text:
# Scale invariant gravity and the quasi-static universe

## 1 Introduction

Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity has proved to be one of the most successful and enduring theories in physics, and its predictions have been verified in numerous experiments. However, it stands alone amongst field theories in that it is not scale invariant. For example, the differential form of Maxwell’s equations, which elegantly describe the electromagnetic field, do not define any intrinsic scale. Conversely, Einstein’s field equations, which describe the way that matter curves spacetime, are linked to an apparently arbitrary scale determined by the Newtonian gravitational constant, $`G`$.

This can be verified by inspection of the standard Einstein-Hilbert action for General Relativity

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G}d^4x\sqrt{g}R+d^4x\sqrt{g}L_M\left(\varphi \right)$$
(1)
In the case of a universe without matter, only the curvature term in the action will be applicable. This can readily be made scale invariant by removing the $`16\pi G`$ factor using the transformation $`g_{\alpha \beta }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2g_{\alpha \beta }`$, $`R^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2R`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a constant. Similarly, if the matter Lagrangian term is considered in isolation, it can be shown that any constituent fields that obey the Dirac equation, for example the electromagnetic field, will be also be invariant with respect to a conformal transformation. However, when the gravitational and matter terms are combined as in (1), the resulting action is no longer scale invariant.

The scale dependency inherent in General Relativity leads to an apparently fundamental scale, defined by the Planck units:

##### Planck Length

$$L_P\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}G}{c^3}}10^{35}m$$
(2)
##### Planck Time

$$T_P\frac{L_P}{c}10^{43}s$$
(3)
##### Planck Mass

$$M_P\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}c}{G}}10^8kg$$
(4)
No theory of Quantum Gravity is yet able to explain the wide disparity between the Planck scale and the atomic scales that govern the everyday world we inhabit. Whilst the magnitude of the Planck length and time scales, at $`10^{20}`$ of the corresponding atomic length and time scales, are just about reconcilable with the concept of an evolving quantum Universe, it is difficult to account for the fact that the Planck mass is $`10^{20}`$ times larger than the proton mass.

The remainder of this introductory section provides a brief historical overview of the development of alternative formulations of gravity. In Section 2 we review some of the main problems that exist in cosmology and quantum gravity, and show that these follow as a direct consequence of the lack of scale invariance in General Relativity. Section 3 introduces an alternative approach to scale-invariant gravity, based on the redefinition of the gravitational field equations using cosmological units. It is shown that the resulting dynamical equations describe a universe that can be either static or expanding, depending on the reference frame of the observer. In Section 4, some of the consequences of the scale invariant version of General Relativity described in Section 3 are examined. It is shown that the modified dynamical behaviour can satisfactorily account for the problems associated with Big Bang cosmology. Section 5 concludes by examining some of the implications of abandoning the Planck scale for the study of quantum gravity.

Numerous attempts have been made to develop a theory of gravitation that is scale invariant, and yet retains the key properties of General Relativity, such as the principle of general covariance. These can be classified according to their main approach to the problem:

* Adding a scalar field to the standard Einstein-Hilbert action
* Resorting to a higher order description of gravity in place of the Riemann tensor of General Relativity
* Modifying the behaviour of the fields that constitute the matter Lagrangian

There are also a number of hybrid theories that incorporate more than one of the above approaches.

##### Scalar-Tensor theories

Probably the best known of this class of theories is the Brans-Dicke theory . The motivation for the development of this variant of General Relativity was to create a theory of gravity that explicitly incorporated Mach’s principle, and the Dirac Large Number Hypothesis (LNH) , whilst still retaining the essential symmetric and divergence-free nature of the original Einstein field equations. Although the Brans-Dicke theory does not directly address the issue of scale invariance, it is of particular interest in the historical development of this subject as it derives from the underlying Mach’s principle: that inertial mass results from the gravitational interaction between matter and all other matter in the universe, and that the gravitational constant is itself determined by the matter distribution in the Universe, so that $`GM\mathrm{/}Rc^21`$. Accordingly, either $`G`$ or $`M`$ must vary over time as $`R`$ increases. In the introduction to , the authors remark on the fact that the metric tensor is dependent on the choice of units used in any particular representation of the gravitational field equations. The units chosen in General Relativity are such that nucleons have physical properties that are independent of location (and time).

In the Brans-Dicke theory the gravitational constant in the Einstein field equation is replaced by a scalar field $`\varphi 1\mathrm{/}G`$. In order to preserve the divergence-free nature of the LHS of the field equation, such that $`T_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=0`$, it is necessary to introduce various derivatives of the scalar field, together with a coupling constant $`\omega `$, to give the Brans-Dicke action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}R\left[\frac{\varphi R}{16\pi }_m\frac{\omega }{\varphi }_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \right]$$
(5)
Varying (5) with respect to the metric gives the modified field equation for Brans-Dicke gravity

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi }{\varphi }T_{\mu \nu }\frac{\omega ^2}{\varphi }\left(_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }_\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \varphi \right)\frac{1}{\varphi }\left(_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }^\alpha _\alpha \varphi \right)$$
(6)
It is worth noting that the scalar field $`\varphi `$ in the Brans-Dicke theory is analogous to the dilaton field $`\varphi `$ that arises in formulations of gravity derived from string theory.

Other applications of the scalar-tensor approach include the Conformal General Relativity model proposed in , and the Non-Gravitating Vacuum Energy model (NGVE) . The former incorporates a conformal invariant $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }=W^2g_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`W`$ is a dilaton scalar field described by the Penrose-Chernikov-Tagirov (PCT) action

$$I=d^4x(\widehat{g})^{1/2}R(\widehat{g})/6$$
(7)
The NGVE model features a scalar density in addition to the standard Lagrangian of General Relativity.

##### Higher order gravity theories

The standard theory of General Relativity is based on the second order Einstein-Hilbert action of (1), which is formed from the Riemann curvature tensor. An alternative form of gravity was proposed by Weyl in 1918, in which the Einstein-Hilbert action is replaced with a conformal invariant fourth order action

$$I_W=\alpha d^4x(g)^{1/2}C_{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }C^{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }$$
(8)
where $`C_{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }`$ is the conformal Weyl tensor and $`\alpha `$ is a purely dimensionless coefficient. This formulation was used as the basis for the Conformal Cosmology model developed by Mannheim . Conformal gravity possesses no intrinsic fundamental length scale. The gravitational equations must be fourth order, so standard the Einstein equation is replaced by

$$4\alpha W_{\mu \nu }=4\alpha (W_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}W_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}/3)=T_{\mu \nu }$$
(9)
where $`W_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$`W_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2g_{\mu \nu }(R_\alpha ^\alpha )_{;\beta }^{;\beta }2(R_\alpha ^\alpha )_{;\mu ;\nu }2R_\alpha ^\alpha R_{\mu \nu }+g_{\mu \nu }(R_\alpha ^\alpha )^2/2`$ (10)
$`W_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }(R_\alpha ^\alpha )_{;\beta }^{;\beta }/2+R_{\mu \nu ;\beta }^{;\beta }R_{\mu ;\nu ;\beta }^\beta R_{\nu ;\mu ;\beta }^\beta 2R_{\mu \beta }R_\nu ^\beta +g_{\mu \nu }R_{\alpha \beta }R^{\alpha \beta }/2`$ (11)
##### Modified matter Lagrangian theories

The most notable theory of this type is the steady-state model of Hoyle and Narlikar . Essentially, this involves particle masses increasing as the Universe expands, and the existence of a scalar field (the C-field) that is capable of continuously creating new particles. The creation of new matter exactly balances the decrease in matter density resulting from the expansion of the Universe in such a way that the energy density in the Universe remains constant, and the gravitational equations become scale invariant.

##### Hybrid theories

An example of a theory that combines two of the above approaches is the Scale-Covariant Theory of Gravitation proposed by Canuto et al . This incorporates an additional tensor term, together with a time dependent scalar factor, in the gravitational action. The action is then fourth order, and has similar scale invariant properties to the Weyl action.

As a generalisation, it can be said that all three of these approaches have the ability to address specific problems associated with the lack of scale invariance in General Relativity, but only at the expense of abandoning the elegance of Einstein’s original theory. Furthermore, none of these approaches is able to provide a comprehensive framework that resolves all the issues identified in the following section.

## 2 The Planck scale crisis

The objective of this section is to illustrate how the lack of scale invariance in the field equations of General Relativity leads ultimately to a range of cosmological problems, and a crisis at the Planck scale. The consequences of this scale invariance can be broadly broken down into four area:

* Cosmological dynamics
* Singularities
* Energy conservation
* Time

### 2.1 Cosmic dynamics

The dynamical behaviour of the Universe is conventionally determined by applying the Einstein field equations to the Robinson-Walker metric in order to derive the Friedman equations. Although this treatment is quite standard, and described in numerous references, e.g. , the main steps are shown here in order to highlight the point at which the assumption is made that results in the Planck scale crisis.

