format: text

text:
# Monitoring the Dipole-Dipole Interaction via Quantum Jumps of Individual Atoms

## Abstract

The emission characteristics in the fluorescence of two laser-driven dipole-dipole-interacting three level atoms is investigated. When the light from both atoms is detected separately a correlation of the emission processes is observed in dependence of the dipole-dipole interaction. This opens the possibility to investigate the dipole-dipole interaction through the emission behavior. We present Monte-Carlo simulations which are in good agreement with the analytic solutions.

The problem of the influence of a neighboring atom on atomic emission behavior  has been investigated since a very long time. Especially the problem of the correlation of the emission of two neighboring atoms has found quite some interest . This is a complex issue and the answer is very much dependent on various system parameters such as the strength of the pumping field, the life times and the wavelengths of the different transitions involved. An early theoretical calculation concluded that the dipole-dipole interaction between adjacent atoms is irrelevant for quantum jumps within a 3-level-system under the usual experimental conditions where the Rabi frequency of the pump field is large compared to all other rates in the problem . Those results have been confirmed by quantum Monte-Carlo calculations , . In this paper we reconsider the problem of dipole-dipole interaction and investigate especially the correlations in the emissions of two neighboring atoms which are observed individually.

The arrangement is shown schematically in Fig. 1. We consider 2 identical nearby atoms in a trap, each with levels $`|1`$, $`|2`$ and $`|3`$. One of the atoms (say atom 1) is initially prepared, e.g. by pulsed excitation , in a metastable state $`|2`$. A resonant cw pump interacts with both atoms. The initial state of atom 1 is such that it can start interacting with the pump either due to decay to the state $`|3`$ by emission of a photon or via excitation to the state $`|1`$ as a result of the dipole-dipole interaction. In the second case atom 2 goes to the state $`|2`$. In our analysis we assume that the level spacing $`|1|2`$ is close enough, so that the dipole-dipole interaction is effective only on this transition. The transitions $`|1|3`$ and $`|2|3`$ are supposed to lie in the optical domain, where the distance between two atoms is assumed to be much larger than the wavelengths of the corresponding transitions. For example in In<sup>+</sup> the wavelength on the $`|1|2`$ corresponds to $`9.3\mu `$m which could be two to three times the distance between two trapped ions . We further assume that the fluorescence from each atom can be resolved individually by two distinct detectors 1 and 2. In what follow let us work in the limit

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_R>\gamma ^{13}\gamma ^{12},\gamma ^{23}$$
(1)
In our prepared system, detector 1 will not detect any fluorescence while atom 2 is fluorescing on the $`|1|3`$ transition until the dipole-dipole interaction on the transition $`|1|2`$ brings atom 1 towards the cycling transition $`|1|3`$ and atom 2 towards the metastable state $`|2`$. In this case detector 1 is switched on and at the same time detector 2 is switched off. Detector 2 will remain off until either the atom 2 makes a transition from the state $`|2`$ to $`|3`$ by spontaneous emission or again to the state $`|1`$ by the dipole-dipole interaction. If atom 2 goes to the state $`|3`$, both the detectors will be on. If on the other hand atom 2 goes to the state $`|1`$ by dipole-dipole interaction, then again detector 1 will switch off. Under the above inequality the dipole-dipole interaction is more probable and hence the chance for both detectors 1 and 2 to switch on at the same time is rare. We thus conclude that the fluorescence records of the detectors 1 and 2 will be complementary. This complementary record of fluorescence is a clear signature of the dipole-dipole interaction between the two atoms. The key ingredients in the above argument are (a) the inequality (1), (b) preparation of one of the atoms in the metastable state $`|2`$, (c) capability to resolve the fluorescence from individual atoms which are separated by a distance much bigger than the wavelength of the strong transition. In what follows we will present results from the quantum Monte-Carlo simulation of the fluorescence from the two 3-level-atoms. These simulations validate the above ideas.

The two identical atoms are assumed to be at fixed positions $`𝐫_i`$ , and the field outside the laser-beam in the vacuum state. The dipole matrix elements of the atoms are defined as $`𝐝_{ij}:=ei|x|j`$ and the atomic operators for the $`i`$-th atoms as $`\sigma _i^{\mathrm{nm}}:=|\mathrm{n}_i\mathrm{m}|`$. The interaction hamiltonian for two dipole-dipole interacting three-level-systems reads

$$H=\mathrm{}\underset{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{m}}{}\underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐬}}{}\left(g_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐬}}a_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐬}}\sigma _𝐤^{\mathrm{nm}}+\text{h.c.}\right)$$
(2)
with

$`\sigma _𝐤^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\sigma _i^{\mathrm{nm}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}𝐤𝐫_i}`$ (3)
$`\text{and}g_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐬}}`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2\mathrm{}ϵ_0V}}}\left(𝐝ϵ_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐬}}\right).`$ (4)
For the time steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ used in the simulations we need the time-development of the system under the condition that no photon is emitted in the time between $`t=0`$ and $`t=\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. This is described by a non-hermitian ‘conditional hamiltonian’, including the atom laser interaction, which is found to be

$`H_{\text{cond}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}}}[{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{n},\mathrm{m}=1}{\mathrm{n}<\mathrm{m}}}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{j}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\gamma _{\mathrm{ij}}^{\mathrm{nm}}\sigma _\mathrm{i}^{\mathrm{nm}}\sigma _\mathrm{j}^{\mathrm{mn}}`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{i}=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Omega }_R(\sigma _\mathrm{i}^{13}+\sigma _\mathrm{i}^{31})].`$
Here $`2\gamma _{\mathrm{ij}}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ is the Einstein $`A`$-coefficient for the transition $`|n|m`$ for $`i=j`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$ is the Rabi frequency. For $`ij`$, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{ij}}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ is the complex parameter which describes the strength of the dipole-dipole interaction, where we have made the rotating-wave-approximation in the derivation of (6). In the Markov approximation they can be calculated analytically :

$`\gamma _{12}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\gamma _{11}^{\mathrm{nm}}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k_{\mathrm{nm}}r}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{i}k_{\mathrm{nm}}r}}(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{nm}})`$ (8)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{i}k_{\mathrm{nm}}r)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{i}k_{\mathrm{nm}}r)^3}})(13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{nm}})]`$
Here $`r=|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$ is the distance between the two atoms and $`\theta _{\mathrm{nm}}`$ the angle between $`𝐝_{\mathrm{nm}}`$ and $`𝐫_1𝐫_2`$. For the further calculations we define $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{nm}}=\gamma _{11}^{\mathrm{nm}}=\gamma _{22}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$, $`\gamma _{\mathrm{dd}}^{\mathrm{nm}}:=\mathrm{Re}\left(\gamma _{12}^{\mathrm{nm}}\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{dd}}^{\mathrm{nm}}:=\mathrm{Im}\left(\gamma _{12}^{\mathrm{nm}}\right)`$

Their spatial dependence is shown in figure 2 and 3. Obviously $`\gamma _{\mathrm{dd}}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{dd}}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ tend to zero for $`r\mathrm{}`$, but for $`r0`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{dd}}^{\mathrm{nm}}`$ diverges. This means that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{nm}}(r)`$ can have important consequences for the evolution of the system for $`r<\lambda _{nm}`$. By use of the Monte-Carlo simulations we indeed show, that this is the case for the quantum-jump-behavior of the system.

The evolution of the state vector between two consecutive emissions is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}H_{\text{cond}}\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)$$
(9)
where we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is much larger than the inverse optical frequencies but much smaller than all the atomic decay times.

To show that the dipole-dipole interaction can have important consequences for the quantum-jump-behavior of the system we detect the fluorescence light of the two atoms separately with the detectors 1 and 2, which are modeled by the operators

$$D_\mathrm{i}=|3_\mathrm{i}1|$$
(10)
where the probability $`P_\mathrm{i}`$ for a measurement with the detector i is proportional to the excitation probability of the i-th atom. We find:

$$P_\mathrm{i}=2\gamma ^{13}D_1$$
(11)
After each measurement we have to continue with the reduced state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{red}}=\frac{1}{N}D_\mathrm{i}|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, with N being a normalization constant.

Next we focus on the dipole-dipole interaction on the transition $`|1|2`$, where the $`r`$-dependent factor $`\frac{\lambda _{12}}{r}`$ is largest. In the time evolution of the system which is given by equation (9) the interaction parameter $`\gamma _{12}^{12}`$ appears with the operators

$$\sigma _1^{12}\sigma _2^{21}+\sigma _2^{12}\sigma _1^{21}.$$
(12)
If the probability amplitude for the system being in state $`|1,2=|1_1|2_2`$ is not zero for the initial state the probability amplitude of being in state $`|2,1`$ is not zero one time step further. Consequently the dipole-dipole-interaction drives the system from a non-entangled state to an entangled state . This is a non-classical effect, which we can detect with our setup. The relevant time scale of this process is $`\frac{1}{\gamma _{12}^{12}}`$ as is clear from equation (6). To see the effect, on atom has to be in state $`|2`$, which can be prepared by an appropriate laser pulse, while the other one must have a non zero probability of being in state $`|1`$ what is achieved by the driving laser. The initial state for the simulation is therefore $`|1,2`$. It is evident, that every ‘click’ of one of our detectors destroys the entanglement and one starts again with a separable state. There are no problems with decoherence effects, as no coherence needs to be reserved longer than the lifetime of the upper state $`|1`$.

