November 13, 2005 14:24

THE DARK GRAVITY MODEL AND THE EARLY UNIVERSE

FREDERIC HENRY-COUANNIER CPPM, 163 Avenue De Luminy, Marseille 13009 France. henry@cppm.in2p3.fr Received .. Revised .. In the dark gravity model, the parity, time reversal and space/time exchange invariant actions, equations and their conjugate metric solutions were obtained in the context of a general relativistic model modied in order to take into account discrete symmetries. The equations are not covariant and the PPN formalism breaksdown however the new Schwarzschild metric solution in vacuum only starts to dier from that of General Relativity at the Post-Post-Newtonian order in the privileged frame. A at universe accelerated expansion phase was obtained without resorting to ination nor a cosmological constant and the Big-Bang singularity was avoided. We review here the issue of large scale structures formation, the physics of the CMB and nucleosynthesis in this new context and nd that without any need for exotic contributions such as dark matter or dark energy, the model is able to account for the main observational results. Keywords: Large scale structures, galaxies, dark gravity.

1. Introduction We found in Ref. 1 that in the dark gravity model, the conjugate scale factors have simple evolution laws in the particular ranges A << 1, A 1, A >> 1. Indeed, the scale factor evolution (its inverse taken at -t is the conjugate universe scale factor) is then driven (here non dimensional time unit is used) by the following dierential equations in the three particular domains: a << 1 a 3 a2 a 1/t2 where t < 0, 2 a a2 a et , a (1) (2)

a1a a >> 1 a

1 a2 a t2 where t > 0. (3) 2 a A striking and very uncommon feature is that the evolution of the scale factor is driven by the gravitational energy exchange between the coupled universes independently of the universes matter and radiation content. In particular, the observed atness can no longer be translated into the usual estimation m = 1 from the WMAP data (see Ref. 4). Indeed, matter can never contribute to the source of this metric equation since it does not live in this metric except at t=0. Indeed
1

November 13, 2005 14:24

F. Henry-Couannier

the presence of matter generates in its vicinity a metric of another kind as shown in Ref. 1 which geodesics matter follows instead of the cosmological ones. At t=0 only, the cosmological and local background metrics identify to each other and to the unit metric element. On the other hand, if radiation can live in the universe metric, because it is massless, it can never contribute. The t2 evolution is one of the very few possibilities. Thus, we are most probably living in a constantly accelerating universe. Our and the conjugate universe crossed each other and two reversed time parameters appeared at their birth time. Then both universes started to expand, since the evolution of the conjugate universe must be followed along the opposite time coordinate. By the way, this helps understand why there is no more paradox associated with time reversal in this context. As shown in picture one, reversing time twice can never make you reappear in the past in a given universe. Eventually, because the cosmological inverse metrics taken at opposite times appear to fuse, only local gravity allows us distinguish between gravitational inuence of positive and negative mass matter. At last, not only our universe is accelerated without any need for a cosmological constant or dark energy component but it is at without ination and gets rid of the big-bang singularity. 2. Structure Formation in the Early Universe In a constantly accelerated universe taking the dominating mass density contribution to be the baryonic matter well established density (0 = 2.1031 g/cm3 ) we get at the time tR of hydrogen recombination the density through: (tR ) = (t0 )
a(t0 ) a(tR ) 3 3 3

= (t0 ) (1 + zR ) = (t0 ) (1500)

which we assume to be also the density in the conjugate universe. Also, we can link the Hubble parameter at tR and nowadays value at t0 through: H(t0 ) = H(tR ) thus: H(tR ) H(t0 ) (1500)
1/2

a(tR ) a(t0 )

1/2

Neglecting the eect of the universe expansion in the evolution equation of density uctuations (t) on our side and making use of p after recombination lead us to the following dierential equation: 4G = 0 and the exponentially growing uctuations: + = e
4Gt

November 13, 2005 14:24

The Dark Side of Gravity

Then we can check that: HR = 4GR 2 1 3 1500 c 4.103 0

insuring that the universe expanding rate is indeed negligible compared to the density uctuations growing rate thereby justifying our previous approximation. We know that nucleosynthesis requires that the universe scale factor had been much smaller in an earlier stage of the universe. Thus we must admit that the universe was already in the constantly accelerated regime up to the time of nucleosynthesis. This implies that our universe was much older at the time of Hydrogen recombination than it was usually believed to be in the standard model framework: tR = H(t0 ) 2 = t0 = 26.109 HR H(tR ) 1 1500
1/2

0.7.109years.

At tR , the universe expanding rate was already (it decreases in time) so small that it did not aect at all the growing of primordial uctuations so that we could reach soon the non-linear regime starting from the 105 density uctuations of the CMB. We notice also that the typical mass of a uctuation after recombination if the present universe density is 0 = 2.1031 g/cm3 is the Jean mass 108 M (see in Ref. 2 the plotted Jean Mass as a function of temperature for dierent values of the density) approaching quite well the typical galaxy baryonic visible mass of 109 M . Because the expansion rate was negligible, the growing of uctuations could have started even before tR in the radiative era leaving, as for weakly interactive Dark matter in the standard model, no detectable imprint on our CMB if it occured in the conjugate metric only. To explain that this is actually what happened, starting from almost equal densities in both universes, we need to assume that there is a kind of spontaneous breaking of the symmetrical evolution of the conjugate universes which allows the formation of structures in one universe to win the game and prevent the formation of structures with the same typical size to be initiated in the conjugate universe (this should be checked through simulations). Otherwise we should assume that there was an initial asymetry between densities in the two universes as rst suggested by JP Petit (Ref. 3). Because the Jean mass was as large as 1019 M in the radiative era just before recombination (see again in Ref. 2 the plotted Jean Mass as a function of temperature), if relatively high density uctuations was already formed at that time in the conjugate metric, the ratio between these primordial inhomogeneities radii and those of our universe inhomogeneities delayed to appear only after recombination is roughly 1011/3 . Fortunately, this also approaches the ratio between the radius of a typical void (conjugate universe over-density) and radius of a galaxy (our universe structure) as expected if the subsequent expansion of the universe did not much aect these ratios. Therefore, we found that our model is not only successful in explaining the growing of the very small initial CMB uctuations in the linear regime without any

November 13, 2005 14:24

F. Henry-Couannier

need for dark matter nor dark energy but also could lead to the correct typical sizes of both galaxies and the universe voids interpreted as over-densities in the conjugate metric (initiated earlier i.e in the radiative era of the conjugate universe). In this derivation the negligible expanding rate in the early universe played a crucial role. 3. Nucleosynthesis Thanks to the constantly accelerated expansion, the eect of the universe expansion rate is also negligible compared to all processes rates of interest at the time of primordial nucleosynthesis. Therefore the weak interaction processes between protons, neutons and leptons are not frozen by the expansion but still fast enough to maintain equilibrium downto the temperature initiating nucleosynthesis. Because we are in thermal equilibrium this temperature is signicantly higher than in the standard model. At 3.109 K the slow formation of He4 rst can proceed in many body collisions because we have all the time needed (Ref. 2). This is slow but fast enough to incorporate all neutrons into nuclei at such a rate that the we can consider the neutron abondance during nucleosynthesis to be given by the proton neutron equilibrium condition. Subsequently the remaining protons are incorporated into H 2 . At last the Helium fraction is given by X(He4 ) = 2.XN 0.32 in good agreement with present estimations where we have taken the neutron fraction XN at 3.109 K to be the fraction at equilibrium neglecting nucleosynthesis and neutron decay as in Ref. 2. 4. Primordial uctuations and the CMB We postulate that the mechanism at the origin of the birth of a couple of times and universes is the appearing of a system of stationary gravitational waves in a given volume of space in a parent universe. This one in turn can be generated thanks to a metric discontinuity on a spherical surface acting as a genuine gravitational mirror surrounding this volume. The superposition of outgoing and ingoing reected gravitational waves produces the stationary wave system in the whole volume which zitterbewegund (see Ref. 1) is the perturbation needed to create the universes. Because the stationary waves give the primordial uctuations, these are all in phase and we expect acoustic peaks at all scales in the spectrum of the CMB since thanks to the subsequent slow expanding rate of the universes there will never appear an horizon in this scenario. In the absence of horizon, the peaks in the spectrum of the CMB (in particular their positions) wil not provide us with any information regarding cosmology except spatial curvature (Ref. 5). Because spatial atness is a main consequence of our model, it is thus in good agreement with the CMB information so far. The absence of gravitational horizon also well accounts for the large scale homogeneity of the CMB without any need for ination. It is at the largest scales, i.e the quadruple and the octopole scale that we expect the most

November 13, 2005 14:24

The Dark Side of Gravity

signicative departure from the predictions of a theory where the horizon plays a crucial role in dening a threshold scale above which no acoustic peak is expected. Hence the anomaly in the quadrupole and octopole of the CMB might be the rst clear conrmation of our model against ination.

5. Strange correlations in the quadrupole and octopole A recent analysis of the CMB uctuations in WMAP (see Ref. 4) has shown preferred directions and unexpected correlations between these and the ecliptic plane, in particular the direction of equinoxes. If it is conrmed, this eect might be the rst proof that our solar system has its own privileged coordinate system. From the point of view of WMAP, the dominating gravitational eld is the solar one. Due to the motion of WMAP relative to the solar system privileged frame, the metric element g0i does not vanish in the satellite frame. However, the gravitational redshift of the CMB radiation in a stationary gravitational eld cannot manifest any privileged direction eect since in this case the time of arrival of successive wave crests equals the time between their departure far away from the source whatever the considered wave direction. Thus even if the frequency of light emitted is not the same in our lab atomic transitions and in the transition that produced the light near the time of decoupling and even if g0i gives a contribution in the dierence, the gravitational shift should be the same in all directions. Thus the eect of a non stationary eld, the cosmological or Pioneer metric in our framework must be investigated. As already claried in Ref. 1, a CMB light wave has undergone an important redshift and only in the last part of its travel, in the vicinity of the solar system a blueshift. If the local privileged system is the solar one, we must admit that the typical size of space volume where the Pioneer regime takes over the cosmological one is no more than a light year (less than the distance to our neighbouring star Proxima Centaury which has its own privileged frame). Thus, the amount of blueshift is less than one part in 109 the cosmological shift. Thus, due to the small velocities w in the solar system relative to the sun privileged frame w 104 , anisotropic eects related to c the g0i element of the Pioneer metric are expected to be small. g0i 4wi g00 May be the most important and detectable anisotropic eect is the one which woud arise if the distance at which the discontinuity and transition from the cosmological to the Pioneer metric strongly depends on the direction. This is a quite reasonable assumption since the solar system itself is far from being isotropic. In this case, the anisotropy can reach at best the 109 order of magnitude to be compared with the 105 order of magnitude of uctuations in the CMB. Anyway, since the physics of the metric discontinuity is so far poorly understood a detailed analysis of anistropies should hopefully provide exciting new insights in this issue.

November 13, 2005 14:24

F. Henry-Couannier

6. Conclusion We found that the formation of structures in the dark gravity theory works well without any need for dark energy nor dark matter components and can predict the typical sizes of galaxies and universe voids. Nucleosynthesis also leads to the correct Helium over Hydrogen fraction. The postulated origin of CMB uctuations predicts the presence of acoustic peaks in our framework however, due to the absence of an Horizon, the analysis of the CMB gives no information on cosmology appart the spatial curvature of the universe and the detailed physics of the CMB. At last, again due to the absence of an horizon, a departure from the ination predictions is expected at the largest scales as well as small correlations related to WMAP direction of motion relative to the privileged coordinate system assumed to be sitted on the sun.

November 13, 2005 14:24

The Dark Side of Gravity

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. F. Henry-Couannier, gr-qc/0410055. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (John Wiley and sons, New York, 1972). JP. Petit, Science. Astr. and Sp. Sc. 226, 273-307 (1995). D.N. Spergel et al. (WMAP Collaboration) W.T. Hu, astro-ph/9508126

November 13, 2005 14:24

F. Henry-Couannier