text:
# The influence of asymmetry on a magnetized proto-neutron star.

## Introduction

Properties of dense matter in strong magnetic field has been the subject of investigations in astrophysics of white dwarfs, proto-neutron and neutron stars. Observations of pulsars suggest large surface fields of the order of $`10^{14}`$ $`G`$ . This very high value indicates the existence of even stronger interior magnetic fields. In fact the virial theorem suggests that interior magnetic fields can reach the value of the order of $`10^{18}`$ $`G`$. The influence of this extraordinary high magnetic field on neutron star matter properties are of particular importance after the discovery of magnetars . Their observations suggest that in the case of these objects we are dealing with young neutron stars with extremely strong surface magnetic fields $``$ $`10^{15}`$ $`G`$ which in turn give an interior field of the order of $`10^{18}`$ $`G`$. Also properties of proto-neutron stars, under the influence of magnetic field should be examined. Assumptions concerning composition and the equation of state of hot, lepton rich matter have been studied by many authors (Strobel et al. 1999, Bombaci et al. 1995, Takatsuka 1995, Mańka et al. 2001) . Matter inside a proto-neutron star is highly degenerate and chemical potentials of its constituents are a few hundreds of $`MeV`$. Like in a neutron star the strength of magnetic field of a proto-neutron star changes from $`10^8`$ $`G`$ at the surface up to $`10^{18}`$ $`G`$ in the center . A proto-neutron star  is a result of a supernova explosion which forms low entropy core with trapped neutrinos. The core is surrounded by a low density, high entropy mantle. The construction of a proto-neutron star model is based on various realistic equations of state and gives a general picture of proto-neutron star interiors. The more complete and realistic description of a proto-neutron star requires taking into consideration effects of finite temperature and nonzero magnetic fields. Using the relativistic mean-field theory approach the adequate form of the equation of state enlarged by contributions coming from magnetic field and temperature is constructed and serves as an input to the Oppenheimer-Volkoff-Tolman equations. The theory considered here comprises electrons, neutrinos, scalar, vector-scalar and vector-isovector mesons. The RMF theory implies that the nucleon interactions appear through the exchange of meson fields . This theory is very useful in describing properties of nuclear matter and finite nuclei. Its extrapolation to large charge asymmetry is of considerable interest in nuclear astrophysics and particulary in constructing proto-neutron and neutron star models where extreme conditions of isospin are realized. The model considered describes high isospin asymmetric matter and it has to be extended by the inclusion of isovector-scalar meson $`a_0(980)`$ (the $`\delta `$ meson) and nonlinear vector meson interaction terms. Knowing the form of the equation of state is the decisive factor in determining properties of proto-neutron stars such as: central density, mass-radius relation, crust extent or the moment of inertia. The essential goal of this paper is to obtain the equation of state for proto-neutron star matter within the described above model in the relativistic mean field approach (RMF) and to study the influence of proton fraction on proto-neutron stars parameters. The variable proton fraction together with the inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson and nonlinear vector meson interactions alter the proto-neutron stars chemical composition. This in turn affects the properties of the star making the proto-neutron star more compact.

## The generalized Relativistic Mean Field approach

The Lagrangian function for the system can be written as a sum of a baryonic part $`_B`$ which includes baryon-meson interaction terms, mesonic part $`_{}`$ containing additional interactions between mesons which mathematically express themselves as supplementary, nonlinear terms in the Lagrangian function, the leptonic part $`_L`$, the Lagrangian density function of the QED theory $`_{QED}`$ and the gravitational term $`_G`$

$$=_B+_L+_{}+_G+_{QED}.$$
(1)
The final form of the Lagrangian function is given by

$`=i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi \overline{\psi }(M_Ng_\sigma \phi I_{3N}g_\delta \tau ^a\delta ^a)\psi \kappa _N\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\psi `$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c_3(\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{\mu \nu }^aR^{a\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\rho ^2\rho _\mu ^a\rho ^{a\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \delta ^a^\mu \delta ^a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\delta ^2\delta ^a\delta ^a`$
$`+i{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\overline{L}_f\gamma ^\mu \stackrel{~}{D}_\mu L_f{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{2}{}}}g_f(\overline{L}_fHe_{Rf}+h.c){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi U(\phi )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_{\mu \nu }W^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}g_\rho ^4\zeta (b_\mu ^ab^{a\mu })^2`$
$`+(g_\rho g_\omega )^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_vb_\mu ^ab^{a\mu }\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu +(g_\rho g_s)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4b_\mu ^ab^{a\mu }\phi ^2`$
with the covariant derivatives $`D_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu `$ defined as

$`D_\mu =_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ig_\rho \rho _\mu ^a\sigma ^a+ig_\omega \omega _\mu +iQA_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu =_\mu +iQA_\mu .`$ (3)
In the case of nucleons $`Q`$ takes the value $`e`$ for protons ($`e`$ is the electron charge) and $`0`$ for neutrons ($`Q=e,0`$). In the leptonic sector ($`Q=e,0`$) where $`e`$ is given for electrons and muons and $`0`$ for neutrinos. $`H`$ is Higgs field and this field has only the residual form

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v\end{array}\right)`$
where the value $`v=250MeV`$ comes from the electroweak interaction scale. In a strong magnetic field, contributions coming from the anomalous magnetic moments of protons and neutrons ($`\kappa _N,N=\{p,n\}`$) have to be also considered. The anomalous magnetic moments introduced via the minimal coupling of nucleons to the electromagnetic field tensor can be represented phenomenologically by interactions of the type $`\kappa _N\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\psi `$ , where $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}`$ . Considering both the physical conditions and chemical equilibrium which are likely to be satisfied in a proto-neutron star one can construct a proto-neutron star model with a temperature $`T`$ equals $`20`$ $`MeV`$ and magnetic field strength $`B10^3B_c^e`$ where $`B_c^e`$ is the value of the critical magnetic field for an electron $`B_c^e`$= $`m_e^2/e`$= $`4.414\times 10^{13}`$ $`G`$. The model examined in this paper represents the one with moderate value of magnetic field. In this case the contributions to the equation of state coming from anomalous magnetic moments are small $`(1MeV)`$ in comparison with the energy of magnetic field. Thus this relatively small value of magnetic field allows to neglect the anomalous magnetic moments unlike to the case describe in the paper by Prakash et al.  where authors consider the case of extremely strong magnetic field of the order of $`10^{18}`$ $`G`$. Realistic proto-neutron star models describe electrically neutral, hot, high density matter being in $`\beta `$ equilibrium. The last condition implies the presence of leptons which is expressed by adding the Lagrangian of leptons to the Lagrangian function. The fermion fields which are included in this model consists of neutrons, protons, electrons, muons and neutrinos

$$\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _p\\ \psi _n\end{array}\right),L_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ e^{}\end{array}\right)_L,L_2=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\mu \\ \mu ^{}\end{array}\right)_L,e_{Rf}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_R^{},\mu _R^{}& \end{array}\right).$$
(5)
As a proto-neutron star matter is of sizeable asymmetry the additional $`\delta `$ meson has been included and the meson sector is composed of isoscalar (scalar $`\sigma `$ and vector $`\omega `$) and isovector (scalar $`\delta `$ and vector $`\rho `$) mesons. The potential function $`U(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}M_\sigma ^2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{3}g_2\phi ^3+\frac{1}{4}g_3\phi ^4`$ has a very well known form introduced by Boguta and Bodmer .

