text:
# FROM PRECISION COSMOLOGY TO ACCURATE COSMOLOGY

## 1 Introduction

Our colleagues in the more exact sciences distinguish the precision of a measurement, which is indicated by the number of significant figures, from the accuracy, which is what remains after due account of the interference by systematic errors. In cosmology we have to worry about systematic errors in the astronomy and, it is less commonly emphasized, in the physics. In the standard cosmology the latter includes general relativity and the rest of textbook physics, along with the cold dark matter model for structure formation. All this physics is a considerable extrapolation from the empirical basis. This means that, unlike the standard model for particle physics, in cosmology it is not a matter of measuring parameters in a reliably established theory: we have to check the physics too.

We have checks of the physics and the astronomy, from the growing network of cosmological tests. For example, the SNeIa redshift-magnitude measurements, combined with the CDM model interpretation of the anisotropy of the 3 K cosmic background radiation (the CBR), indicate the mean mass density, $`\rho _m`$, in low pressure matter is about one quarter of the critical Einstein-de Sitter value. A similar number follows from most dynamical analyses of galaxy peculiar velocities. These two approaches depend on very different astronomy, and they apply quite different aspects of the physics of the relativistic Friedmann-Lemaître cosmology. If the physics or the astronomy failed, the consistency of these estimates of $`\rho _m`$ would seem unlikely. Accidental coincidences do happen, of course, and we have to remember the natural human tendency to stop working so hard on an analysis when it approaches the wanted answer. Thus it is important that similar estimates of $`\rho _m`$ follow from still other lines of evidence: weak gravitational lensing, the baryon mass fraction in clusters of galaxies, the abundance of clusters as a function of mass and redshift, and the power spectrum of the galaxy distribution. If this concordance survives further scrutiny that explains the remaining discrepant indications, for significantly larger and smaller values of $`\rho _m`$, it will eliminate the hypothesis of canceling errors.

What do we learn from this evidence for concordance? It certainly encourages the view that the mass density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=8\pi G\rho _m/3H_o^2`$, is a physically meaningful number, and that we know its value to a factor of two or so. But it is useful to be more specific, by considering what aspects of gravity physics are probed by this concordance, and by all the other cosmological tests. I review four tests of gravity physics on the scales of cosmology in Sec. 2. All agree with GR so far. This is not surprising: we have no substantial reason within fundamental theory (apart maybe from brane worlds) to suspect GR fails on cosmological length scales. But positive empirical evidence is the thing.

Many of the cosmological tests assume the CDM model for structure formation. Is this model adequate for precision cosmology at the ten percent level? I discuss aspects of this issue in Sec. 3. The estimates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ based on CDM generally agree with independent indications from dynamics, and the successful fit to the 3 K CBR temperature anisotropy is also impressive. This is serious evidence that the CDM model is a useful approximation to reality. But the present precision of the evidence allows considerably more complicated physics in the dark sector, and more complicated physics may be indicated by the observational challenges from galaxy structure and formation. In short, significant adjustments to the CDM model would not be surprising, and a major shift not inconceivable. Until this is sorted out structure formation is a hazardous basis for cosmological tests.

These topics are discussed at length, with many references, in a paper with Bharat Ratra (in astro-ph/0207347). I refer the reader to this paper for details and references. Here I indulge in the luxury of a reference-free overview.

## 2 General Relativity Theory

General relativity passes searching tests on length scales ranging from the laboratory to the Taylor-Hulse pulsar ($`10^{11}`$ cm) and the Solar System ($`10^{13}`$ cm). But the extrapolation to cosmology, at Hubble length $`c/H_o10^{28}`$ cm is enormous, and to be checked.

I review four examples of the program of tests of gravity physics on the length and time scales of cosmology. Two concern the mean homogeneous expansion,aaaThe evidence that the universe is close to homogeneous and isotropic near the Hubble length is much more solid than for the issues under discussion here. In what follows, the mean mass density, $`\rho `$, and pressure, $`p`$, are the diagonal time and space parts of the stress-energy tensor, smoothed over scales much larger than the clustering length $`10`$ Mpc, in the frame of reference in which the smoothed stress-energy tensor is diagonal. under the assumption spacetime is described by a single metric tensor. The third test probes the inverse square law for the nonrelativistic dynamics of departures from homogeneity, the fourth gravitational lensing.

### 2.1 Active Gravitational Mass

In the homogeneous standard model the expansion parameter satisfies

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4}{3}\pi G(\rho +3p),$$
(1)
where the mean mass density $`\rho `$ and pressure $`p`$ satisfy the local energy conservation equation

$$\dot{\rho }=3(\rho +p)\dot{a}/a.$$
(2)
If we did not have GR, a naive Newtonian model might have led us to write

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4}{3}\pi G\rho .$$
(3)
Or we might have preferred to finesse the problem with the vacuum zero-point energy density. If the vacuum looks the same to any inertial observer, special relativity says the vacuum mass density and pressure satisfy $`p_v=\rho _v`$. They cancel from the right-hand side of the energy conservation Eq. 2, leaving $`\rho _v`$ constant, as required of a velocity-independent vacuum. If the expansion equation were

$$\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{4}{3}\pi G(\rho +p),$$
(4)
it would neatly remove the vacuum gravitational mass density. But to avoid confusion I emphasize that the merit I see in Eqs. 3 and 4 is their role as foils.bbbI mean the definition, “One that by contrast underscores or enhances the distinctive characteristics of another,” in the American Heritage Dictionary.