If we compare the time scales and probabilities in the regime (1) it is clear that atom 1 shows fluorescence, i.e. detector 1 clicks, while atom 2 is dark. There are two possible decays which change the fluorescence behavior of the system (a) atom 1 falls to $`|2`$ and both detectors do not detect any further photons (b) atom 2 falls to $`|3`$ and both atoms show fluorescence at the same time. There is also a probability for a third event which is the most interesting in this context. As mentioned above with every time step where we have a non zero probability amplitude of the system being in state $`|1,2`$ we get a non zero probability amplitude for being in state $`|2,1`$, due to the dipole-dipole interaction. If this transition occurs, atom 2 gets excited to state $`|1`$ from where it starts to cycle on the $`|1|3`$ transition and to emit fluorescence photons, while atom 1 ends up in the metastable state $`|2`$ and gets dark. Finally we have three possible changes of the detection rates, which are clearly distinguishable. As we are interested only in the third, we do not count the times where both atoms are bright or dark. We assume that in this case we prepare our initial state again. We are then in a situation where always one atom is in state $`|2`$. Consequently the dipole-dipole interaction on the transition $`|1|3`$ has no effect as the corresponding operators in the time evolution are zero.

The flip in the detection of fluorescence (Fig. 4) is a clear signature of the dipole-dipole interaction of the system and shows how the quantum jump statistic can be modified by cooperativity. Note that the effect of dipole-dipole interaction is not observable if we do not distinguish between the fluorescence of the two atoms . To see how this behavior is connected to the interaction parameter $`\gamma _{12}^{12}`$ we count the flips per unit time for different atom distances of interest (from $`r=0.1\lambda _{12}`$ to $`r=3\lambda _{12}`$) and find, up to a scaling factor, very good functional agreement with $`|\gamma _{12}^{12}|^2`$ (Fig. 5, 6).

If we further analyze our data for different ratios of the decay rates $`\gamma ^{12}`$ and $`\gamma ^{13}`$ we find that the remaining scaling factor $`c_s`$ is nearly constant over reasonable magnitudes.

The result is shown in Fig. 7. This shows that indeed the flip rate is a consequence of the dipole-dipole interaction and that other parameters than $`\gamma _{12}^{12}`$ do not intervene.

In conclusion, we have outlined one solution to the problem of detecting the dipole-dipole interaction in the phenomena of quantum jumps. For that purpose we analyzed a system of two dipole-dipole interacting 3-level-systems and proposed, in contrast to earlier calculations , a detection scheme, where we distinguish between the two atoms in order to monitor the consequences of this interaction. Within this scheme there are no problems related to decoherence, as no coherences need to be preserved over timescales longer than the shortest decay time of the system. Furthermore the dependence of the flip rate on the spatial variation of the dipole-dipole interaction has been analyzed.


text:
# Deep H i observations of the compact high-velocity cloud HVC125+41–207

## 1 Introduction

High-velocity clouds (HVCs), first discovered by Muller et al. (muller (1963)), are defined as neutral atomic hydrogen clouds with radial velocities (relative to the local–standard–of–rest frame, LSR) that can not be explained by simple galactic rotation models. Up to now there is no general consensus on the origin and the basic physical parameters of HVCs. The most critical issue of HVC research is the distance uncertainty. Danly et al. (danly (1993)) determined an upper limit of the distance to the Galactic Plane of $`z`$ $``$ 3.5 kpc for HVC complex M. The most important step forward is the bracket of the distance from the Galactic Plane of 2.5 $`z`$ 7 kpc for HVC complex A (van Woerden et al. van Woerden (1999)). These results clearly indicate that the HVC complexes M and A are located in the gaseous halo of the Milky Way.

Oort (oort (1966)) proposed an extragalactic origin for the HVCs. He argued, that the formation of galaxies is still an ongoing process and HVCs represent primordial clouds that are currently accreted by the Milky Way. Blitz et al. (blitz (1999)) revived the hypothesis that some HVCs are primordial gas left over from the formation of the Local Group galaxies. Braun & Burton (bb99 (1999)) identified 65 compact and isolated HVCs and argued that this ensemble represents a homogeneous subsample of HVCs at extragalactic distances. Observational evidence for extragalactic HVCs may also be found by the detection of the highly ionized high-velocity gas by Sembach et al. (sembach (1999)), because of its very low pressure of about 2 K $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

Meyerdierks (meyerdierks (1991)) detected an HVC that appears like a cometary shaped cloud with a central core and an asymmetric envelope of warm neutral atomic hydrogen. He interpreted this head-tail structure as the result of an interaction between the HVC and normal galactic gas at lower velocities. Towards HVC-complex C, Pietz et al. (pietz96 (1996)) discovered the so-called H i “velocity bridges” which seem to connect some HVCs with the normal rotating interstellar medium. The most straight forward interpretation for the existence of such structures is to assume that a fraction of the HVC gas was stripped from the main condensation. Brüns et al. (2000a ) extended the investigations of Meyerdierks (meyerdierks (1991)) and Pietz et al. (pietz96 (1996)) over the entire sky covered by the new Leiden/Dwingeloo H i 21-cm line survey (Hartmann & Burton hartmann97 (1997)) and found head-tail structures in all HVC-complexes except for the very faint HVC-complex L. Their analysis revealed that the absolute value of the radial velocity of the tail is always lower than the value for the head of the HVC ($`|v_{\mathrm{LSR},\mathrm{tail}}|<|v_{\mathrm{LSR},\mathrm{head}}|`$). In addition, it was shown that the fraction of HVCs showing a head-tail structure increases proportional to the peak column density and increasing radial velocity $`|v_{\mathrm{GSR}}|`$.

In this letter, we present deep integrated Effelsberg H i 21-cm line data of the compact high-velocity cloud HVC125+41–207 (discovered by Hulsbosch & Wakker 1988), which was placed at extragalactic distances by Braun & Burton (bb2000 (2000)). In Sect. 2, we give a brief summary of the observational parameters. The observations show that HVC125+41–207 is a head-tail HVC. The results – including a Gaussian decomposition of the spectra – are presented in Sect. 3. We summarize and discuss the results of the Gaussian decomposition and interpret the head-tail structure as an interaction with an ambient medium in Sect. 4. In addition we derive the distance to HVC125+41–207 and constrain the parameters $`n`$ and $`T`$ of the intergalactic medium.

## 2 Observations

The observations were carried out between June and October 2000 at the 100-m Effelsberg telescope using the 21-cm receiver (T$`{}_{\mathrm{sys}}{}^{}`$ 24 K). The HPBW at 21-cm is 9’. The 1024 channel autocorrelator was splitted into two banks of 512 channels for each polarization. The bandwidth of 1.5 MHz offers a velocity resolution of 0.65 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ . The HVC was mapped on a regular grid in equatorial coordinates with grid-spacings of 4.5 arcmin and an integration time of 4 minutes per position. The standard calibration source S7 was used for the flux-calibration. We subtracted a third order polynomial for the baseline correction. After averaging the two polarizations we reach an rms-noise of 0.09 K at full velocity resolution of 0.65 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ .
Radio frequency interference was reduced significantly during the last two years at the Effelsberg telescope. There is no detectable interference within the used bandwidth.

## 3 Results

Fig. 1a shows the column density distribution of the compact high-velocity cloud HVC125+41–207. Black contour lines represent the Effelsberg observations. The lowest contour line indicates a column density of 3$``$1018cm-2. This corresponds to 3$`\sigma `$ significance level. The peak column density in this map is 1.2$``$1020cm-2. The distribution of the low column density material is highly asymmetric. While there is a sharp column density gradient on the eastern side, the column density on the western side drops off very slowly. This kind of morphology is called head-tail structure (Meyerdierks meyerdierks (1991), Brüns et al. 2000a ).

### 3.1 Gaussian decomposition

Fig. 1c shows a typical H i spectrum containing one component with a low and one with a high velocity dispersion. The two component structure is visible in all spectra with column densities N$`{}_{\text{}\text{i}}{}^{}`$ 2$``$1019 cm-2, consistent with HVC-models (Wolfire et al. wolfirea (1995)) and previous observations.

We performed a Gaussian decomposition of the Effelsberg dataset to study the two gas-phases in detail. Each spectrum was inspected individually if a single Gaussian fits the shape of the line sufficiently. If not, two Gaussians were fitted to the spectrum. In the very end of the tail ($`\alpha _{2000}<`$ 12h05m) neighbouring spectra were averaged and hanning smoothed to gain a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

### 3.2 The column density distribution

The Gaussian decomposition gives the opportunity to separate the large and the low velocity dispersion components. The low velocity dispersion component is concentrated in two main condensations, clump I centred on ($`\alpha _{2000}`$ = 12h27m20s, $`\delta _{2000}`$ = 75°25’30”) and clump II centred on ($`\alpha _{2000}`$ = 12h22m30s, $`\delta _{2000}`$ = 75°31’30”). The two clumps have similar peak column densities (N$`{}_{\text{}\text{i}}{}^{}`$ 8$``$1019 cm-2).