#### 2.1.1 The Friedman equations

Starting with the Einstein equation, derived from applying the variation principle to the Einstein-Hilbert action of (1)

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }$$
(12)
and the Robinson-Walker metric

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(13)
we can derive the first two components of the Einstein tensor

$`G_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\dot{a}^2}{a^2c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3k}{a^2}}`$ (14)
$`G_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k+2a\ddot{a}\mathrm{/}c^2+\dot{a}^2\mathrm{/}c^2}{1kr^2}}`$ (15)
The equations of motion are derived by combining (14,15) with the corresponding 00 and 11 components of the stress-energy tensor to give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3k}{a^2}}=8\pi G\rho +c^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{a^2}}=8\pi Gpc^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (17)
It is at this point that the assumption inherent in equation (12) manifests itself. Implicitly, in applying the Einstein equation, it is assumed that the energy density $`\rho `$ is measured in conventional units that are defined in terms of the atomic properties of matter, e.g. MKS units. Similarly, it is assumed that the scale of the spacetime curvature induced by this stress-energy is determined by the Newtonian gravitational constant $`G`$, expressed in the same units. By expressing the Einstein equation in this way, we are essentially saying that the scale of a cosmological phenomenon - the curvature of spacetime - is determined by behaviour of matter at atomic scales. Not only is this counter-intuitive, but as we shall see, this assumption leads directly to the problems and paradoxes that currently beset cosmology and quantum gravity. Restating equation (12) in Planck units, by setting $`G=c=1`$, does nothing to overcome this objection, assuming that we retain the direct relationship between the Planck scale and the atomic scale.

Returning to the standard derivation of the Friedman equations, since $`p`$ is small in the present epoch, and ignoring for now the cosmological constant, (17) becomes

$$\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{k}{a^2}=0$$
(18)
and (16) simplifies to

$$\frac{3\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{3k}{a^2}=8\pi G\rho $$
(19)
One solution to equation (19) for a matter dominated universe is the Einstein-de Sitter model, with

$$a(t)=a_0\left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}$$
(20)
It is conventional to define a critical energy density

$$\rho _{crit}=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}$$
(21)
and to express the energy content of the Universe as a fraction of this critical density

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\rho \mathrm{/}\rho _c$$

#### 2.1.2 Age of the Universe

From (16), and ignoring for now the cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, an expression can be derived for the age of the universe

$$t=_0^{a(t)}\frac{da}{\sqrt{8\pi G\rho _0a^3\left(t_0\right)\mathrm{/}3a\left(t\right)kc^2}}$$
(22)
which, in the case of a flat universe with $`k=0`$, evaluates to

$$t_0=\frac{2}{3}H_0$$
(23)
Current measurements of the Hubble constant from low-redshift Type Ia supernovae  give a value of $`H_0=63.1\pm 4.5kms^1Mpc^1`$. Based on this same data, the standard Big Bang theory would (with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) give a value for the age of the universe of $`t_010\times 10^9`$ years, which is at odds with astrophysical and geological evidence.

#### 2.1.3 Big Bang problems

The standard cosmological problems are well documented in a number of sources, including . We show here how they arise directly from the assumptions made in the preceding section, and also highlight an additional problem which has not previously been noted in the literature on this subject.

##### The horizon problem

The standard theory is unable to explain how regions of the Universe that had not been in contact with each other since the Big Bang are observed to emit cosmic background radiation at almost precisely the same temperature as each other.

##### The flatness problem

The fact that the observed matter density of the Universe is so close to the critical value necessary for the Universe to be closed implies that the ratio of these densities, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, must have been very close to one at the time of the Big Bang. This observation is the one of the main reasons for the widely held belief that there is probably additional hidden mass in the Universe such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is in fact equal to one in the present epoch. The standard theory is unable to provide an explanation as to why the density of the Universe should be so close to the critical value.

##### The lambda problem

Einstein originally included the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in his gravitational field equations in order to arrive at a solution that was consistent with the prevalent concept of a static Universe. The subsequent discovery that the Universe is in fact expanding has done nothing to diminish the enthusiasm on the part of many theorists for retaining this constant, in spite of Einstein’s opinion that its inclusion was his ‘biggest blunder’. Recent measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe  appear to suggest that a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be causing the expansion to accelerate. However, the expansion of the Universe would have caused any initial cosmological constant to grow by a factor of $`10^{128}`$ since the Plank epoch. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be as small as it appears today presents yet another fine tuning problem.

##### The linearity problem

For higher redshifts, the Hubble diagram can tell us whether the expansion of the Universe has undergone any periods of acceleration in its history. These results are derived using the expression for the expansion rate in terms of the redshift

$$H^2=H_0^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_M\left(1+z\right)^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_K\left(1+z\right)^2+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]$$
(24)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_M\left(\frac{8\pi G}{3H_0^2}\right)\rho _0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_0^2}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_K\frac{k}{a_0^2H_0^2}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_K=1$$

This leads to a formula for the lookback time in terms of the present value of the Hubble parameter, and the red-shift (see  for derivation)

$$t_0t_1=H_0^1_0^{z_1}(1+z)^1\left[\left(1+z\right)^2\left(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_Mz\right)z(2+z)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝑑z$$
(25)
Analysis of the data obtained from high redshift supernovae  gives best fit values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.28,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.72`$, and an age for the Universe of $`H_0^115\times 10^9`$ years. The values of the density parameters are remarkable in that they are very close to the values that would give a best fit curve corresponding to a linearly expanding universe of the same age, characterised by $`t_0=1/H_0`$. The fact that this is the case may merely be one of the many coincidences that appear to exist in cosmology. Alternatively, it could be an indication that some underlying mechanism is in place that not only ensures that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Tot}=1`$, but also adjusts the cosmological constant over time such that $`t_0=1/H_0`$ will always apply.

### 2.2 Singularities

The standard formulation of the Einstein field equations leads inevitably to the concept of singularities: regions of space where the mutual gravitational energy of a body of matter becomes infinitely large, but is contained within an infinitesimally small volume. Standard Big Bang cosmology gives rise to singularities in at least two sets of circumstances: the initial Big Bang itself, and the interior of Black Holes. The origin of the Big Bang singularity follows directly from the dynamical equations described in Section 2.1. If the expansion of the Universe were to be reversed, then it ie easy to see that there must have been a time when all the matter/energy in the Unverse was contained in a vanishingly small volume of space. The proof that all Black Holes must contain a singularity is somewhat less intuitive, and was first achieved using topological methods in the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem . The concept of a singularity is abhorrent to most physicists, involving as it does the existence of infinities. Typically, the worst implications of singularities are avoided by invoking the Planck scale, with the assumption that the standard laws of physics somehow break down at energies greater than the Planck energy, or at distances less than the Planck length. However, this get-out is intellectually far from satisfactory. There is no obvious reason why a different set of physical laws should be applicable at the Planck scale. Nevertheless, the presumption that this is the case provides one of the main motivations for the study of Quantum Gravity.

### 2.3 Energy conservation

Mach’s Principle, in its most basic form, asserts that the inertia experienced by a body results from the combined gravitational effects of all the matter in the Universe acting on it. Although a great admirer of Mach, Einstein was never entirely certain whether General Relativity incorporated Mach’s Principle. Indeed, the issue is still the subject of continued debate even today (see  for example). A stronger version of Mach’s Principle can be formulated, which states that the inertial mass energy of a matter particle is equal and opposite to the sum of the gravitational potential energy between the particle and all other matter in the Universe, such that:

$`mc^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Gm.m}{r}}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`4\pi \alpha Gm{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{R}{}}}\rho (r)r^2.{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}dr`$ (27)
where $`Rc/H`$ is the gravitational radius of the Universe, and $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant. In the case of a homogeneous and isotropic matter distribution this becomes

$$mc^2=2\pi \alpha Gm\overline{\rho }R^2$$
(28)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average matter density of the Universe.

Observational evidence suggests that the relationship $`G\rho _0\mathrm{/}H_0^21`$ is valid to a reasonable degree of precision in the present epoch. It would be particularly satisfying if this relationship were to be found to be true, as it would tie in with the concept that the Universe is ‘a free lunch’, i.e. all the matter in the Universe could be created out of nothing, with a zero net energy. However, it can be seen from (28) that rest mass energy appears to be proportional to $`1/R`$. Consequently, as the Universe continues to expand, the energy arising from mutual gravitational attraction will ultimately tend towards zero. Conversely, gravitational energy will become infinite at $`t=0`$, the initial singularity. Since there is no suggestion that the rest mass energy associated with the matter in the Universe changes over time (unless one is considering the Steady State Theory), it would appear that this neat zero energy condition in the present era is just a coincidence.

### 2.4 The problem of time

The theories of Quantum Mechanics and classical General Relativity describe physics on vastly different energy and length scales. Nevertheless, they both have some underlying factors in common. For example, they are both based on the assumption that spacetime exists in the form of a four-dimensional differentiable manifold, with a Lorentzian metric structure. However, the role of time differs significantly between the two theories. This is not itself a problem when dealing with physics that lies solely within either of these domains. The problem of time really only manifests itself when attempts are made bring these two theories together into a theory of Quantum Gravity that can be applied to physics at the Planck scale. It is at this point that the difficulty reconciling the two different descriptions of time becomes apparent. The main arguments are described in some detail by Isham and Butterfield in , and an analysis of some aspects of the problem of time is given by Kuchar̆ in . In Quantum Mechanics, time plays an essential role as a background parameter in labelling the state of a quantum system; for example the time at which a measurement is made. Conversely, time in General Relativity is more closely integrated into the very structure of the theory itself. Essentially, time provides the fourth dimension of spacetime that allows a three-dimensional manifold to possess the property of curvature. Alternatively, time can be viewed as providing the offset between successive foliations of a three-dimensional manifold. Interestingly, neither the General Relativity nor the Quantum Mechanics description of time coincides closely with our own perception, which tends to view time as a linear flow of events with a clearly defined past, present and future. These concepts do not really exist at all in General Relativity time, and only do so to a limited extent in Quantum Mechanics.