Nucleon masses are denoted by $`M_N`$ (N=p,n) whereas $`M_\omega `$, $`M_\rho `$, $`M_\sigma `$ and $`M_\delta `$ are masses assigned to the meson fields. They are taken at their experimentally values: $`M_\omega =783MeV`$, $`M_\rho =770MeV`$ and $`M_\delta =980MeV`$. The nonlinear vector meson interaction terms have been added in order to give a detailed account of a matter inside a proto-neutron star. This has been done through the construction of adequate form of the equation of state. To determine the equation of state at finite temperature and nonvanishing magnetic field some parameterizations have been used. The first one is known as $`TM1`$ parameter set , the second one noted as $`TM1+nonl.`$ includes nonlinear terms in the meson sector. The third is the $`GM3`$ parameter set . The parameters entering the Lagrangian function are the coupling constants $`g_\rho `$, $`g_\delta `$, $`g_\sigma `$, $`g_\omega `$ for meson fields and self-interacting coupling constants $`g_2`$ $`g_3`$, $`c_3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_v`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ and $`\zeta `$. All these parameters have been chosen to reproduce properties of symmetric nuclear matter at saturation and they are collected in Tables 1a and 1b. In the original $`GM3`$ and $`TM1`$ approaches neutrinos are not included since these parameterizations describe a neutron star matter. In this case neutrinos leave the star unhindered. In order to construct the neutron star model through the entire density span the addition of the equations of state, characteristic for the inner and outer core, relevant for lower densities is necessary. In the result the composite equation of state for which the TM1 or GM3 parameter groups describing the neutron star core are supplemented with the Negele-Voutherin (NV) \+ Bonn describing inner crust can be used. The equilibrium properties of nuclear matter which are known with reasonable precision are: the nuclear saturation density $`n_S`$, the binding energy $`E_b`$, the incompressibility $`K_0`$, the symmetry energy $`a_{sym}`$ and the effective nucleon mass. Nuclear matter properties calculated for given parameter sets (Tables 1a and 1b) are summarized in Table 2. The presence of additional nonlinear $`\rho `$ meson interaction terms and $`\delta `$ meson which carries izospin contribute to the symmetry energy. Thus the value of the parameter $`g_\rho `$ has to be redefined for the $`TM1+nonl.`$ parameterization. Parameters $`g_\rho `$, $`g_\delta `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_v`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ and $`\zeta `$ are not chosen arbitrary they have to be given in a specified form adequate to reproduce the value of the symmetry energy $`a_{sym}`$.

The vector potential for the electromagnetic stress tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by $`A_\mu =\{A_0=0,A_i\}`$ where

$$A_i=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{ilm}x^lB_0^m.$$

The symmetry in which uniform magnetic field $`\text{B}_0`$ lies along the z-axis has been chosen chosen $`B_0^m=(0,0,B_z)`$. Considering the influence of an external magnetic field on proto-neutron star constituents one can start with determining the dispersion relations for them. The dispersion relation for an electron in a magnetic field is

$$\epsilon _e=\sqrt{p_z^2+m_e^2+2neB_z},$$

where $`n`$ is the Landau level, $`p_z`$ is the electron momentum along the z-axis and $`m_e`$ is the rest mass of the electron . Along the field direction a particle motion is free and quasi-one-dimensional with the modified density of states which is given by a sum

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[2\delta _{n0}]{\displaystyle \frac{eB_z}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑p_z},`$
$`\delta _{n0}`$ denotes the Kronecker delta . The spin degeneracy equals 1 for the ground ($`n=0`$) Landau level and 2 for $`n1`$. Similar results can be obtained for muons by replacing the electron quantities by the corresponding muon quantities. The energy dispersion relation for protons for arbitrary Landau level in a magnetic field is

$`\epsilon _{p,s}=\sqrt{p_z^2+(\sqrt{M_{p,eff}^2+2nQB_z}+s\kappa _pB_z)^2}`$ (6)
and $`s=\pm 1`$ being "spin" number. For moderate values of magnetic fields strength this equation reduces to the following one

$`\epsilon _p\sqrt{p_z^2+M_{p,eff}^2+2neB_z}.`$
A neutron can interact with an external electromagnetic field by means of the Pauli non-minimal coupling. Then the energy dispersion relation for neutrons in a magnetic field is given by

$$\epsilon _{n,s}=\sqrt{p_{}^2+(\sqrt{M_{n,eff}^2+p_{}^2}+s\kappa _nB_z)^2}$$
(7)
where $`p_{}=p_z`$ and $`p_{}`$ are the components of the neutron momentum parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field. As it is usually assumed in quantum hadrodynamics the mean field approximation is adopted and for the ground state of homogeneous infinite matter quantum fields operators are replaced by their classical expectation values. One can separate mesonic fields into classical mean field values and quantum fluctuations which are not included in the ground state and thus mesons fields are replaced by their mean values $`\sigma =<\phi >`$, $`d^a=<\delta ^a>=\delta ^{a,3}d_0`$, $`w_\mu =<\omega _\mu >=\delta _{\mu ,0}w_0`$ and $`r_\mu ^a=<\rho _\mu ^a>=\delta ^{a,3}\delta _{\mu ,0}r_0`$. The Dirac equation at the mean field level for the nucleon quasi-particle has the form

$$(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu M_{N,eff}\kappa _N\sigma _{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })\psi =0$$
(8)
with $`M_{N,eff}`$ being the effective nucleon mass generated by the nucleon and scalar fields interactions and defined as

$`M_{p,eff}=M\delta _p=Mg_s\sigma g_\delta d_0,`$ (9)
$`M_{n,eff}=M\delta _n=Mg_s\sigma +g_\delta d_0.`$ (10)
The main effect of the inclusion of $`\delta `$ meson becomes evident studying properties of proto-neutron star matter especially nucleon mass splitting and the form of the equation of state. With the effective nucleon mass $`M_{N,eff}`$ one can redefine the proton and neutron chemical potentials

$`\mu _p=\epsilon _p+g_\omega w_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\rho r_0`$ (11)
$`\mu _n=\epsilon _n+g_\omega w_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_\rho r_0`$ (12)
where $`\epsilon _p`$ and $`\epsilon _n`$ is given by relations (7) and (6). The obtained effective nucleon chemical potentials allow to define conditions that are regarded as essential to uniquely determine the complete equilibrium composition of proto-neutron star matter at given density. These conditions arise from charge neutrality, baryon and lepton number conservation. The last one is strictly connected with the assumption that proto-neutron star matter is opaque to neutrinos. Neutrinos are trapped inside the matter and this through the requirement of $`\beta `$ equilibrium puts certain limits on the chemical composition of a proto-neutron star matter. For the case to be considered the processes of $`\beta `$-decay and inverse $`\beta `$-decay take place

$$p+en+\nu _e.$$
(13)
For large enough electron Fermi energy it is energetically favorable for electrons to convert to muons

$$\mu +\nu _ee+\nu _\mu .$$
(14)
The chemical equilibrium established by the above processes is given by relations between chemical potentials of proto-neutron star constituents and impose constrains on them.

$`\mu _{\nu _e}=\mu _e+\mu _p\mu _n`$ (15)
$`\mu _{\nu _\mu }=\mu _{\nu _e}\mu _e+\mu _\mu `$ . (16)
From the equations (11) and (12) the electron neutrino chemical potential can be expressed in the following way

$`\mu _{\nu _e}=\mu _e+\epsilon _p\epsilon _n+g_\rho r_0.`$ (17)
With the assumption that only electron neutrinos are captured in the star core $`(\mu _{\nu _\mu }=0)`$ the following relations for electron neutrino and muon chemical potentials can be obtained

$`\mu _{\nu _e}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _e+\epsilon _p\epsilon _n+g_\rho r_0`$
$`\mu _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{\nu _e}+\mu _e=\epsilon _p+\epsilon _ng_\rho r_0.`$ (18)
Both electron neutrino and muon chemical potentials depend on nucleon asymmetry. The muon chemical potential depends on the asymmetry of the whole system through the value of the $`\rho `$ meson field which is directly connected with the neutron excess and the difference of nucleon energies. Comparison between the matter with high asymmetry $`(Y_p=0.11)`$ and the one with low asymmetry indicates that in the former case the muon chemical potential is greater than that of the later one. This translates to the lower number of muons in the proto-neutron star matter with the proton number $`Y_p`$ of the order of $`0.38`$. The increase of neutron excess is connected with the increasing number of muons. Their contribution to the pressure and energy density of the system become significant. To construct the equation of state of the system the energy-momentum tensor has to be calculated. The pressure is related to the statistical average of the trace of the spatial components of the energy-momentum tensor $`P=\frac{1}{3}<T_{ii}>`$ whereas the energy density $`\epsilon `$ equals $`<T_{00}>`$. In general in the presence of magnetic field the pressure can be written as a sum of the isotropic part which includes contributions coming from electrons, nucleons, mesons and the electromagnetic anisotropic part $`T_{\mu \nu }^B`$ is given by

$`T_{\mu \nu }^B=F_\mu ^\lambda F_{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }.`$
In cartesian coordinates the electromagnetic part of the energy momentum tensor in the flat space-time has the form

$$T_{\mu \nu }^B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}B^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}B^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}B^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}B^2\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
On the other hand in polar coordinates $`T_{\mu \nu }^B`$ has been written as follows

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}B^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}B^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & \frac{1}{2}B^2r\mathrm{sin}2\theta & 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}B^2r\mathrm{sin}2\theta & \frac{1}{2}B^2r^2\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}B^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right).`$
Taking the average over all directions allows to obtain the isotropic form of the energy momentum tensor relevant for the spherical symmetric configuration

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}B^2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{6}B^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{6}B^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{6}B^2\end{array}\right).`$
The assumption of the positivity of the total pressure $`P`$ has been made. Any negative contributions to the pressure diminish it and lead to the decrease of a star radius. The described above averaging approximates the star as an spherically symmetric object with the radius $`R`$ which is smaller than the equatorial radius of an anisotropic star. (The case of an anisotropic star is calculated in details in the paper by Konno et al. ). The condition of the positivity of the total pressure establishes a limiting value of the density noted as $`\rho _{crit}`$ and at the same time puts limit on the spherical symmetric approximation (the deformation of the star is neglected). For densities smaller than the critical one the total pressure became negative and there is no gravity compensation in this direction. The total pressure and the energy density of the system supplemented by corrections coming from magnetic field are obtained by adding contributions from mesons and fermions

$`P=P_f+P_{QED}U(\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\rho ^2r_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\omega ^2w_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\delta ^2d_0^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_vg_\omega ^2g_\rho ^2r_0^2w_0^2+`$
$`+g_\sigma ^2g_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0^2\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}c_3w_0^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\zeta g_\rho ^4r_0^4`$
$`\epsilon =\epsilon _f+\epsilon _{QED}+U(\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}c_3w_0^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\omega ^2w_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\rho ^2r_0^2+3\mathrm{\Lambda }_vg_\omega ^2g_\rho ^2r_0^2w_0^2+g_\sigma ^2g_\rho ^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4r_0^2\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\zeta g_\rho ^4r_0^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_\delta ^2d_0^2`$
where $`f=(i,n),i=(e,\mu ,p)`$ and $`\epsilon _{QED}=\frac{1}{2}B^2,P_{QED}=\frac{1}{6}B^2`$. The fermion pressure is defined as

$`P_i={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _em_i^4}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[2\delta _{n0}]\{I_{1,2,+}(z_i/t_i,\varsigma _i^2+2\gamma _en)`$
$`+I_{1,2,}(z_i/t_i,\varsigma _i^2+2\gamma _en)\}`$
where the Fermi integral

$$I_{\lambda ,\eta \pm }(u,\alpha )=\frac{(\alpha +x^2)^{\lambda /2}x^\eta dx}{e^{\left(\sqrt{\alpha +x^2}u\right)}+1}$$
(22)
was used, $`z_i=\mu _0/m_i`$, $`t_i=k_BT_0/m_i`$, $`u_i=z_i/t_i`$, $`\gamma _e=B_z/B_c^e`$ and $`\varsigma _i=m_{i,eff}/m_i`$. The last quantity equals 1 for electrons and muons. The critical magnetic field strength for electron equals $`B_c^e`$=$`m_e^2/e`$= $`4.414\times 10^{13}`$ $`G`$. The fermion energy density is also defined with the use of the Fermi integral

$`\epsilon _i={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _em_i^4}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[2\delta _{n0}]\{I_{1,0,+}(z_i/t_i,\varsigma _i^2+2\gamma _en)`$
$`+I_{1,0,}(z_i/t_i,\varsigma _i^2+2\gamma _en)\}.`$
## Conclusion

Analyzing properties of proto-neutron star matter some features which are relevant for proto-neutron stars have to be considered. It is a necessary assumption that the matter is opaque to neutrinos. As a result neutrinos are trapped dynamically inside the matter on the diffusion time scale and in contradiction to neutron star matter the total lepton number $`Y_L=Y_e+Y_{\mu _e}+Y_\mu `$ is kept constant. Theoretical predictions determine the value of $`Y_L`$ at the onset of trapping at about 0.35-0.4. Since a proto-neutron star is formed during a supernova explosion it is safely to make an assumption about finite temperature in the interior of a star. This is limited by the requirement of constant value of entropy in a proto-neutron star core. In this paper the temperature is fixed and equals 20 MeV. Thus conditions which have to be considered namely: finite temperature, lepton number conservation, $`\beta `$\- equilibrium, charge neutrality and additionally nonzero magnetic field allow to construct a realistic proto-neutron star model. All of these mentioned above conditions influence medium properties such as nucleon effective masses, density and proton-neutron asymmetry and in consequence constrain the nucleon and lepton species inside the star core. The proton fraction $`Y_p=n_p/(n_p+n_n)`$ which is determined by $`\beta `$ equilibrium, for matter transparent to neutrinos (neutron star matter) takes the value of the order of $`0.1`$ whereas when neutrinos do contribute they displace the equilibrium proton fraction to the higher value $`Y_p0.30.36`$. For the purpose of comparison all calculations have been performed for decreasing value of proton fractions $`Y_p=0.34,Y_p=0.22,Y_p=0.11`$, respectively. This changing proton-neutron asymmetry through relation (The generalized Relativistic Mean Field approach) alters the lepton chemical potentials. Figure 1 displays chemical potentials of electron neutrinos, electrons and muons for two extreme values of $`Y_p`$ ($`Y_p=0.11`$ and $`Y_p=0.34`$). They have been examined for moderate strength of magnetic field. If the proton fraction equals $`Y_p=0.34`$ (the proto-neutron star matter) electron and neutrino electron chemical potentials are increasing functions of a density. Neutrinos are trapped inside the matter and their chemical potential differs from zero (see relation 17). For the proton fraction $`Y_p=0.11`$ the matter inside the star resembles that of a neutron star which is characterized by larger value of asymmetry. Neutrinos are about to leave the system and their chemical potential vanishes $`\mu _\nu 0`$. This picture shows the profile of neutrino chemical potential in the core of the star for the chosen values of $`Y_p`$ and for chosen parameter set (TM1+nonl.). For the star with the value of asymmetry typical for a proto-neutron star matter $`(Y_p0.38)`$ muons are of insignificant meaning. However, they become much more important for lower value of proton number. The asymmetry entered into calculations at different levels starting from the displacement of proton and neutron chemical potentials $`\mu _p\mu _n`$. In a model with $`\delta `$ meson exchange additionally $`M_pM_n`$. There are also contributions coming from nonlinear vector meson interactions. The nuclear asymmetry diminishes the neutrino chemical potential and thus lowers neutrino density. The influence of the asymmetry is most distinctive in the high density region inside a proto-neutron star. The forms of neutrino profiles in the proto-neutron star core depend on the asymmetry of the whole system. The behavior of chemical potentials translates to the forms of the equation of state and successively to the mass-radius relations. Results are obtained for two particular cases namely for the nonmagnetic one ($`B=0`$) and for the value of magnetic field $`B10^3B_c^e`$. The presence of magnetic field makes the equation of state stiffer (Fig. 2), whereas for more asymmetric matter the obtained equation of state is softer. Dots represent the limit of making the approximation of spherically symmetric star in the presence of magnetic field. For more asymmetric matter the dot is shifted towards higher densities. In Fig. 3 one can compare the influence of changing proton fraction on star parameters. The obtained sequences of mass-radius for nonmagnetic and magnetic proto-neutron stars show that the increasing asymmetry diminishes proto-neutron star radii causing that the star parameters start to resemble that of neutron stars. This effect is even stronger in the presence of magnetic field. There are relatively minor changes in the value of maximal masses caused by the variation of proton fraction. However, there is a tendency of the increase of the maximal mass for growing asymmetry. The star parameters are also sensitive to the presence of nonlinear vector meson interaction terms in the Lagrangian function (2). This is clearly visible in Fig. 4. Comparison of results obtained for original GM3 and TM1 equations of state (for neutron stars) with that obtained for TM1+nonl. shows that the last one gives the configuration with the bigger value of maximal mass. In the range of lower densities the TM1+nonl. parameter set gives the star with the smaller radius. Thus in the case of high asymmetry nonlinearities create more compact objects. Nonlinearities alter proto-neutron star parameters insignificantly. This is caused by lower value of the asymmetry.


format: text

text:
# Cosmology with Interacting Dark Energy

## 1 Introduction

In the last few years, evidence has mounted suggesting that the universe is currently accelerating. Measurements of type Ia supernovae  indicate that the evolution of the Hubble parameter departs from that expected for a matter dominated universe, and behaves as if under the influence of a negative pressure due to a smooth and dominant background (dark) energy. Further evidence for a vacuum-dominated universe comes from a combination of observations: large scale structure (LSS)  suggests a low matter density universe while the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy data  shows the density of the universe to be virtually critical, consistent with the requirements of the early inflationary scenario . Success of inflation required that the universe be in a vacuum-dominated state with a large associated potential energy. This feature, when taken together with the observations of a currently low density vacuum energy dominating the universe, leads to at least two potential problems that modern cosmology must address. First, the discrepancy between the initial high potential energy state and the current low background dark energy constitutes what has been called  the Cosmological Constant Problem. A new twist to this problem, and which has been called the coincidence problem, relates to the observation  that the current background vacuum energy density, $`\rho _{v\text{ }}^0`$ $`10^{30}gcm^3`$ is not only not zero, but is also of the same order of magnitude as the current density $`\rho _m^0`$ of the matter fields.

This state of affairs gives rise to yet another complication. The observed current vacuum-dominated state of the universe is not a priori predicted by theoretical cosmology, and (as of now) its origin remains mysterious. To this extent, it is not known whether or not there is a future (graceful) exit from the resulting cosmic acceleration (as was the case in the early universe). The situation reflects our current ignorance with regard to the future dynamical evolution of the universe. It constitutes a dynamical problem.

Several approaches have been developed to address the “why is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ small now?” part of the Cosmological Constant Problem. They include dynamical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$term models , dynamical equation of state models , and rolling scalar field models . A common feature in these models is that the vacuum energy takes on a dynamical character, decaying from some initially large value to a small one. One approach, usually favored by particle physicists, is to seek for mechanisms to cancel or at least suppress $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, as in Coleman’s wormhole approach  or by introducing compensating fields in the Lagrangian. In his notable works, Brandenberger has argued (for a review see ) that gravitational back-reaction may lead to a dynamical cancellation mechanism for a bare cosmological constant by giving rise to an evolving anti-de Sitter-like field.

Meanwhile, the observation,  of a small but non-vanishing background dark energy has made the cosmological constant problem even worse, since it is harder to advance a symmetry argument that justifies an almost non-vanishing cosmological constant. In 1998, Caldwell, Dave and Steinhardt  proposed the existence of a background field with a dynamical equation of state $`w\left(t\right)`$. They called it quintessence. Since then, tracker models based on  have evolved to discuss the possible origin of the observed current cosmic acceleration. The issue of tying together the disappearance of the early universe’s cosmological constant with what the source of the current dark energy might be, and why the density of the latter is currently coincidentally close to that of the matter fields, is a challenge for which cosmology still searches for a physically justifiable solution. Some authors have suggested an anthropic principle  to explain the observations.

In this article a potential framework for addressing both the Cosmological Constant Problem and the dynamical problem is proposed. The framework is based on the premise that the background dark energy is both dynamical and interacting. It is possible that there may be several physical arguments which can be put forward to justify this notion, among which is the following example. According to general relativity a vacuum dominated universe (spacetime) has an asymptotically de Sitter geometry with an asymptotically de Sitter horizon. Quantum considerations indicate (for a review see e.g. \[14a,b\]) that near the horizon such a spacetime is associated with time asymmetric quantum states (analogous to those in the Unruh vacuum) which lead to a radiation flux. This means that one can treat the horizon (size $`\chi ^1)`$ as a radiative surface with a horizon temperature $`T=\frac{\chi }{2\pi }`$ and area $`A_\chi =4\pi \chi ^2`$ so that the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=3\chi ^2`$ which is the energy source $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$ in a de Sitter spacetime also becomes a source of radiation flux, (i.e. particle creation). With this view, one is led to the conclusion that the vacuum energy associated with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must (1) decay and (2) create matter in the process. It is in this respect that such cosmic background vacuum (dark) energy is both dynamical and interacting. The issue of a time dependant ”cosmological constant” has always been a touchy one in both General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology for seemingly different, but actually, related reasons. In Quantum Cosmology, which is based on Quantum Field Theory, there is no mechanism to change the (de Sitter) vacuum states; while in General Relativity, the Einstein field equations demand that the energy momentum tensor of the de Sitter spacetime can only be proportional to the spacetime metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. On the other hand the foregoing considerations suggest that just as the eternal black hole (and its associated Hartle-Hawking vacuum) in classical General Relativity is an idealization, analogously, a vacuum dominated universe can not stay in an eternally fixed de Sitter state. As pointed out in \[14b\], the temperature and entropy for a collapsing black hole and those of an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime arise in identical manner due to identical mathematical formalism. It would therefore be surprising if one spacetime (de Sitter) is static while the other one is non-static. Consequently, in our treatment, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must decay. Such a feature of an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime, is among potential tools one can apply to our universe to understand why ”$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small now but not zero” and also (as we find soon) points to a potential resolution of both the coincidence problem and the dynamical problem.

This paper discusses only the macroscopic effects (of the above underlying microscopic physics of vacuum matter interactions), namely, the global cosmic dynamics. The approach is reminiscent of what thermodynamics is to statistical mechanics. In this respect the universe can be treated as a vacuum-driven cosmic engine. The cosmic vacuum energy acts as the fuel, doing work on the universe by accelerating it. As is the case with any engine, it is impossible for the universe to convert all its fuel to mechanical work without dissipating some through irreversible processes that increase its internal energy. This is analogous to a statement of the first law of thermodynamics and is suggestive of a first law of cosmic dynamics. In turn, the irreversible dissipations lead to a cosmic form of the second (or entropy creation) law111It is interesting that, in cosmology, while the universe is known the second (entropy) law, the notion of a first cosmic law is not developed, $`s_{;\mu }^\mu 0`$. Looking at the simplicity of these notions, it is tempting to wonder what new feature the approach brings. In this treatment, the irreversible dissipation process introduced above is, indeed, cardinal to the dynamics of the universe, and to underscore this we make the following Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture (CEC):

###### Conjecture 1

The universe will increase its inertia (matter creation) as a back-reaction to any (vacuum energy) influences tending to move it away from (dynamical) equilibrium.

Facilitating such processes, on a macroscopic scale, is a (bulk viscous) creation pressure $`\pi _c`$, which arises as a back-reaction to the spacetime acceleration. The role of this back-pressure is to build up inertia to oppose the change (acceleration) which creates it, in the first place. It does this by creating matter. This behavior behavior is reminiscent of equilibrium-seeking systems in nature. For example, in electromagnetic induction, Lenz’s law  predicts a back emf; while in QCD, quark confinement is explained in terms of asymptotic freedom . It is interesting that in this latter process the system will actually create matter, when faced with external influences (forces) tending to shift it from equilibrium.

In the current treatment, the vacuum-dissipation/matter-creation process couples the vacuum to matter through a parameter $`K`$, which we constrain. In this scenario, (increasing cosmic inertia) physical modes will be created until the cosmic acceleration is offset and the creation pressure $`\pi _c`$ vanishes. As an example, this is how (in this model) the universe is able to get out of inflation and become matter dominated. With no further immediate need for creation, the existing matter fields in a given comoving volume begin to dilute normally, (which is relatively faster). Such redshifting of the matter fields, eventually, leads to a further vacuum domination which in turn commences a new cycle of cosmic acceleration and the consequent creation. As a result, the process sets up oscillations in the decaying vacuum and corresponding sympathetic ones in the matter fields. These coupled oscillations constrain the fields to track each other naturally. As the universe evolves in time, successive periods of acceleration are dominated by ever decreasing (decaying) energy densities. The resulting back-reactions will similarly be increasingly weaker, producing infra-red-shifting dominated modes. Each such acceleration will be weaker and last longer than its predecessors. This would explain why the current cosmic acceleration has lasted much longer than the early cosmic inflation.

These ideas are used in this paper to establish bounds on the relative magnitudes of the evolving fields. It is in this sense that the model offers a natural and conceptually simple channel to discussing the coincidence problem, while also suggesting a way to deal with the dynamical problem. The approach also independently relates the current vacuum-dominated state of the universe to the early conditions by suggesting inflation as a natural initial condition to the current classical dynamics. At the same time, it provides a rationale for a natural exit to, not only the inflationary scenario but also, the current acceleration. Lastly, the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture (CEC) suggests a physically motivated ansatz to what is otherwise a (time-old) philosophical question, namely, “why does the universe need and create matter?”. The model has significant observational consequences. The constructed equation of state $`w\left(a\right)`$ for the interacting dark energy suggests a quasi-periodic acceleration which can be directly tested by future experiments such as SNAP . In this article, the emphasis is to study the interactions between dark energy and matter fields and how, in particular, they lead to a resolution of the Coincidence Problem. To this end, it is sufficient to consider the behavior of the relevant energy-momemtum tensor. This leads to the evolution of the fields $`\rho _v\left(a\right)`$ and $`\rho _m\left(a\right)`$ with the scale factor, $`a`$ on a fixed gravitational background configuration. A derivation of the time evolution of the scale factor $`a\left(t\right)`$, which requires solving the resulting gravitational field equations for the matter fields in the presence of interacting dark energy, will be made in a forthcoming article.

The rest of the article is organized as follows. In Section 2 the working equations for an interacting vacuum energy are set up. Section 3 discusses the evolution of the vacuum energy density in the presence of matter creating processes. Section 4 lays out the framework for the evolution of the matter fields in such an environment. A potential resolution to both the coincidence problem and the dynamical problem is presented and observational tests are mentioned. Section 5 concludes the article. Throughout the article the terms cosmic vacuum energy and dark energy are used interchangeably to describe a background cosmic energy that is both dynamical and interacting.

## 2 Interacting cosmic vacuum energy: working equations

### 2.1 Features

In modeling an interacting vacuum, we take as the generator of cosmic vacuum energy $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$, a dynamical cosmological parameter, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(t\right)=m_{pl}^4\left(\frac{a_{pl}}{a(t)}\right)^{\sigma \left(t\right)}e^{\tau H}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pl}\left(\frac{a_{pl}}{a(t)}\right)^{\sigma \left(t\right)}e^{\tau H},$$
(2.1)
where $`m_{pl}`$ is the Planck mass, $`a_{pl}`$ (the fluctuation scale) is the size scale of a causally connected region of space at the Planck time $`t_{pl\text{}}`$and $`\tau `$ is of order of the Planck time. Further, $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`a\left(t\right)`$ is the cosmic scale factor. A distinguishing feature of the model, is that the power index $`\sigma `$ is not a fixed constant in time (as in most previous cases reviewed in ) but rather depends on time in a manner to be determined in Section 3. This feature, which is a consequence of the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture allows the background dark energy to couple to matter.

As is apparent from Eq. 2.1, in this scenario, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-field initially $`\left(H^10\right)`$ appears to tunnel into existence. Thereafter, for $`t\tau `$ the dynamics of the early universe is driven by the growing term $`e^{\tau H}`$ and should be dominated by a quantum character. A rigorous discussion of the physics of the period $`t\tau `$ requires a quantum theory of gravity and is, therefore, still beyond the scope of the present treatment. It is, however, worth pointing out that for $`t\tau `$ the field in Eq. 2.1 is growing in density and so one expects its equation of state during this early period to take the form $`w\left(t\right)<1`$. As the field evolves towards its stationary point, $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(t\right)}{dt}=0`$, the equation of state $`w\left(t\right)`$ approaches $`1`$ from below, to temporarily mimic a cosmological constant. In the immediate neighborhood of $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(t\right)}{dt}=0`$, or $`\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{l_{pl}}{a(t)}\right)\frac{d\sigma }{dt}\sigma \left(t\right)H\tau \frac{dH}{dt}\right]=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is virtually constant with maximum potential energy (possibly in the range $`\rho _{vac}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^{94}gcm^3`$). These conditions give rise to a cosmic inflation, in the early universe. As the Hubble time $`H^1`$ grows, the quantity $`e^{\tau H}`$ quickly approaches saturation $`e^{\tau H}1`$. Subsequently, the dynamics of the universe becomes increasingly classical, being driven by the $`a(t)^{\sigma \left(t\right)}`$ part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is this latter phase that this article discusses.