The column density distribution of the component with the large velocity dispersion also shows two maxima, but shifted in respect to the cold gas-phase (see Fig. 2a). The column density distribution is highly asymmetric, in the tail it decreases exponentially (e-α/τ with $`\tau `$ = 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$515 $`\pm `$ 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$014). The last four data points deviate significantly from an exponential decay.

The slice perpendicular to the cloud (Fig. 2b) shows that the warm component is smoother distributed and more extended (FWHM = 18’) than the cold component (FWHM = 11’). The Westerbork data (Fig. 1b) show, that the extent of the cold component (FWHM = 6’) is much smaller at high angular resolution.

The total H i mass can by calculated by summing up all Gaussian components over the extent of the cloud and assuming a distance. The H i mass scales quadratically with distance. The total H i mass is $`M_\text{}\text{i}`$ = 2.4$``$106 (d/200kpc)2 M. The component with the large velocity dispersion accounts for 52% of the total H i mass. 24% of this material (12.5% of the total H i mass) is located in the tail $`\alpha _{2000}<`$ 12h12m.

### 3.3 The distribution of temperature and turbulence

Obviously, there are two gas-phases, one centered at FWHM = 5 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and one centered at FWHM = 18 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ . This corresponds to Doppler temperatures of $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ = 540 K and $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ = 7000 K. These are only upper limits to the kinetic temperatures, as unresolved small scale structure and turbulence also contribute to the Doppler temperature. The Westerbork observations from Braun & Burton (bb2000 (2000)) show, that the compact cores have velocity dispersions of the order FWHM = 2 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ or $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ = 85 K at an angular resolution of 28”. A detailed analysis of the small-scale structure is not possible with the Effelsberg data. Nevertheless, the comparison of the Westerbork and Effelsberg data (Fig. 1b) shows that the general distribution of the cold component can be studied, especially with respect to velocity gradients (see Sect. 3.4).

The warm component is not affected by unresolved small-scale structure. However, the data can not distinguish between an increase in turbulence or temperature. The velocity dispersion of the warm gas-phase is increasing from FWHM $``$ 10 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ to FWHM $``$ 20 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ over the extend of the cloud and remains approximately constant in the tail (see Fig. 2c). This corresponds to an increasing Doppler temperature from $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ = 2000 K to $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ = 10000 K in the tail. The slice perpendicular to the cloud shows, that the velocity dispersion increases significantly towards the border of the cloud (see Fig. 2d). For this particular slice, the Doppler temperature increases from $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ 5000 K in the centre to $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ 11000 K at the border of the cloud.

### 3.4 The velocity field

The interpretation of the velocity gradients in the local-standard-of-rest frame is difficult, because the angle between the solar velocity vector and the line of sight varies over the extend of the cloud and therefore introduces a velocity gradient that is not related to the HVC itself. The effect is of the order 2 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ per degree and can be removed by converting the velocity into the galactic-standard-of-rest frame.

Fig. 2e shows the parameter mean velocity (vGSR) along a slice in direction of the tail. There is a regular velocity gradient in the cold phase. This gradient can be easily explained by the same type of projection effect that urged us to convert the radial velocity into the galactic-standard-of-rest-frame: the angle between the line of sight and the HVC velocity vector is changing over the extend of the HVC. This effect can be used to derive the three-dimensional velocity of the HVC. The gradient should be of the form $`v_{\mathrm{GSR}}`$ = $`v_{\mathrm{total}}`$ cos($`\alpha `$ \+ $`\alpha _0`$). The result of a least-squares fit is also shown in Fig. 2e. The total space-velocity is $`v_{\mathrm{total}}`$ = 225$`\pm `$18 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the angle between the line of sight and the HVC velocity vector is $`\alpha _0`$ = 108$`\stackrel{}{.}`$4$`\pm `$1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5, i.e. the direction of proper motion is almost perpendicular to the line of sight in the direction of the sharp velocity gradient. This result indicates, that the tail is trailing the HVC.

The spectrum in Fig. 1c shows, that the warm component has a lower radial velocity than the cold component. It is remarkable, that this is true for all spectra where a two component fit was feasible. This result indicates that the two gas-phases are separating from each other. The difference between the radial velocities of the warm and the cold component is minimal where the column density of the warm gas-phase has its maxima.

The absolute value $`|v_{\mathrm{LSR}}|`$ of the radial velocity is steeply decreasing in the first part of the tail and increasing towards the end (Fig. 2e). The slice perpendicular to the cloud shows, that $`|v_{\mathrm{LSR}}|`$ decreases significantly towards the borders of the cloud (see Fig. 2f).

## 4 Summary and Discussion

Our Effelsberg H i observations of HVC125+41–207 show, that the compact HVC has a cometary appearance. The H i gas gets warmer and/or more turbulent to the H i boundaries of the cloud as well as towards the tail. The radial velocity $`|v_{\mathrm{LSR}}|`$ of the H i gas is decreasing towards the border of the cloud and in the tail. It is remarkable that the warm gas-phase always shows lower $`|v_{\mathrm{LSR}}|`$ than the cold phase.

These results demonstrate that HVC125+41–207 is definitively not a relaxed cloud in equilibrium. The observational results suggest that the warm gas-phase is stripped off the main body of the HVC. This kind of behaviour is for instance expected from a ram-pressure interaction: the diffuse warm gas has a much larger cross-section for the ram-pressure interaction than the small, dense clumps of the cold medium.

Santillan et al. (santillan (1999)) for instance performed MHD simulations to explain head-tail HVCs at $`z`$-height of a few kpc. They were successful in explaining head-tail structures. The tail consists of material that was stripped off the main body (i.e. the head) of the cloud. Their models showed that the evolution of the shocked layer generates a tail that oscillates, creating vorticity and turbulent flows along its trajectory. This explains the velocity structure in the tail of HVC125+41–207 with increasing $`|v_{\mathrm{LSR}}|`$ to the end of the tail.

It is quite easy to produce a head-tail structure in the lower Galactic halo. Nevertheless, it might be possible to explain the existence of head-tail structures even in the intergalactic space of the local group. Brüns et al. (2000a , 2000b ) showed that there are head-tail HVCs in the Magellanic Stream and the Leading Arm. New magnetohydrodynamical simulations considering the critical velocity effect (Konz, priv. comm.) explain head-tail structures if the ambient medium has a plasma density of the order $`n`$ 10-5 cm-3 and a magnetic field $`|B|`$ of the order of a few $`\mu `$G.

The Westerbork data (Fig. 1b) show one remarkable condensation ($`\alpha _{2000}`$ = 12h26m50s, $`\delta _{2000}`$ = 75°31’26”) with a brightness temperature $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ = 75 K and a velocity width of FWHM = 2 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ , i.e. a Doppler temperature of $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ = 85 K. This clump has therefore a kinetic temperature $`T_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ 80 K. The clump has an apparent column density of N$`{}_{\text{}\text{i}}{}^{}=`$ 4.5$``$1020 cm-2, but due to optical depth effects a real column density of the order N$`{}_{\text{}\text{i}}{}^{}`$ 1$``$1021 cm-2. We derive a distance to HVC125+41–207 assuming that the clump is virialized and in pressure equilibrium with the ambient medium. If we consider an isothermal sphere of uniform density without magnetic fields, we can use the equation (Spitzer spitzer (1978))

$`4\pi R^3P_0={\displaystyle \frac{3MkT}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{3GM^2}{5R}}`$ (1)
$`R`$ is the radius, $`M`$ the mass and $`T`$ the temperature of the sphere. $`P_0`$ is the pressure of the ambient medium and $`\mu `$ the mean mass per particle within the sphere. The mass $`M`$ is given by $`M`$ = 4/3 $`\pi `$ $`R^3`$ $`\rho `$, with $`\rho `$ = $`\mu `$ N$`_\text{}\text{i}`$ (2$`R`$)-1, where the column density of the clump is N$`_\text{}\text{i}`$ = 1$``$1021 cm-2. The radius $`R`$ = 0.5 $`\theta `$ $`d`$ is calculated by the observed angular diameter of the clump $`\theta `$ = 90” and the distance $`d`$. The external pressure is $`P_0`$ = k $`T_w`$ N$`_{\text{}\text{i},\mathrm{w}}`$ $`d^1`$ $`\theta _\mathrm{w}^1`$, where the column density is N$`_{\text{}\text{i},\mathrm{w}}`$ = 2$``$1019 cm-2, the temperature is T$`{}_{w}{}^{}<`$ 3000 K, and the angular diameter of the ambient medium is $`\theta _\mathrm{w}`$ = 18’. Inserting into Eq. 1 and solving for the distance $`d`$ gives

$`d={\displaystyle \frac{15k(N_\text{}\text{i}T\theta \theta _\mathrm{w}^1N_{\text{}\text{i},\mathrm{w}}T_\mathrm{w})}{G\pi \theta N_\text{}\text{i}^2\mu ^2}}`$ (2)
The unknown values in Eq. 2 are $`T_\mathrm{w}`$ and $`\mu `$. Assuming $`\mu `$ = 1.25 mH, i.e. including the normal amount of Helium, but without any molecular matter, we get possible distances between $`d(T_\mathrm{w}`$ = 3000 K) = 126 kpc and $`d(T_\mathrm{w}`$ = 100 K) = 134 kpc. Any molecular gas content would lower the derived distance, e.g. $`\mu `$ = 2 mH gives $`d`$ $``$ 50 kpc.
The density of the ambient WNM at $`d`$ = 130 kpc is $`n_\mathrm{w}`$ = 9.8$``$10-3 cm-3 with pressure $`P_0<`$ 29.5 K cm-3.