## 3 Scale invariant gravity

The Einstein-Hilbert action of General Relativity contains an implicit assumption: that the gravitational force, which determines the behaviour of matter on a cosmological scale, has a fixed relationship with the fields and forces that govern the physics of matter on atomic scales. One can see how this assumption is compatible with a particle model of gravity, in which the gravitational force is mediated by the exchange of spin-2 gravitons. However, in any theory that treats gravity as a geometrical property of spacetime, this assumption appears to be seriously flawed. Indeed, it appears to be yet another example of anthropocentric thinking, as unreasonable in its own way as the pre-Copernican assertion that the Earth lies at the centre of the Universe. It may therefore be instructive to look at the consequences of breaking this linkage between the cosmological and quantum scales.

### 3.1 The Einstein equations revisited

If we are to do away with the Planck scale, then this immediately poses the problem of what to put in its place as the appropriate scale for dealing with gravitational phenomena. Arguably the simplest answer is to hypothesise that, since General Relativity describes the behaviour of the universe as a whole, the appropriate scale is that of the Universe itself. To make this work, it is helpful to define a universe as being a four dimensional manifold possessing the properties of compactness and closure. This in turn implies that the Universe is finite in extent. It is convenient, but not essential, to assume that the Universe has the topology of a 3-sphere. It is then possible to define a length scale in which the radius of the Universe $`R`$ is taken to be unity, and the Gaussian curvature is given by $`1/R^2=1`$. Similarly, a universe is taken to have a unit mass, and to contain a finite number of matter quanta, $`N`$. For the sake of simplicity in the discussion that follows, it will be assumed that the matter content of the Universe is purely baryonic in nature. The mass of a single quantum of matter will therefore be given by $`m=1/N`$ in these new units.

The basic principle underlying General Relativity is retained: that stress-energy induces curvature in the space-time manifold. However, we now rewrite the gravitational field equations in a form that follows directly from the definition of a universe given above, so that

$$G_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }$$
(29)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the stress-energy tensor in dimensionless normalised units, with the total stress-energy density of the universe as a whole being unity. If we wish to express the stress-energy tensor and curvature radius in more conventional units related to atomic measurement scales, then we need to apply appropriate re-normalisation factors. The curvature must be multiplied by $`1/R^2`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of the Universe in our chosen length units, and the stress-energy tensor must be divided by the average stress-energy density of the universe as a whole, $`\overline{\rho }c^2`$. The gravitational field equation now takes on the form

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\frac{3}{R^2\overline{\rho }c^2}T_{\mu \nu }$$
(30)
It can be seen that by adopting this modified form for the gravitational field equations, that the space-time curvature arising from a given body of matter will depend on its scale relative to the Universe as a whole, and not solely on its mass. In the following section we shall see that this apparently minor change in definition has far reaching consequences.

It is worth noting that it is also possible to derive the modified gravitational field equation of (30) using Mach’s Principle. This is achieved by using the energy conservation equation (28) to derive an expression for the gravitational constant $`G`$, which is then substituted in the standard Einstein equation (12). This approach is described in more detail in .

### 3.2 Revised cosmic dynamics

We look first at the implications of the modified gravitational field equations for the evolution of the Universe. The equations of motion are derived by combining (14,15) with the corresponding 00 and 11 components of the modified field equation (30) to give

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{kc^2}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{c^2\rho }{a^2\overline{\rho }}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{kc^2}{a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{\overline{\rho }a^2}}`$ (32)
Since $`p`$ is small in the present epoch, (32) becomes

$$\frac{2\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}=0$$
(33)
and (31) simplifies to

$$\dot{a}=c\sqrt{\frac{\rho }{\overline{\rho }}k}$$
(34)
From this equation it can be seen that when $`\rho =\overline{\rho }`$, and the curvature $`k=1`$, the result is a quasi-static solution similar to the Einstein-DeSitter model, in that it has zero net energy and $`\dot{a}=0`$. The solution is quasi-static in that the Universe is only flat and static in a cosmological reference frame. In regions of matter concentration where $`\rho >\overline{\rho }`$, $`k`$ will effectively appear to be zero and the Universe will therefore appear to be expanding to an observer in this reference frame, with its horizon receding at the speed of light. In the remainder of this paper we shall refer to this as the Quasi-Static Universe (QSU) model.

This equation also embodies the negative feedback mechanism that ensures that $`\rho _{mat}`$ will always be equal to $`\rho _{grav}`$. If at any point $`\rho _{mat}`$ should exceed $`\rho _{grav}`$ then this will lead to a positive $`\dot{a}`$, which will tend to drive $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$. The converse will apply if $`\rho _{mat}`$ should fall below $`\rho _{grav}`$.

### 3.3 Newton’s gravitational constant

In Section 3.1 a revised gravitational field equation (30) was constructed, which did not contain the Newtonian gravitational constant $`G`$ that appears in the standard Einstein version of the equation. However, in the present epoch both these equations must reduce to the Newtonian case in the weak field limit, and must therefore be equivalent to each other:

$$\frac{3}{R^2\overline{\rho }c^2}T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu \nu }$$
(35)
giving

$$G=\frac{3c^2}{8\pi R^2\overline{\rho }}$$
(36)
and since $`t=1/H`$ in this model, we can express the gravitational ’constant’ as

$$G=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi \overline{\rho }}$$
(37)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the mean density of the Universe in standard atomic units. From this it is apparent that $`G`$ is only a constant in the same sense that $`H_0`$ is a constant, i.e. for observers in the present epoch, as defined by atomic time. Since $`\overline{\rho }t^3`$ and $`H_0^2t^2`$ we can see from (37) that $`Gt`$ in the atomic reference frame. The implications of a varying $`G`$ will be discussed in Section 4.3. It is worth emphasising that the concept of a varying gravitational constant used here differs entirely from the phenomenological approach adopted in much of the existing literature on the topic of variable $`G`$ (see  for example). The modified gravitational field equation described here is entirely free of any arbitrary constants when expressed in the appropriate natural cosmological units. The apparent gravitational constant that we observe is simply a consequence of our chosen length and mass scales relative to this cosmological scale.

### 3.4 Photon energy conservation

In Section 3.2 we saw that, in the reference frame appropriate to General Relativity, the Universe can be considered to be static. As such, the fourth dimension in General Relativity can best be viewed as being spacelike rather than timelike. If we now consider what happens to a photon that is emitted by some atomic process at a given point in time $`t_1`$. At some later time $`t_2`$ an observer linked to the atomic scale (such as ourselves) would perceive that this photon had been redshifted due to the expansion of the universe in the time $`t_2t_1`$. Based on the assumption that the energy of the photon is directly proportional to its frequency, as given by the Planck formula $`E=h\nu `$, this observer would conclude that the photon had undergone an energy loss given by $`E=h(\nu _1\nu _2)`$. If, however, the photon is considered from the cosmological reference frame then it does not undergo any change, since the universe is, by definition, static in this frame. The statement that the photon has lost energy is therefore seen to be invalid in this frame. In the absence of any relative motion between the cosmological frame and the atomic frame, the photon energy in the atomic frame must therefore also be unchanged. In other words, photons will retain the same energy that they originally possessed at the time of their emission, whether they are red-shifted (or blue-shifted) as a result of Doppler shift with respect to a given observer, climbing out of a gravitational potential, or being ‘stretched’ by the Hubble expansion of the Universe. The observable quantity that changes in the reference frame of the observer is the *power* of the photon.

Clearly, if this prediction is valid then it would have fundamental implications across many fields of physics. However the effects should be experimentally verifiable. In the field of cosmology, the most obvious place to look for evidence of photon energy conservation is in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The standard theory is based on the assumption that as the Universe expands, the energy density due to matter decreases as $`R^3(t)`$, whereas the energy density due to radiation decreases as $`R^4(t)`$ because of the additional energy loss due to the red-shift. In the QSU model this remains true when looking at the spatial energy density. However, if one is carrying out measurements of photon energy by integrating power measurements over a period of time that is long in relation to the time span of the photon wavepacket (i.e. $`t>>\lambda /c`$), then the energy will be found to decrease in proportion to $`R^3(t)`$, as for the matter case. So, for example, a CMB photon emitted when the Universe had a temperature of $`10^9K`$, with a present day temperature of $`2.9^{}K`$, would still retain its initial energy given by $`h\nu =kT`$, rather than $`10^9`$ of this value. In  an experiment is proposed for determining photon energy from measurements of the CMB.

### 3.5 About time

One of the defining features of the Einstein gravitational field equation (12) is the fact that both sides of the equation are symmetric, divergence-free, second rank tensors. The stress-energy tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ embodies the laws of energy and momentum conservation, such that $`T_{}^{\beta \alpha }{}_{;\alpha }{}^{}=0`$. However, at fist sight the RHS of the modified field equation in (37) would appear not to be divergence-free in that the expression that replaces the gravitational constant $`G`$ seems to be time dependent, i.e.

$$\frac{}{x^0}\left(\frac{3c^2}{8\pi R^2\overline{\rho }}\right)0$$
(38)
It would appear that either we have to forego the divergence-free nature of the original Einstein equation, or we have to ‘adjust’ the new equation in some way in order to retain this desirable property. The latter approach was used in the Brans-Dicke scalar-tensor theory , and subsequently in the Canuto scale-covariant theory . Although these fixes solved the immediate problem by restoring the zero-divergence property, this was done at the expense of the overall elegance of the solution, and ultimately its ability to make any useful predictions. There is, however, another more radical solution to this problem.

In order to preserve the principle of general covariance, and still retain the features of the gravitational field equations, we must conclude that the period of an atomic clock is decreasing in proportion to the cosmological scale factor. Accordingly, we substitute for $`Rct`$ in (38) with $`cn\tau `$, where $`n`$ is the time in atomic time units, and $`\tau `$ is the period of our atomic clock. Since $`na=1/\tau `$, we see that the expression in (38) is invariant with respect to $`x^0\tau `$, and hence possesses zero divergence.