We have a test, from the standard model for the origin of deuterium and isotopes of helium and lithium, at $`z10^{10}`$. At this redshift the pressure in the standard cosmology is close to $`p=\rho /3`$, so the expansion time satisfies

$$\frac{1}{t^2}=\frac{16}{3}(1+u)\pi G\rho .$$
(5)
I have written the active gravitational mass density in a near homogeneous distribution as

$$\rho _{\mathrm{grav}}=\rho +3up,$$
(6)
with $`u=1`$ in GR, $`u=0`$ in the Newtonian model, and $`u=1/3`$ in the model in Eq. 4 contrived to eliminate the gravity of a Lorentz-invariant vacuum zero-point energy density. The larger expansion times in these two foils lower the helium abundance, to $`Y0.20`$ and $`Y0.21`$. The experts assure me the former looks quite unpromising, and the latter is little better.

The conclusion is that the relativistic prediction $`u=1`$ in Eq. 6 at redshift $`z10^{10}`$ fits the observations significantly better than the foils in Eqs. 3 and 4. We should pause to admire a remarkable test of gravity physics.

### 2.2 The Effect of Space Curvature on the Expansion Rate

In the Friedmann-Lemaître model the expansion rate satisfies

$$H(t)^2=\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=\frac{8}{3}\pi G\left(\rho +a^2R_a^2\right),$$
(7)
and the line element may be written as

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2\left(\frac{dr^2}{1+R_b^2r^2}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right).$$
(8)
Eq. 7 is the first integral of Eq. 1 with local energy conservation (Eq. 2), where $`R_a^2`$ is the constant of integration. The line element in Eq. 8, with the free constant $`R_b^2`$, follows from homogeneity and isotropy under the assumption spacetime is described by a single metric tensor. That is, Eqs. 7 and 8 are more general than GR. The GR prediction is $`R_a^2=R_b^2`$.

The prediction has been probed, in discussions of a mass component with pressure $`p_c=\rho _c/3`$, as in some models for cosmic strings. Local energy conservation says the mass density in this component varies as $`\rho _ca(t)^2`$. This term produces the expansion time history of a universe with negative space curvature (positive $`R_a^2`$ in Eq. 7) in a Friedmann-Lemaître model with zero space curvature ($`R_b^2=0`$ in Eq. 8). I understand the SNeIa measurements tend to prefer $`R_a^2=0`$ and $`R_b^2=0`$, an encouraging start. It will be interesting to see the constraints on $`R_a^2`$ and $`R_b^2`$ treated as two independent parameters in the fit to the improving measurements.

### 2.3 The Gravitational Inverse Square Law

An indirect but powerful test of the inverse square law for gravity is emerging from the theory and observations of large-scale dynamics.

In the standard cosmology the departures from homogeneity at sufficiently large length scales or redshifts are well described by linear perturbation theory. When nongravitational forces may be neglected, the mass density contrast, $`\delta (𝐱,t)=\delta \rho /\rho `$, the peculiar velocity, $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$, and the peculiar gravitational acceleration, $`𝐠(𝐱,t)`$, satisfy

$$\frac{\delta }{t}=\frac{1}{a}𝐯,\frac{𝐯}{t}+\frac{\dot{a}}{a}𝐯=𝐠,$$
(9)
in linear theory and comoving coordinates. The first equation is local mass conservation. The second term in the second equation follows because a moving particle always is overtaking receding comoving observers. Both are more general than GR. In GR the peculiar gravitational acceleration satisfies Poisson’s equation,

$$𝐠=4\pi G\rho _ba\delta ,$$
(10)
where the mean mass density is $`\rho _b(t)`$. These three equations yield

$$\frac{^2\delta }{t^2}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\delta }{t}=4\pi G\rho _b\delta .$$
(11)
We are interested in the growing solution,

$$\delta (𝐱,t)=\delta (𝐱,t_i)D(t)/D(t_i).$$
(12)
Eq. 12 has an observationally important property: the evolution of the mass density contrast $`\delta (𝐱,t)`$ at fixed comoving position $`𝐱`$ is independent of the density contrast everywhere else (in linear perturbation theory). This is because in linear theory the peculiar velocity $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ in the growing mode is proportional to the peculiar gravitational acceleration $`𝐠(𝐱,t)`$. The rate of change of $`\delta (𝐱,t)`$ at fixed $`𝐱`$ is set by the divergence of $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$, which is proportional to the divergence of $`𝐠(𝐱,t)`$, which Poisson’s equation says is proportional to $`\delta (𝐱,t)`$. Since the inverse square law for $`𝐠`$ follows from Poisson’s equation, a failure of the inverse square law would be reflected in a failure of the standard analysis of the evolution of large-scale structure.