In the remaining part of this section, we will discuss implications on the intergalactic medium (IGM). Our Effelsberg data demonstrate, that there must be an ambient medium, which is responsible for the head-tail structure. The observed pressure is $`P_0`$ = $`P_{\mathrm{ram}}`$ \+ $`P_{\mathrm{IGM}}`$. The ram pressure is $`P_{\mathrm{ram}}`$ = 0.5 $`\rho _{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ $`v^2`$ = $`P_0`$$`P_{\mathrm{IGM}}<`$ 30 K cm-3. An upper limit to the density of the ambient medium $`\rho _{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ can be calculated using the space velocity of $`v`$ = 225 $`\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ determined in Sect. 3.4: $`\rho _{\mathrm{IGM}}<`$ 1.6$``$10-32 kg cm-3 = 240 M kpc-3. With $`\rho _{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ = 1.25 mH $`n_{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ follows that $`n_{\mathrm{IGM}}<`$7.8$``$10-6 cm-3.

Assuming that the pressure of 2 K cm-3, derived by Sembach et al. (sembach (1999)) for highly ionized high-velocity clouds, is valid for the IGM in general, the temperature of the IGM can be calculated. Using $`P`$ k-1 = 2.3 $`n_{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ $`T_{\mathrm{IGM}}`$, where 2.3 is the number of particles per hydrogen atom for an ionized medium including helium, gives $`T_{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ $`>`$ 1.1$``$105K. $`T_{\mathrm{IGM}}`$ is sufficiently high to keep the IGM ionized (neutral gas would have been detected in absorption against quasars) and low enough to be undetectable in X-rays.

However, the derived distance of 130 kpc is based on the assumption of equilibrium and no molecular gas content. As the HVC is obviously interacting with the ambient medium, equilibrium conditions are not really justified. The HVC could be located at larger distances having a collapsing clump that might form stars in future – at a distance of a Mpc the H i mass is about 40 times larger than the virial mass. On the other hand, if the clump contains a significant amount of molecular matter, this will localize the HVC in the Galactic Halo.

Our observations demonstrated that both, deep integrated observations of the warm neutral medium and high resolution observations of the cold neutral medium are necessary to obtain further insights to the nature of HVCs. Deep H i observations of a number of compact HVCs are planed for 2001. These observations will help to determine general parameters in compact HVCs.

###### Acknowledgements.

Part of this work was supported by the German *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG* project number ME 745/19. We thank our referee W.B. Burton for constructive comments and R. Braun & W.B. Burton for kindly providing their Westerbork data.


text:
# Untitled Document

Unified Description of Plausible Cause and Effect of the Big Bang
D.C. Choudhury
Department of Physics, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York 11201 USA

e-mail: dchoudhu@duke.poly.edu

> Plausible cause and effect of the big bang model are presented without violating conventional laws of physics. The initial cosmological singularity is resolved by introducing the uncertainty principle of quantum theory. We postulate that, preceding the big bang at the end of the gravitational collapse, the total observed mass including all forms of energy of the universe condensed into the primordial black hole (PBH) in a state of isotropic and minimal chaos (i.e., nearest to the absolute zero temperature). The frozen energy of the collapsed state is quantized such that each quantum of frozen energy (the cosmic particle) is characterized by the fundamental constants of the general theory of relativity and of quantum theory. The minimum size and minimum lifetime of the cosmic particle are estimated within the framework of the uncertainty principle. It is considered that these cosmic particles are bosons with intrinsic spin zero. The minimum size and thermodynamic properties of the PBH are estimated within the framework of the Bose-Einstein statistics by taking into account the total observed mass of the universe. The mechanism of the big bang is given and the currently accepted Planck temperature at the beginning of the big bang is predicted. The critical mass density, the mean mass density, and the missing mass are calculated as a function of the Hubble time of expansion. Our calculations show that the universe is closed but expanding. However, the universe remains inside the event horizon of the primordial black hole.
>
> Subj- class: cosmology: theory - pre- big bang physics; post- big bang effect.

1. INTRODUCTION

Our current understanding of the evolution of the universe is primarily based on the standard big bang model, an explosion at Planck temperature $`10^{32}`$ K (Planck 1899). The important observational evidences in support of this model are: (i) The universe is undergoing an isotropic homogeneous expansion, a fact first established by Hubble (1929). This has been experimentally verified in almost all the studies of thousands of galaxies across the universe with minimal uncertainty; (ii) Since the early 1940’s nuclear physics began to play a significant role in cosmology when it was realized (Gamow 1946, 1948; Alpher, Bethe, & Gamow 1948; Alpher, Follin, & Herman 1953) that if our universe began with extremely high densities and temperatures in excess of $`10^{12}`$ K, nucleosynthesis would have occurred. The calculated primordial abundances of the light elements D, 3He, 4He, and 7Li, in the early universe, within the framework of nuclear reactions and the standard model of particle physics, are in strikingly good agreement with the observed data (Boesgaard & Steigman 1985); (iii) The presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), first discovered by Penzias & Wilson (1965); followed by the most spectacular confirmation of its existence which came from the observation of the 2.72-K CMBR of NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) Satellite, in the early 1990s (e.g., Mather et al. 1990, 1994; Kogut et al. 1992; Fixsen et al. 1994). These observations confirming the big bang evolution of the universe are consistent with the predictions of the standard big bang model which represents the physically acceptable solutions (Friedmann 1922; Robertson 1935; Walker 1936; Weinberg 1972,1993; Kolb & Turner 1994) of Einstein’s equations of the general theory of relativity. Seemingly, the standard big bang model is superior to currently popular theories such as superstring theory (Greene 2000) and the inflationary cosmological model (Guth 1997) in accounting for the observational data associated with the physical universe. Nevertheless, the occurrence of cosmological singularity preceding the big bang in the framework of the general theory of relativity, as shown by the theorems of Penrose (1965), and of Hawking & Penrose (1970), raises some of the deepest questions concerning the initial singularity, a state of infinite density and temperature.

The problem of cosmological singularity arises because we are apparently forced to choose only one of the two mutually complementary fundamental theories of nature. One is Einstein’s general theory of relativity based on the classical concept of continuous space-time mode of the description of nature, the other is quantum theory based on Planck’s discovery (1899) of the universal quantum of action ($`h`$), which introduces discontinuities into the law of nature, contrary to the fundamental principle of classical physics. The general theory of relativity provides fundamental aspects of our understanding of natural phenomena in the domain of the large-scale structure of the universe and quantum theory in the domain of the microscopic structure of the matter. These two theories, pillars of modern physics, hitherto have been irreconcilable because of the basic reasons presented above. Consequently, to explore the physics of the big bang and to resolve the problem of the initial cosmological singularity, the unphysical state of the infinite density and temperature of the general theory of relativity, we present a physically acceptable state of finite density and temperature preceding the big bang. This is achieved by taking into account the effects of the uncertainty principle of quantum theory because of its significant role in the domain of infinitesimally small region of space-time. Therefore it is proposed that at the end of the gravitational collapse of the universe, without violating the uncertainty principle, there remained an immensely large amount of cold condensed energy of finite density and temperature around the initial singularity preceding the big bang in a spherically symmetrical state, which we call the primordial black hole (PBH). In other words, the primordial black hole is the modified initial singularity preceding the big bang.

In Sect.2, we present the basic assumptions, and the method of quantization of the cold condensed energy of the PBH, based on the principle of dimensional analysis and the reciprocity relation, which is analogous to that of the unitarity condition of quantum theory. In Sect.3, we present properties of the PBH in three parts: 3.1, properties of the quantized energy (i.e., the cosmic particle); 3.2, estimation of the minimum size of the modified initial singularity (i.e., PBH); and 3.3, thermodynamic properties of the (PBH). In Sect.4, a plausible mechanism of the big bang, an explosion, analogous to that of a nuclear explosion, is offered. In Sect.5, we present the results of our calculations for critical mass density, mean mass density, missing mass as a function of the Hubble time of expansion (i.e., $``$ the age of the universe) based on our initial conditions. Furthermore we show that the universe is expanding and closes at the boundary of the event horizon of the PBH and presumably will recollapse. Finally in Sect.6, a summary and conclusions are given.

