected. stant k is related with the total energy of the universe, and not with its . We can relate it to the total energy of the universe at the present epoch. Cosmological Constant Problem: The situation differs here from the standard cosmology In the standard cosmology, the origin of the cosmological case in the fact that the right hand side of (13)) does not constant problem lies in a conflict between the values of evolve with time, unlike the case in (12). Hence, any fine the cosmological constant and the energy density of vac- tunning between the two energy terms is not required in uum in the quantum field theory (QFT). The vacuum Milne’s model, and their sum remains constant. More- energy, according to the QFT, results from the quantum over, the most likely value of the constant k in (13)) is vacuum fluctuations which provide an energy contribu- zero, as many theoretical findings claim that the total tion of the order of the Planck mass. In GR, the vacuum energy of the universe should be zero. energy can be represented by the cosmological constant. Friedman equation then provides an estimate of the vac- 2 uum energy in terms of H0 . This is, however, smaller V. CONCLUSION than the QFT-value by a factor of 10120! This discrep- ≈ ancy has been called ‘the worst theoretical prediction in It appears that the dark ingredients of the energy- the history of physics!’ This problem is evaded in Milne’s stress tensor - the inflaton field, the non-baryonic dark model owing to the fact that neither the cosmological matter and the dark energy - have become more like lia- constant, nor any other dark energy candidate appears bilities than assets of the standard cosmology. One may in the theory. surmise that the requirement of the speculative dark sec- tors by the energy-stress tensor, is indicative of a possible Flatness Problem: way out of the present crisis (in the standard cosmology), in terms of a theory wherein the energy-stress tensor is The standard cosmology harbours this problem through absent. the Friedmann equation It would be interesting to note that various cosmo- logical observations can be explained successfully in the 2 ρ ρ kc framework of one such theory - the Milne model. Addi- 2 1 1 Ω 1= 2 2 , (12) 3H /(8πG) − ≡ ρc − ≡ − S H tionally, the Milne model evades the horizon, flatness and the cosmological constant problems afflicting the stan- implying that the universe will have positive, zero or neg- dard cosmology. However, an alternative theory cannot ative spatial curvature depending on whether its total be acceptable purely on the basis of its success on the energy density ρ is more than, equal to or less than the largest scales. It is also expected to pass the tests through 5 critical density ρc. As Ω 1 grows with time according the local observations, for example those which have been to (12), this causes a| problem− | that even a minute de- devised to test GR. Clearly, Milne’s theory appears far parture of early Ω from unity grows significantly in time from meeting this challenge. and yet the universe today remains very close to flat. For Nevertheless, the various theoretical and observational example, the observational uncertainty of Ω at present, coincidences studied in the framework of Milne’s model would require it to be differing from unity by 10−53 dur- are worth paying attention to, owing to the fact that they ing the GUT epoch! Any relaxation of this fine tunning do not require any of the dark sectors of the standard would have led to a far wider range of Ω at present than cosmology. This may contain some, hitherto unnoticed, is permitted by the observations. important clues about the final theory of gravitation. Equation (12), for dust, can also be derived in the kinematic theory by using the continuity equation and Acknowledgement: The author thanks an anonymous the Navier-Stokes equation of fluid dynamics (see, for referee for making some constructive comments which though made me work overtime, but improved the quality of the paper significantly.

5 For instance, in the standard cosmology with S ∝ t1/2, one has |Ω − 1|∝ t. 7

[1] B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1239. [13] S. Perlmutter, et al., Astrophys. J. 517, 565,1999. [2] S.W. Hawking, in - An Einstein Cen- [14] A. Riess, et al., Astrophys. J. 659, 98, 2007. tenary Survey, eds. SW. Hawking and W. Israel (Cam- [15] R. G. Vishwakarma and J. V. Narlikar, Res. Astron. As- bridge, 1979). trophys. 10, 1195, 2010. [3] R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C.W. Misner, in Gravitation - [16] J. C. Jackson and M. Dodgson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. An introduction to current research, ed. L. Witten (John Soc. 285, 806, 1997. Wiley, New York, 1962). [17] L. I. Gurvits, Astrophys. J. 425, 442, 1994. [4] R. Penrose, in - An Oxford Symposium, [18] S. K. Banerjee and J. V. Narlikar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. eds. C.J. Isham, R. Penrose and D.W. Sciama (Oxford Soc. 307, 73, 1999; University Press, 1975). R. G. Vishwakarma, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 3833, [5] J. V. Narlikar, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 14, 443, 1984. 2000; [6] S.W. Hawking and L. Mlodinow, The Grand Design, R. G. Vishwakarma and Parampreet Singh, Class. Quan- (Bantam Books, New York, 2010). tum Grav. 20, 2033, 2003; [7] C. Rovelli, Loop Quantum Gravity, Physics World, R. G. Vishwakarma, Nuovo Cim. B 122, 113, 2007. November 2003. [19] J. R. Mould, et al., Astrophys. J. 529, 786, 2000. [8] E. A. Milne, Relativity, Gravitation and World Structure, [20] O. Y. Gnedin, O. Lahav and M. J. Rees, preprint: (Oxford, 1935). astro-ph/0108034. [9] E. A. Milne, Kinematic Relativity, (Oxford, 1948). [21] R. Cayrel, et al., Nat. 409, 691, 2001. [10] J. V. Narlikar, An Introduction to Cosmology (Cambridge [22] D. Larson,et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 16, 2011. University Press, 2002). [23] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and [11] E. Ayon-Beato, C. Martinez, R. Tronoso and J. Zanelli, Applications of the General (John Phys. Rev. D, 71, 104037, 2005. Wiley & Sons, 1972), p 525. [12] H. Bondi, Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, sec- [24] L. P. Grishchuk, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4717, 1992. ond edition, 1968).