ON THE STABILITY OF OUR UNIVERSE

Marcelo Samuel Berman1 and Newton C. A. da Costa1
1

Instituto Albert Einstein/Latinamerica - Av. Candido Hartmann, 575 - # 17 80730-440 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil emails: msberman@institutoalberteinstein.org , marsambe@yahoo.com, and ncacosta@institutoalberteinstein.org , ncacosta@usp.br
(Dated: 19 December 2010)

arXiv:1012.4160v1 [physics.gen-ph] 19 Dec 2010

Abstract
We argue that the Robertson-Walker´s Universe is a zero-energy stable one, even though it may possess a rotational state besides expansion.

1

we mean the spacetime of Minkowski. 1981.1995. 1999. Cooperstock and Faraoni. Hawking and Mlodinow (2010) comment that if it were not for the gravity interaction. 2007. and that when the size of the Universe doubles. The zero-total-energy of the Roberston-Walker’s Universe. Garecki. 1981). as it expands. 2006. In support of this view. both the matter and gravitational energies also double. 1995. Rosen. and Katz et al (1997). and found a zero-total energy. In a previous paper Berman (2009c) has calculated the energy of the Friedman-RobertsonWalker’s Universe. Banerjee and Sen. (Tryon. 1998). as an accelerated expansion of the Universe. so that the total energy is zero. and then. by means of pseudo-tensors. 2 . See also Katz (2006. 2003). the positive matter energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy.. 2001. Cooperstock. we shall show that the pseudotensor theory (Adler et al.in the sense that it has a reparametrized metric of Minkowski’s. Johri et al. 2007a. while the latter has been shown to be the ground state of energy level among possible universal metrics (see Witten. 1996. Our main task will be to show that our possibly rotating Robertson-Walker´s Universe is stable. in the recent. 2007b. Introduction In his three best-sellers (Hawking. 2006a. 1973. 1975) points out to a null-energy for a rotating Robertson-Walker’s Universe.ON THE STABILITY OF OUR UNIVERSE Marcelo Samuel Berman and Newton C. 1995. By ”vacuum”. 2003). 1997. 1995. Berman. Moreover. borrows energy from the gravitational field to create more matter. Some prior work is mentioned.1996. da Costa 1. 1994. Hawking describes inflation (Guth. It may be that the Universe might have originated from a vacuum quantum fluctuation. Feng and Duan. have been shown by many authors. 1994. immediately after the creation instant. Radinschi. Cooperstock and Israelit. A. one could not validate a zero-energy Universe.while the Universe. next best-seller. 1985). According to his description. keeping the total energy zero (twice zero). York Jr. 1980. and of any Machian ones. Katz and Ori (1990). creation out of nothing would not have happened.

thus introducing inertial or fictitious fields that are interpreted falsely as gravitational energy-carrying (false) fields. ω= g ˙ 00 2g00 Consider the following reparametrization: R2 (t) dx2 (1+kr 2 /4)2 R2 (t) dy 2 (1+kr 2 /4)2 R2 (t) dz 2 (1+kr 2 /4)2 g00 (t)dt2 dx′2 ≡ dy ′2 ≡ dz ′2 ≡ dt′2 ≡ . the resulting time-coordinate is meant as representing proper time.1981). a paper by Xulu (2000). If we want to use another coordinate time. . resides in that curvilinear coordinates carry non-null Christoffel symbols. (1) Of course. the generalized R. the above equations reproduce conventional RobertsonWalker’s field equations. . Berman (2008a) has interpreted the generalized metric as representing a rotating evolutionary model. 2. even in Minkowski spacetime. The reason for the failure of non-Cartesian curvilinear coordinate energy calculations through pseudotensors. Reparametrization of Robertson-Walker’s metric Consider first Robertson-Walker’s metric. (2) (3) (4) (5) In the new coordinates.W. Though the condition g00 = 1 is usually adopted. We must mention that the idea behind Robertson-Walker’s metric is the Gaussian coordinate system. The line element (Gomide and Uehara. when g00 = 1 . we still keep the Gaussian coordinate properties. we must remember that. becomes: R (t) ds2 = − (1+ [dσ 2 ] + g00 (t) dt2 kr 2 /4)2 2 .´s metric becomes: 3 .Recent developments include torsion models (So and Vargas. . and. with angular speed given by. added by a temporal metric coefficient which depends only on t . 2006).