This leads to a somewhat bizarre picture of time and space. From the perspective of an observer in the cosmological reference frame the Universe would appear to be static and closed. Any concentrations of matter in the Universe would appear to be shrinking in size. For an observer, such as ourselves, linked to the atomic reference frame, the Universe will appear to be flat and expanding, with the horizon receding at the speed of light. Our perception of time as a continuum is an illusion, and the time co-ordinate that we are used to is perhaps better described as subjective time. (This notion is not entirely novel; something similar was proposed by Jeans in 1931 ). The concept of two kinds of time - cosmological time and atomic time - is similar in some respects to the dual timescales postulated by Milne in his kinematic theory of gravity .

It is interesting to look at the conclusions that would be drawn by an experimenter who was somehow able to measure lengths using the cosmological scale appropriate to General Relativity, whilst still only having access to clocks based on atomic time. Being unaware that their clock was speeding up relative to cosmological time, such an observer attempting to measure the speed of light with sufficiently accurate apparatus would conclude that $`c`$ was decreasing with time. This is analogous to the concept of varying speed of light cosmology (see  for example).

## 4 Consequences and Predictions

The definition of a Universe provided in Section 3, together with its associated gravitational field equations and resultant cosmic dynamics, describes what is essentially a new paradigm. Arguably, if this can be shown to be valid, then it would supplant the current standard model that includes the Big Bang theory and provides part of the rational for pursuing a theory of Quantum Gravity. This section highlights some of the principal consequences that would follow from this new paradigm.

### 4.1 The Age of the Universe

The fact that this model describes a universe with a linearly increasing scale factor, such that $`H=1/t`$, means that there is now no disparity between the measured value of the Hubble constant and the age of the universe as derived from astrophysical and geophysical data, i.e. about $`15\times 10^9`$ years.

### 4.2 Solving the Big Bang problems

#### 4.2.1 The flatness problem

The dynamical equations in Section 3.2 clearly show that, for the Universe as a whole, the mean energy density is maintained at the critical value by a form of negative feedback mechanism. Under such circumstances, any small deviation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from unity would result in an apparent acceleration or deceleration of the expansion rate so as to bring the system back to its equilibrium state.

#### 4.2.2 The horizon problem

The QSU model requires the Universe to be spatially closed, with the topology of a 3-sphere. Because the expansion rate is constant,the horizon distance will always be equal to the radius of the 3-sphere that defines the observable Universe. As a result of this coincidence of horizon distance and the radius of the observable Universe, all regions within the Universe will have been in causal contact with each other at time $`t=0`$. This accounts for the observed homogeneity of the Universe, and provides an elegant solution to the horizon problem.

The smoothness problem, i.e. accounting for the perturbations in matter density that give rise to structure formation, is not explained directly by the QSU model. The variations in matter density that are required as a prerequisite for galaxy structure formation must therefore arise from some other mechanism.

#### 4.2.3 The cosmological constant problem

Since the QSU model accounts for the observed dynamics of the Universe without the requirement for a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, this constant can validly be omitted from the gravitational field equations. Hence the problem of how to explain a small, but non-zero, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ disappears. Similarly, the linearity problem rased in Section 2.1.3 also ceases to be relevant as the QSU model results in a linearly expanding universe without the need to achieve a delicate balance between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. As was pointed out earlier, the scale factor of a universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.28,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.72`$ increases in a very similar way to the linear expansion predicted in Section 3.2. The main divergence between the two models occurs at redshifts in the range $`0.8<z<1.8`$. In  it was shown that results from the only supernova yet discovered in this redshift range tend to favour the QSU model over the standard model.

### 4.3 Variations in the gravitational constant

In Section 3.3 it was shown that Newton’s gravitational constant, $`G`$, would be proportional to $`t`$ in the reference frame of an observer on the atomic scale. The most accurate methods currently used to measure $`\dot{G}/G`$ are generally based on the principle of measuring changes in planetary orbits within the solar system using radar ranging techniques. However, any calculation of $`\dot{G}/G`$ based on distance measurements that are ultimately derived from atomic scale phenomena will generate a null result. This is due to the fact that time measured by any atomic or gravitational clock will be changing at the same rate as the distance to be measured. Suppose at time $`t_0`$ and scale factor $`a_0`$ the measured distance is $`2r_0=cn\tau _0`$, where $`\tau _0`$ is the period of an atomic clock and $`n`$ is the number of clock ticks between the emission of a radar signal and the reception of its reflection. At some future time when the scale factor has increased to $`a`$, the measurement is repeated. If $`G(t)a`$ then the distance to the planet will have decreased so that $`r=r_0a_0/a`$. However, the period of the atomic clock will also have decreased by the same proportion, with $`\tau =\tau _0a_0/a`$. Consequently, the measured elapsed time for the radar signal round trip will still be $`n`$ ticks, i.e. there will be no apparent change in distance and therefore no change in the calculated gravitational constant.

In order to verify that $`G`$ does vary over cosmological timescales it is necessary either to measure its value directly using a Cavendish type experiment, or to turn to evidence from geophysical and astrophysical measurements. Since Cavendish experiments can currently only achieve accuracies of one part in $`10^6`$, these are not capable of detecting changes in $`G`$, which will be of the order of the Hubble factor, i.e. one part in $`10^{11}`$ per year. We must therefore look to the other sources for indirect evidence of a time-varying $`G`$. Fortunately, a useful source of geophysical data does exist in the form of the Earth’s fossil record, which can be used to track changes in the length of the Earth’s day over geological timescales. Analysis of this data in  shows that the rotation of the Earth has slowed down since the planet was formed, due to tidal interaction with the Moon. Conservation of angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system dictates that there must be a corresponding increase in the orbital angular momentum of the Moon. Conventionally, this would be achieved by an increase in the radius of the Moon’s orbit, and a corresponding decrease in the Moon’s angular velocity, together with a lengthening of the sidereal month. However, observational data suggests that the Moon is in fact accelerating in its orbit, such that the change in the length of the lunar month is consistent with a time varying gravitational constant, with $`G(t)t`$.

### 4.4 Primordial nucleosynthesis

Arguably, one of the few successes of the standard Hot Big Bang (HBB) model is its ability to predict the abundances of the light elements resulting from primordial nucleosynthesis. If the QSU model is to be of any use then it must also give predictions that are consistent with observational data. The QSU model implies that the observed power of the CMB is due to a relatively small number density of energetic photons rather than a very large number desnsity of low energy photons. If we assume that the CMB photons originally had energies of $`1MeV`$, corresponding to a temperature of $`10^{10}K`$, and that these photons have been redshifted to the currently measured temperature of $`2.7^{}K`$, this implies an energy loss of the order of $`10^{10}`$ according to the standard theory. Since the currently observed CMB photon number density, calculated according to the standard theory, happens to correspond to $`\eta _Bn_B/n_\gamma 10^{10}`$ baryons per photon, it follows that $`\eta _B1`$ in the QSU model. This is an encouraging result in that it resolves the entropy problem: there is no a priori reason why the entropy of the universe should be as high as the value determined by the HBB model. However, it presents a potential difficulty in reconciling observed light element abundances with an $`\eta _B`$ of the order of unity.

According to the HBB model, the deuterium abundance in the Universe is particularly sensitive to the baryon-photon ratio, $`\eta _B=2.7\times 10^8\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. The HBB model requires a value of $`\eta _B`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.02`$ to give the observed Deuterium abundance of about $`10^4`$. However, it has been pointed out by Aguirre in  that the set of apparently arbitrary parameters that defines the standard HBB model, including $`\eta _B,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, etc, constitutes merely one point in parameter space that can lead to a universe compatible with human life. It is, in principle, possible that other combinations of the same parameters will also give rise to viable universes. As an example, the case of the classical Cold Big Bang (CBB) is examined. This model is characterised by a baryon-photon ratio of $`\eta _B1`$. Detailed numerical simulations of primordial nucleosynthesis reactions  show that, with the appropriate values for the lepton-baryon ratio, $`\eta _\lambda `$, the CBB model is indeed able to create levels of metallicity that are compatible with those currently observed in the intergalactic medium.

The current CMB photon energy density is approximately $`10^3`$ of the observed energy density due to baryonic matter. Taking these two observations together, this suggests that we are looking for a nucleosynthesis model that results in one photon per baryon, with an energy approximately $`10^3`$ of the proton rest mass energy. The most obvious scenario is that of neutron decay, first proposed by Gamow . Initial studies of the evolution of a cold neutron Universe have been carried out using numerical simulation models. These show that the initially cold, dense, neutron cloud heats up by means of $`\beta `$ decay to form a hot proton-neutron-electron plasma at a temperature of $`10^{11}K`$. At $`10^9K`$ a range of fusion reactions become energetically favorable, and lead to the formation of deuterium, tritium, helium and other light elements, as in the standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis models . The main differences between the QSU model and the standard Big Bang is that in the former, photons play a negligible role in the exchange of energy between particles. The fact that the expansion rate is much slower also has a significant impact in that there is more time for fusion reactions to take place, and therefore an increased probability of synthesizing heavier elements than would be the case with the standard model. Nucleosynthesis in a linearly expanding Universe has also been studied by Lohiya in .