For a foil let us consider what happens when Poisson’s equation is replaced with

$$^2\varphi /a^2\mu ^2\varphi =4\pi G\rho _b(t)\delta (𝐱,t),𝐠=\varphi /a,$$
(13)
where $`\mu `$ is constant. It is a good exercise for the student to check that Eq. 11 becomes

$$\frac{^2\delta _𝐤}{t^2}+2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\frac{\delta _𝐤}{t}=\frac{4\pi G\rho _b}{1+(a\mu /k)^2}\delta _𝐤,$$
(14)
for the Fourier component $`\delta _𝐤(t)`$ with comoving wavenumber $`𝐤`$. At short wavelengths, $`a\mu /k1`$, the Yukawa interaction is close to the inverse square law, and Eq. 14 is the Fourier transform of Eq. 11. On these scales the functional form of $`\delta (𝐱,t)`$ is conserved while the amplitude grows, as in the standard model. At long wavelengths the foil Eq. 14 preserves the Fourier phases, but the amplitude $`\delta _𝐤`$ stops growing at $`a\mu /k1`$.

In the CDM model the power spectrum of the primeval mass distribution usually is modeled as $`P_k=|\delta _𝐤|^2=Ak^n`$, where $`A`$ and $`n`$ are constants. The fit to the observations requires the index is close to scale-invariant, $`n1`$. In the foil this initial condition evolves to cccI am assuming conventional matter-dominated evolution, where the growing solution to Eq. 11 is $`Dat^{2/3}`$. It might be noted that if $`n>2`$ small-scale nonlinear dynamics forces the large-scale tail of the power spectrum to decrease with increasing length no more rapidly than $`Pk^4`$.

$`P_k(t)`$ $``$ $`Ak^na(t)^2\text{ at }k>\mu a(t),`$ (15)
$``$ $`A\mu ^2k^{n+2}\text{ at }k<\mu a(t).`$
A conservative bound on the physical cutoff length in Eqs. 13 and 15 is

$$\mu ^1\stackrel{>}{}10h^1\text{ Mpc}.$$
(16)
If the cutoff were a factor of ten smaller there would be serious problems with the power spectrum of the present galaxy distribution, which is well measured to $`k0.1h`$ Mpc-1, and with the interaction of matter and radiation at decoupling, since the comoving cutoff at decoupling would be less than the present Hubble length. On length scales larger than the cutoff we might look for some analog of the intermediate Sachs-Wolfe effect, but that depends on a more detailed model.

It is impressive that structure formation gives a quite direct probe of the inverse square law for nonrelativistic motion on scales $`10^{25}`$ cm, some twelve orders of magnitude larger than the standard tests. This does assume the adiabatic scale-invariant initial condition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, which has been accepted into the standard cosmology because it gives a consistent fit to the measurements of the power spectra of the galaxy and CBR distributions, under standard gravity physics. We don’t know for sure whether a modified gravitational force law could account for the observations under isocurvature initial conditions.

The length $`\mu ^1`$ (which can be taken to be comoving or physical) in the Yukawa force law seems awkward from a phenomenological point of view. Another maybe more interesting foil, in which the force law at large separations is (made by hand to be) a power law with index different from two, is under discussion.

### 2.4 The Gravitational Deflection of Light

Also under discussion are tests of the large-scale relativistic gravitational dynamics relevant to the anisotropy of the CBR and gravitational lensing. Here I comment on an easy parametrization of the latter.

The relativistic factor of two difference from the Newtonian gravitational deflection of light figures in the luminous arcs produced by mass concentrations in clusters of galaxies, the rate of lensing of quasars by the masses in foreground galaxies, and the mass estimates from weak lensing. It can be checked. For example, we have estimates of the mass distributions in clusters from measurements of galaxy redshifts, X-ray observations of the intracluster plasma, and measurements of the inverse Compton-Thomson scattering of the CBR by the plasma. Their interpretation depends on nonrelativistic gravitational dynamics, at scales less than about a megaparsec, along with standard local physics. The results may be compared to what is needed to account for luminous arcs under models for the gravitational deflection of light and the angular size distances. It would be interesting to know whether analyses of luminous arcs and the other lensing phenomena, along with the relevant mass estimates, have become precise enough to distinguish the factor of two difference between the Newtonian and GR models.

## 3 The Dark Sector

In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM the three dominant contributions to the present mass of the universe are dark energy — the modern variant of Einstein’s cosmological constant — nonbaryonic dark matter, and baryonic matter, with density parameters

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.75,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}0.2,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{baryon}}0.05.$$
(17)
The hypothetical dark sector, with density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{DM}}0.95`$, interacts with gravity, but extremely weakly if at all with ordinary matter and radiation.

We have pretty good evidence the dark sector exists, at about the parameters in Eq. 17, but little empirical guidance to the physics. We accordingly adopt the simplest physics we can get away with, which is good strategy, but need not be the way it is.