Lately. . The equivalence principle.2011) has recently shown that the generalized RobertsonWalker’s metric yielded a zero-energy pseudotensorial result. (6) 3. It is this co-motion that is associated with the geodesic system. and a geodesic coordinate system may be constructed. Berman (2006. Minkowski’s space was in the ground state of energy. but the null results for the spatial components of the pseudo-quadrimomentum show compatibility. 2010. null. He also showed that in Classical General Relativity.ds′2 = dt′2 − [dx′2 + dy ′2 + dz ′2 ] This is Minkowski’s metric. which would introduce inexistent accelerations that can be mistaken additional gravitational fields (i. it has been generally accepted that the Universe has zero-total energy. −1. Guth. where the Christoffel symbols are null. 2001. says that at any location. Cartesian coordinates are needed. 2003.1998). Energy and stability of the Robertson-Walker’s metric Even in popular Science accounts (Hawking. spacetime is (locally) flat. as RW´s metric is homogeneous and isotropic.e. that add to the real energy). and. then. 1996. this space also was the unique space of lowest energy. for the co-moving observer. The same authors showed that the result applied in case of a rotating and expanding Universe. The pseudotensors are. Choosing Cartesian coordinates is not analogous to the use of center of mass frame in Newtonian theory. This last result was 4 . seems to be due to Feynman (1962-3). is repeated from point to point. which was zero-valued. 2006 a) has proved this result by means of simple arguments involving Robertson-Walker’s metric for any value of the tri-curvature ( 0. at each point. too. because curvilinear coordinates are associated with fictitious or inertial forces. The first such claim. the zero-total energy density result. 1 ). Berman and Gomide (2010. — and Moldinow. all over spacetime. Witten (1981) proved that within a semiclassical approach.. But now remember that our old Cosmology requires a co-moving observer at each point.

According with our discussion. disturbances. 2) .. of course. because it is known that gravitational waves have positive energy. usually zero-valued. 4. the rotating Robertson-Walker´s Universe is locally and globally stable. the bodies should have positive energy. that we are led to the energy calculation. There should be a minimum level. the criterion states that the system should not be able to collapse into a series of infinitely many possible negative levels of energy. Final Comments and Conclusions Berman and Gomide (2010. likewise the use of comoving observers in Cosmology. We now conclude that our Universe is also stable.or else.2011) have obtained a zero-total energy proof for a rotating expanding Universe. due to Quantum fluctuations. The conclusion of Witten was that Minkowski’s space was also stable. But. let us deal with some conceptual issues. due to the reparametrization above. ”Small” disturbances should not alter a state of equilibrium of the system (it tends to return to the original equilibrium state). where stands for Planck’s constant. because perturbations in the form of gravitational waves should not decrease the total energy. yielding zero total energy. The proof was obtained through the study of the limit h → 0 of a h supergravity argument by Deser and Teitelboim (1977) and by Grisaru (1978). whenever Classical Physics is concerned. The matter inside the system must not be possibly created out of nothing. first. Since a physical system shows a tendency to decay into its state of minimum energy. have shown that Classical General Relativity can be used to describe the scale-factor of the Universe even inside Planck´s zone. for the 5 . provided that we consider that the calculated scale-factor behaviour reflects an average of otherwise uncertain values. It is with this idea in mind. cannot be external. which is possible for the physical system. We have three kinds of stability criteria: 1) .obtained with spinor calculus. Berman and Trevisan (2010). In the case of the Universe.. Now. 3) . and thus could be extended to higher dimensions whenever spinors existed. are equivalent to the choice of a center of Mass reference system in Newtonian theory. The zero result for the spatial components of the energy-momentumpseudotensor calculation.