Assuming successful inflation in the early era, then by the time the universe is about $`1`$ second old, the scale factor is usually considered to have grown by a factor of about $`10^{28}`$. In our case, this means that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will have decayed by $`10^{28<\sigma \left(t\right)>}`$, in the process (leaving behind a dense field of relativistic particles and radiation). It turns out (as is shown in Section 3), that the time average value of the power index function, in the model, is $`<\sigma \left(t\right)>=2`$. As a result, the cosmic vacuum energy density does not interfere with the usual early cosmological processes like big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) , but instead allows such processes to proceed as predicted by the standard big bang model. Further, since the inflation era to date, $`a(t)`$ is known to have evolved by about $`10^{60}`$. The overall result is that $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{now}a_0^2\right]10^{120}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pl}`$. This provides a heuristic explanation to the “why is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ small now” part of the cosmological problem, which is consistent with observations, pending the proof (later in the discussion) that $`<\sigma \left(t\right)>=2`$.

In the remaining part of this article, tools are developed to address both parts of the Cosmological Constant problem and the dynamical problem. Throughout the proceeding discussion, we only deal with the late-time evolution of the universe. Here, $`H^1>>\tau `$ so that $`e^{\tau H}`$ can, justifiably, be set to unity with the result that the effective late-time $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is controlled by $`a\left(t\right)^{\sigma \left(t\right)}`$ and the universe evolves quasi-classically222footnotetext: A matter creating universe can not be entirely classical.. The associated vacuum energy density can, thus, be written as

$$\rho _v\left(t\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(t\right)}{8\pi G}=\left(\frac{a\left(t_0\right)}{a\left(t\right)}\right)^{\sigma \left(t\right)}\rho _v^{\left(0\right)},$$
(2.2)
where, for convenience (in the second equality) the dynamical vacuum energy density is normalized about its observed current value $`\rho _{v\text{ }}^0`$ $`10^{30}gcm^3`$. In our notation the sup/sub-script $`0`$ on a quantity denotes its current value.

### 2.2 Energy equations and particle creation

Consider the dynamical evolution of a self-gravitating cosmic medium consisting of a two-component perfect fluid. The total energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ for all the fields is given by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(m\right)}+T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(vac\right)}=\left[\rho +p\right]v_\mu v_\nu +pg_{\mu \nu },$$
(2.3)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(m\right)}`$ and $`T_{\mu \nu }^{\left(vac\right)}`$ are, respectively, the matter and the vacuum contributions to $`T_{\mu \nu }`$, while $`\rho =\rho _m+\rho _v`$$`p=p_m+p_v`$ and $`v_\mu `$ is the 4-velocity. Conservation of the total energy, $`v_\mu T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$, leads to standard continuity equation

$$\left[\dot{\rho }_m+\left(\rho _m+p_m\right)\theta \right]+\left[\dot{\rho }_v+\left(\rho _v+p_v\right)\theta \right]=0,$$
(2.4)
where $`\theta =v_{;\alpha }^\alpha `$ is the fluid expansion parameter and $`\dot{\rho }`$ is the derivative taken along the fluid worldline,$`\dot{\rho }=v^\alpha _\alpha \rho `$. In this treatment, the total energy in the cosmic fluid is conserved. However, because of the assumed interacting nature of dark energy the individual components are, in general, not conserved. In particular, because of the CEC (and under conditions to be discussed) the vacuum will act as a source of dissipative processes, while the matter component acts as a sink of such processes. This means that one can write

$$v_\mu T_{\left(vac\right);\nu }^{\mu \nu }=v_\mu T_{\left(m\right);\nu }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(2.5)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }>0`$ is the particle source strength. Note that Eq. 2.5 is still consistent with Eq. 2.4.

In principle, a non-equilibrium system can involve dissipative processes, ranging from scalar fluxes like bulk viscous pressure and particle creation pressure to tensorial shear viscosity stresses and energy transport . For the case under consideration, the latter are globally suppressed in an isotropic and homogeneous universe as assumed here. The contribution to the entropy source, by the remaining scalar processes, is given by

$$S_{;\alpha }^\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }\theta }{T}\frac{\pi _c\theta }{T}\frac{\mu \mathrm{\Psi }}{T},$$
(2.6)
where $`\pi _c`$ is the creation pressure, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the bulk viscous pressure, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and $`T`$ is the temperature. In general, it can be shown  that in the absence of the particle source strength $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the creation pressure and the bulk viscosity become the same process and there is no particle creation.

In this article, we only pay attention to particle creating processes described by the creation pressure, $`\pi _c`$. Then, use of Eq. 2.5 shows Eq. 2.4 to consist of two dissipative equations

$$\left[\dot{\rho }_v+\left(\rho _v+p_v\right)\theta \right]=\pi _c\theta $$
(2.7)
and

$$\left[\dot{\rho }_m+\left(\rho _m+p_m\right)\theta \right]=\pi _c\theta .$$
(2.8)
We suppose that the interacting dark energy satisfies an effective equation of state of the form

$$p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=w\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(2.9)
where $`1w0`$. Note the ‘unusual’ upper limit $`w0`$ (instead of $`w\frac{1}{3}`$) for the interacting dark energy, signifying a matter dominated state, in which the effective pressure of the interacting dark energy hardly contributes to the dynamics of the universe. The quantity $`w`$ will have an implicit time dependence (through the fields) when particle creating processes are in force. It will be shown (see next sub-section) that $`w1`$ in the limit $`\rho _m0`$. Thus in this limit, one recovers (in an asymptotically locally inertial frame), the standard Lorentz invariant vacuum. Further, we assume  that the newly created particles are virtually in thermal equilibrium with the existing matter fields as soon as they are created. This is reasonable in light of the approach we have adopted above which suppresses non-matter creating bulk viscosity effects. Thus, the only source of entropy is matter creation. As a result, the matter fields satisfy the usual $`\gamma `$-law equation of state

$$p_m=\left(\gamma 1\right)\rho _m,$$
(2.10)
where $`\gamma =\{1,\frac{4}{3}\}`$.

The density fields $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _m`$ can be determined using any two of the three equations, namely, the energy balance (continuity) equation (Eq. 2.4) and the source-sink equations (Eqs. 2.7 and 2.8). To proceed, however, one requires the functional forms of both the power index function $`\sigma \left(a(t)\right)`$ and the effective equation of state $`w\left(a\left(t\right)\right)`$ for the interacting vacuum. This problem is addressed in the next section.

## 3 Evolution of vacuum energy density

In this section we develop the functional form of the interacting vacuum energy density $`\rho _v`$ and the pressure $`p_v`$ by deriving $`\sigma \left(a\right)`$ and $`w\left(a\right)`$, and study how the evolution of these fields suggests a natural resolution of the two problems set out in Section 1.

### 3.1 Creation pressure

In a vacuum dominated universe, the total gravitating energy is $`\rho +3p<0`$ (which, as is known, violates the strong energy condition SEC). The excess negative pressure accelerates the universe. In turn, according to the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture, the universe back-reacts to this non-equilibrium scenario by building inertia (matter modes) through the creation pressure $`\pi _c`$. We assume the local equilibrium hypothesis  that non-equilibrium quantities in the model depend locally on similar variables as the equilibrium ones. It follows, then, that the particle creating pressure $`\pi _c`$, which must depend on the available excess negative pressure, will be proportional to the total gravitating energy, $`\rho +3p`$, of the universe. Consequently, we can write

$$\pi _c=K\left[\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m2\rho _v\right],$$
(3.1)
where the dimensionless proportionality parameter $`K`$ is to be constrained. This parameter $`K`$ (here and henceforth referred to as the vacuum dissipation parameter) couples the cosmic vacuum energy to matter through vacuum dissipation/matter creation processes (Eqs. 2.7 and 2.8). In the (idealized) limit $`\rho _m0`$, $`K`$ would probe the efficiency $`ϵ=1K`$ of the universe as a cosmic engine. Our immediate goal is to relate the creation pressure $`\pi _c`$ to the dynamical evolution of the density fields $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _m`$. To proceed, we start by constructing an effective equation of state for the interacting background dark energy.

### 3.2 Cosmic Expansion and Field dilution

As the universe expands the densities of the background matter fields are known to dilute as $`a(t)^{3\gamma }=a(t)^{3(1+\stackrel{˘}{w})}`$, where $`\stackrel{˘}{w}=\{0,\frac{1}{3}\}`$. On the other hand, a dynamical interacting vacuum energy (of the functional form in Eq. 2.2) will suffer an energy deficit because it is a source of matter fields $`v_\mu T_{\left(vac\right);\nu }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Psi }0`$. The vacuum energy in a given comoving volume will appear to redshift with a dilution law $`a(t)^{3(1+w)}`$. To preserve the functional behavior of the vacuum energy density, in Eq. 2.2, one must have $`3\left(1+w\right)=\sigma \left(a\left(t\right)\right)`$, where the quantity $`\sigma \left(a\left(t\right)\right)`$ is to be determined. This gives $`w=\left(1\frac{\sigma }{3}\right)`$, which leads to an effective equation of state

$$p_v=\left(1\frac{\sigma }{3}\right)\rho _v.$$
(3.2)
It is convenient (for now) to write the time evolution of the vacuum energy as an evolution in the scale factor $`a\left(t\right)`$. In the FRW models, the source of the four-velocity is the Hubble parameter, then $`v_{;\alpha }^\alpha =`$ $`\theta =3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=3H`$. This, along with use of Eq. 3.2, transforms Eq. 2.7 to

$$a\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v+\sigma \rho _v=3\pi _c,$$
(3.3)
where $`\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v=\frac{d\rho _v}{da}`$ and as before $`\rho _v=\rho _v^0\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{\sigma \left(a\right)}`$. Using Eqs. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 the effective equation of state of an interacting dark energy can be written as

$$w=1+\left\{\frac{3K\left[\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m2\rho _v\right]a\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v}{3\rho _v}\right\}.$$
(3.4)
### 3.3 Interacting dark energy: a solution

One expects that the asymptotic forms of the relation in Eq. 3.4 should recover the more familiar equations of state of ordinary physical fields. In particular, when the vacuum energy dominates the universe $`\left(\rho _v>>\rho _m\right)`$, one expects $`w1`$. From Eq. 3.4, this limit requires that $`2K\frac{1}{3}\left(a\frac{\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v}{\rho _v}\right)=0`$, which integrates to

$$\rho _v_{\rho _m0}=\rho _v^0\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{6K},\left(K0\right).$$
(3.5)
On the other hand, the system evolves so that eventually there is no interaction between the vacuum and matter fields once the creation pressure $`\pi _c`$ vanishes. This leads to the limit where effectively $`w0`$. Applying this limit on Eq. 3.4 gives $`w=1\frac{1}{3}\left(a\frac{\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v}{\rho _v}\right)=0`$, so that

$$\rho _v_{\pi _c0}=\rho _v^0\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^3.$$
(3.6)
The above limits (Eqs. 19 and 20) establish bounds on the power index function $`\sigma \left(t\right)`$ as

$$6K<\sigma 3$$
(3.7)
At $`\sigma =3`$, the vacuum (dark) energy has a maximum dilution rate and decouples from matter. The evolution of the dark energy to this state also implies a relative increase (and eventual domination) of the matter fields over the vacuum energy. Here, matter creation is suppressed consistent with the requirements of the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture. With no more creation, the relative matter dilution grows towards its “normal” rate of $`a^{3\gamma }`$. In turn, this increases the density of the dark energy relative to that of the matter fields, eventually setting the former into dominance. The universe then begins to accelerate and, in the process, builds the creation pressure $`\pi _c`$, as a back-reaction to the acceleration. According to Eqs. 3.5 and 3.7 this creation rate will grow towards a maximum, as $`\sigma `$ approaches its minimum, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}=6K`$. As the matter creating vacuum dumps in more and more matter, the matter fields are evolving with a decreasing dilution rate. The relative increase in the density of matter fields, makes it less and less favorable for the vacuum to create more matter. As a result, the creation rate is decreasing towards a minimum. Eventually, the system ends up back where it started (with no more creation) as $`\rho _ma^{3\gamma }`$ and $`\pi _c0`$ and a new cycle begins.

It follows, then that, in general, the power index function $`\sigma \left(t\right)`$ will be oscillatory within the bounds $`6K<\sigma \left(t\right)3`$ as established in Eq. 3.7. Oscillations in $`\sigma \left(t\right)`$ naturally imply oscillations in the decay rate of the density function, $`\rho _va^{\sigma \left(t\right)}`$. Here, it should be pointed out that while the power index function (we seek) is oscillatory, the density function $`\rho _va^{\sigma \left(t\right)}`$ must be single-valued in $`a\left(t\right)`$ in order to be consistent with the requirement that (globally) matter/entropy creation from the vacuum is an irreversible process. The vacuum energy decays into matter but not vise versa. This concept is explored further in Section 3.4.1. Thus such oscillations will be imprinted on a decaying energy background. As is shown below, this feature is inherent in the model.

The oscillations in the decay rate of $`\rho _v`$ signify matter creation from the vacuum. This implies that such periodic matter creation will necessarily induce sympathetic oscillations in the matter density fields $`\rho _m`$. It is in this sense that the two fields, in time, track each other. To support these assertions we start by studying how the creation pressure will drive the oscillations.

Recall $`\rho _v=\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)^{\sigma \left(t\right)}\rho _v^0`$. On taking derivatives with respect to $`a\left(t\right)`$, we have that $`\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v\left(a\right)=\left[\stackrel{´}{\sigma }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)\frac{\sigma }{a}\right]\rho _v`$. Substituting for $`\stackrel{´}{\rho }_v`$ in Eq. 3.3 gives

$$\stackrel{´}{\sigma }a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)=\frac{3\pi _c}{\rho _v}.$$
(3.8)
Now, consider $`\sigma \left(\psi \right)`$, where $`\psi `$ is some function of $`a\left(t\right)`$. Then $`\stackrel{´}{\sigma }\frac{da}{d\psi }=\frac{d\sigma \left(\psi \right)}{d\psi }`$. Comparing this with Eq. 3.8 one sees that, on setting $`\frac{d\psi }{da}=\left[a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)\right]^1`$, then

$$d\sigma =\left(\frac{3\pi _c}{\rho _v}\right)d\psi .$$
(3.9)
Thus, $`\frac{3\pi _c}{\rho _v}d\psi `$ is a perfect differential of the power index function $`\sigma `$.