### 3.1 The Empirical Situation

Observational problems with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM picture for galaxy structure and formation are widely discussed, but there are considerable divisions of opinion on which are serious. My list is headed by the predicted formation of elliptical galaxies by mergers at modest redshifts, which seems out of synch with the observation of quasars at $`z6`$; the prediction of appreciable debris in the voids defined by $`L_{}`$ galaxies, which seems contrary to the observation that dwarf, irregular, and $`L_{}`$ galaxies have quite similar distributions; and the prediction of cusp-like dark matter cores in low surface brightness galaxies, which are not observed. The warm and collisional dark matter variants of the standard model may remedy the last problem with little effect on the cosmological tests. The first two seem less easily resolved, and their significance for the cosmological tests that depend on the structure formation model is an open issue.

We do have a serious case for the existence of the dark sector. Nonbaryonic matter at about the mass density in Eq. 17 is indicated by two independent lines of evidence. First, this nonbaryonic matter allows us to reconcile the baryon density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b0.05`$ derived from the standard model for the light elements with the evidence that the net mass density in matter capable of clustering is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m\stackrel{>}{}0.15`$. Second, nonbaryonic matter is an essential ingredient in the standard and so far largely successful model for the large-scale distributions of galaxies and the CBR: the absence of radiation drag on the nonbaryonic component finesses dissipation of primeval adiabatic density fluctuations, allowing the observed hierarchical “bottom up” growth of structure, as opposed to the pancake “top-down” growth to be expected from adiabatic initial conditions in a baryonic dark matter model. Perhaps primeval isocurvature initial conditions can produce a viable baryonic dark matter model, but I have not seen an example. My conclusion is that the case for nonbaryonic matter is substantial, though not yet as compelling as the abundance of evidence that the matter density parameter is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.25\pm 0.1`$.

In $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM the second hypothetical component, dark energy, is present in an amount sufficient to make space sections flat. The SNeIa and CBR measurements agree with this: within the CDM cosmology they indicate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$. We have a check, from the many other lines of evidence for a similar value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$. This is very encouraging, but we have to bear in mind the hazards of astronomy. How do we know the supernovae observed at redshift $`z1`$ are statistically similar to those seen at low redshift? How do we know we can trust a structure formation model, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, that is somewhat beclouded?

Before considering one of the clouds — physics in the dark sector — we should pause to note a related issue. Well checked physics says the zero-point energies of particles and fields at laboratory scales are as real as any other, and contribute to gravity like any other energy. But the known fields make absurdly large positive and negative contributions to the vacuum energy density. This has been known since the discovery of quantum physics. The usual prescription — just ignore the vacuum part — is observationally successful but certainly not an acceptable theory. We do not understand the role of the material content of the space between the galaxies, and we do not know whether this ignorance is hazardous to the cosmological tests.

### 3.2 A Cautionary Example

The point of this example is that the dark sector could be complicated. Consider the Lagrangian

$$L=\varphi _i\varphi ^i/2+\psi _i\psi ^i/2K\varphi ^\alpha (m^2+\lambda \varphi ^2)\psi ^2/2,$$
(18)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\lambda `$, $`m`$, and $`K`$ are positive constants, the first two dimensionless. This is to be added to the Ricci scalar and the terms for ordinary matter and radiation that interact with $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ only by gravity.

When $`\lambda =0`$ this is a familiar model for dark matter, represented by the scalar field $`\psi `$ with mass $`m`$, and dark energy, represented by the scalar $`\varphi `$. The mass $`m`$ is supposed to be much larger than Hubble’s constant $`H_ot_o^1`$ (where the subscripts here and below mean the present values), so at $`\lambda =0`$ the field $`\psi `$ oscillates with frequency $`m`$ and amplitude proportional to $`a(t)^{3/2}`$ (assuming the departures from a homogeneous spatial distribution of the $`\psi `$ energy are nonrelativistic). The observations say the present value of the dark matter mass density, $`\rho _\psi `$, is not far from the Einstein-de Sitter value, so $`\rho _\psi =\dot{\psi }^2/2+m^2\psi ^2/2m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2t_o^2(a_o/a)^3`$, where $`m_{\mathrm{Pl}}=G^{1/2}`$ is the Planck mass. When $`\rho _\psi `$ is the dominant mass density the attractor power law solution for the near homogeneous dark energy field is $`\varphi t^{2/(\alpha +2)}`$, which means the ratio of energy densities varies as $`\rho _\varphi /\rho _\psi t^{4/(\alpha +2)}`$. The dark energy in $`\varphi `$ thus eventually dominates and the universe starts to act as if it had an appreciable cosmological constant. The notorious coincidence is that this seems to have happened just as we flourish, that is, $`\rho _\varphi ^o\rho _\psi ^o`$. This would mean the present value of the dark energy field is $`\varphi _om_{\mathrm{pl}}`$.