2. QUANTIZATION OF ENERGY

We postulate that during the process of the gravitational collapse of the universe, in the domain of the infinitesimally small region of space-time around the initial singularity, the general theory of relativity breaks down because such a small region belongs to the realm of quantum theory. Consequently, without violating the uncertainty principle, there remained an immensely large and finite density of cold condensed energy (PBH) in a spherically symmetrical state. According to Hawking (1988), “the higher the mass of the black hole, the lower the temperature (p.105); a black hole with a mass a few times that of the sun would have a temperature only one ten millionth of a degree above absolute zero” (p.108). Therefore, even though we cannot know the internal temperature of the black hole, we believe that it is reasonable to postulate that the temperature of the PBH (collapsed state of the universe) with a mass of $`10^{24}`$ times that of the sun would have had a temperature of $``$ absolute zero. Our reasoning for this postulate is consistent with Penrose’s argument based on thermodynamic considerations that the universe was initially very regular (i.e., in a state of zero entropy); Chandrasekhar (1990) likewise agreed with Penrose’s view, contrary to those who hold that the chaos at the initial singularity was maximal.

The energy of the collapsed state of the universe (PBH) is quantized in such a manner that each quantum of mass (frozen energy) is characterized by the fundamental constants of the general theory of relativity and of quantum theory (namely $`G,\mathrm{},c`$). For this purpose the principle of dimensional analysis and the reciprocity relation, analogous to that of the unitarity condition of quantum theory, are incorporated into our method of quantization so that their physical properties must be independent of the units in which they are measured and also must have lowest value for cosmic unit of mass. Since the dimensions of $`G,\mathrm{},c`$ and mass ($`M`$) are known, the only simplest dimensionless combinations which can be formed of them are $`GM^2/\mathrm{}c`$ and $`\mathrm{}c/GM^2`$. Therefore they must satisfy the following condition:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}c}{GM^2}=\frac{GM^2}{\mathrm{}c}.$$

The only physical solution out of the four solutions $`\pm (\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ and $`\pm i(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ for $`M`$ of the above relation, we have chosen the real positive value for the mass $`M`$:

$$M=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{G}\right)^{1/2}2.2\times 10^5\mathrm{gm}.$$

This is the *lowest* mass of the quantized frozen energy which we call the cosmic particle. The magnitude of this mass is identical to that of Planck’s mass which he derived from his theory of black body radiation (Planck 1899). Although the values of their masses are the same, their physical properties are entirely different. One is an elementary quantum of frozen energy which has only rest mass while the other is the largest quantum of radiation energy which has zero rest mass. The intrinsic spin of this cosmic particle is considered to be zero because: (i) The method of quantization of frozen energy is independent of any spin; (ii) The method is purely classical and the intrinsic spin of any particle is an internal degree of freedom which has no classical analogue; (iii) If this particle had an intrinsic spin, it would not have the lowest cosmic unit of mass, rather its lowest mass would be increased by an amount equivalent to the rotational energy of its intrinsic spin; and finally (iv) Its shape must be perfectly spherical because it is in a state of absolute zero temperature and lowest energy state. Therefore, we conclude that most likely its intrinsic spin is zero and it is a boson.

3. PROPERTIES OF PRIMORDIAL BLACK HOLE

3.1 Properties of quantized particles

The minimum size and minimum lifetime of the quantized cosmic particles, each of mass, $`M=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$, are determined within the framework of the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg 1927). According to this principle, it is impossible to determine precisely and simultaneously the values of any pair of canonically conjugate pairs $`(q_r,p_s)`$ pertaining to a system and satisfying the usual commutation rules

$$[q_r,p_r]=i\mathrm{};[q_r,p_s]=0\mathrm{for}rs;[q_r,q_s]=0;\mathrm{and}[p_r,p_s]=0.$$

In quantitative terms this principle states that the order of magnitude of the product of uncertainties in the measurement of two variables must be at least Planck’s constant $`h`$ divided by $`2\pi `$ ($`\mathrm{}=h/2\pi `$). Therefore, we should have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{},$$

where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are canonically conjugate to each other in the classical Hamiltonian sense. Profound implications of the uncertainty principle in physical terms are presented in complementarity principle (Bohr 1928). In a four-dimensional space-time, coordinates of a particle and its corresponding components of energy-momentum, the uncertainty relations are:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p_x\mathrm{};\mathrm{\Delta }y\mathrm{\Delta }p_y\mathrm{};\mathrm{\Delta }z\mathrm{\Delta }p_z\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{}.$$

$$\mathrm{Let}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{min}=(\mathrm{\Delta }y)_{min}=(\mathrm{\Delta }z)_{min}L_{min},$$

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }p_x)_{max}=(\mathrm{\Delta }p_y)_{max}=(\mathrm{\Delta }p_z)_{max}P_{max}=Mc,$$

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }t)_{min}\tau _m\mathrm{and}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)_{max}E=Mc^2,$$

therefore:

$$L_{min}\frac{\mathrm{}}{Mc}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}G}{c^3}\right)^{1/2}1.6\times 10^{33}\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{and}$$

$$\tau _m\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{Mc^2}\right)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}G}{c^5}\right)^{1/2}5.3\times 10^{44}\mathrm{sec}.$$

$`L_{min}(L)`$ and $`\tau _m`$ are interpreted as the minimum size of localization and minimum lifetime (time scale) of the quantized cosmic particle. It is significant that the values of Planck’s mass, length, and time (Planck 1899) are identical to those of the mass, size, and minimum lifetime of the cosmic particle obtained in the present investigation. However, we demonstrate later in this article, that they are entirely different in their properties and these different physical properties of the cosmic particle play the most important role in the big bang theory. Thus our results provide new significance into Planck’s system of units and show that these units are fundamental not only in the theory of black body radiation, in the theory of unification of fundamental interactions, and in the theory of superstrings, but also in the theory of the big bang origin of the universe.

3.2 Structure of the modified initial singularity (PBH)

The constituents of the modified initial cosmological singularity (PBH) are cosmic particles, each of mass, $`M=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$, and minimum size of localization, $`L_{min}=(G\mathrm{}/c^3)^{1/2}`$. These particles are bosons and obey the Bose-Einstein statistics (Bose 24; Einstein 1924,1925a). Consequently, without violating the uncertainty principle of quantum theory and putting all the Bose-Einstein particles in the lowest energy state as $`T0`$, the maximum density of matter, $`\rho _{max}`$, in the Primordial black hole (PBH) is given as a function of $`G,\mathrm{}`$, and $`c`$:

$$\rho _{max}=\frac{3}{4\pi }\left(\frac{c^5}{\mathrm{}G^2}\right)1.2\times 10^{93}\mathrm{gm}/\mathrm{cm}^3.$$

This result is based on the assumption that each particle has a hard repulsive core of radius $`10^{33}`$ cm, consistent with the uncertainty principle, surrounded by an attractive gravitational force.

The minimum volume and the minimum size $`(r_{min})`$ of the structure of the modified initial singularity are determined taking the total mass of the universe to be about $`5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gms: This estimation of mass is based on a typical cosmological model without cosmological constant, compatible with astronomical observations and with Einstein’s conception of cosmology (Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973). We have already estimated the mass density to be about $`10^{93}`$ gm/cm3 which together with the total mass of the universe leads to the minimum volume $`4.76\times 10^{37}`$ cm3 and the minimum size of the radius ($`r_{min}`$) $`4.8\times 10^{13}`$ cm, about one hundred thousandth of the size of an atom. These results are significant because they provide a physical interpretation of the initial cosmological singularity predicted by the general theory of relativity. It is not a mathematical point but it has a finite structure of the order of $`10^{12}`$ to $`10^{13}`$ cm; and it is not a ’state’ of infinite density but of finite density of the order of $`10^{93}`$ gm/cm3. Nevertheless, the distance of the order of $`10^{13}`$ cm is remarkably close to singularity and the matter density of the order of $`10^{93}`$ gm/cm3 can be considered immensely large and still finite.

3.3 Thermodynamic properties of the PBH

From the available information about the temperatures of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes (Hawking 1988), and as well as from Penrose’s argument (Chandrasekhar 1990) we infer, as stated in Sect.2, that the temperature of the PBH goes to zero in its final collapsed state. To calculate the entropy of this system we utilize Boltzmann’s relation between the entropy $`S`$ and thermodynamic probability $`W`$:

$$S=k_\beta \mathrm{ln}W+S_{}$$

where $`k_\beta `$ and $`S_{}`$ are Boltzmann’s and integration constants respectively. The first term, $`k_\beta \mathrm{ln}W`$ is interpreted as the internal entropy of the matter present inside the PBH and $`S_{}`$ as the external entropy but within the boundary of the surface area of the event horizon which is inaccessible to an exterior observer. Since the quantized matter inside the PBH consists of bosons, its properties can be described by Bose-Einstein statistics. Therefore the probability $`W`$ can be written as (Einstein 1924,1925a):

$$W=\underset{s}{}\frac{\left(N^s+Z^s1\right)!}{N^s!\left(Z^s1\right)!}.$$

Where $`N^s`$ are the number of particles and $`Z^s`$ are the number subcells in the s-th cell. We have pointed out above, all N bosons go into the lowest energy state as $`T0`$, in this limit $`N^s=0`$ for all other cells. Therefore $`W1`$, $`k_\beta \mathrm{ln}W0`$, and $`SS_{}`$. Consequently the internal entropy of PBH $`0`$ as $`T0`$. This result is consistent with the prediction of Einstein in 1925 that B-E gas satisfies the third law of thermodynamics (Einstein 1925b; Pais 1982).