we found Larmor’s power formula. it could be argued that cosmic microwave background radiation should show evidence of quadrupole asymmetry and it does not. and thus. we must remember that in local Physics. while Larmor is a dipole formula. we remark neutrinos’ spin. Related conclusions should be consulted (see all Berman’s references and references therein). through the analysis of radiating processes. 2008). As a bonus. As Berman (2009d. the same happening to molluscs. we can assure that there was not an initial infinite energy density singularity. we must remark that CMBR deals with null geodesics. Referring to rotation. also. 6 . 2008d. for the Machian Universe the resultant constant power is basically the same. but one could argue that the angular speed of the present Universe is too small to be detected.Universe. while Pioneers’ anomaly. we may say that the Universe is singularity -free . parity violations. because attached to the zero-total energy conjecture. for instance. In favor of evidence on rotation. f) shows. which has been expanded. the opposite potential energy density. there is no zero-time infinite energy-density singularity. and the zero-total energy density results when we subtract from the former. the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter. either for our Machian analysis or for the Larmor and general relativistic formulae. However. those calculations are devoid of physical meaning.that leads to the correct constant power relation for the Machian Universe. General Relativity deals with quadrupole radiation. as was pointed by Berman elsewhere (Berman. as an acceptable result: we are assured that we chose the correct reference system. and was created ab-nihilo . There.in particular. deals with timelike geodesics. which appears in some textbooks. by one of the present authors (Berman. Rotation of the Universe and zero-total energy were verified for Sciama’s linear theory. 2009e). there is a zero-total energy-density result.. corresponds only to the non-gravitational portion. in the gravitational version. left-handed DNA-helices. this is a response to the criticism made by some scientists which argue that pseudotensor calculations depend on the reference system. the fact that humans and animals alike have not symmetric bodies. The so-called total energy density of the Universe.

Paula. this is a question of interpretation. rotations in galaxies and clusters. and that the three criteria for stability imply that any such system cannot be globally chaotic altogether. the first one (ours). that because Einstein´s field equations are non-linear. Rotation was included in the derivation of the zero result by Berman and Gomide (2010). Acknowledgements The authors thank Marcelo Fermann Guimar˜ aes. We remark nevertheless. Hawking and Mlodinow (2010) conclude their book with a remark on the fact that the Universe is locally stable. and new creations like this may still happen. Geni (MSB) and Neusa (NC). would have negative matter and positive spin: for the ensemble of the two Universes. We regret that the name of a basic result in General Relativity Theory. As its total energy is zero. has negative spin and positive matter. Nelson Suga. 7 . The total energy (twice zeros) is also zero. if small perturbations in its initial state do not originate ”large” variations in its future behaviour. the total mass would always be zero. We could think that the Universes are created in pairs. we conjecture that this type of Universe is not globally chaotic. Teixeira. the second member of the pair. . the RobertsonWalker´s Universe. too. A physical system is not ”chaotic”. with or without rotation. and for the encouragement by Albert. is called ”positive energy theorem ” instead of the ”non-negative energy theorem”. Antonio F. the total spin. Of course. We now want to make a conjecture related to the stability criteria of last Section. da F. Mauro Tonasse. According to our discussion. may provide clues on possible left handed preference through the Universe.chaos is not forbidden in a local sense. is locally and globally stable under the three criteria.We predict that chaotic phenomena and fractals. Berman and Trevisan (2010) have remarked that creation out-of-nothing seems to be supported by the zero-total energy calculations. but globally unstable because spontaneous creation is the reason why the Universe exists.

S.Energy.Available online. Astrophysics Space Science. Nova Science. 318. New York.Pramana J. Kreitler.A General Relativistic Rotating Evolutionary Universe. 3278. M. Instituto Tecnol´ ogico de Aeron´ autica.Astrophysics and Space Science. Berman.S. Berman.S. 48. 157-160.S..S. 2nd Edition. 312.On the Machian Origin of Inertia.and Hawking´s Universe. M. (1997) . thesis. 269-272. New York.J. M. Los Alamos Archives. N. Banerjee.Energy of Black-Holes and Hawking´s Universe. S. Berman. New York.Introduction to General Relativity. M. Berman. New York.. 49.Introduction to General Relativity and the Cosmological Constant Problem. http://arxiv. Berman. Kreitler.S.The Pioneer Anomaly and a Machian Universe .org/abs/physics/0609026 Berman. M. New York. in Chapter 5 of Trends in Black Hole Research. (2009c) . 275. Nova Science. unpublished) .S.html (supply author´s surname and keyword may be ”pseudotensor”or ”Einstein”). (2006a) . in Chapter 5 of: New Developments in Black Hole Research. M. 319-321. Brief History of Black-Holes. R. Astrophysics and Space Science.Introduction to General Relativistic and Scalar Tensor Cosmologies . (2007b) . M.br/biblioteca/index.org/abs/physics/0606117.. Brazil.Phys. ed by Paul V. Los Alamos Archives. S. M. McGraw-Hill.sophia.On the zero-energy Universe. 321. (1975) .Sc. 609. M.S.General Relativistic Singularity-free Cosmological Model.ita. (1981. Berman. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. New York. Schiffer. (2009) . Nova Science. (2007) . M. (2008c) . Berman. (2008a) . Astrophysics and Space Science.M. M. (2007a) . (2006) . 314. http://arxiv. S˜ ao Jos´ e dos Campos.S. M. Nova Science..S. Berman. (2008d) . Bazin. through the federal government site www. M. Berman.bibl.A Primer in Black Holes. 8 . Nova Science. Berman. Sen. Mach’s Principle and Gravitational Energy.References Adler. ed by Paul V.