When $`\lambda 0`$ the dark matter field amplitude varies with time as $`a(t)^{3/2}(m^2+\lambda \varphi (t)^2)^{1/4}`$, and the dark matter mass density is

$$\rho _\psi =\frac{1}{2}\dot{\psi }^2+\frac{1}{2}(m^2+\lambda \varphi ^2)\psi ^2\frac{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{t_o^2}\left(\frac{a_o}{a(t)}\right)^3\left(\frac{m^2+\lambda \varphi ^2}{m^2+\lambda \varphi _o^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
The last expression is the spatial mean value. The time dependence is easy to understand: the oscillation of $`\psi `$ is adiabatic, so the particle number is conserved, the mean number density varies as $`n_\psi a(t)^3`$, and the mean mass density varies as $`\rho _\psi m_{\mathrm{eff}}a^3`$, where the particle mass is

$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}=(m^2+\lambda \varphi ^2)^{1/2}.$$
(20)
I shall comment on the simple weak coupling case,

$$0<\lambda m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2\stackrel{<}{}m^2.$$
(21)
When $`\rho _\psi `$ is dominant the interaction term in the wave equation for $`\varphi `$ varies approximately as $`\varphi /t^2`$, so the attractor solution is $`\varphi t^{2/(\alpha +2)}`$, and as before $`\rho _\varphi `$ eventually dominates.

The coupling of the dark matter and energy fields causes the particle mass $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to increase as the dark energy field $`\varphi `$ increases (Eq. 20), and it produces a long-range fifth force: lumps of dark matter, with masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ at separation $`rH_o^1`$, interact by the potential

$$U=\kappa G\frac{M_1M_2}{r},\kappa =\frac{\lambda ^2\varphi _o^2m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{2\pi m_{\mathrm{eff}}^4}\frac{\lambda ^2m_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4}{m^4}.$$
(22)
In the visible sector we have tight constraints on fifth forces and variable masses (in units where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ are fixed). Here are examples of the much looser constraints in the dark sector.

The mass of an isolated dark matter halo varies as $`Mm_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This adiabatic evolution conserves $`M\sigma r`$, causing the halo radius and velocity dispersion to vary as

$$rm_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)^3,\sigma m_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)^2,$$
(23)
when the halo is dominated by dark matter. The fifth force biases the apparent density parameter derived from the nonlinear dynamics of relative motions of dark matter halos from the true value, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, to

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{apparent}}=(1+\kappa )\mathrm{\Omega }_m.$$
(24)
In linear perturbation theory the evolution of the dark matter density contrast is adjusted from Eq. 11 to

$$\frac{^2\delta }{t^2}+\left(2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{m}_{\mathrm{eff}}}{m_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)\frac{\delta }{t}=4\pi G\rho _b(1+\kappa )\delta .$$
(25)
And we have to take account of the exchange of energy between $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ in the computation of the expansion rate as a function of time.

It would be a curious coincidence if the value of the parameter $`\lambda `$ happened to be just such as to make one or more of these departures from CDM observationally acceptable and significant. But there are many such coincidences in physical science. In this case, the coincidence would bias cosmological tests that assume the CDM model.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

It is standard and efficient practice to stick with the theory that has brought us this far until it fails. Experience reenforces the strategy; GR is a good example. Einstein’s modest empirical basis came from laboratory physics: Maxwell’s equations, that contain special relativity, and the evidence for the equivalence principle. Beginning with Einstein’s calculation of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, GR has been shown to pass searching tests out to the much larger scales of the Solar System. We are now seeing that the theory passes nontrivial tests on the enormous scales of cosmology. One might argue that this is to be expected, from the compelling physical logic of GR. I respect the logic, but am much more impressed by the prospect of actually weighing the physics of GR on the observational scales of cosmology.

The physics of the CDM model for structure formation is not as logically compelling as GR, as witness the broad interest in the warm and self-interacting variants. Alternatives that upset the cosmological tests are less widely discussed, but certainly will be useful, maybe as foils to help establish the CDM model, maybe as leads to better physics in the dark sector.

We may be lucky enough to get a laboratory detection and exploration of the properties of dark matter, but most of the physics in the dark sector and the rest of cosmology will have to be established in quite indirect ways, like much of physical science these days. One way to organize this follows the PPN approach to tests of GR: assign parameters to the aspects of gravity physics that are of interest to cosmology, as discussed in Sec. 2, other parameters for such physics in the visible sector as rolling coupling constants, more parameters for physics in the dark sector, and still more for initial conditions. Overconstraining them all will be quite a challenge, but Nature has provided opportunities for lots of observations, the pursuit of which we may hope will show us when we have arrived at the dawning of the age of accurate cosmology.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Bharat Ratra for the many discussions that are the basis for this essay. I have benefitted also from advice from Neta Bahcall, Rich Gott, Stacey McGaugh, Suzanne Staggs, and Gary Steigman. This work was supported in part by the USA National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# References

Space-time dynamics from algebra representations ***Work partially supported by the DGICYT.

J.L. Jaramillo1E-mail: jarama@iaa.es and V. Aldaya1,2E-mail: valdaya@iaa.es

1. Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (CSIC), Apartado Postal 3004, 18080 Granada, Spain.
2. Instituto Carlos I de Física Teórica y Computacional, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada, Campus de Fuentenueva, Granada 18002, Spain.

Abstract

* We present a model for introducing dynamics into a space-time geometry. This space-time structure is constructed from a $`C^{}`$-algebra defined in terms of the generators of an irreducible unitary representation of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. This algebra is included as a subalgebra in a bigger algebra $``$, the generators of which mix the representations of $`𝒢`$ in a way that relates different space-times and creates the dynamics. This construction can be considered eventually as a model for $`2D`$ quantum gravity.

03.65.Fd, 98.80.H, 02.20.Sv, 02.20.Tw.

A $`C^{}`$-algebra constructed by means of the generators of a finite-dimensional Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ is employed to construct an appropriate space-time geometry structure from strictly symmetry grounds. Moreover, a notion of dynamics (in a sense to be specified below) can be introduced into the scheme by considering $`𝒢`$ as inserted in a bigger algebra $``$ which encloses the physical content of the model. The method somewhat parallels that of Madore in constructing the fuzzy sphere . While he employed the generators in irreducible unitary representations of $`su(2)`$, we make use here of the algebra of $`sl(2,)`$ to create what might be called fuzzy hyperboloids (there are different ways of introducing non-commutativity in hyperboloids, thus leading to different “fuzzy hyperboloids”; we shall give a precise meaning to ours below) .

For the sake of clarity and to avoid redundancies, let us postpone the detailed analysis of the concrete $`C^{}`$-algebra of interest until we have chosen a specific model in which our statements acquire a completely defined meaning. For the moment let us accept that a geometry notion (an hyperboloid) can be related to each particular irreducible representation of $`𝒢`$.

To introduce dynamics into this context, we consider a bigger algebra $``$ with a central extension structure. This algebra contains $`sl(2,)`$ as a subalgebra singularized by algebra (pseudo-)cohomology criteria: $`sl(2,)`$ is in the kernel of the cocycle. Generators which give a central term in their commutators are dynamical and form conjugated pairs, while those in the kernel of the cocycle are the kinematical ones (this can be explicitly shown through the construction of a symplectic form). Then, we construct a unitary, irreducible representation of $``$. Assuming complete reducibility of the representation under $`sl(2,)`$, we find a collection of $`sl(2,)`$ irreducible, unitary representations, each defining a space-time geometry, via the $`sl(2,)`$ generators. The action of the rest of the generators in $``$ mix the different $`sl(2,)`$ representations, defining dynamics in the ensemble of the hyperboloids.

Let us make the foregoing considerations more specific. For $`2D`$ quantum gravity motivations , we choose $``$ to be the Virasoro algebra:

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+\frac{1}{12}(cn^3c^{}n)\delta _{n,m},$$
(1)
where $`c`$ is the true extension parameter and $`c^{}`$ is a redefinition of $`L_0`$ (pseudo-cohomology), which must be taken into account in order to fully explore the dynamical content of the algebra  (the standard expression in the literature for (1) uses $`c`$ and $`h`$ instead of $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$, where $`h=\frac{cc^{}}{24}`$; parameters $`(c,c^{})`$ are better suited for our discussion).

Then, a highest-weight representation of the Virasoro algebra, $`_{(c,c^{})}`$, is constructed. Unitarity, irreducibility  and the presence of $`sl(2,)`$ in the kernel of the cocycle (i.e., $`sl(2;R)`$ is kinematical) are automatically guaranteed with the imposition of $`c=c^{}`$ and $`c>1`$. This $`sl(2,)`$ is generated by $`L_1,L_0,L_1`$.

The representation $`_{(c,c)}`$ is accomplished by imposing $`L_n0=0`$ (for $`n1`$, annihilation operators), and the states have the form:

$$L_{n_1}\mathrm{}L_{n_j}0(n_1,\mathrm{},n_j2\text{ creation operators)}$$
(2)
To consider the reduction of the representation under the kinematical subalgebra $`sl(2,)`$, we look for $`N,0`$ states, satisfying $`L_1N,0=0`$, thus being highest-weight vectors for $`sl(2,)`$. It can be shown  that each of these vectors must belong to a definite Virasoro level (i.e., they must be $`L_0`$-eigenvectors). Using this fact, and denoting as $`D^{(N)}`$ the dimension of the Virasoro $`N`$ level, we find $`(D^{(N)}D^{(N1)})`$ highest-weight vectors in the Virasoro $`N`$ level (we need only notice that the operator $`L_1`$ restricted to $`Level(N)`$ with values in $`Level(N1)`$ is an epimorphism, and $`dim(LevelN)=dim(KerL_1)+dim(ImL_1)`$). An $`sl(2,)`$ representation $`R^{(N)}`$, of Casimir value $`N(N1)`$, is reached by the successive action of $`L_1`$ on each of the previously found $`N,0`$ vectors: $`N,n=(L_1)^nN,0`$. Furthermore, the different $`sl(2,)`$ representations are orthogonal (with the scalar product induced from the Virasoro algebra). The representation of the Virasoro algebra is thus completely reduced:

$$_{(c,c)}=(D^{(N)}D^{(N1)})R^{(N)}$$
(3)
Note that the representation $`R^{(N)}`$ is degenerated and its weight $`(D^{(N)}D^{(N1)})`$ increases with $`N`$.

As stated above, the space-time is reconstructed from a $`C^{}`$-algebra, and in the search of it we follow the spirit of Madore  in the realization of the “fuzzy sphere”, but with a different objective which results in a different construction.

The aim in  was to construct a non-commutative geometry for the sphere in such a way that the classical geometry is recovered in a certain limit. This was achieved through the construction of a succession of $`C^{}`$-algebras the limit of which is the algebra $`𝒞(S^2)`$ of complex-valued smooth functions on the sphere.

The explicit sphere was defined by:

$$g_{ab}x^ax^b=r^2\text{ (}r\text{ being a fixed radius)}\text{}$$
(4)
$`g_{ab}`$ being the Killing metric.

To implement the $`nth`$ element of the succession of $`C^{}`$-algebras, he defined “coordinates” from the $`J_n^a`$ generators of an irreducible representation of dimension $`n`$ of $`su(2)`$:

$$x_n^a=k_nJ_n^a\text{ ,(where }k_n\text{ is a constant with appropriate dimensions).}$$
(5)
When polynomials were considered in these non-commutative coordinates of order up to $`n1`$, with the Casimir constraint (4), an algebra isomorphic to $`M_n`$ ($`n\times n`$ matrices) resulted. This non-commutative $`C^{}`$ algebra $`M_n`$ was then used to construct a matrix geometry which in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ goes to the standard geometry on the sphere of radius $`r`$.

Geometry becomes fuzzy in this process. For each matrix geometry $`M_n`$, points are replaced by states of the n-dimensional $`su(2)`$ representation considered. We can prove that $`k0`$ in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, and thus coordinates become commutative, allowing the characterization of a point by the use of two coordinates (recovering the standard notion of a point).

In our case, the starting algebra is $`sl(2,)`$ instead of $`su(2)`$, so that hyperboloids substitute spheres when the Casimir constraint is imposed.

$`C^{}`$-algebras are again built from the representations of our Lie algebra (and thus we are in the spirit of Madore), but now we are not trying to approximate any previous classical geometry (true hyperboloids of “radii” $`r`$), and thus a succession of representations of the algebra for implementing such an approximation is not required. In our case, there is no arbitrariness in the $`sl(2,)`$ representations we must consider. They are specific ones and are given by the reduction of the $`_{(c,c)}`$ representation. Each $`sl(2,)`$ representation, $`R_i^{(N)}`$ ($`i`$ for degenerate representations), will generate a (different) space-time geometry.

To construct the $`C^{}`$-algebras, we first define the coordinate variables from the generators of $`sl(2,)`$. Generators in the $`Nth`$ $`sl(2,)`$ representation are multiplied by an dimensional constant $`k^{(N)}`$ in order to get appropriate space-time coordinates:

$`x_i^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`k^{(N)}L_i^{(N)}\text{ }i=1,0,1`$ (6)
$`\text{where }L_i^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`L_i|{}_{Nthsl(2,)representation}{}^{}\text{.}`$
We impose the condition that all the hyperboloids derived from the different $`sl(2,)`$ representations in the Virasoro representation have the same radius, $`R`$, and this fixes the value of the constants $`k^{(N)}`$. The way the radius is implemented in an $`sl(2,)`$ irreducible representation is, again, via the value of the Casimir on it (in fact, we have imposed irreducibility on these representations in order to have a well defined value of the Casimir):

$$R^2=g^{jk}x_j^{(N)}x_k^{(N)}=k_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{2}N(N1)\text{,}$$
(7)
where $`g^{jk}`$ is the $`sl(2,)`$ Killing metric (note the condition $`\frac{k_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{2}}{k_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{2}}=1`$, i.e., $`k^{(N)}`$ is a purely imaginary number).

Thus, we finally have:

$`R^2`$ $`=`$ $`k_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{2}N(N1)`$ (8)
$`k^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\sqrt{N(N1)}}}.`$
This is the way space-time variables are defined. To implement the $`C^{}`$-algebra, we do not restrict ourselves to polynomials up to a certain order (we are not trying to define a sequence of space-times), but rather, we consider the entire enveloping algebra of these $`x_i^{(N)}`$, modulus the ideal generated by the Casimir (radius) constraint. Thus,

$`C^{}algebra`$ $`=`$ $`Env(x_1^{(i)},x_0^{(i)},x_1^{(i)})/Radius`$
$`Radius`$ $`=`$ $`g^{jk}x_j^{(N)}x_k^{(N)}=R^2.`$ (9)
As can be seen from commutators among the space-time coordinates ($`[x_i^{(N)}\text{,}x_j^{(N)}]=k^{(N)}C_{ij}^kx_k^{(N)}`$), this is a non-commutative $`C^{}`$-algebra leading to a non-commutative geometry. Points are again replaced by states in the representation of $`sl(2,)`$, and thus we have indeed fuzzy hyperboloids. For a better understanding of these “fuzzy” points, it is useful a glance at the indetermination relations, under which space-time is divided into cells:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_i^{(N)}\mathrm{\Delta }x_j^{(N)}k^{(N)}^2=\frac{R^2}{\sqrt{N(N1)}}.$$
(10)
Different fuzzy hyperboloids of the same radius $`R`$ are simultaneously found inside the Virasoro representation. These are distinguished by point density, which grows with the value of $`N`$, as can be seen from (10). We note that for large $`R`$ values and very small $`N`$, the size of the cells is comparable to that of the hyperboloid. On the contrary, for a fixed $`R`$, we can find values of $`N`$ as large as we wish, making $`k^{(N)}0`$, so that cells tend to points and the space-time coordinates become commutative, recovering the classical geometry.

Our model for space-time is not just one of these hyperboloids, but the whole ensemble of them (they can be seen as different copies of the same hyperboloid, with equal $`R`$, but with different degrees of fuzziness, different $`N`$). We understand “point” to mean a normalized state in the Virasoro Hilbert space $`_{(c,c)}`$. Taking advantage of the complete reduction of $`_{(c,c)}`$ under $`sl(2,)`$, this point can be written as a linear superposition of normalized vectors over the $`sl(2,)`$ representations. Each of $`sl(2,)`$ states is interpreted as a “point” in a concrete fuzzy hyperboloid, and thus the original point is spread over different hyperboloids. Indeed, it makes sense to consider the probability of the “point” to be in a concrete hyperboloid using the orthogonality of the $`sl(2,)`$ representations and developing a standard quantum mechanical interpretation.

It is not our aim here to give a detailed analysis of the fuzzy hyperboloid geometry and its classical (large $`N`$) limit. We simply mention general features. The role of space-time diffeomorphisms is played by automorphisms of the $`C^{}`$-algebra. Vector fields are derivations of this algebra; that is, linear mappings that satisfy the Leibnitz rule. These fields do not form a module over $`C^{}`$, suggesting that we should consider one-forms as the fundamental objects having a bimodule structure over $`C^{}`$ . From this, and the Killing metric on $`sl(2,)`$, we could even define a metric and a connection (we do not enter into these details, which are subtle and deserve a specific study; basically, we aim to identify a proper $`C^{}`$-algebra).

Let us focus now on the way the dynamical degrees of freedom enter the model. Since the motivation for the use of the Virasoro algebra is $`2D`$ gravity, we shall refer to these modes as “gravitational” ones. Their action on points (normalized states in the Virasoro Hilbert space) must be such that it preserves the norm (keeping the notion of “point”). Therefore, they must be implemented by unitary transformations generated by hermitian operators. Starting from the condition

$$L_n^+=L_n,$$
(11)
hermitian combinations can be defined:

$`G_n`$ $`=`$ $`L_n+L_n\text{,}n2`$ (12)
$`G_n`$ $`=`$ $`i(L_nL_n)\text{,}n2,`$
generating the unitary gravity transformations:

$$U_n=e^{i(k_nG_n+k_nG_n)}\text{ .}$$
(13)
Gravity transformations do not preserve the $`sl(2,)`$ irreducible representations, so that if we start from a point which completely lies on a space-time of point density given by $`N`$, after the action of gravity this point is transformed into a superposition of points in different space-times of the same radius (the same Virasoro representation) but different $`N`$ (different point density). This is the essence of the dynamics in the model: the Universe is not one of these space-times, but the whole ensemble of them, and a point is a superposition of states (eigen-points) spread over different-density space-times, the coefficients of which give the probability for the point to be in the corresponding space-time (because $`sl(2,)`$ representations are orthogonal, a fact which allows the construction of proper orthogonal projectors), thereby defining a probability distribution of the point. The effect of (gravity) dynamics is that of changing this probability distribution (quantum motion of the point).

Space-times with different densities have different weights, in such a way that denser ones (more “classical” ones) are more abundant. Furthermore (as is easily checked given that we have a maximum weight representation), the repeated action of gravity generators move the density distribution toward larger $`N`$; that is, gravity has a definite direction toward classical space-times. Combining this with the fact that classical space-times are the most abundant ones ($`D^{(N)}D^{(N1)}`$ increases with $`N`$), we could explain why Universe geometry is almost classical. If this construction is considered as a model for gravity, it must be remembered that one is not dealing with Einstein gravity, but rather with a higher-order correction to it (probably more related to a Wess-Zumino-Witten-like gravity). (Non-commutative) Einstein gravity should be studied in each of the hyperboloids that appear in the model, by introducing a metric connection notion with a dynamical content. In two dimensions, classical Einstein gravity is trivial, and thus we have not concerned ourselves with it. However, in higher dimensions this problem should be faced. We stress that the model is not incompatible with, but rather defines a framework to study, Einstein gravity.

As regards space-time operators, one must construct hermitian operators to give an observable character to the position of a point. Thus,

$`x_u^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`x_1^{(N)}+x_1^{(N)}`$ (14)
$`x_v^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(x_1^{(N)}x_1^{(N)}).`$
In this variables the $`sl(2,)`$ Casimir constraint is given by:

$$R^2=x_{u}^{N}{}_{}{}^{2}+x_{v}^{N}{}_{}{}^{2}x_{0}^{N}{}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(15)
This expression does not distinguish between de Sitter and anti-de Sitter space-times, which in two dimensions are topologically identical. In fact, the reconstruction of a geometry from a $`C^{}`$-algebra does not provide a metric structure and thus such a distinction should not be expected at this level. There is freedom in choosing any of these by selecting an appropriate form of the $`SL(2,)`$ Killing metric on the $`(x_u^N,x_v^N,x_0^N)`$ space, which induces the corresponding metric on the hyperboloid through (15).