The entropy $`S_{}`$, inaccessible to an exterior observer, is calculated within the framework of the theory of black hole entropy based on the second law of thermodynamics and information theory developed by Bekenstein (1973). Therefore

$$S=S_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{4\pi }\right)k_\beta c^3\mathrm{}^1G^1A$$

where $`A`$ is the surface area of the event horizon of the PBH corresponding to the Schwarzschild’s radius $`R_{Sch}=2GM/c^2`$ and $`A=16\pi M^2G^2/c^4`$. The estimated value of the entropy of PBH is found to be $`1.32\times 10^{107}ergK^1`$ which is extremely large as expected.

Finally the internal pressure in the final phase of the gravitational collapse (PBH) is evaluated within the framework of correspondence principle (Bohr 1923) and Newton’s gravitational theory, assuming that the pressure inside the PBH is generated by an immense, attractive gravitational force alone. At a distance $`r`$ from the center of PBH, the pressure $`P(r)`$ is given by:

$$P(r)=\frac{2\pi }{3}G\rho _{max}^2\left(r_{min}^2r^2\right);rr_{min},$$

where $`\rho _{max}`$ and $`r_{min}`$ are the maximum matter density and minimum radius of the (PBH) respectively. The maximum pressure when $`r0`$, at the center, $`P(r0)`$ is calculated using the earlier estimated values of $`\rho _{max}1.2\times 10^{93}`$ gm/cm3 and $`r_{min}4.8\times 10^{13}`$ cm. The result is $`P(r0)5\times 10^{154}`$ dynes/cm2, indeed extremely large.

4. POSSIBLE MECHANISM OF THE BIG BANG

Based on our knowledge of nuclear fission and nuclear explosives, we give a simplified plausible account of the mechanism of the big bang. Just as the salient features of the fission of a nucleus, say uranium by slow neutrons, have been fully interpreted in terms of the liquid drop model, originally by Bohr & Wheeler (1939); subsequently, this information has been successfully utilized in the design of various types of explosives – from nuclear fission to nuclear fusion hydrogen bombs. The basic design of a nuclear implosion bomb (Krane 1987), consists of a solid spherical subcritical mass of the fissionable material (e.g.,235U or 239Pu) surrounded by a spherical shell of conventional chemical explosives. An initiator at the center provides neutrons to start a chain reaction. When the conventional explosives are detonated in exact synchronization, a spherical shock wave compresses the fissionable material into a supercritical state, resulting in an explosion. Now we illustrate that many of these basic characteristics of a nuclear fission bomb are naturally present in PBH.

In the present instance: (1) the PBH which consists of unstable quantized cosmic particles (bosons) is analogous to the solid spherical subcritical mass of the fissionable material; (2) the vacuum energy fluctuations caused by the uncertainty principle of quantum theory surrounding the PBH (within the boundary of its event horizon) can produce results similar to those of the conventional explosives surrounding the fissionable material of the bomb; (3) the unstable cosmic particles, each of Planck’s mass, are analogous to the nuclei of the fissionable material; and (4) the constraint of uncertainty principle and the maximum gravitational pressure at the innermost central region of PBH may trigger the explosion (big bang) analogous to that of the initiator at the center of the bomb which provides neutrons to begin the chain reaction resulting in explosion. In an explosion of a nuclear fission bomb, only a very small fraction of mass of each nucleus of fissionable material is transformed into kinetic energy while in the explosion of the PBH, total mass ($`M2.2\times 10^5`$ gms) of each unstable cosmic particle is converted into kinetic energy resulting in temperature of $`10^{32}`$ K, the currently accepted temperature at the beginning of the big bang. The total mass of the PBH consisting of nearly $`10^{61}`$ cosmic particles, each of mean lifetime (decay rate) of the order of $`\tau _m5.3\times 10^{44}`$ sec, is transformed into kinetic energy $`10^{77}`$ erg, practically in less than $`10^{40}`$ second resulting in the biggest explosion, the big bang. In the following section, we examine the aftermath of the big bang.

5. THE COSMIC MEAN MASS DENSITY AND THE HUBBLE TIME OF EXPANSION

Our discussions of the cosmic mean mass density and the Hubble time of expansion are based on the assumptions that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Further, Einstein’s cosmological principle requires that the world view of any observer relative to himself must have spherical symmetry about himself. Therefore let us consider a sphere of galaxies of radius $`R(t)`$ with the observer at the origin. According to a theorem of Newton which remains valid also in the framework of general theory of relativity as shown by Birkhoff (1927); the total energy $`E`$ of a particle of mass $`m`$ on the surface of the sphere of radius $`R(t)`$ with a uniform mass density $`\rho (t)`$ is (Weinberg 1972, p.475):

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m{\displaystyle \frac{\left|X(t_{})\right|^2}{R^2(t_{})}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{dR(t)}{dt}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}\rho (t)R^2(t)\right]`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m{\displaystyle \frac{\left|X(t_{})\right|^2}{R^2(t_{})}}R^2H^2\left[1\mathrm{\Omega }\right],`$
where $`H=\dot{R}/R`$ (where $`\dot{R}dR/dt`$), is the Hubble constant which determines the expansion rate of the universe; the total energy, $`E`$, remains constant as the universe expands: and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the ratio of the density $`\rho `$ to the critical density $`\rho _c`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\rho }{\rho _c};\mathrm{and}\rho _c\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}.$$
(2)
The equation (1) is equivalent to the following Friedmann equation of the cosmology, a solution of Einstein’s equations of the general theory of relativity without the cosmological constant, based on the Robertson-Walker metric (Robertson 1935; Walker 1936; Weinberg 1972; Kolb & Turner 1994)

$$k+\dot{R}^2=\frac{8\pi G\rho R^2}{3},$$

or in terms of Hubble Constant $`H`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho /\rho _c)`$:

$$k=R^2H^2[1\mathrm{\Omega }]$$
(3)
Provided the constant energy $`E`$ and the constant $`k`$ are given by the relation:

$$E=\frac{1}{2}m\frac{\left|X(t_{})\right|^2}{R^2(t_{})}k.$$
(4)
Equation (1), which is equivalent to the Friedmann Eq.(3) of cosmology, is valid for all times. However note that $`\rho `$, $`\rho _c`$, $`H`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho /\rho _c)`$ are not constant but change as the universe expands. We shall now consider three cases of Eq.(1) for the future evolution of our universe: (i) For $`k=1`$, Eq.(4) shows that the total energy $`E`$ is positive-definite, and Eq.(1) shows that the expansion velocity $`\dot{R}`$ never can go to zero, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must be less than one, consequently if the universe is presently expanding it must continue to expand forever (i.e., the universe is open); (ii) For $`k=+1`$, Eq.(4) shows that the total energy $`E`$ is negative-definite, and therefore Eq.(1) shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must always remains greater than one, then at a finite time after the big bang origin of the universe, the universe will achieve a maximum expansion radius $`R`$, the expansion velocity $`\dot{R}`$ goes to zero, and then it will begin to recollapse (i.e., the universe is closed); and finally (iii) For $`k=0`$, Eq.(4) shows that the total energy, $`E`$, of the cosmic particle is zero, and Eq.(1) for this case shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, and if the universe is presently expanding it must continue to expand forever since expansion velocity, $`\dot{R}`$, asymptotically approaches zero as $`\rho (t)R^2(t)0`$ as $`R(t)\mathrm{}`$; assuming $`\rho (t)R^3(t)`$ is constant which expresses the conservation of mass in the Newtonian considerations. From these results it is evident that the hot big bang model, more properly the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology (standard model of cosmology) does not give a definite prediction as to how the universe will end, i.e., whether the universe is open or closed. Furthermore, it does not attempt to describe what might have existed preceding the big bang and how it might have “banged”. In essence, the standard cosmological model, although the most successful model of cosmology, describes the evolution of the universe, the aftermath of the big bang, from unknown initial conditions and ends with the unknown final future of the universe.

Therefore it is of major interest to determine the critical mass density, $`\rho _c`$, the present mean mass density, $`\rho _p`$, and the ratio of the mean density to the critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=\rho _p/\rho _c`$, as a function of the Hubble time of expansion based on our postulate that all the matter in the universe, namely $`M_p5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm (Misner et al. 1973) existed preceding the big bang. We show in the Appendix that the total mass which includes all forms of energy is conserved in the standard model of cosmology. The currently popular accepted value for the Hubble constant, $`H`$, based on 15 Kilometers per second per million light year is:

$$H(6.31\times 10^{17}\mathrm{sec})^1.$$
(5)
Case I. The critical mass density, $`\rho _c`$, corresponding to the above value of $`H`$; the Hubble time of expansion, $`T_H=H^120`$ billion years; and the Hubble radius of expansion $`R=c/H1.89\times 10^{28}`$ cm is given:

$$\rho _c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}4.5\times 10^{30}\mathrm{gm}/\mathrm{cm}^3.$$
(6)
Case II. Consistent with our postulate that all matter present in the universe, namely $`M_p=5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm, existed preceding the big bang in the primordial black hole, it must remain the same after the big bang as $`R(t)`$ varies with time, as required by the law of conservation of mass (see Appendix). Consequently the mean mass density, $`\rho _p`$ in the present work, corresponding to the Hubble time of expansion $`T_H=H^120`$ billion years and the initial mass, $`M_p=5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm is:

$$\rho _p=\frac{3M_p}{4\pi c^3H^3}2.01\times 10^{29}\mathrm{gm}/\mathrm{cm}^3$$
(7)
compared to the critical mass density, $`\rho _c`$, for $`T_H`$ 20 billion years is $`4.5\times 10^{30}`$ gm/cm3. Therefore the universe must be closed, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=\rho _p/\rho _c>1`$ and it must also be expanding.

Now let us determine when the expansion of the universe stops. For this purpose we are going to prove that when $`E=0`$, in Eq.(1) or $`k=0`$, in Eq.(3), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_p=1`$ (i.e., when $`\rho _p=\rho _c`$), the expansion of the universe stops and closes.

Let $`H_{min}`$ be the minimum Hubble constant; $`R_{max}`$, the maximum radius of expansion; $`\rho _{p,min}`$, the minimum mass density; and $`\rho _{c,min}`$, the minimum mean critical mass density, then since $`\rho _{p,min}=\rho _{c,min}`$, we obtain:

$$\frac{3M_p}{4\pi R_{max}^3}=\frac{3H_{min}^2}{8\pi G};$$

or, equivalently

$$\frac{3M_p}{4\pi R_{max}^3}=\frac{3c^2}{8\pi GR_{max}^2};\mathrm{since}H_{min}=\frac{c}{R_{max}}.$$

The above relation gives:

$$R_{max}=\frac{2GM_p}{c^2}=R_{Sch},$$
(8)
where $`R_{Sch}`$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the primordial black hole (PBH). Consequently, the expansion of the universe must close at the boundary of the event horizon, $`R(t)R_{Sch}`$, of the PBH after the big bang since nothing can escape from it. This result is consistent with a mathematical proof given by Pathria (1972). Therefore the maximum Hubble time, $`T_{H,max}`$, of expansion of the universe aftermath of the big bang in the present case is:

$$T_{H,max}=H_{min}^1\frac{R_{Sch}}{c}=\frac{2GM_p}{c^3}89\mathrm{billion}\mathrm{years}.$$
(9)
Now we discuss the question of mass difference (i.e., the missing mass) as a function of the Hubble time of expansion $`t`$, between the total critical mass, $`M_c(t)`$, and the total initial mass, $`M_p`$, which must remain constant, as $`R(t)`$ varies with time consistent with the law of conservation of mass. Since the Hubble time of expansion, $`T_H=H^1(t)=R(t)/c`$, the total critical mass, $`M_c(t)`$, as a function of time $`t`$, is given by

$$M_c(t)=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3(t)\frac{3H^2(t)}{8\pi G}=\frac{c^3}{2GH(t)}.$$
(10)
Therefore the percentage of missing mass as a function of expansion time $`t`$, aftermath of the big bang is given by:

$$\frac{[M_pM_c(t)]}{M_p}10^2.$$
(11)
We now proceed to calculate the critical mass density $`\rho _c(t)`$, the present mean mass density $`\rho _p(t)`$, the critical total mass $`M_c(t)`$, and the percentage of missing mass as a function of the Hubble time of expansion, $`T_H=H^1(t)`$ by using the Equations (6), (7), (10), and (11) respectively; and also $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, the ratio of the present mean mass density $`\rho _p`$ to the critical mass density $`\rho _c`$. The results of our calculations are given in Table 1. It is clear from the Table 1 that as the universe expands, with increasing value of the Hubble time of expansion, $`T_H`$: $`\rho _c(t)`$, $`\rho _p(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p(t)`$, and the percentage of missing mass, all of them decrease. However, the total critical mass $`M_c(t)`$ increases and the initial mass $`M_p`$ remains the same consistent with the law of conservation of mass-energy. By the time the expansion closes at the boundary, $`R(t)R_{Sch}`$, of the event horizon of the primordial black hole: $`\rho 2.27\times 10^{31}`$ gm/cm3; $`M_c(t)M_p5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm; $`R(t)R_{Sch}8.4\times 10^{28}`$ cm; $`T_{H,max}89\times 10^9`$ years; and the missing mass is zero. It is also seen from the Table 1 that corresponding to the currently popular accepted value for the Hubble constant, $`H(6.31\times 10^{17}\mathrm{sec})^1`$ (i.e., the age of the universe, $`H^1=T_H20\times 10^9`$ years): $`\rho _c=4.5\times 10^{30}`$ gm/cm3; $`\rho _p=2.01\times 10^{29}`$ gm/cm3; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=4.47`$; the total critical mass $`Mc=1.278\times 10^{56}`$ gm compared to the total initial mass $`M_p=5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm (i.e., the missing mass $`77.70`$ percentage); and the universe is expanding. However, note that the universe remains inside the event horizon of the primordial black hole (i.e., the modified initial singularity).

TABLE 1

Initial mass of the PBH, $`M_p=5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm (observed mass)

$`T_H(H^1)=T_{}\times 10^9`$ years (Hubble time of expansion)

$`\rho _c=\rho _{}\times 10^{28}`$ gm/cm3 (critical density)

$`M_c=M_{}\times 10^{55}`$ gm (corresponds to critical density)

$`\rho _p=\rho \times 10^{28}`$ gm/cm3 (density in the present work)

$`M_p=M\times 10^{56}`$ gm (initial mass preceding the big bang)

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=\rho _p/\rho _c`$ \[in the present work $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is a function of $`T_H(H^1)`$\]

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}T_{}& \rho _{}& M_{}& \rho & M& \mathrm{\Omega }_p& \begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Percentage}\\ \mathrm{of}\mathrm{missing}\\ \mathrm{mass}\end{array}\\ 3& 2.006& 2.01& 59.185& 5.68& 29.50& 96.50\\ 5& 0.719& 3.19& 12.78& 5.68& 17.77& 94.40\\ 10& 0.1798& 6.387& 1.598& 5.68& 8.89& 88.75\\ 15& 0.0799& 9.581& 0.473& 5.68& 5.92& 83.13\\ 20& 0.045& 12.777& 0.201& 5.68& 4.47& 77.70\\ 30& 0.01997& 19.16& 0.0591& 5.68& 2.96& 66.30\\ 40& 0.01124& 25.6& 0.02497& 5.68& 2.22& 54.93\\ 50& 0.00719& 31.93& 0.01278& 5.68& 1.78& 43.80\\ 60& 0.00499& 38.32& 0.0074& 5.68& 1.48& 32.50\\ 80& 0.00289& 51.1& 0.0031& 5.68& 1.08& 10.03\\ 89& 0.00227& 56.8& 0.00227& 5.68& 1.00& 0.00\end{array}$$

\*89 Billion years corresponds to the Hubble time of expansion for the length of Schwarzschild radius ($`R_{Sch}/c`$) event horizon of the PBH.

Note: Initial mass-energy remains constant before and after the big bang. Expansion closed at the boundary of the event horizon. The mass density is interpreted as the total energy divided by $`c^2`$.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The big bang theory poses some of the deepest questions in physics today, for example: (1) what, if anything, preceded the big bang, and how did it happen?; and (2) how will the universe end, i.e., is the universe open, flat, or closed? To search for the most plausible physical solution, we have postulated that during the process of gravitational collapse at the infinitesimally small region of space-time, the general theory of relativity breaks down because such a small region belongs to the realm of quantum theory. Consequently, at the end of the gravitational collapse, instead of the initial cosmological singularity with infinite density and temperature, we now have an extended infinitesimally small structure of cold condensed energy (PBH) with finite density and temperature, preceding the big bang. This result has been achieved by taking into account the effect the uncertainty principle of quantum theory.

The frozen energy of the collapsed state has been quantized in such a manner that each quantum of energy (mass) called cosmic particle, is characterized by the fundamental constants, $`G`$, $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, of the general theory of relativity and quantum theory. The present method of quantization predicts four solutions, $`\pm (\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ and $`\pm i(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}`$ for the mass of the cosmic particle with intrinsic spin zero. In the present work we have chosen the real positive value for the mass of the cosmic particle, $`M=(\mathrm{}c/G)^{1/2}2.2\times 10^5`$ gms. We have also determined its minimum size of localization, $`L_{min}1.6\times 10^{33}`$ cm, and minimum lifetime $`t_m5.3\times 10^{44}`$ sec within the framework of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. It is significant that the values of Planck’s system of units: mass, length, and time, derived by Planck (1899), when neither theory of relativity nor quantum theory had been discovered, are identical to those obtained in the present work within the framework of these two fundamental theories of the twentieth century. However, they have different physical properties: In Planck’s work, mass $`M_ph\nu _{max}/c^2`$ is kinetic energy with rest the mass zero and, $`\nu _{max}`$ represents the largest frequency of his classic theory of black body radiation; length $`L_p\lambda _{min}`$, $`\lambda _{min}`$ represents the minimum wavelength of the radiation; and time $`T_p1/\nu _{max}`$, the period of vibration of wavelength $`\lambda _{min}`$ (i.e., the minimum time scale). In the present investigation, $`M`$ represents the rest mass of the quantized cosmic particle; length $`L`$($`L_{min}`$) represents the minimum size of localization of the cosmic particle; and time $`T`$($`\tau _m`$) represents the minimum lifetime (i.e., the minimum time scale) of the cosmic particle.

The above properties of the cosmic particles (bosons), constituents of the extended structure of the cosmological singularity (PBH); have been utilized to determine the physical properties of the modified initial singularity (PBH), namely: (1) the maximum matter density, $`\rho _{max}1.2\times 10^{93}`$ gms/cm3; (2) the minimum volume $`4.76\times 10^{37}`$ cm3; (3) the minimum radius, $`r_{min}4.8\times 10^{13}`$ cm; (4) the entropy, $`S1.37\times 10^{107}`$ erg$``$K-1; and (5) the maximum gravitational pressure at the center, $`P(r0)5\times 10^{154}`$ dynes/cm2, of the PBH in its final phase of the gravitational collapse state. Based on the properties of the cosmic particles and those of the PBH, we have presented in Sect.4 a most reasonable account of the mechanism of the explosion of the matter of the PBH, resulting in a temperature of $`10^{32}`$ K at the beginning of the big bang and energy evolved $`10^{77}`$ erg.

Furthermore, we have calculated the cosmic mean mass density $`\rho _p(t)`$, the critical mass density $`\rho _c(t)`$, the ratio of the mean mass density to the critical mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, and the missing mass as a function of the Hubble time of expansion $`T_H=H^1(t)`$, based on our postulate that all the matter present in the universe, namely $`M_p=5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm (Misner et al. 1973), existed preceding the big bang inside the primordial black hole (PBH). The results of our calculations are presented in Table 1. It is clear from the Table 1, that as the universe expands, with increasing value of the Hubble time $`T_H=H^1(t)`$: $`\rho _c(t)`$, $`\rho _p(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p(t)`$, and the missing mass decrease; whereas the total critical mass $`M_c(t)`$ increases and the initial mass $`M_p`$ remains the same as required by the law of conservation of mass (energy). It is relevant to point out here that the percentage of missing mass given in Table 1, is the percentage of mass difference between the initial mass $`M_p`$ and the total critical mass $`M_c(t)`$ as explained in Sect.5, Eq.(11). Consequently, if the total observed visible mass density $`\rho _{vd}(t)<\rho _c(t)`$, then the percentage of missing mass given in Table 1 will be further increased. It should be also noted that $`\rho _c(t)`$ is independent of the initial mass $`M_p`$ (i.e., the initial condition) and depends only on the Hubble time of expansion whereas $`\rho _p(t)`$ depends both on the Hubble time of expansion and the initial mass $`M_p`$.

Furthermore, it is seen from Table 1 that corresponding to the currently popular accepted value for the Hubble constant, $`H(6.31\times 10^{17}\mathrm{sec})^1`$ (i.e., the age of the universe $`H^1=T_H20\times 10^9`$ years): $`\rho _c=4.5\times 10^{30}`$ gm/cm3; $`\rho _p=2.01\times 10^{29}`$ gm/cm3; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=4.56`$; the total critical mass $`M_c=1.278\times 10^{56}`$ gm compared to the initial mass $`M_p=5.68\times 10^{56}`$ gm (i.e., the missing mass $`77.70`$ percentage); and the universe is expanding. Finally, we have shown in Sect.5, that the universe closes at $`R(t)R_{Sch}`$, Schwarzschild radius of the event horizon of the primordial black hole and presumably will recollapse (i.e., the universe always remains inside the event horizon of the PBH). Unquestionably, our results and inferences are significantly different from those of the predictions of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model of cosmology (also known as standard model of cosmology) (Friedmann 1922; Robertson 1935; Walker 1936; Weinberg 1972; Kolb & Turner 1994). It is not surprising because the standard cosmological model, although the most successful model of modern cosmology, describes the evolution of the universe, aftermath of the big bang, from unknown initial conditions and ends with the unknown final future of the universe as expected from the laws of classical and quantum theories.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank Prof. Malvin A. Ruderman and Prof. Englebert L. Schucking for their helpful discussions in the early stage of this work and in particular to Dr. William J. Marciano for his valuable comments and discussions concerning this manuscript.

APPENDIX. CONSERVATION OF MASS (ENERGY) IN STANDARD MODEL

Friedmann’s equation of energy conservation in Robertson-Walker metric of Einstein’s equations of general relativity (Weinberg 1972), 472, equation (15.1.21) is,

$$\frac{dp}{dt}R^3=\frac{d}{dt}\left\{R^3(\rho +p)\right\};$$

or, equivalently

$$d\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3\rho \right)=pd\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3\right);$$

or,

$`dM=pdV.`$ (A1)

Since in Friedmann’s equation of energy conservation, $`c=1`$, $`UE=Mc^2`$, and according to the Equipartition theorem, $`U=E=k_\beta T`$, where $`k_\beta `$ is the Boltzmann’s constant and $`T`$ is the temperature, therefore equation (A1) can also be written as,

$`dM+\frac{p}{c^2}dV=0`$ (A2)

$`dU+pdV=0`$ (A3)

$`k_\beta dT+pdV=0.`$ (A4)

Note that equation (A3) is the familiar form of the first law of thermodynamics and it represents the principle of conservation of energy for an isolated system: $`dU`$ represents the change in internal energy of the system and $`pdV`$ represents the work done by the system. They are equal in magnitude and opposite in sign.

The above equations demonstrate that during the process of the evolution of the universe, decrease of mass or energy or temperature is compensated by the increase in volume due to expansion of the universe and thus energy is conserved.

REFERENCES

Alpher R. A., Bethe H., Gamow G., 1948, Phys. Rev., 73, 803

Alpher R. A., Follin J. W. Jr., Herman R. C., 1953, Phys. Rev., 92, 1347

Bekenstein J. D., 1973, Phys. Rev. D, 7, 2333

Birkhoff G. D., 1927, Relativity and Modern Physics, 2nd ed.. Harvard Uni. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p.253

Boesgaard A. M., Steigman G., 1985, ARA & A, 23, 319

Bohr N., 1923, Z. Phys., 13,117

Bohr, N., 1928, Nature, 121, 580

Bohr N., Wheeler J. A., 1939, Phys. Rev., 56, 426

Bose S. N., 1924, Z. Phys., 26, 178

Chandrasekhar S., 1990, Selected Papers, Vol. 5, Relativistic Astrophysics. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 577

Einstein A., 1924, Sitzungsber. Phys.-Math. Kl. p.261

Einstein A., 1925a, Sitzungsber. Phys.-Math. Kl. p.3

Einstein A., 1925b, Sitzungsber. Phys.-Math. Kl. p.18

Fixsen D. J. et. al., 1994, ApJ, 420, 445

Friedmann A., 1922, Z. Phys.,10, 377; 1924, Z. Phys., 21, 326

Gamow G., 1946, Phys. Rev., 70, 572

Gamow G., 1948, Phys. Rev., 74, 505

Greene B., 2000, The Elegant Universe. Vintage Books, A division of Random House, Inc. New York; see for a detailed discussion of the superstring theory.

Guth A. H., 1997, The Inflationary Universe. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts; see for a detailed discussion of the inflationary cosmological model

Hawking S. W., 1988, A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, New York

Hawking S. W., Penrose R., 1970, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A314, 529

Heisenberg W., 1927, Z. Phys., 43, 172

Hubble E. P., 1929, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S., 15, 169

Kogut A. et al., 1992, ApJ, 401, 1

Kolb E. W., Turner M. S., 1994, The Early Universe, Paperback Edition. Addison- Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts

Krane K. S., 1987, Introductory Nuclear Physics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 521

Mather J. C. et al., 1990, ApJ, 354, L37

Mather J. C. et al., 1994, ApJ, 420, 439

Misner C. W., Thorne K. S., Wheeler J. A., 1973, Gravitation. W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, CA, p. 738

Pais A., 1982, Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 431

Pathria R. K., 1972, Nature, 240,298

Penrose R., 1965, Phys. Rev. Lett., 14, 57

Penzias A. A., Wilson R. W. A., 1965, ApJ, 142, 419

Planck M., 1899, Sitzungsberichte, Deut.Akad.Wiss.Berlin, Kl. Math.-Phys. Tech., pp440-480

Robertson H. P., 1935, ApJ, 82, 248; 1936, ApJ, 83, 187, & 257

Walker A. G., 1936, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., 42, 90

Weinberg S., 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology. John Wiley & Sons, New York; 1993, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, 2d ed.. Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins, New York