One of the most important consequences of nucleosynthesis in the QSU model is that the primordial baryonic matter is not able to cool down as the Universe expands, since there are insufficient photons to remove the entropy generated by the neutron decay and nuclear fusion processes. The primordial hydrogen and helium molecules will therefore remain in an ionized state indefinitely. This may explain why intergalactic gas clouds are currently observed to be ionized. Another feature of this model is that the $`\beta `$ decay process that causes the primordial universe to heat up will give rise to scale-invariant differences in temperature, due to the statistical nature of the neutron decay reaction. Starting from a perfectly isotropic and homogeneous state, this mechanism is therefore able to account for the observed scale-invariant temperature fluctuations in the CMB, which are explained by inflation in the standard Big Bang model.

### 4.5 The Large Number Hypothesis

A dimensionless quantity known as gravitational structure constant can be defined as the ratio of the electrostatic forces between two adjacent charged particles, e.g. protons, to the gravitational force between the particles.

$$\alpha _G=\frac{Gm_p^2}{\mathrm{}c}5.9\times 10^{39}$$
(39)
Standard cosmological theories provide no obvious explanation for such a vast disparity between the forces of gravity and electromagnetism. In 1938 Dirac  noted that the dimensionless quantity $`1\mathrm{/}\alpha _G`$ was approximately equal to the present age of the Universe measured in atomic time units (where 1 atomic time unit = $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{/}m_pc^210^{24}`$ secs). If this relationship were to be valid for all epochs then this implies that $`1\mathrm{/}\alpha _G`$ must be proportional to the age of the Universe, and therefore that $`G\left(t\right)1\mathrm{/}t`$. This postulate formed the basis of Dirac’s Large Number Hypothesis (LNH), which has subsequently provided the inspiration for a number of alternative cosmological theories. (It is worth noting that this formulation of the LNH is equivalent to the expression $`G\rho _0\mathrm{/}H_0^21`$ of Mach’s principle).

In looking at some of the implications of this relationship for observers in the atomic reference frame it is helpful to express the mean gravitational energy density of the Universe in terms of the baryon number $`N`$, and the mean baryon mass, which we shall take to be the proton mass $`m_p`$. (Note that this implies, but does not require, that any missing mass in the Universe is baryonic in nature rather than in the form of other more exotic entities).

$$\overline{\rho }=\frac{3Nm_p}{4\pi R^3}$$
(40)
The expression for $`G`$ in (36) can therefore be written as

$$G=\frac{R(t)c^2}{6Nm_p}$$
(41)
If we now substitute for $`G`$ in equation (39) for the gravitational structure constant $`\alpha _G`$, we find that

$$\alpha _G=\frac{R(t)cm_p}{6N\mathrm{}}$$
(42)
where $`R(t)`$ is the apparent radius of the Universe in the atomic reference frame, at subjective time $`t`$. From this it can be seen that $`\alpha _Gt`$ in our reference frame, i.e. the strength of the gravitational interaction between particles will increase over time in relation to their mutual electromagnetic forces. Combining (42) with the expression for atomic time we find that

$$\alpha _G=\frac{n}{N}$$
(43)
where $`n`$ is the time in atomic time units. Although this very simple result may at first seem somewhat surprising, it is perhaps to be expected, since the baryon number $`N`$ is one of the few dimensionless quantities to occur naturally in cosmology. (The fact that $`1/\alpha _Gn`$ today is purely a coincidence).

### 4.6 Planck Units

We shall now examine the effects of recasting the expressions for the Planck units using the formula for $`G`$ given in (41), and the de Broglie wavelength of a proton given by $`R\lambda _p\mathrm{}\mathrm{/}m_pc`$.

##### Planck Length

Clearly with $`G(t)t`$ the quantity known as the Planck Length in (2) will itself be a function of time such that $`L_P(t)\sqrt{t}`$. Substituting for $`G`$ using (41), and the expression for the atomic time unit, gives

$$L_P=\lambda _p\sqrt{\frac{n}{N}}$$
(44)
where $`n`$ is the time expressed in atomic time units, and $`N`$ is the baryon number of the Universe. It is interesting to note that at a time $`n=N`$ the Planck Length will have grown to a size such that $`L_P=\lambda _p`$. (Or conversely, in the cosmological frame, the proton wavelength will have shrunk below the Planck Length).

##### Planck Time

A similar set of expressions can be derived for the quantity known as Planck Time in (3), to give

$$T_P=\frac{\lambda _p}{c}\sqrt{\frac{n}{N}}$$
(45)
##### Planck Mass

From Equation (4) it is evident that the Planck Mass $`M_p(t)t^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}`$. Again, substituting for $`G`$ using (41), with $`R=\lambda _p`$ we find

$$M_P=m_p\sqrt{\frac{N}{n}}$$
(46)
And when $`n=N`$ we see that $`M_P=m_p`$.

Based on this analysis, the conclusion we must reach is that Planck Units do not represent a fundamental measurement scale that becomes relevant during the birth of the Universe and governs the realm of Quantum Gravity. Rather, they are scale factor dependent quantities which may shed some light on the behaviour of the Universe in its dying moments.

### 4.7 The ultimate fate of the Universe

In the preceding section we saw that at a time $`n=N`$ (where $`n`$ is the time in atomic time units, and $`N`$ is the baryon number of the Universe), the evolution of the scale invariant Universe reaches a state at which the Planck length is equal to the Compton wavelength of the proton, and the Planck mass is equal to the proton mass. Recalling that the Schwartzchild radius of a black hole is given by

$$R_S=\frac{2GM}{c^2}$$
(47)
and substituting for $`G`$ using (41), with $`R(t)=N\lambda _p`$ and $`M=m_p`$, we find that

$$R_S=\lambda _p$$
(48)
In other words, the scale factor of the Universe has evolved to the point where the radius of the proton exceeds the Schwartzchild radius corresponding to the proton mass. (The term proton here is used loosely to refer to whatever state baryonic matter may exist in the extreme gravitational conditions prevailing at this epoch. In practice it is more likely that protons and electrons will have recombined into atomic hydrogen by this stage, which in turn may have collapsed into neutrons in a reversal of the process described in 4.4 above). At this point the Universe effectively comes to an end as all protons simultaneously collapse into micro Black Holes - possibly to give birth to many more baby Universes according to Smolin in .

## 5 Conclusions and discussion

We have seen that, by challenging the assumption that spacetime curvature on a cosmological scale should be linked to the behaviour of fields on an atomic scale, it is possible to construct a gravitational field equation that is truly scale invariant. It has been shown that the cosmic dynamics resulting from this formulation of gravity describe a quasi-static universe, possessing a number of interesting properties. It is argued that the predicted behaviour of this QSU model provides a much more elegant explanation for a number of astronomical observations than does the standard HBB plus inflation model. Furthermore, the scale invariance inherent in the QSU model renders Newton’s gravitational constant redundant, and with it the concept of a uniquely defined Planck scale. This feature in itself has a number of profound consequences across many areas of physics, some of which will be discussed here.

The elimination of the initial Big Bang singularity, taken together with the observation that the gravitational structure constant must be changing over time in the QSU model, leads to a very different picture of the early Universe. For example, at the epoch when matter fields initially come into existence, the electromagnetic self-energy of a particle will be exactly equal to the sum of the gravitational energy of the particle with respect to every other particle in the Universe. This should provide a useful clue about the nature of the mechanism that determines particle masses.

The concept of a uniquely defined Planck scale is one of the two principal motivations for the pursuit of a quantum theory of gravity, the other being the need for the curvature terms in the gravitational field equation to be quantized in order to be equivalent to the quantized matter fields. If the Planck factor is removed, we need to ask whether there is still a need for a theory of Quantum Gravity, at least in the form currently being sought. There is no fundamental requirement that the gravitational field should have an inherent quantum structure, and it may well be more reasonable to think of the gravitational field as being quantised as a consequence of the matter fields with which it interacts.

The QSU model also has a number of implications for the role of time. The static nature of the Universe, when viewed from a cosmological reference frame, strongly suggests that at its most fundamental level the Universe does not possess any dynamical structure. If this were to be the case then we would need to reject the concept of time in canonical quantum gravity as being the separation between successive foliations of a three dimensional manifold. The fourth dimension in General Relativity would then take on a hyperspatial role, providing the additional dimension in Euclidean space in which the three dimensional manifold of the observable Universe can be curved. Time in Quantum Mechanics would continue to be a feature of the Lorentzian metric that overlays Euclidean hyperspace.

Finally, one can speculate that by more clearly defining the distinction between the realms of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, we can actually move closer towards constructing a paradigm that unifies the two theories.

## References


format: text

text:
# Ferromagnetism in Oriented Graphite Samples

## I Introduction

We find in the literature reports on ferromagnetism in carbon-based compounds which apparently did not attract the necessary attention in the community. For example there are reports on ferromagnetic-like signals in pyrolytic carbon mizo  and in HOPG men . In the first study pyrolytic carbon with higher crystallinity than usual was prepared from adamantane by chemical vapor deposition mizo . The metal impurities were claimed to be $`<25`$ ppm and the ferromagnetic-like loop was reported to persist up to 400 K. In other work men  the main study was the magnetization of Pd nanoparticles encapsulated in a graphite host. In the inset of their Fig. 2 the authors show a ferromagnetic-like hysteresis loop for graphite without Pd nanoparticles at a temperature of 300 K. We note that the saturation magnetization $`M_s10^2`$ emu/g is much larger than the one measured in this work and by Kopelevich et al. yakov1 . Because the impurity concentration of that sample was not reported the origin of this signal remains, however, unclear. Amorphous-like carbon prepared by direct pyrolysis was found to be a stable strong magnet with a saturation magnetization comparable to magnetite mura1 . The effect of the pyrolysis temperature on similar materials was also reported mura2 . Ferromagnetism in pure C-60 induced by photo-assisted oxidation was reported to remain up to a critical temperature of 800 K, although the authors stated that only a small part of the sample contributes to the ferromagnetism muraka . More recently, ferromagnetism in pure rhombohedral polymerized C-60 samples was reported to remain up to 500 K maka .

The recent report of ferromagnetic- and superconducting-like yakov1  magnetization hysteresis loops in HOPG in a broad temperature range opens several questions about the origin of the observed anomalies. Kopelevich et al. yakov1  found that the magnetization of HOPG samples shows ferromagnetic-like hysteresis loops up to 800 K. The details of the hysteresis depend on the sample, sample heat treatment and on the direction of the applied field. There has been a controversy between the opinion of the referees on the possible influence of impurities on the observations yakov1 . Therefore, more systematic work on the observed signal was necessary.

As clearly stated by J.S. Miller miller  for magnetic polymers, it appears that most of the claimed high-temperature ferromagnetism in nominally magnetic-ion free compounds in the past turned out to be of extrinsic origin. To establish that the low saturation magnetization of a material, as in the case of the reported HOPG ($`M_s<3`$mG $`=3\times 10^3`$emu/cm3) might be of intrinsic origin, reproducibility and a quantification of extrinsic contributions must be achieved. Therefore and in order to clarify whether the observed ferromagnetism found in Ref. yakov1  reflects an intrinsic property of graphite or is due to ferromagnetic impurities, we have measured different oriented graphite samples with different magnetic impurity concentrations (mainly Fe).

Both ferromagnetism and superconductivity have been predicted to arise in graphene layers in regions of certain topological defect structures gon . On the other hand, ferrimagnetic behavior due to edge states is also expected in graphene layers waka . Taking into account all the experimental and theoretical work cited above we feel that a systematic study of the ferromagnetic-like hysteresis loops found in HOPG yakov1  as a function of magnetic impurities is necessary before speculating on its origin. Only a careful analysis of the data accompanied by a complete impurity concentration study on the same samples may provide an answer on the origin of the ferromagnetism found in HOPG.

The reported ferromagnetic-like signal was measured mostly for an applied field in direction parallel to the planes, whereas superconducting-like loops in HOPG were mainly observed with the magnetic field applied perpendicular to the planes after subtraction of the diamagnetic background yakov1 . This diamagnetic contribution depends strongly on the angle between applied field and the graphene layers reaching a minimum for the parallel orientation. Therefore, and in order to minimize any possible error due to the subtraction of the diamagnetic contribution, all the results reported in the current study were obtained with the field parallel to the graphene layers. With respect to the superconducting-like behavior observed in graphite yakov1  we would like to note that clear evidence for superconductivity in simple mixtures of graphite powder with sulphur has been reported recently yakov2 .

The paper is organized as follows. In the next Section the samples characteristics and experimental details are given. In Section 3 we describe the results and in Section 4 we discuss the observed behavior and its possible origin. A short summary is given in Section 5.

## II  Sample Characteristics and Experimental Details

Table I shows the magnetization characteristics, the impurity concentrations, the masses as well as the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of x-ray rocking curves in $`\theta `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$) and in $`2\theta `$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }(2\theta `$)) of the measured graphite samples. Samples HOPG-2 and -3 were prepared at the Research Institute “Graphite” (Moscow) as described in Ref. brandt . Two commercial HOPG samples were from Union Carbide (samples UC3 and UC4, cut from the same batch) and Advanced Ceramics (samples AC1, batch 10158, and AC2, batch 25672). Furthermore, we have characterized a Kish and a natural graphite crystal, this last obtained from Ticonderoga (USA) munich .

The magnetization measurements were done with a Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) from Quantum Design with a 7 T superconducting solenoid. In general we have selected three cm scan length for the magnetization measurements. The SQUID response enables measurements of samples with a minimum magnetic moment $`m3\times 10^{10}`$Am$`{}_{}{}^{2}(3\times 10^7`$ emu).

Because the magnetization signals of the samples are rather small we have checked the background signal from the sample holders in the SQUID. This contribution turned out to be non-negligible, and special care has been applied in the selection of the holder as well as with the sample handling procedure in order to prevent contamination of the holders and/or samples. For measurements below 350 K we have used a plastic tube with a small window and an adhesive tape (Tesa AG, Hamburg). The background signal of this sample holder with tape but without sample is shown in Fig. 1. Small but measurable hysteresis is observed which lies close to the resolution limit of our SQUID magnetometer. For measurements above 350 K the samples were fixed in a quartz tube between two quartz spacers and enclosed under a pressure of $`2\times 10^6`$ torr. The background signal in this case was negligible in comparison with the sample response.

In general, the ferromagnetic hysteresis is superimposed to a linear in field diamagnetic background. As noted above, this diamagnetic signal depends on the misalignment of the sample with respect to the field as well as on the intrinsic misalignment of the graphene planes in the sample. The diamagnetic contribution for each sample has been determined in-situ and in a straightforward way: Using a linear regression through the data points obtained for magnetic fields up to 5 T we obtained the diamagnetic slope $`\chi _{||}=M(H)/H`$. We note that the magnetization due to the superimposed ferromagnetic signal saturates at fields larger than 2 kOe and therefore it does not influence the linear field dependence of the diamagnetic background. The obtained susceptibility ranges between $`0\chi _{||}(10K)5.3\times 10^6`$emu/gOe for the studied samples. The ferromagnetic loop is then obtained from the measured magnetization $`M(H)`$ subtracting the diamagnetic background as $`M(H)\chi _{||}H`$.

The crystallinity of the graphite samples was investigated by high resolution x-ray diffraction with a Philips X’pert diffractometer. $`\theta `$ and $`2\theta `$ scans around the symmetrical (002) reflection were carried out using the Cu-K$`\alpha `$1 radiation. Furthermore, for three samples we have determined the average in-plane correlation length $`D`$ from the $`2\theta `$ scans around the symmetrical (110) reflection. As expected, $`D`$ correlates with the FWHM obtained from the $`\theta `$ (002)-scans. Table I shows the FWHM of the 110 reflection as well as $`D`$ for the samples AC2, HOPG-2 and HOPG-3.

The measurements of the impurity concentration were carried out with Particle Induced X-ray Emission (PIXE) using a 2 MeV proton beam. For the samples studied here the typical minimum detection limit (MDL) of this method was $`2\mu `$g/g (for some elements, much smaller). With exception of the natural graphite sample, the impurity concentration was distributed homogeneously in the samples. The concentration of all other magnetic elements not listed in Table I was less than 1 $`\mu `$g/g.

Scanning tunelling microscopy (STM) was performed with a DI Nanoscope E in conjunction with a Small Sample scan head (“A” scanner, Digital Instruments, Santa Barbara, CA). Pt/Ir (80:20) tunneling tips (wire diameter: 0.25 mm) were from Plano (Wetzlar, Germany). Images were obtained under ambient conditions with a tip bias of typically $`+20`$ mV in the constant current-mode (scan rate $`f=3\mathrm{}6`$Hz; current $`I_02`$nA) or in the constant height-mode (scan rate $`f=20\mathrm{}60`$Hz). While in both modes, a clear-cut discrimination of topology (height) differences from density-of-state (current) differences cannot be afforded, the first scanning mode emphasizes the topological structure whereas the latter accentuates local variations of the density of states.

## III Results

Figures 2 to 4 show examples of the measured magnetization loops obtained in some of the samples at 300 K and 10 K. All HOPG samples show ferromagnetic-like hysteresis of the same order of magnitude. Figure 2 shows the hysteresis loops obtained for the samples from Advanced Ceramics at two different temperatures. Whereas the loop shown in (b) is obtained after subtraction of a diamagnetic background signal $`\chi _{||}=1.32\times 10^6`$emu/g Oe, the loop in (a) was obtained directly from the measurements without subtraction of any diamagnetic background. This result and the range of values obtained for $`\chi _{||}`$ suggest that the diamagnetic signal measured at high fields applied nominally parallel to the planes of HOPG samples is strongly influenced by the misalignment of the sample.

Figure 3 shows the loops obtained for two Union Carbide samples of different masses cut from the same batch. These results provide a measure of the typical scatter of the main values of the hysteresis loops in similar samples.

In order to check if there is any correlation of the hysteresis values with the measured Fe-concentration we plot in Figs. 5, 6 and 7 the remanent magnetization $`M_r`$, the magnetization at 2kOe $`M(2`$kOe) and the coercive field $`H_c`$, respectively, as a function of impurity content. From Fig. 5 one would tend to infer a weak increase of $`M_r`$ with Fe concentration. However, the remanent magnetization is not the characteristic quantity that one expects to change systematically with Fe concentration since it depends primarily on the pinning of magnetic domains. Rather, a correlation of the saturation magnetization with the impurity content would be significant. Figure 6 shows that such a correlation is not observed within experimental error. A similar result is obtained for the coercive field, see Fig. 7.

The FWHM obtained in $`\theta `$ and $`2\theta `$ scans provides a measure of the variation in the orientation of a particular set of lattice planes (mosaic spread) and in the spacing of the graphene planes (e.g., inferred by dislocations), respectively. Figure 8 shows the magnetization at saturation as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ (a) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2\theta `$) (b). We find no systematic dependence of $`M(2`$kOe) on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. A clear increase of $`M(2`$kOe) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2\theta )`$ can be recognized in Fig. 8(b).