Hawking. 9 . Duan.Phys. Gomide. (2009e) .. Letters. J. Vintage.General Relativistic Singularity-Free Cosmological Model.org/abs/1011.GRG.org/abs/0904. by F.Nova Science Publishers. V.On Sciama’s Machian Cosmology. Gomide. (1977) .I. pages 166-167.Lectures on Gravitation . Hawking. Rev.The Universe in a Nutshell. L. (1978) . Feng. Berman. Lett.Why the initial infinite singularity of the Universe is not there?.Columbus. (1994) ... (1981) . 1309-1313. submitted. C. 347 . 409. A.Phys. M. 73B. R. M. 2253. F.General Relativistic Treatment of Pioneers anomaly. A. Cooperstock. New York. (1995) . (2009f) . (1996) . Addison-Wesley. (2010) .I. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. D23. S. S. (1981) . 631.. Astrophysics and Space Science. Deser. Teitelboim. Guth.M. to be published. pages 90-91.The Inflationary Universe.org/abs/gr-qc/0104060 Cooperstock.Berman. Los Alamos Archives http://arxiv.4627 Berman. New York. F. 323. D19. (2001) .3141. F.I. Trevisan. Israelit. 27. Berman. Gomide. 39.International Journal of Modern Physics. S. 55. See Los Alamos Archives http://arxiv.The Illustrated A Brief History of Time. 25. Rev.. Guth.A. (2011)-On the rotation of the Zero-energy Expanding Universe.M.J. Faraoni.Ap.S. Uehara.GRG 26. Berman. 157. Los Alamos Archives http://arxiv.Foundations of Physics. 48.Phys. (1962-3) .M. 207. 48.483. Bantam Books. 95.S. M. Phys. International Journal of Theoretical Physics. (1995) ... Y. F. 362. (2009d) . (1998) . (1996) . Feynman. F.S.S. Cooperstock. M. P. Berman. M.S. M.Astronomy and Astrophysics. Reading.S. Bantam Books.(2003) . page 12.. 587. 321. 249. Garecki. New York. Lett. M. M. 3257. (2010) .Chin.ed. 13. M. Grisaru.in The Big-Bang-Theory and Assumptions. F. New York. S.

(1953) .Gen. I. 113. (1997) . Los Alamos Archives. L. S. (2000) .P. J... (1995) . Katz.Hawking. 10 .R.L. A. 313. Rosen.A. E. Math. S. and Grav.International Jounal of Theoretical Physics. 5957. Commun. 27. Tryon. S. 423. J. Academic Press.Physical Review D55. 787. 246. (1985) . 49. Sciama. Bicak. 39.N. 80. 27. D. 26. T. et al. D. (2003) . J. 319. N. in A Festschrift for Abraham Taub.Y. Rel.W. 1153. J.S. New York. Slov. (1981) .Energy and Momentum of the Gravitational Field.A New Proof of the Positive Energy Theorem.. Mlodinow.. 381-402.The Illustrated Theory of Everything.. J. (1990) . Bantam Books.. Witten. Katz. Beverly Hills..(1973) . (2006) . gr-qc/0611012 .Classical and Quantum Gravity 7. N. E. Vargas.. gr-qc/9910015 . Katz. (1999) . So. York Jr.Classical and Quantum Gravity 2. Johri. Lynden-Bell. 34. Los Alamos Archives. 789. 396.J. N. Phoenix Books. gr-qc/0008034. by F.Nature. Rosen. Ori. (2006) . Xulu. ed. (1980) . page 74. Phys. (2010) .W.GRG. Katz. 313.Acta Phys.The Grand Design.Los Alamos Archives. J.Private communication.(1994) .M.GRG. Hawking.(1995) . Tipler.B. V. Radinschi. L.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful