Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Is the Cosmological Constant of Topological Origin?

Is the Cosmological Constant of Topological Origin? The observed value of the cosmological constant poses large theoretical prob- lems. We find that topology of the Universe provides a natural source for it. Restricting dynamically an Einstein-Cartan gravity to General Relativity in our observed Universe allows topological invariants to induce an effective cosmolog- ical constant from dynamical quintessence-like topological fields. Its evaluation through the boundary of black holes yields a range compatible with the observed value, with uncertainty of three orders of magnitude. In turns, it provides a measurement of the Universe’s isoperimetric constant. As in other dark energy studies, quantum vacuum energy corrections are left for quantum gravity studies to explain away. 1. Introduction The cosmological constant has reappeared at the turn of the century in the toolbox of cosmology with the discovery of fainter than expected distant type Ia supernovae [1, 2, 3] interpreted as cosmic expansion acceleration. This acceleration was confirmed by the combination of cosmic microwave background radiation, clusters and baryon acoustic oscillation observations [4, 5, 6, 7]. Email addresses: delliou@lzu.edu.cn,Morgan.LeDelliou.IFT@gmail.com (M. Le Delliou), javier.lorca@ufrontera.cl (J. Lorca Espiro) Preprint submitted to Elsevier June 16, 2020 arXiv:1906.03041v2 [gr-qc] 13 Jun 2020 Its simple interpretation as quantum vacuum energy clashes with one of the largest discrepancy of physics: its observed value from the previous cosmic geometry tools yields a value for Λ that contradicts the simple evaluation that it should reach order of the Planck scale [8]. This has been coined the fine tuning problem [9, 10]. Quantum vacuum is ruled by the Planck scale at early time which then should set its initial value, but since Λ is a constant, this is the value expected nowadays, far from the hundred order of magnitude lower observed. In addition, this non-varying value gives rise to the coincidence problem [11, 12, 13, 14] as it also yields a very recent epoch for its emergence as cosmic dominant component: its energy density, set at the initial universe conditions, is unnaturally close to that of present matter and therefore poses some questions [15, 16]. For a review of the questions posed by the cosmological constant, refer to [8]. The geometrical approach to gravity through curved spacetime by general relativity (GR) can be generalised to include the possibility of its torsion in Einstein-Cartan (EC) theories [17, 18, 19, 20], where GR appears as the torsion- less limit, while the curvature-less limit yields the Teleparallel Equivalent to GR case [21, 22, 23]. This work will focus on the GR limit of Einstein-Cartan theories, further restricted by adding the characteristic classes consistent with the topology of the space-time manifold M [24, 25, 26], i.e. the Euler class e(TM) := C , the Pontryagin class p (TM) := C and the Nieh-Yan class E 1 P (of the Chern-type) c (TM) := C [27, 19, 24]. In order for these topological 2 N terms to be non trivial, we are lead to assume that the space-time manifold has a boundary ∂M 6= ∅. We found it is composed by the hyper-surfaces that define the horizons of black holes in the Universe. The action is then modified so as to include the appropriate boundary counter terms [28, 29] and such as the field equations are well-posed. The entire procedure will result in the appearance of a cosmological functional λ. The dynamical restriction of such torsional theory in M to GR conditions, in a region N ⊂ M that contains our observed Universe, is achieved by means of the Vielbein-Einstein-Palatini (VEP) formalism and by dynamical systems stability 2 considerations. This allows for the collateral topological effective cosmological constant Λ which is then identified with the observed value. Given that our result is mostly of topological origin, it should not be affected by quantum cor- rections, and specifically by quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. However, we will not address this issue in the present paper since, as in other dark energy studies, we start from the expectation that quantum vacuum energy corrections should be explained away by quantum gravity considerations in cosmological settings. In Sec. 2, we present the inclusion of topological invariants in the Vielbein- Einstein-Palatini action and how their dynamics can recover a GR behaviour. The emergence of an effective topological cosmological constant is presented in Sec. 3, while its evaluation using black holes occupy Sec. 4, before discussing our conclusions in Sec. 5. 2. Modified VEP restricted to GR regions We focus on the family of actions defined over the manifold M with boundary ∂M = 6 ∅, having the following terms: h i c a c a S := S e , ω , λ + S [e , ω , ϕ ] + S , (1) G T j M b b a c where ω is the total connection [see 27, Ch 7.10 - 7.15], e the vierbein frame [see 19, Sec. 7.8] and λ is the, thus far unrestricted, cosmological functional, with: Z Z h i 1 λ dµ (∗) c a ab ˜ ˆ ˜ S e , ω , λ = R ∧ Σ − λ dµ + i , (2) G n ab κ κ M ∂M is the pure gravitational VEP action [30] plus a boundary term à la York- Gibbons-Hawkins induced by the inclusion in the boundary operator i (·), be- ing κ the scaled gravitational constant, R is the curvature 2-form [see 19, ab ab 1 a b 1 1 a b c d Sec. 10.3], Σ := e ∧e is the Palatini 2-form and dµ := ǫ e ∧e ∧e ∧e abcd 2 4! (∗) 1 1 cd cd We are using the notation A := ǫ A for the Lie dual acting over any A ∈ Ω (M) abcd ab 2 with two spin indices c, d. 3 is the canonical volume measure. The second term in Eq. (1) is Z Z i i c a S [e , ω , ϕ ] := − (ϕ C ) + i (ϕ C ) (3) T j j j n j j κ κ M ∂M which we have called the topological action. The coupling zero forms ϕ (j = E, P, N explained below) can be interpreted as Lagrange’s multipliers for the characteristic classes C [see 19, Ch. 11] [and 27, Secs. 7.22 - 7.26]: a b C = R ∧ R , (Pontryagin) (4) b a 8π (∗) ab C = R ∧ R , (Euler) (5) ba 8π a ab C = T ∧ T − R ∧ Σ , (Nieh-Yan) (6) N a ab again with the appropriate boundary counter terms to render the total action well posed. Another way of motivating S is to interpret these terms from the Schwinger’s perspective as current-like terms with topological sources for the total action. Finally, we take: Z Z 2 2 S := S [Ψ] = − L [Ψ] + i (L [Ψ]) (7) M M M n M κ κ M ∂M a ♭ with L [Ψ] := Re ψγ D ψ ∧ ⋆e − V (Ψ) dµ , M ω as a Dirac action with appropriate boundary counter terms, where Ψ := ψ, ψ stands for mass-less spinor fields, where ⋆ stands for the Hodge Dual operation [see 19, Sec. 7.9] . 2 a a 1 n The hodge dual operator is defined over the vierbein basis as ⋆ (e ∧ · · · ∧ e ) := a ···a 1 1 n a 4 n+1 ǫ e ∧ · · · e and it extends to the entire space Ω (M) by linearity. a ···a (4−n)! n+1 4 4 2.1. Field equations The variation of (1) gives the following field equations (for δe , δω , δϕ , ab j ¯ 3 δψ and δψ , respectively) : 2λ δS (∗) 2 (∗) M 0 = R − |ψ| Σ ∧ e + idϕ ∧ T − , (8) N a ab ψ ab 3 δe δS (∗) (∗) M ˆ ˆ 0 = d Σ + i2dϕˆ ∧ R − i2dϕˆ ∧ R − idϕ ∧ Σ + , (9) ω P ab E N ab ab ab ab δω 0 = −i δ λ |ψ| dµ − C , j = {E, P, N} , (10) ϕ j λ λ a a a a ¯ ¯ 0 = γ D ψ − ψ e , 0 = D ψγ + ψ e , (11) ω ω 4 4 where T is the torsion 2-form, d stands for the exterior covariant derivative δ a ω ϕ is the Euler-Lagrange derivative and ♭ is the musical isomorphism [see 31, Ch. 3] between vectors and 1-forms . In order to obtain the pair of equations (11) we have explicitly considered the cosmological functional λ to be the Yukawa-type interaction: ˜ ˜ ¯ λ = λ [ϕ, Ψ] := ψλ [ϕ ] ψ (12) and we call λ the reduced cosmological functional, D stands for the gauge covariant derivative and we have defined the normalized couplings ϕˆ := j 2 (4π) for convenience. We recall that the total connection 1-form ω satisfies the splitting: a a a a a b ω = ω ¯ + K ⇒ T = K ∧ e , (13) b b b b a a where ω ¯ is the torsion-less Levi-Civita connection, while K is the contortion b b 1-form. By means of decomposition (13), the total curvature 2-form can then be written as: a a a c a a R = dω + ω ∧ ω = R + Θ , (14) b b c b b b Originally the field equations suppose the presence of a fermion potential V (Ψ). However, since this potential is not involved in the final calculation, we prefer to omit it out of clarity. 4 i ♭ j Explicitly, given a vector field X = X e its flat is the 1-form X := X e . i j 5 a where R is the torsion-less part of the curvature, formally equivalent to that of a GR curvature 2-form, while the term: a a a c Θ := d K − K ∧ K ; (15) b b c b concentrates all the contributions from the torsion related quantities. 