It has been reported yakov1  that annealing of HOPG samples leads to the disappearance of the superconducting-like hysteresis loop and turns it into a ferromagnetic-like loop. Also, short time annealing ($`2`$h) increases the ferromagnetic-like signal yakov1 . In the current work we have measured the hysteresis as a function of the annealing time and temperature. An increase of the ferromagnetic signal at the beginning of the annealing procedure was also observed in this work. Longer time annealing reduces however the ferromagnetic signal and reaches similar values as before the annealing. In Fig. 4(b) we show the data obtained at 300 K after annealing a different piece of the HOPG-2 sample for 16 h at 700 K ($``$) and additionally after 19 h at 800 K $`(\mathrm{})`$. The annealing procedure was done in situ in the SQUID under vacuum. It is observed that long time annealing has a weak influence, if any, on the hysteresis width and the saturation magnetization.

## IV Discussion

The origin of the ferromagnetic-like signal in HOPG samples is controversial. Therefore, we will discuss below different possible origins in view of the existing evidence.

(a) Magnetic impurities. The possibility of a significant contribution of magnetic impurities to the measured magnetic properties is taken serious and carefully analyzed before we discuss possible intrinsic origins of the hysteresis loops measured in graphite. In spite of the fact that no correlation between the observed magnetization and the Fe-concentration exists, one might still believe that those impurities are sufficient to produce the measured signals. A typical argument used to attribute a ferromagnetic signal to impurities would be as follows: Let us assume that all Fe impurities would form iron or magnetite (Fe3O4) clusters and that all clusters are large enough to behave ferro- or ferrimagnetically. An impurity content of 1 $`\mu `$g Fe per gram graphite would then contribute $`2.2\times 10^4`$emu/g to the magnetization in the case of Fe clusters or $`1.4\times 10^4`$emu/g in the case of Fe3O4 clusters assuming that these clusters behave like bulk materials. Considering a linear increase of the magnetic moment with the Fe concentration, for most of the samples the possible contribution of the Fe impurities exceeds clearly the measured magnetization values at saturation or are on the same order of magnitude, see Fig. 6. In the case of the Kish sample, AC2 and for HOPG-3 the measured values are larger than the maximum possible contribution from Fe clusters. Thus, for these three samples the values of magnetization cannot be explained by Fe impurities.

Moreover, the assumption that such a low Fe-concentration behaves ferromagnetically and produces a hysteresis loop with finite remanent moment and coercive fields at room temperature or even higher yakov1  is rather unlikely taking into account that the Fe concentration measured in the HOPG samples was found to be homogeneously distributed. To quantify the magnetization behavior of Fe impurities in graphite we have measured a natural graphite bulk sample that has an inhomogeneous Fe distribution through the sample between 13 $`\mu `$g/g and 3,790 $`\mu `$g/g; most of the sample shows a concentration larger than 500 $`\mu `$g/g Fe. All other magnetic impurities are below 10 $`\mu `$g/g and may therefore be neglected. Figure 9(a) shows the hysteresis loop of the natural graphite crystal for fields parallel to its main plane after subtracting the paramagnetic (10 K) or diamagnetic (300 K) contributions (proportional to the applied field) shown in the inset. The measured hysteresis is very small with a remanent magnetization $`M_r<2\times 10^5`$ emu/g. The magnetization at 2kOe is $`<4\times 10^3`$ emu/g. Naively, one would argue that such a magnetization can be produced by $`18`$ $`\mu `$g/g ferromagnetic Fe. Such a comparison is, however, misleading. If the magnetic signal is due to Fe impurities, the nearly negligible hysteresis width and the lack of saturation at 2 kOe indicate that Fe impurities do not behave ferromagnetically but rather superparamagnetically. To better understand this point we measured the magnetization up to 5 T and we obtained a ferromagnetic-like curve of negligible width, see Fig. 9(b), after subtracting the paramagnetic background contribution. We estimate that the saturation magnetization observed at 5 T is produced by 840 $`\mu `$g/g Fe, a concentration comparable to the average impurity content of the sample.

A typical response of superparamagnetic Fe in graphite is also recognized in the strong temperature dependence of the magnetization at 0.2 T below 150 K, see inset in Fig. 9(b). This behavior is in clear contrast to that obtained in the HOPG samples. As an example we show the temperature dependence of the magnetization measured at 2kOe in the HOPG-2 sample (after subtracting the diamagnetic contribution) in Fig. 10. It is recognized that the magnetization is practically temperature independent, in clear contrast to the expected behavior if the 8 $`\mu `$g/g of Fe would behave superparamagnetically. This result agrees with that reported in Ref. yakov1  that the saturation magnetization in annealed HOPG samples remains practically temperature independent up to 800 K. In line with that, the measured hysteresis loops for the HOPG-2 sample at 800 K (which is the highest possible in our equipment) indicate that the Curie temperature is larger than that. From a linear extrapolation of the remanent magnetization (Fig. 10) to zero we estimate that the Curie temperature is of the order of 900 K. The small change observed in the hysteresis upon annealing the sample at 700 K or 800 K in vacuum, shown in Fig. 4(b), appears to be difficult to explain by arguing in terms of a magnetic contribution of ferrocene. From all the evidence presented here we believe that magnetic impurities can be excluded as the origin of the weak ferromagnetism observed in HOPG .

(b) Topological defects: Grain boundaries and edge states. The topological and electronic structure of atomically flat graphite surfaces has been extensively studied by scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) Binnig ; Quate ; Soler ; Fuchs . More recently, the electronic properties of carbon nanotubes, and particularly edge states of nanometer-sized graphite ribbons, have attracted much interest Nakada ; giu . It is expected that the electronic structure of the graphite $`\pi `$ system may differ considerably on carbons located within a graphite sheet and those at its edge fuji2 ; fuji1 . Moreover, such localized edge states have been shown to depend sensitively on the geometry of the edge Nakada : While “zigzag” edges perpendicular to the $`[1,0,\overline{1},0]`$ lattice direction show such states, “armchair” edges (perpendicular to $`[1,1,\overline{2},0]`$) do not. Thus, “zigzag” edge states may lead to an increase of the density of states at the Fermi level. This has been experimentally confirmed in STM work on HOPG samples giu . If such edge states occur at high density, a ferrimagnetic spin polarization may result. Experimental findings on graphitized nanodiamond and  and activated carbon fibers nak  support this expectation. Similarly, a strong enhancement of the Curie-like paramagnetic contribution was predicted at low temperatures, see Ref. waka  and references therein, and this has been experimentally confirmed shi . Recently, the mechanisms of magnetism in stacked nanographite were theoretically studied hari . This work obtained an antiferromagnetic solution for A-B-type stacking only.

One may doubt that the edge states could be the origin for the ferromagnetism found in our macroscopic graphite samples, since in nanographites these states provide an enhanced paramagnetism and their size $`2`$nm is smaller than the in-plane correlation length of our graphite samples (the influence of the edge states to the electronic properties of a graphene layer should decrease with $`D`$). However, small-size effects and the thermal energy could also preclude the formation of a stable ferromagnetic ordering in nanographite. It is also unclear whether correlation effects between edge states in macroscopic graphite samples with a in-plane correlation length not more than five times the size of the reported nanographite samples (see Table I) would not be enough to stabilize a ferromagnetic order. Theoretical studies suggest that the presence of strong topological disorder will stabilize ferromagnetism and frustate antiferromagnetic order gon . No prediction was made, however, on the minimum density of the disorder necessary for this situation . Therefore and because the theoretical results are not yet conclusive we should not neglect a possible contribution of edge states to stabilize the FM in bulk graphite.

In order to assess the role of edge states and their potential contribution to the magnetic properties of the graphite samples studied in this work, a systematic STM investigation of these samples would be desireable. Unfortunately, such a study is beyond the scope of our current experimental capabilities. In order to obtain at least a feeling whether or not edge states that might exist at grain boundaries within the graphite samples contribute to their observed anomalous magnetic properties we have conducted a limited study of some of the samples in air. We note that we are currently not capable of performing the spectroscopic studies Reihl  that were required to assess quantitatively putative differences in the density of states at the Fermi level as a function of the atom positions with respect to grain boundaries.

Figure 11 gives exemplary STM results obtained at a freshly cleaved surface of the HOPG-2 sample in air. The images have been flattened, but no filtering was applied to the raw data. Panel (a) shows a $`125\times 125`$nm2 surface topology overview observed in constant-current mode. Two types of linear defects are observed within the planar surface: A step line, oriented roughly along the scan direction (horizontal direction within the image) and an apparent elevation line that runs along the step defect at an oblique angle. Both line defects are much longer than the width of the image and are characterized in the section profile shown on the right. In other micrographs than the one shown in Fig. 11 we do not find indications that the two type of line defects are coupled to each other. By inspection of a large number of similar micrographs, we conclude that such defects are characteristic of the sample surface. On the surface of the HOPG-2 sample, they have a typical distance of a few 100 nm. Inspection of the unit cell orientations on both sides of the two types of defects at higher resolution (vide infra) reveals that both are associated with grain boundaries.

The section profile indicates that the step height of the first line defect is $`0.65`$nm, which corresponds to the length of one unit cell along the crystallographic c axis, i.e. the height of two graphite sheets. In fact, an additional feature along the defect line at mid-level of the step is recognized. Since two stacked $`\pi `$ rings in the unit cell are displaced sideways with respect to each other in the graphite crystal, this half-step may correspond to an individual graphite layer that protrudes laterally underneath the top layer. At a distance of a few nm from the step line, the profile is essentially flat. This is expected as the two planes correspond presumably to equivalent crystal surfaces that differ by one unit cell in height. However, as the trace on the higher level approaches the step, a pronounced steepening of the slope is observed. Since the scan direction was chosen to be parallel to the step line, it cannot be argued that this feature is due to tip overshoot. Rather, because the experiment is inherently incapable of discriminating between topological features and changes of the density of states, the observed steepening of the contour line may more likely be associated with an increase of the local density of states on the carbon atoms as the topology approaches the grain boundary.

The apparent topology of the second line defect is distinctly different. The section profile registers a sharp, symmetric peak that has an apparent height, $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.25`$nm, and an apparent width of $`2`$nm. At higher resolution (Fig. 11(b), showing a constant-height scan of a similar defect on the same sample surface) the defect structure is disclosed in more detail. As recognized in the overview (inset) the defect line appears as three collinear stripes. These are no tip artifacts since they do not depend on the relative orientation between the defect line and the scan direction. The high resolution micrograph reveals that the corrugation is associated with individual surface atoms and that the lattice orientation differs on both sides of the central spine. The apparent height of the features with the highest elevations – truncated in the grey level scale which was chosen to better visualize the atomic lattice on the surrounding crystal faces – is about a factor of two larger than an atomic diameter. It is thus likely that an increase in the density of states on atoms near the grain boundary contribute to the appearance of these corrugations. Without a clean discrimination of topological and density-of-state features, however, it cannot in this case be decided with confidence whether or not the observed defects correspond simply to lines of atoms that decorate the grain boundary.

A high-resolution characterization of step-type line defects is presented in the lower half of Fig. 11. Panels (c) and (d) show the vicinity of the defect shown in Fig. 11 (a) at high resolution in constant-current and constant-height mode, respectively. The scan direction has been rotated by $`90^o`$ with respect to that in the overview scan. Similar to Fig. 11 (b), the images show the surface at atomic resolution. The fundamental corrugation is due to a carbon site asymmetry Binnig ; Quate  giving rise to a hexagonal lattice. Again, the constant-current micrograph – Fig. 11(c) – indicates a step height of $`\mathrm{\Delta }z0.6`$nm (section profile on the right). Both micrographs reveal clearly a misorientation of the lattices on both sides of the defect line of $`42^o\pm 5^o`$. On the higher level – to the left – the main lattice direction meets the grain boundary at $`65^o\pm 5^o`$, characteristic of a “zigzag” edge. By contrast, one would expect this angle to be $`90^o`$ for an “armchair” edge. In distinction from an earlier report giu , where “zigzag” edges were observed to extend only for short lengths, the defects observed here may extend for $`>100`$nm, as demonstrated in Fig. 11 (a) where the step defect runs along the same general direction over the entire, 125 nm, width of the micrograph.

In the close vicinity of the grain boundary itself, the constant-height image, Fig. 11 (d), appears distinctly different from the constant-current image. It is characterized by a vast overshooting of the section profile at the locations of the edge carbon atoms, c.f. pseudo-3D representation on the right of Fig. 11(d). While we reiterate that a clean distinction of topological and density-of-state features is not afforded in our measurements, we may note that the observed effect cannot easily be accounted for by the sample topology or elasticity effects Soler . For example, we consider it unrealistic that a decoration of the grain boundary with atoms (of an ordinary – low – density of states at the Fermi level) should be responsible for the observed giant corrugations. Rather, a large increase of the local density of states at the atom positions near the edge must be invoked to explain the observations. This is also hinted by the deviation of the section profile in the overview scan, Fig. 11 (a), from a planar topology near the step. The conjectured enhancement of the density of states on edge atoms may indicate the existence of a localized state as demonstrated in simulations koba . Therefore, one may argue that topological defects such as the “zigzag” edge characterized in Fig. 11 affect the electronic properties of the bulk graphite crystal and might also be responsible, at least partially, for the measured ferromagnetic behavior. Clearly, a more definite conclusion on the importance of such localized states requires much more systematic STM work. In future, we are also planning to vary systematically the number of topological defects and thus quantify their influence on the magnetization. Preliminary results indicate indeed an increase of the ferromagnetic signal upon milling of a bulk sample.

Finally, we note that recent theoretical work points out the effects of the electron-electron interactions in a graphene layer suggesting the existence of both ferromagnetism and an anisotropic $`p`$wave superconducting state gon . This work also suggests that topological disorder in the graphene planes may enhance the electronic density of states and induce instabilities in the electronic system, thereby giving rise to the behavior reported here and in earlier work yakov1 .

(c) Itinerant ferromagnetism. Since the carrier density in graphite is low, the magnetic properties may be connected to itinerant ferromagnetism of dilute two-dimensional electron gas systems when the electron-electron interaction is large. Indirect evidence for the importance of the electron-electron interaction in graphite has been recently obtained by magnetoresistance measurements that showed a field induced metal-insulator like transition with a scaling quantitatively similar to those found in MOSFET’s and amorphous thin films yakov3 .

In general, the strength of the electron-electron interaction can be estimated through the Coulomb coupling constant

$$r_s=\frac{1}{(\pi n_{2D})^{1/2}a_B^{}},$$
(1)
where the 2D carrier density is given by $`n_{2D}=n_{3D}d`$ with the interplane distance $`d=0.335`$nm, the effective Bohr radius $`a_B^{}=ϵ\mathrm{}^2/e^2m^{}`$, and the dielectric constant for graphite $`ϵ=2.8`$. The 3D carrier density of the majority band is $`n_{3D}2\times 10^{18}`$cm-3 with an effective mass $`m^{}0.05m_0`$ where $`m_0`$ is the free electron mass. For the minority carriers, $`n_{3D}6\times 10^{16}`$cm-3 with an effective mass $`m^{}0.004m_0`$ dre2 . Substituting these values in eq. (1) we obtain $`r_s5`$ and $`10`$ for the majority and minority carriers, respectively. A value of $`r_s`$ larger than 1 implies that the potential energy per electron is larger than the Fermi energy, hence effects due to the electron-electron interaction must be taken into account.

If we assume that Dirac fermions are responsible for the magnetic field driven metal-insulator-like transition in graphite (for fields parallel to the $`c`$axis), the strength of the Coulomb coupling is characterized by the massless and dimensionless parameter khv ; voz

$$g=\frac{e^2}{ϵ_0v_F\mathrm{}},$$
(2)
where $`e`$ is the electronic charge, $`ϵ_0`$ the dielectric constant and $`v_F2\times 10^6`$ m/s the Fermi velocity for graphite. As noted recently khv , for graphite, $`g>10`$ holds which suggests that the strong Coulomb interaction can open an excitonic gap in the spectrum of Dirac fermions. Interestingly, the occurrence of the gap is accompanied by the appearance of a small magnetic moment as the result of band anisotropy khv . In agreement with this theory, conduction electron spin resonance (CESR) experiments performed in HOPG and Kish graphite samples reveal a ferromagnetic-like internal field ser . It is expected that this doped excitonic FM would disappear above a certain level of doping of the order of the chemical potential khv . We note that within this picture the excitonic gap and the nonzero spin polarization is driven by the Coulomb interaction even at zero magnetic field. On the other hand, a field applied normal to the graphene layers can induce the formation of a gap even when the Coulomb interaction is weak khv , a model used to interpret the recently found metal-isolator transition in HOPG yakov3 .

It is also interesting to compare the magnetism found in graphite with that in the high-temperature itinerant Ca1-xLaxB6 ferromagnet you  where either quantum localization effects cep  or an excitonic mechanism gor  are invoked to explain the observed weak ferromagnetism with a Curie temperature of 600 K . In graphite the low-temperature ferromagnetic magnetization at saturation is $`1\times 10^3`$emu/g. This value can be translated in terms of the magnetic moment $`0.1\mu _B`$ per majority carrier similar to $`0.07\mu _B`$ found in Ca1-xLaxB6. According to Ref. khv  the ferromagnetism in graphite and hexaborides can have the same origin. Direct experimental evidence supporting an excitonic mechanism for the FM found in HOPG is, however, still lacking.

5. Summary

We have studied the magnetization of several HOPG, Kish graphite and natural graphite samples with different content of magnetic impurities. Our results rule out that ferromagnetic impurities can be responsible for the observed magnetic effects in HOPG and Kish graphite. The magnetization at saturation remains practically temperature-independent up to 500 K. This behavior is in clear contrast to that found in natural graphite samples with at least two orders of magnitude larger concentration of Fe-impurities. The results of natural graphite reveal the superparamagnetic behavior of Fe impurities in the carbon matrix. Long-time annealing at 700 K and 800 K in vacuum of the HOPG samples affects the hysteresis loops only weakly.

The origin of the FM in HOPG is not yet clear. We have discussed two possible origins in this work. Topological defects can contribute to the peculiarities of the graphite electronic properties and may give rise to ferromagnetic correlations. Also, the strong Coulomb interaction between electrons in graphite (due to the small electronic density) should play an important role in all the observed magnetic properties of graphite. However, details of the long-range itinerant ferromagnetic order remain unclear.

The discovery of ferromagnetism in oxidized C60 muraka  as well as in polymerized rhombohedral C60 maka  indicates that carbon-based materials can be ferromagnetic without metallic components at high temperatures. Therefore, it should be no surprise if graphite itself shows weak ferromagnetic signals. Future work should try to (a) enhance the ferromagnetic signals by an appropriate mixing of graphite with other elements (an enhancement of the superconducting signal has been recently achieved mixing graphite with sulfur yakov2 ; yang ), (b) increase the defect concentration as well as (c) prove experimentally the existence of an excitonic gap.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. G. Rodrigo for the comments on our STM studies. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within DFG Es 86/7-1. Y.K. was also supported by CNPq, FAPESP and CAPES. We acknowledge the support of the DAAD. M.L. is supported by the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie, Frankfurt.