2.2. GR restriction Focusing on the field equations (8 - 9) and keeping in mind the decomposition of the curvature (14) and Eqs. (11), it appears that the key to find consistent solutions lies in finding a proper contortion 1-form K . Our approach seeks to ab cancel out the torsion dependent term T in Eq. (8) in order to obtain a form that resembles more that of GR. This can be achieved from the torsion part of the curvature 2-form R via choosing an appropriate contortion: ab K = 4i ⋆ dϕ ∧ Σ . (16) ab N ab At the same time, we maintain the independence of the GR-like torsion-less part of the curvature from the torsion part in Eq. (9) by restricting all the couplings ϕ to be related by a functional behavior of the form: ∂φ dϕ := ϕ dφ = d (φ ◦ ϕ ) = dϕ for j = E, P , (17) j N j j N N ∂ϕ where φ proceeds from the field equations. The dynamical system defined by Eqs. (8) and (9) drives the remaining independent coupling ϕ to be a slowly varying function in a region N , rendering it torsion-less and thus GR-like. Following this, the topological characteristic classes can be calculated via (10) and matched with their canonical definitions (4 - 6) to finally restrict the remaining parameters. Imposing dynamical stability we obtain an expression for the reduced cosmological functional λ of the form: 4Λ 3 λ = u where u := exp − |ϕ | (18) ϕ ϕ N N N |ψ| where Λ is now a constant. On the other hand, when using the set of equations (10), the reduced cosmological functional λ possesses an equivalent form which 6 allows us to recognize ϕ as a mass-less scalar matter field. When combining the latter with Eq. (18) we see that the kinetic term associated to the zero-form ϕ should behave as a Lyapunov function. Leading to the following expression: dϕ = Λ {1 − u } , which can be used to characterize the GR-like region N of the space-time man- ifold M. At this stage, we want to mark the difference of our approach with previous field theoretic directions: 1. we do not base our model on quantum perturbations. Our cosmological constant does not play the role, as in the traditional and naive under- standing, of zeroth term in vacuum energy expansion, and also does not suffer from the orders of magnitude difference with observed values of this approach. 2. our space-time manifold M necessarily has a non-trivial boundary ∂M and is simply connected, in agreement with current observational expecta- tions on topology and in contrast with the non-trivial topology approaches [e.g. 32, 33]. 3. our cosmological constant is the source of topology, for our space-time manifold, as well as a way to ensure minimum topological requirements such as smoothness, simple connected-ness and orientation, while emerg- ing gravity approaches such as Refs [34, 35, 36, 37] build topology from iterative processes. 3. Effective topological cosmological constant We can calculate the topological numbers for the Pontryagin and Nieh-Yan forms and obtain: Z Z n := Re C = 0 ; n := Re C = 0 . (19) P P N N M M 7 At the same time, the Euler number: 16Λ Z ∋ n := Re C = − u . (20) E E 2 ϕ ˆ 2 N L M 3 (4π) turns out to be finite by the topology of the space-time considered [see 19, Ch. 11] [and 27, Secs. 7.22 - 7.26]. The Euler number n can also be written using its representation as an alternate series of the Betti numbers b (M) (i = 0, ..., 4) [see 24, Ch. 1]: n = (−1) b (M) . E j j=0 Poincaré duality, i.e b = b [see 24, Ch. 1], can also be used to write: i 4−i n = 2b − 2b + b = −2k b . (21) E 0 3 2 3 In Eq. (21), the i-th Betti number can be interpreted physically as measuring the number of i-th punctures in a manifold. As M (and consequently N ) is assumed to be simply connected, i.e. the manifold is composed by only one connected component, therefore b = 1. Since from Eq. (19) n turns out to be null in M, 0 P + − the Hirzebruch signature theorem implies that b = 2b, where b = b = b and + − + − b , b are the dimensions of maximal positive H and negative H subspaces 2 + − for the form in H (M;R) = H ⊕ H , respectively. We note that there seems to be no clear evidence of physical objects that can be interpreted as strict 2-punctures in our Universe since that would appear, for instance, as a naked line of singularities. The cosmic censorship conjecture [38] would prescribe it to be zero. However, we do not discard their presence but assume their associated number b to be finite. Finally, we also follow the cosmic censorship conjecture, stating that in our observable Universe, causality effectively defines horizon 3-hyper-surfaces around space-time singularities in M. Those hyper-surfaces effectively act as 3-punctures of M, which total number is b . The clearest example of these sin- gularities are BHs, which observations indicate there should be a large number of. Therefore we assume b to be very large compared with b. This justifies our 8 factoring in the last line of Eq. (21) with k verifying: 1 + b R ∋ k := 1 − . 1 . (22) The theoretical result thus follows from Eq. (20) : 3 (4π) k b 2π k C 3 E 2 E Λ = =⇒ Λ ≈ , (23) 2 2 Vol (∂N ) 8 u ϕ ˆ where we have here used the estimate: Vol (∂N ) 0 ≤ u ≃ < ∞ , (24) ϕ ˆ 2 L 2 with C is the Cheeger or isoperimetric constant [39, 40] with dimensions of [length], and we have defined the average boundary volume per 3-puncture, i.e Vol (∂N ) := hVol (∂N )i ≃ hVol (∂M)i , (25) where the last line comes from assuming that the content of N in 3-punctures is typical of that of M. 4. Λ Evaluation from black holes The topological cosmological constant can be evaluated from interpreting expression (23). We decompose this evaluation into three main elements that needs separate estimations: the value of the constants k , C and of the average spacetime boundary volume hVol (∂M)i. The ratio of the Euler number to the number of three punctures, k = − , seen in E.q (21, is considered as the ratio of the topological Euler 2b number to the number of black holes (BHs) contained in the manifold. Indeed as we can carve out the causally disconnected BH event horizons interiors from the rest of spacetime, we consider its boundary to consist in the sum of those hypersurfaces, and thus to correspond to the 3-punctures measured by the third Betti number (b = N ). For any sensible spacetime, b should dominate the 3 BH 3 other terms in Eq. (21), so we can evaluate k ≈ 1. 9 ∂U Figure 1: A simplified two-dimensional version of the space-time manifold M. The manifold N ≃ M\ U defines the GR regions. The boundary of the manifold is internal and defined by the sum of the boundaries of U , i.e ∂M ≃ ∂U . j j The latter procedure effectively defines a non-trivial manifold boundary ∂M even if the volume of the manifold Vol (M) is taken to be infinite. We can exemplify this picture by thinking of a simplified two-dimensional version shown in Figure. 1. The isoperimetric or Cheeger constant, C, gives the ratio of the spacetime 4-volume to its boundary hypersurface 3-volume. Although it is generally un- known, it was calculated in some specific cases [41, 42], and is thus considered to be of order ∼ 10 . Once we have identified the boundary of the spacetime to the horizons of its BHs, the evaluation of the topological cosmological constant relies on the esti- mation of the average spacetime BH horizon volume hVol (∂M)i. This requires to make some assumptions. 4.1. Average BH boundary volume estimation To compute the volume of the average BH in our Universe, the following assumptions are made: (a) as the Universe’s total boundary is taken to be the sum of all BHs horizons, that hypersurface is assumed to be given by BHs equiv- alent Schwarzschild horizons. This neglects Kerr Horizons deformations and the different horizons shapes taken at the moment of BH mergers, assuming each BH can be approximated by an isolated Schwarzschild horizon. (b) the Uni- verse’s BH distribution is assumed to be represented by our past lightcone BHs 10 average mass/sdt dev. references (in solar mass units M ) +0.21 1.02 −0.41 Stellar BH M = 10 [46][43, Figs. 2, 6] +0.14 1.96 −0.21 Primordial BH M = 10 [45, using Fig 7] +0.14 4.19 −0.21 Intermediate Mass BH M = 10 [45, using Fig 7] +0.20 11.69 −0.39 Super Massive BH M = 10 [44, Fig. 10] SMBH Table 1: Estimation of the first moments for each range BH mass distributions. observations and present knowledge of that distribution is sufficient for the cal- culation, giving the boundary volume as its first moment. (c) the distribution’s average volume per BH in the Universe is well approximated by the volume of a BH starting with the average BH mass. (d) the volume of a BH of given initial mass is approximated to proceed from an almost instant creation with a mass picked in the observed lightcone distribution followed by a long Hawking radiation phase evaporation. The computation of our Universe’s average BH volume requires to evaluate, from observed BH distribution, the average BH mass of the Universe, to get the BH horizon volume of a fixed given mass, so as to put them together in an evaluation of the Universe’s boundary volume 4.1.1. Average BH mass evaluation We chose to evaluate the BH mass distribution estimated from the observa- tions and computations of Refs [43, 44, 45, 46]. From them, we have extracted averages and standard deviations from the ex- pected peaks in the BH distributions around stellar mass BHs, Primordial BHs (PBHs), Intermediate mass BHs (IMBHs) and Super Massive BHs (SMBHs) (see table 1 for intermediate evaluations). Given that the data is of logarithmic nature, we estimated the average mass using a geometrical weighted average . Estimating the weights from Ref. [45, using Fig 7], we used hMi = 1+2k 1+5k 1+k 4+8k M M M M , with k given by the estimation of difference between S P SM 11 We emphasize that this is an estimation based on available knowledge and does not claim to reflect a rigorous measurement. Incidentally, the use of the geo- metric mean also minimizes the effects of the uncertainties in the data regarding black hole mass distribution ranges which still remain somewhat unexplored or lacking observational data. All of these, combined with a conservative treatment of errors allows us to obtain: +0.49 4.04 −0.61 hM i ∼10 M , (26) BH ⊙ which is slightly below our evaluation of the IMBH average and above the dom- inating PBH peak average estimate. This value is expected to be improved by new observational data in the future. 4.1.2. BH volume of a given mass For a given BH mass M, the BH formation phase is neglected since its dynamical time is expected to be considerably much less than the Hawking radiation evaporation time. The horizon volume is therefore estimated consid- ering the BH appears at creation with initial mass M and evaporates through Hawking radiation, until the complete BH evaporation, evaluated considering the mass-energy loss [e.g. 47, 48]. As previously mentioned, we consider that mass to be ascribed to a simple isolated Schwarzschild BH. The calculation of such volume yields 87 3 Vol (M) =1.96 × 10 m . (27) BH 4.1.3. Universe’s total boundary volume Following our assumptions above, the resulting boundary volume of the Uni- verse can be evaluated by the product of the total number of BHs with the average BH volume, given by introducing the average BH mass estimate (26) 3 1 the I and SM peaks and calculated within the range k = ..k = , to yield 1 2 10 3 1.63 2.58 1.32 6.53 hMi = M M M M . This final result is somewhat unaffected by the S P SM choosing of the different ks since their effects are minimized by the geometric mean. 12 into the BH boundary volume evaluation (27), so we obtain +2.5 107.5 3 −3.1 Vol (∂M) ∼N 10 m . (28) BH 4.2. Evaluating the topological cosmological constant Now that we have the estimate of the BH boundary volume (28), we can finally input it into the model result (23) to get Λ as a function of the Cheeger and k constants +1.5 +1.5 −52.9 −52.9 −1.3 −1.3 Λ ≈ 10 k C ≈ 10 C , (29) T E since we previously argued that k ≈ 1, only the Cheeger constant remains. 4.2.1. Can Λ be the observed cosmological constant? Converting the latest Planck observations [49] in the appropriate units, we −51.08±0.01 −2 compute Λ = 10 m . The isoperimetric constant has been evalu- ated for a 4-manifold with null sectional curvature, Ref. [41, 42] and the value C = 11.8 was obtained. Approximating the Universe’s value with it, +1.5 −51.8 −2 −1.3 Λ ≈ 10 m , (30) and thus our Λ estimate is compatible with the observed Λ . Given that T O C ∼ O(10), we argue that the topology of the Universe is a serious candidate for the cosmological constant origin, and this giving naturally its low value and avoiding the cosmological constant fine tuning problem. 4.2.2. The Universe isoperimetric constant can be measured Although the previous evaluation gives the correct observed cosmological constant, the actual value of C for our Universe remains undetermined. If we assume Λ = Λ , Eq. (29) can be used to measure, through the average BH T O mass and volume estimates of this work and the current cosmological constant observations [49], the value of the Universe’s isoperimetric constant which con- tributes to the determination of the topology of the Universe. We obtain +1.31 1.82 −1.51 C = 10 , (31) which gives a reasonable value compared to expectations. 13 5. Conclusions Introducing the topological invariants [24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 50] in the gravita- tion theory as Lagrange multipliers induces an effective cosmological constant. The extra degrees of freedom and restrictions of the topological invariants in an Einstein-Cartan gravity [17, 18, 19, 20] are handled by a reasonable ansatz. They allow to obtain a GR-like behaviour dynamically, driven by the invariants cou- pling zero forms that can be considered as effective dark energy fields. Indeed, we argue that their dynamics constrain the value of the expansion acceleration to agree with the BH boundary of the Universe. The induced effective topological cosmological constant in the GR-like theory is produced by the Euler invariant. It depends on the Betti numbers of the spacetime [51, 24], the isoperimetric con- stant [39] and the volume of the manifold boundary. The interpretations of Λ in terms of number and surface of BHs in the Universe allows to evaluate it from current estimates of the BH distribution of the Universe [43, 44, 45, 46]. We found, with some reasonable assumptions on the isoperimetric constant, that it is compatible with current cosmological constant observations [4, 5, 6, 7, 49], escaping the cosmological constant fine tuning problem [9, 10]. Our BH volume evaluation being based on some BH distribution estimations that rely on grav- itational waves and BH population knowledge, future improvements in those domains, both experimental and theoretical, are expected to allow narrowing on the topological cosmological constant estimation, increasing the testability of the approach compared with the Universe’s acceleration or geometrical obser- vations of Λ . We have here ignored the behaviour of our results in a quantum setting, and in particular how the cosmological constant (29) remains robustly unaffected by quantum fluctuations. However these constitute interesting ques- tions and a thorough study will be tackled in future works. We conjecture that the remaining unknown isoperimetric constant could be independently obtained from the development of an emerging geometry approach [34, 35, 36, 37] to the dynamic theory of the manifold topology, with the potential to perhaps clarify the cosmological constant coincidence problem [11, 12, 13, 14] from topolog- 14 ical considerations as well as current estimates of the BH distribution of the Universe [43, 44, 45, 46]. We found, with some reasonable assumptions on the isoperimetric constant, that it is compatible with current cosmological constant observations [4, 5, 6, 7, 49], escaping the cosmological constant fine tuning prob- lem [9, 10]. Our BH volume evaluation being based on some BH distribution estimations that rely on gravitational waves and BH population knowledge, fu- ture improvements in those domains, both experimental and theoretical, are expected to allow narrowing on the topological cosmological constant estima- tion, increasing the testability of the approach compared with the Universe’s acceleration or geometrical observations of Λ . We conjecture that the remain- ing unknown isoperimetric constant could be independently obtained from the development of an emerging geometry approach [34, 35, 36, 37] to the dynamic theory of the manifold topology, with the potential to perhaps clarify the cos- mological constant coincidence problem [11, 12, 13, 14] as well from topological considerations. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank M.Fontanini and E. Huguet for very useful dis- cussions, as well as O. Bertolami for interesting perspectives. The work of M.Le D. has been supported by Lanzhou University starting fund, the Funda- mental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No.lzujbky-2019-25) and PNPD/CAPES20132029. M.Le D. also wishes to acknowledge IFT/UNESP for hosting the beginning of this project. References [1] S. Perlmutter, et al., Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe and its cosmological implications, Nature 391 (1998) 51–54. arXiv:astro-ph/9712212, doi:10.1038/34124. 15 [2] A. G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerat- ing universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201, doi:10.1086/300499. [3] S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586. arXiv:astro-ph/9812133, doi:10.1086/307221. [4] G. Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Re- sults, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 208 (2013) 19. arXiv:1212.5226, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19. [5] C. Bennett, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 208 (2013) 20. arXiv:1212.5225, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20. [6] N. Aghanim, et al., Planck intermediate results. III. The relation between galaxy cluster mass and Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal, Astron.Astrophys. 550 (2013) A129. arXiv:1204.2743, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219398. [7] P. Ade, et al., Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and sci- entific results, Astron.Astrophys. 571 (2014) A1. arXiv:1303.5062, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529. [8] J. Martin, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask), Comptes Rendus Physique 13 (2012) 566–665. arXiv:1205.3365, doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008. [9] S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev.Mod.Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1. [10] S. Weinberg, Cosmology (2008). 16 [11] L. Amendola, Coupled quintessence, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 043511. arXiv:astro-ph/9908023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043511. [12] D. Tocchini-Valentini, L. Amendola, Stationary dark energy with a baryon dominated era: Solving the coincidence problem with a lin- ear coupling, Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 063508. arXiv:astro-ph/0108143, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.063508. [13] W. Zimdahl, D. Pavon, Interacting quintessence, Phys.Lett. B521 (2001) 133–138. arXiv:astro-ph/0105479, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01174-1. [14] W. Zimdahl, D. Pavón, Scaling cosmology, Gen.Rel.Grav. 35 (2003) 413– 422. arXiv:astro-ph/0210484, doi:10.1023/A:1022369800053. [15] J. Frieman, M. Turner, D. Huterer, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Uni- verse, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46 (2008) 385–432. arXiv:0803.0982, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243. [16] M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang, Dark Energy: A Brief Re- view, Front. Phys. China 8 (2013) 828–846. arXiv:1209.0922, doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0300-5. [17] P. Dona, S. Speziale, Introductory lectures to loop quantum gravity (2010). arXiv:1007.0402. [18] D. Giulini, Ashtekar variables in classical general relativity (1993). arXiv:gr-qc/9312032. [19] M. Nakahara, Geometry, topology and physics, 2003. [20] A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, 2002. URL http://books.google.cl/books?id=BjKs86kosqgC [21] V. C. de Andrade, L. C. T. Guillen, J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity: An Overview, ArXiv General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology e-prints (Nov. 2000). arXiv:gr-qc/0011087. 17 [22] J. C. Baez, D. K. Wise, Teleparallel Gravity as a Higher Gauge Theory, ArXiv e-prints (Apr. 2012). arXiv:1204.4339. [23] H. I. Arcos, J. G. Pereira, Torsion gravity: A Reappraisal, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13 (2004) 2193–2240. arXiv:gr-qc/0501017, doi:10.1142/S0218271804006462. [24] S. Donaldson, P. Kronheimer, The Geometry of Four-manifolds, Oxford mathematical monographs, Clarendon Press, 1990. URL https://books.google.com.br/books?id=LbHmMtrebi4C [25] S. Sengupta, SU(2) gauge theory of gravity with topological in- variants, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 360 (2012) 012024. arXiv:1110.4185, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/360/1/012024. [26] R. K. Kaul, S. Sengupta, Topological parameters in gravity, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 024026. arXiv:1106.3027, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024026. [27] C. Nash, S. Sen, Topology and geometry for physicists, Academic Press, URL http://books.google.cl/books?id=Lz7y9PmTdgwC [28] P. Baekler, F. W. Hehl, Beyond Einstein-Cartan gravity: Quadratic tor- sion and curvature invariants with even and odd parity including all boundary terms, Class.Quant.Grav. 28 (2011) 215017. arXiv:1105.3504, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215017. [29] E. Dyer, K. Hinterbichler, Boundary Terms, Variational Principles and Higher Derivative Modified Gravity, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 024028. arXiv:0809.4033, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024028. [30] N. Dadhich, J. M. Pons, On the equivalence of the Einstein-Hilbert and the Einstein-Palatini formulations of general relativity for an arbitrary connection, Gen. Rel. Grav. 44 (2012) 2337–2352. arXiv:1010.0869, doi:10.1007/s10714-012-1393-9. 18 [31] J. Lee, Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction to Curvature, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer New York, 1997. URL https://books.google.cl/books?id=ZRQgH7FQafgC [32] M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, M. J. Reboucas, P. T. Silva, Generalized Chap- lygin gas model, supernovae and cosmic topology, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 043504. arXiv:gr-qc/0512158, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.043504. [33] M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, M. J. Reboucas, N. M. C. Santos, Observa- tional constraints on modified gravity models and the Poincare dodecahe- dral topology, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 103521. arXiv:astro-ph/0603848, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.103521. [34] R. H. Brandenberger, String Gas Cosmology (2008) 193– 230arXiv:0808.0746. [35] L. Perreault Levasseur, R. Brandenberger, A.-C. Davis, Defrosting in an Emergent Galileon Cosmology, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 103512. arXiv:1105.5649, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.103512. [36] R. H. Brandenberger, Unconventional Cosmology, Lect.Notes Phys. 863 (2013) 333. arXiv:1203.6698, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33036-0_12. [37] N. Afshordi, D. Stojkovic, Emergent Spacetime in Stochastically Evolv- ing Dimensions, Phys.Lett. B739 (2014) 117–124. arXiv:1405.3297, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.048. [38] R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 (1969) 252–276, [Gen. Rel. Grav.34,1141(2002)]. [39] B. Benson, The Cheeger Constant, Isoperimetric Problems, and Hyperbolic Surfaces, arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1509.08993arXiv:1509.08993. [40] E. Arias-Castro, B. Pelletier, P. Pudlo, The Cheeger Constant: from Discrete to Continuous, working paper 19 or preprint (Apr. 2010). URL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00473264 [41] S.-T. Yau, Isoperimetric constants and the first eigenvalue of a compact riemannian manifold, Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure Ser. 4, 8 (4) (1975) 487–507. doi:10.24033/asens.1299. URL http://www.numdam.org/item/ASENS_1975_4_8_4_487_0 [42] D. Hoffman, J. Spruck, Sobolev and isoperimetric inequalities for riemannian submanifolds, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 27 (6) (1974) 715–727. doi:10.1002/cpa.3160270601. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cpa.3160270601 [43] E. D. Kovetz, I. Cholis, P. C. Breysse, M. Kamionkowski, Black hole mass function from gravitational wave measurements, Phys. Rev. D95 (10) (2017) 103010. arXiv:1611.01157, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103010. [44] B. Mutlu-Pakdil, M. S. Seigar, B. L. Davis, The Local Black Hole Mass Function Derived from the MBH-P and the MBH-n Relations, ApJ830 (2016) 117. arXiv:1607.07325, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/117. [45] J. García-Bellido, Massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter and their detection with Gravitational Waves, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840 (1) (2017) 012032. arXiv:1702.08275, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/840/1/012032. [46] P. Christian, P. Mocz, A. Loeb, Evolution of the Black Hole Mass Function in Star Clusters from Multiple Mergers, Astrophys. J. 858 (1) (2018) L8. arXiv:1803.07094, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabf88. [47] R. M. Wald, General Relativity, Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001. [48] Carroll, Sean M., Spacetime and geometry: An introduction to general relativity, URL http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/books/www?cl=QC6:C37:2004 20 [49] N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters (2018). arXiv:1807.06209. [50] J. Lorca Espiro, Y. Vásquez, Einstein-Hilbert action nontrivially coupled with topological characteristic classes: generating Torsion and Contortion, ArXiv e-prints (Oct. 2014). arXiv:1410.3152. [51] J. Milnor, J. Stasheff, Characteristic Classes, Annals of mathematics stud- ies, Princeton University Press, 1974. URL https://books.google.com.br/books?id=5zQ9AFk1i4EC http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology arXiv (Cornell University)

Is the Cosmological Constant of Topological Origin?

Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/is-the-cosmological-constant-of-topological-origin-ufRPVk0rjH

References (70)

ISSN
2212-6864
eISSN
ARCH-3332
DOI
10.1016/j.dark.2020.100569
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The observed value of the cosmological constant poses large theoretical prob- lems. We find that topology of the Universe provides a natural source for it. Restricting dynamically an Einstein-Cartan gravity to General Relativity in our observed Universe allows topological invariants to induce an effective cosmolog- ical constant from dynamical quintessence-like topological fields. Its evaluation through the boundary of black holes yields a range compatible with the observed value, with uncertainty of three orders of magnitude. In turns, it provides a measurement of the Universe’s isoperimetric constant. As in other dark energy studies, quantum vacuum energy corrections are left for quantum gravity studies to explain away. 1. Introduction The cosmological constant has reappeared at the turn of the century in the toolbox of cosmology with the discovery of fainter than expected distant type Ia supernovae [1, 2, 3] interpreted as cosmic expansion acceleration. This acceleration was confirmed by the combination of cosmic microwave background radiation, clusters and baryon acoustic oscillation observations [4, 5, 6, 7]. Email addresses: delliou@lzu.edu.cn,Morgan.LeDelliou.IFT@gmail.com (M. Le Delliou), javier.lorca@ufrontera.cl (J. Lorca Espiro) Preprint submitted to Elsevier June 16, 2020 arXiv:1906.03041v2 [gr-qc] 13 Jun 2020 Its simple interpretation as quantum vacuum energy clashes with one of the largest discrepancy of physics: its observed value from the previous cosmic geometry tools yields a value for Λ that contradicts the simple evaluation that it should reach order of the Planck scale [8]. This has been coined the fine tuning problem [9, 10]. Quantum vacuum is ruled by the Planck scale at early time which then should set its initial value, but since Λ is a constant, this is the value expected nowadays, far from the hundred order of magnitude lower observed. In addition, this non-varying value gives rise to the coincidence problem [11, 12, 13, 14] as it also yields a very recent epoch for its emergence as cosmic dominant component: its energy density, set at the initial universe conditions, is unnaturally close to that of present matter and therefore poses some questions [15, 16]. For a review of the questions posed by the cosmological constant, refer to [8]. The geometrical approach to gravity through curved spacetime by general relativity (GR) can be generalised to include the possibility of its torsion in Einstein-Cartan (EC) theories [17, 18, 19, 20], where GR appears as the torsion- less limit, while the curvature-less limit yields the Teleparallel Equivalent to GR case [21, 22, 23]. This work will focus on the GR limit of Einstein-Cartan theories, further restricted by adding the characteristic classes consistent with the topology of the space-time manifold M [24, 25, 26], i.e. the Euler class e(TM) := C , the Pontryagin class p (TM) := C and the Nieh-Yan class E 1 P (of the Chern-type) c (TM) := C [27, 19, 24]. In order for these topological 2 N terms to be non trivial, we are lead to assume that the space-time manifold has a boundary ∂M 6= ∅. We found it is composed by the hyper-surfaces that define the horizons of black holes in the Universe. The action is then modified so as to include the appropriate boundary counter terms [28, 29] and such as the field equations are well-posed. The entire procedure will result in the appearance of a cosmological functional λ. The dynamical restriction of such torsional theory in M to GR conditions, in a region N ⊂ M that contains our observed Universe, is achieved by means of the Vielbein-Einstein-Palatini (VEP) formalism and by dynamical systems stability 2 considerations. This allows for the collateral topological effective cosmological constant Λ which is then identified with the observed value. Given that our result is mostly of topological origin, it should not be affected by quantum cor- rections, and specifically by quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. However, we will not address this issue in the present paper since, as in other dark energy studies, we start from the expectation that quantum vacuum energy corrections should be explained away by quantum gravity considerations in cosmological settings. In Sec. 2, we present the inclusion of topological invariants in the Vielbein- Einstein-Palatini action and how their dynamics can recover a GR behaviour. The emergence of an effective topological cosmological constant is presented in Sec. 3, while its evaluation using black holes occupy Sec. 4, before discussing our conclusions in Sec. 5. 2. Modified VEP restricted to GR regions We focus on the family of actions defined over the manifold M with boundary ∂M = 6 ∅, having the following terms: h i c a c a S := S e , ω , λ + S [e , ω , ϕ ] + S , (1) G T j M b b a c where ω is the total connection [see 27, Ch 7.10 - 7.15], e the vierbein frame [see 19, Sec. 7.8] and λ is the, thus far unrestricted, cosmological functional, with: Z Z h i 1 λ dµ (∗) c a ab ˜ ˆ ˜ S e , ω , λ = R ∧ Σ − λ dµ + i , (2) G n ab κ κ M ∂M is the pure gravitational VEP action [30] plus a boundary term à la York- Gibbons-Hawkins induced by the inclusion in the boundary operator i (·), be- ing κ the scaled gravitational constant, R is the curvature 2-form [see 19, ab ab 1 a b 1 1 a b c d Sec. 10.3], Σ := e ∧e is the Palatini 2-form and dµ := ǫ e ∧e ∧e ∧e abcd 2 4! (∗) 1 1 cd cd We are using the notation A := ǫ A for the Lie dual acting over any A ∈ Ω (M) abcd ab 2 with two spin indices c, d. 3 is the canonical volume measure. The second term in Eq. (1) is Z Z i i c a S [e , ω , ϕ ] := − (ϕ C ) + i (ϕ C ) (3) T j j j n j j κ κ M ∂M which we have called the topological action. The coupling zero forms ϕ (j = E, P, N explained below) can be interpreted as Lagrange’s multipliers for the characteristic classes C [see 19, Ch. 11] [and 27, Secs. 7.22 - 7.26]: a b C = R ∧ R , (Pontryagin) (4) b a 8π (∗) ab C = R ∧ R , (Euler) (5) ba 8π a ab C = T ∧ T − R ∧ Σ , (Nieh-Yan) (6) N a ab again with the appropriate boundary counter terms to render the total action well posed. Another way of motivating S is to interpret these terms from the Schwinger’s perspective as current-like terms with topological sources for the total action. Finally, we take: Z Z 2 2 S := S [Ψ] = − L [Ψ] + i (L [Ψ]) (7) M M M n M κ κ M ∂M a ♭ with L [Ψ] := Re ψγ D ψ ∧ ⋆e − V (Ψ) dµ , M ω as a Dirac action with appropriate boundary counter terms, where Ψ := ψ, ψ stands for mass-less spinor fields, where ⋆ stands for the Hodge Dual operation [see 19, Sec. 7.9] . 2 a a 1 n The hodge dual operator is defined over the vierbein basis as ⋆ (e ∧ · · · ∧ e ) := a ···a 1 1 n a 4 n+1 ǫ e ∧ · · · e and it extends to the entire space Ω (M) by linearity. a ···a (4−n)! n+1 4 4 2.1. Field equations The variation of (1) gives the following field equations (for δe , δω , δϕ , ab j ¯ 3 δψ and δψ , respectively) : 2λ δS (∗) 2 (∗) M 0 = R − |ψ| Σ ∧ e + idϕ ∧ T − , (8) N a ab ψ ab 3 δe δS (∗) (∗) M ˆ ˆ 0 = d Σ + i2dϕˆ ∧ R − i2dϕˆ ∧ R − idϕ ∧ Σ + , (9) ω P ab E N ab ab ab ab δω 0 = −i δ λ |ψ| dµ − C , j = {E, P, N} , (10) ϕ j λ λ a a a a ¯ ¯ 0 = γ D ψ − ψ e , 0 = D ψγ + ψ e , (11) ω ω 4 4 where T is the torsion 2-form, d stands for the exterior covariant derivative δ a ω ϕ is the Euler-Lagrange derivative and ♭ is the musical isomorphism [see 31, Ch. 3] between vectors and 1-forms . In order to obtain the pair of equations (11) we have explicitly considered the cosmological functional λ to be the Yukawa-type interaction: ˜ ˜ ¯ λ = λ [ϕ, Ψ] := ψλ [ϕ ] ψ (12) and we call λ the reduced cosmological functional, D stands for the gauge covariant derivative and we have defined the normalized couplings ϕˆ := j 2 (4π) for convenience. We recall that the total connection 1-form ω satisfies the splitting: a a a a a b ω = ω ¯ + K ⇒ T = K ∧ e , (13) b b b b a a where ω ¯ is the torsion-less Levi-Civita connection, while K is the contortion b b 1-form. By means of decomposition (13), the total curvature 2-form can then be written as: a a a c a a R = dω + ω ∧ ω = R + Θ , (14) b b c b b b Originally the field equations suppose the presence of a fermion potential V (Ψ). However, since this potential is not involved in the final calculation, we prefer to omit it out of clarity. 4 i ♭ j Explicitly, given a vector field X = X e its flat is the 1-form X := X e . i j 5 a where R is the torsion-less part of the curvature, formally equivalent to that of a GR curvature 2-form, while the term: a a a c Θ := d K − K ∧ K ; (15) b b c b concentrates all the contributions from the torsion related quantities. 2.2. GR restriction Focusing on the field equations (8 - 9) and keeping in mind the decomposition of the curvature (14) and Eqs. (11), it appears that the key to find consistent solutions lies in finding a proper contortion 1-form K . Our approach seeks to ab cancel out the torsion dependent term T in Eq. (8) in order to obtain a form that resembles more that of GR. This can be achieved from the torsion part of the curvature 2-form R via choosing an appropriate contortion: ab K = 4i ⋆ dϕ ∧ Σ . (16) ab N ab At the same time, we maintain the independence of the GR-like torsion-less part of the curvature from the torsion part in Eq. (9) by restricting all the couplings ϕ to be related by a functional behavior of the form: ∂φ dϕ := ϕ dφ = d (φ ◦ ϕ ) = dϕ for j = E, P , (17) j N j j N N ∂ϕ where φ proceeds from the field equations. The dynamical system defined by Eqs. (8) and (9) drives the remaining independent coupling ϕ to be a slowly varying function in a region N , rendering it torsion-less and thus GR-like. Following this, the topological characteristic classes can be calculated via (10) and matched with their canonical definitions (4 - 6) to finally restrict the remaining parameters. Imposing dynamical stability we obtain an expression for the reduced cosmological functional λ of the form: 4Λ 3 λ = u where u := exp − |ϕ | (18) ϕ ϕ N N N |ψ| where Λ is now a constant. On the other hand, when using the set of equations (10), the reduced cosmological functional λ possesses an equivalent form which 6 allows us to recognize ϕ as a mass-less scalar matter field. When combining the latter with Eq. (18) we see that the kinetic term associated to the zero-form ϕ should behave as a Lyapunov function. Leading to the following expression: dϕ = Λ {1 − u } , which can be used to characterize the GR-like region N of the space-time man- ifold M. At this stage, we want to mark the difference of our approach with previous field theoretic directions: 1. we do not base our model on quantum perturbations. Our cosmological constant does not play the role, as in the traditional and naive under- standing, of zeroth term in vacuum energy expansion, and also does not suffer from the orders of magnitude difference with observed values of this approach. 2. our space-time manifold M necessarily has a non-trivial boundary ∂M and is simply connected, in agreement with current observational expecta- tions on topology and in contrast with the non-trivial topology approaches [e.g. 32, 33]. 3. our cosmological constant is the source of topology, for our space-time manifold, as well as a way to ensure minimum topological requirements such as smoothness, simple connected-ness and orientation, while emerg- ing gravity approaches such as Refs [34, 35, 36, 37] build topology from iterative processes. 3. Effective topological cosmological constant We can calculate the topological numbers for the Pontryagin and Nieh-Yan forms and obtain: Z Z n := Re C = 0 ; n := Re C = 0 . (19) P P N N M M 7 At the same time, the Euler number: 16Λ Z ∋ n := Re C = − u . (20) E E 2 ϕ ˆ 2 N L M 3 (4π) turns out to be finite by the topology of the space-time considered [see 19, Ch. 11] [and 27, Secs. 7.22 - 7.26]. The Euler number n can also be written using its representation as an alternate series of the Betti numbers b (M) (i = 0, ..., 4) [see 24, Ch. 1]: n = (−1) b (M) . E j j=0 Poincaré duality, i.e b = b [see 24, Ch. 1], can also be used to write: i 4−i n = 2b − 2b + b = −2k b . (21) E 0 3 2 3 In Eq. (21), the i-th Betti number can be interpreted physically as measuring the number of i-th punctures in a manifold. As M (and consequently N ) is assumed to be simply connected, i.e. the manifold is composed by only one connected component, therefore b = 1. Since from Eq. (19) n turns out to be null in M, 0 P + − the Hirzebruch signature theorem implies that b = 2b, where b = b = b and + − + − b , b are the dimensions of maximal positive H and negative H subspaces 2 + − for the form in H (M;R) = H ⊕ H , respectively. We note that there seems to be no clear evidence of physical objects that can be interpreted as strict 2-punctures in our Universe since that would appear, for instance, as a naked line of singularities. The cosmic censorship conjecture [38] would prescribe it to be zero. However, we do not discard their presence but assume their associated number b to be finite. Finally, we also follow the cosmic censorship conjecture, stating that in our observable Universe, causality effectively defines horizon 3-hyper-surfaces around space-time singularities in M. Those hyper-surfaces effectively act as 3-punctures of M, which total number is b . The clearest example of these sin- gularities are BHs, which observations indicate there should be a large number of. Therefore we assume b to be very large compared with b. This justifies our 8 factoring in the last line of Eq. (21) with k verifying: 1 + b R ∋ k := 1 − . 1 . (22) The theoretical result thus follows from Eq. (20) : 3 (4π) k b 2π k C 3 E 2 E Λ = =⇒ Λ ≈ , (23) 2 2 Vol (∂N ) 8 u ϕ ˆ where we have here used the estimate: Vol (∂N ) 0 ≤ u ≃ < ∞ , (24) ϕ ˆ 2 L 2 with C is the Cheeger or isoperimetric constant [39, 40] with dimensions of [length], and we have defined the average boundary volume per 3-puncture, i.e Vol (∂N ) := hVol (∂N )i ≃ hVol (∂M)i , (25) where the last line comes from assuming that the content of N in 3-punctures is typical of that of M. 4. Λ Evaluation from black holes The topological cosmological constant can be evaluated from interpreting expression (23). We decompose this evaluation into three main elements that needs separate estimations: the value of the constants k , C and of the average spacetime boundary volume hVol (∂M)i. The ratio of the Euler number to the number of three punctures, k = − , seen in E.q (21, is considered as the ratio of the topological Euler 2b number to the number of black holes (BHs) contained in the manifold. Indeed as we can carve out the causally disconnected BH event horizons interiors from the rest of spacetime, we consider its boundary to consist in the sum of those hypersurfaces, and thus to correspond to the 3-punctures measured by the third Betti number (b = N ). For any sensible spacetime, b should dominate the 3 BH 3 other terms in Eq. (21), so we can evaluate k ≈ 1. 9 ∂U Figure 1: A simplified two-dimensional version of the space-time manifold M. The manifold N ≃ M\ U defines the GR regions. The boundary of the manifold is internal and defined by the sum of the boundaries of U , i.e ∂M ≃ ∂U . j j The latter procedure effectively defines a non-trivial manifold boundary ∂M even if the volume of the manifold Vol (M) is taken to be infinite. We can exemplify this picture by thinking of a simplified two-dimensional version shown in Figure. 1. The isoperimetric or Cheeger constant, C, gives the ratio of the spacetime 4-volume to its boundary hypersurface 3-volume. Although it is generally un- known, it was calculated in some specific cases [41, 42], and is thus considered to be of order ∼ 10 . Once we have identified the boundary of the spacetime to the horizons of its BHs, the evaluation of the topological cosmological constant relies on the esti- mation of the average spacetime BH horizon volume hVol (∂M)i. This requires to make some assumptions. 4.1. Average BH boundary volume estimation To compute the volume of the average BH in our Universe, the following assumptions are made: (a) as the Universe’s total boundary is taken to be the sum of all BHs horizons, that hypersurface is assumed to be given by BHs equiv- alent Schwarzschild horizons. This neglects Kerr Horizons deformations and the different horizons shapes taken at the moment of BH mergers, assuming each BH can be approximated by an isolated Schwarzschild horizon. (b) the Uni- verse’s BH distribution is assumed to be represented by our past lightcone BHs 10 average mass/sdt dev. references (in solar mass units M ) +0.21 1.02 −0.41 Stellar BH M = 10 [46][43, Figs. 2, 6] +0.14 1.96 −0.21 Primordial BH M = 10 [45, using Fig 7] +0.14 4.19 −0.21 Intermediate Mass BH M = 10 [45, using Fig 7] +0.20 11.69 −0.39 Super Massive BH M = 10 [44, Fig. 10] SMBH Table 1: Estimation of the first moments for each range BH mass distributions. observations and present knowledge of that distribution is sufficient for the cal- culation, giving the boundary volume as its first moment. (c) the distribution’s average volume per BH in the Universe is well approximated by the volume of a BH starting with the average BH mass. (d) the volume of a BH of given initial mass is approximated to proceed from an almost instant creation with a mass picked in the observed lightcone distribution followed by a long Hawking radiation phase evaporation. The computation of our Universe’s average BH volume requires to evaluate, from observed BH distribution, the average BH mass of the Universe, to get the BH horizon volume of a fixed given mass, so as to put them together in an evaluation of the Universe’s boundary volume 4.1.1. Average BH mass evaluation We chose to evaluate the BH mass distribution estimated from the observa- tions and computations of Refs [43, 44, 45, 46]. From them, we have extracted averages and standard deviations from the ex- pected peaks in the BH distributions around stellar mass BHs, Primordial BHs (PBHs), Intermediate mass BHs (IMBHs) and Super Massive BHs (SMBHs) (see table 1 for intermediate evaluations). Given that the data is of logarithmic nature, we estimated the average mass using a geometrical weighted average . Estimating the weights from Ref. [45, using Fig 7], we used hMi = 1+2k 1+5k 1+k 4+8k M M M M , with k given by the estimation of difference between S P SM 11 We emphasize that this is an estimation based on available knowledge and does not claim to reflect a rigorous measurement. Incidentally, the use of the geo- metric mean also minimizes the effects of the uncertainties in the data regarding black hole mass distribution ranges which still remain somewhat unexplored or lacking observational data. All of these, combined with a conservative treatment of errors allows us to obtain: +0.49 4.04 −0.61 hM i ∼10 M , (26) BH ⊙ which is slightly below our evaluation of the IMBH average and above the dom- inating PBH peak average estimate. This value is expected to be improved by new observational data in the future. 4.1.2. BH volume of a given mass For a given BH mass M, the BH formation phase is neglected since its dynamical time is expected to be considerably much less than the Hawking radiation evaporation time. The horizon volume is therefore estimated consid- ering the BH appears at creation with initial mass M and evaporates through Hawking radiation, until the complete BH evaporation, evaluated considering the mass-energy loss [e.g. 47, 48]. As previously mentioned, we consider that mass to be ascribed to a simple isolated Schwarzschild BH. The calculation of such volume yields 87 3 Vol (M) =1.96 × 10 m . (27) BH 4.1.3. Universe’s total boundary volume Following our assumptions above, the resulting boundary volume of the Uni- verse can be evaluated by the product of the total number of BHs with the average BH volume, given by introducing the average BH mass estimate (26) 3 1 the I and SM peaks and calculated within the range k = ..k = , to yield 1 2 10 3 1.63 2.58 1.32 6.53 hMi = M M M M . This final result is somewhat unaffected by the S P SM choosing of the different ks since their effects are minimized by the geometric mean. 12 into the BH boundary volume evaluation (27), so we obtain +2.5 107.5 3 −3.1 Vol (∂M) ∼N 10 m . (28) BH 4.2. Evaluating the topological cosmological constant Now that we have the estimate of the BH boundary volume (28), we can finally input it into the model result (23) to get Λ as a function of the Cheeger and k constants +1.5 +1.5 −52.9 −52.9 −1.3 −1.3 Λ ≈ 10 k C ≈ 10 C , (29) T E since we previously argued that k ≈ 1, only the Cheeger constant remains. 4.2.1. Can Λ be the observed cosmological constant? Converting the latest Planck observations [49] in the appropriate units, we −51.08±0.01 −2 compute Λ = 10 m . The isoperimetric constant has been evalu- ated for a 4-manifold with null sectional curvature, Ref. [41, 42] and the value C = 11.8 was obtained. Approximating the Universe’s value with it, +1.5 −51.8 −2 −1.3 Λ ≈ 10 m , (30) and thus our Λ estimate is compatible with the observed Λ . Given that T O C ∼ O(10), we argue that the topology of the Universe is a serious candidate for the cosmological constant origin, and this giving naturally its low value and avoiding the cosmological constant fine tuning problem. 4.2.2. The Universe isoperimetric constant can be measured Although the previous evaluation gives the correct observed cosmological constant, the actual value of C for our Universe remains undetermined. If we assume Λ = Λ , Eq. (29) can be used to measure, through the average BH T O mass and volume estimates of this work and the current cosmological constant observations [49], the value of the Universe’s isoperimetric constant which con- tributes to the determination of the topology of the Universe. We obtain +1.31 1.82 −1.51 C = 10 , (31) which gives a reasonable value compared to expectations. 13 5. Conclusions Introducing the topological invariants [24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 50] in the gravita- tion theory as Lagrange multipliers induces an effective cosmological constant. The extra degrees of freedom and restrictions of the topological invariants in an Einstein-Cartan gravity [17, 18, 19, 20] are handled by a reasonable ansatz. They allow to obtain a GR-like behaviour dynamically, driven by the invariants cou- pling zero forms that can be considered as effective dark energy fields. Indeed, we argue that their dynamics constrain the value of the expansion acceleration to agree with the BH boundary of the Universe. The induced effective topological cosmological constant in the GR-like theory is produced by the Euler invariant. It depends on the Betti numbers of the spacetime [51, 24], the isoperimetric con- stant [39] and the volume of the manifold boundary. The interpretations of Λ in terms of number and surface of BHs in the Universe allows to evaluate it from current estimates of the BH distribution of the Universe [43, 44, 45, 46]. We found, with some reasonable assumptions on the isoperimetric constant, that it is compatible with current cosmological constant observations [4, 5, 6, 7, 49], escaping the cosmological constant fine tuning problem [9, 10]. Our BH volume evaluation being based on some BH distribution estimations that rely on grav- itational waves and BH population knowledge, future improvements in those domains, both experimental and theoretical, are expected to allow narrowing on the topological cosmological constant estimation, increasing the testability of the approach compared with the Universe’s acceleration or geometrical obser- vations of Λ . We have here ignored the behaviour of our results in a quantum setting, and in particular how the cosmological constant (29) remains robustly unaffected by quantum fluctuations. However these constitute interesting ques- tions and a thorough study will be tackled in future works. We conjecture that the remaining unknown isoperimetric constant could be independently obtained from the development of an emerging geometry approach [34, 35, 36, 37] to the dynamic theory of the manifold topology, with the potential to perhaps clarify the cosmological constant coincidence problem [11, 12, 13, 14] from topolog- 14 ical considerations as well as current estimates of the BH distribution of the Universe [43, 44, 45, 46]. We found, with some reasonable assumptions on the isoperimetric constant, that it is compatible with current cosmological constant observations [4, 5, 6, 7, 49], escaping the cosmological constant fine tuning prob- lem [9, 10]. Our BH volume evaluation being based on some BH distribution estimations that rely on gravitational waves and BH population knowledge, fu- ture improvements in those domains, both experimental and theoretical, are expected to allow narrowing on the topological cosmological constant estima- tion, increasing the testability of the approach compared with the Universe’s acceleration or geometrical observations of Λ . We conjecture that the remain- ing unknown isoperimetric constant could be independently obtained from the development of an emerging geometry approach [34, 35, 36, 37] to the dynamic theory of the manifold topology, with the potential to perhaps clarify the cos- mological constant coincidence problem [11, 12, 13, 14] as well from topological considerations. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank M.Fontanini and E. Huguet for very useful dis- cussions, as well as O. Bertolami for interesting perspectives. The work of M.Le D. has been supported by Lanzhou University starting fund, the Funda- mental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No.lzujbky-2019-25) and PNPD/CAPES20132029. M.Le D. also wishes to acknowledge IFT/UNESP for hosting the beginning of this project. References [1] S. Perlmutter, et al., Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe and its cosmological implications, Nature 391 (1998) 51–54. arXiv:astro-ph/9712212, doi:10.1038/34124. 15 [2] A. G. Riess, et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerat- ing universe and a cosmological constant, Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201, doi:10.1086/300499. [3] S. Perlmutter, et al., Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586. arXiv:astro-ph/9812133, doi:10.1086/307221. [4] G. Hinshaw, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Re- sults, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 208 (2013) 19. arXiv:1212.5226, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19. [5] C. Bennett, et al., Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Final Maps and Results, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 208 (2013) 20. arXiv:1212.5225, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/20. [6] N. Aghanim, et al., Planck intermediate results. III. The relation between galaxy cluster mass and Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal, Astron.Astrophys. 550 (2013) A129. arXiv:1204.2743, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219398. [7] P. Ade, et al., Planck 2013 results. I. Overview of products and sci- entific results, Astron.Astrophys. 571 (2014) A1. arXiv:1303.5062, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529. [8] J. Martin, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But Were Afraid To Ask), Comptes Rendus Physique 13 (2012) 566–665. arXiv:1205.3365, doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2012.04.008. [9] S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev.Mod.Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1. [10] S. Weinberg, Cosmology (2008). 16 [11] L. Amendola, Coupled quintessence, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 043511. arXiv:astro-ph/9908023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.043511. [12] D. Tocchini-Valentini, L. Amendola, Stationary dark energy with a baryon dominated era: Solving the coincidence problem with a lin- ear coupling, Phys.Rev. D65 (2002) 063508. arXiv:astro-ph/0108143, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.063508. [13] W. Zimdahl, D. Pavon, Interacting quintessence, Phys.Lett. B521 (2001) 133–138. arXiv:astro-ph/0105479, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01174-1. [14] W. Zimdahl, D. Pavón, Scaling cosmology, Gen.Rel.Grav. 35 (2003) 413– 422. arXiv:astro-ph/0210484, doi:10.1023/A:1022369800053. [15] J. Frieman, M. Turner, D. Huterer, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Uni- verse, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 46 (2008) 385–432. arXiv:0803.0982, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243. [16] M. Li, X.-D. Li, S. Wang, Y. Wang, Dark Energy: A Brief Re- view, Front. Phys. China 8 (2013) 828–846. arXiv:1209.0922, doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0300-5. [17] P. Dona, S. Speziale, Introductory lectures to loop quantum gravity (2010). arXiv:1007.0402. [18] D. Giulini, Ashtekar variables in classical general relativity (1993). arXiv:gr-qc/9312032. [19] M. Nakahara, Geometry, topology and physics, 2003. [20] A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, 2002. URL http://books.google.cl/books?id=BjKs86kosqgC [21] V. C. de Andrade, L. C. T. Guillen, J. G. Pereira, Teleparallel Gravity: An Overview, ArXiv General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology e-prints (Nov. 2000). arXiv:gr-qc/0011087. 17 [22] J. C. Baez, D. K. Wise, Teleparallel Gravity as a Higher Gauge Theory, ArXiv e-prints (Apr. 2012). arXiv:1204.4339. [23] H. I. Arcos, J. G. Pereira, Torsion gravity: A Reappraisal, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D13 (2004) 2193–2240. arXiv:gr-qc/0501017, doi:10.1142/S0218271804006462. [24] S. Donaldson, P. Kronheimer, The Geometry of Four-manifolds, Oxford mathematical monographs, Clarendon Press, 1990. URL https://books.google.com.br/books?id=LbHmMtrebi4C [25] S. Sengupta, SU(2) gauge theory of gravity with topological in- variants, J.Phys.Conf.Ser. 360 (2012) 012024. arXiv:1110.4185, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/360/1/012024. [26] R. K. Kaul, S. Sengupta, Topological parameters in gravity, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 024026. arXiv:1106.3027, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024026. [27] C. Nash, S. Sen, Topology and geometry for physicists, Academic Press, URL http://books.google.cl/books?id=Lz7y9PmTdgwC [28] P. Baekler, F. W. Hehl, Beyond Einstein-Cartan gravity: Quadratic tor- sion and curvature invariants with even and odd parity including all boundary terms, Class.Quant.Grav. 28 (2011) 215017. arXiv:1105.3504, doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215017. [29] E. Dyer, K. Hinterbichler, Boundary Terms, Variational Principles and Higher Derivative Modified Gravity, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 024028. arXiv:0809.4033, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024028. [30] N. Dadhich, J. M. Pons, On the equivalence of the Einstein-Hilbert and the Einstein-Palatini formulations of general relativity for an arbitrary connection, Gen. Rel. Grav. 44 (2012) 2337–2352. arXiv:1010.0869, doi:10.1007/s10714-012-1393-9. 18 [31] J. Lee, Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction to Curvature, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer New York, 1997. URL https://books.google.cl/books?id=ZRQgH7FQafgC [32] M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, M. J. Reboucas, P. T. Silva, Generalized Chap- lygin gas model, supernovae and cosmic topology, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 043504. arXiv:gr-qc/0512158, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.043504. [33] M. C. Bento, O. Bertolami, M. J. Reboucas, N. M. C. Santos, Observa- tional constraints on modified gravity models and the Poincare dodecahe- dral topology, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 103521. arXiv:astro-ph/0603848, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.103521. [34] R. H. Brandenberger, String Gas Cosmology (2008) 193– 230arXiv:0808.0746. [35] L. Perreault Levasseur, R. Brandenberger, A.-C. Davis, Defrosting in an Emergent Galileon Cosmology, Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 103512. arXiv:1105.5649, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.103512. [36] R. H. Brandenberger, Unconventional Cosmology, Lect.Notes Phys. 863 (2013) 333. arXiv:1203.6698, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33036-0_12. [37] N. Afshordi, D. Stojkovic, Emergent Spacetime in Stochastically Evolv- ing Dimensions, Phys.Lett. B739 (2014) 117–124. arXiv:1405.3297, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.048. [38] R. Penrose, Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 (1969) 252–276, [Gen. Rel. Grav.34,1141(2002)]. [39] B. Benson, The Cheeger Constant, Isoperimetric Problems, and Hyperbolic Surfaces, arXiv e-prints (2015) arXiv:1509.08993arXiv:1509.08993. [40] E. Arias-Castro, B. Pelletier, P. Pudlo, The Cheeger Constant: from Discrete to Continuous, working paper 19 or preprint (Apr. 2010). URL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00473264 [41] S.-T. Yau, Isoperimetric constants and the first eigenvalue of a compact riemannian manifold, Annales scientifiques de l’École Normale Supérieure Ser. 4, 8 (4) (1975) 487–507. doi:10.24033/asens.1299. URL http://www.numdam.org/item/ASENS_1975_4_8_4_487_0 [42] D. Hoffman, J. Spruck, Sobolev and isoperimetric inequalities for riemannian submanifolds, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 27 (6) (1974) 715–727. doi:10.1002/cpa.3160270601. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cpa.3160270601 [43] E. D. Kovetz, I. Cholis, P. C. Breysse, M. Kamionkowski, Black hole mass function from gravitational wave measurements, Phys. Rev. D95 (10) (2017) 103010. arXiv:1611.01157, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.103010. [44] B. Mutlu-Pakdil, M. S. Seigar, B. L. Davis, The Local Black Hole Mass Function Derived from the MBH-P and the MBH-n Relations, ApJ830 (2016) 117. arXiv:1607.07325, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/117. [45] J. García-Bellido, Massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter and their detection with Gravitational Waves, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 840 (1) (2017) 012032. arXiv:1702.08275, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/840/1/012032. [46] P. Christian, P. Mocz, A. Loeb, Evolution of the Black Hole Mass Function in Star Clusters from Multiple Mergers, Astrophys. J. 858 (1) (2018) L8. arXiv:1803.07094, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aabf88. [47] R. M. Wald, General Relativity, Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001. [48] Carroll, Sean M., Spacetime and geometry: An introduction to general relativity, URL http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/books/www?cl=QC6:C37:2004 20 [49] N. Aghanim, et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters (2018). arXiv:1807.06209. [50] J. Lorca Espiro, Y. Vásquez, Einstein-Hilbert action nontrivially coupled with topological characteristic classes: generating Torsion and Contortion, ArXiv e-prints (Oct. 2014). arXiv:1410.3152. [51] J. Milnor, J. Stasheff, Characteristic Classes, Annals of mathematics stud- ies, Princeton University Press, 1974. URL https://books.google.com.br/books?id=5zQ9AFk1i4EC

Journal

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology – arXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jun 7, 2019

There are no references for this article.