One expects solutions to Eq. 3.9 with certain specific characteristics. First, from the discussion above, such solutions should be oscillatory in $`\psi `$ and also bounded by Eq. 3.7. Secondly, all the $`\psi \left(a\left(t\right)\right)`$ dependence in the solution $`\sigma `$ should be purely sinusoidal, so as to avoid unphysical solutions of the form $`\rho a^{f\left(a\right)}`$, where $`f\left(a\right)`$ is non-oscillatory. Finally, as is pointed out in the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture, matter creation (in this model) is an opposite reaction to the vacuum-induced positive acceleration of the universe. Thus, the sinusoidal part of $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\psi }`$ should be negative definite, i.e. of the form $`\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \right)`$, at the least.

The simplest solution that satisfies these conditions has the form $`\sigma =\mathrm{sin}2\psi +A`$, where $`A`$ is a positive constant. Only then are the requirements on $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\psi }`$ satisfied, since now $`\left\{\frac{d\sigma }{d\psi }=\frac{3\pi _c}{\rho _v}=3K\left[\frac{\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m2\rho _v}{\rho _v}\right]\right\}=4\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +2`$. On rearranging out the terms in the last equality of this equation one finds that

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =\left[\frac{2\left(1+3K\right)\rho _v3K\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m}{4\rho _v}\right].$$
(3.10)
This function is minimum $`\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =0\right)`$ at

$${}_{\mathrm{min}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}=\left(\frac{3K}{6K+2}\right)\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m,$$
(3.11)
and maximum $`\left(\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =1\right)`$ at

$${}_{\mathrm{max}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}=\left(\frac{3K}{6K2}\right)\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m.$$
(3.12)
We soon return to these limits in the next section. To formally complete the solution $`\left(\sigma =\mathrm{sin}2\psi +A\right)`$, one notes on applying the limits from Eq. 3.7 that when $`\mathrm{sin}2\psi =1`$, then $`1+A=3`$. With this, we find the solution for the power index function $`\sigma `$ to be

$$\sigma \left(\psi \right)=2+\mathrm{sin}2\psi ,$$
(3.13)
where as shown earlier, $`\psi `$ is given by $`\frac{d\psi }{da}=\left[a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{a_0}{a}\right)\right]^1`$. Using Eq. 3.13 in Eq. 2.2 we finally find that the interacting dark energy density, in this model, evolves with the scale factor as

$$\rho _v\left(a\right)=\left[\frac{a_0}{a}\right]^{\left(2+\mathrm{sin}2\psi \left(a\right)\right)}\rho _v^0.$$
(3.14a)
or in terms of the redshift parameter $`z=\frac{a_0}{a}1`$ we have

$$\rho _v\left(z\right)=\left[z+1\right]^{\left(2+\mathrm{sin}2\psi \left(z\right)\right)}\rho _v^0,$$
(3.14b)
where now $`\frac{d\psi }{dz}=\left[\left(z+1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(z+1\right)\right]^1`$. Further, Eqs. 3.2 and 3.13 give the working equation of state for the interacting dark energy in this model

$$p_v=\frac{1}{3}\left(1\mathrm{sin}2\psi \right)\rho _v.$$
(3.15)
It is this equation of state that, in future, can be compared with observations like SNAP .

### 3.4 Some features of the $`\rho _v`$ solution

Eqs. 3.13 and 3.15 give the formal solution for the interacting dark energy in this model. According to this solution, during the evolution of the universe, $`\rho _v`$ has the highest dilution rate at points characterized by $`\mathrm{sin}2\psi =1`$, where $`\psi _n=\left(\frac{1}{4}+n\right)\pi ,\left\{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\right\}`$. It is here that the vacuum energy density becomes least interacting, since effectively it decouples from the matter fields as $`w0`$. On the other hand, the field has its least dilution rate (and is most interacting) at epochs characterized by $`\psi _n=\left(\frac{3}{4}+n\right)\pi ,\left\{n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\right\}`$.

#### 3.4.1 Mean decay path and why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small now

For $`\psi _n=\frac{n}{2}\pi ,\left\{n=0,1,\mathrm{}\right\},\mathrm{sin}2\psi =0`$. Since $`\psi =\psi \left(a\left(t\right)\right)`$, and noting that $`<\mathrm{sin}2\psi >=0`$, we see from Eq. 3.13 that $`<\sigma >=2`$. The implication here is that the interacting vacuum energy density, in this model, decays along a mean evolutionary path of $`a^2`$, with oscillations of $`\mathrm{sin}2\psi `$ about this decay path. Thus, in an expanding universe, according to this result, the interacting vacuum energy density is inherently a decaying system. This is, indeed, consistent with our premise (in Section 1) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must decay. In Section 2.1, a heuristic argument was given to explain why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small now. It was seen that setting $`\sigma =2`$ implies $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{now}a_0^2\right]10^{120}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pl}`$. In our treatment, we have recovered this value as the average of the oscillations in the power index, $`<\sigma >=2`$. Thus our treatment solves the ”why is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ small now” in a way that is consistent with current observations .

In the past, several phenomenological models have been developed (see  and citations) in which the vacuum energy density $`\rho _v`$ evolves with the scale factor as $`a^m,`$ where the index $`m`$ has a fixed value. In such models $`\rho _v`$ is not explicitly interacting, as is indicated by the constant nature of the index $`m`$. One such set of models that has gained considerable popularity (see citations in ) evolves $`\rho _v`$ as an inverse square power law ($`m=2`$), in the scale factor. For the reasons given above, the ($`m=2`$) models  have in the past offered a satisfactory resolution of why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small now. It is worthy noting that the approach presented in the present work recovers this inverse square law as the mean decay path for an interacting vacuum energy density, $`<\rho _v>`$. Moreover, for $`a>>a_0`$, as the universe ages $`\sigma 2`$ so that (see also Section 4.2) $`\sigma `$ can be replaced by its average value, $`<\sigma >=2`$. In this way, our model can be related to the inverse square, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }a^2`$, models.

The positivity feature of $`\sigma `$ (see Eq. 3.13), $`\sigma 1>0`$, ensures that even in the face of the oscillations in the power index function, the energy function $`\rho _v`$ is still always a decreasing single-valued function of the scale factor $`a\left(t\right)`$. To appreciate the physical significance of this feature, one need only consider its contradiction, where $`\rho _v`$ evolves as a multi-valued function of $`a\left(t\right)`$. Such a scenario would imply a two-way process where the vacuum (dark) energy and matter alternately turn into each other. Globally, this would be unphysical (at least in our part of the universe) since it would result in periodic global violations of the entropy (evolution) law and suggest a rotating thermodynamic arrow of time. In this model, the creation processes tending to increase cosmic inertia are one-way and lead to entropy growth. Thus the treatment ensures that the evolutionary law of $`\rho _v`$ is consistent with a causal universe.

#### 3.4.2 The parameter space of $`K`$

The preceding discussion depicts a universe undergoing periods of vacuum-driven acceleration, punctuated by periods of matter domination. One can gain some deeper insight in the cosmic dynamics during each of such acceleration periods by paying attention to the associated parameter $`K`$. Suppose, for example, at some point in time (not unique) during a given period of cosmic acceleration one can measure the contemporary values of $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _m`$ or just the ratio $`\beta =\frac{\rho _v}{\rho _m}`$. Then the maximum value $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, coinciding with $`{}_{\mathrm{max}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}`$ during such a (local) period can not be lower, i.e. $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}\beta `$. This argument can be used to put reasonable bounds on $`K`$ during each such period since from Eq. 3.13 we must have

$$\beta =\beta _{\mathrm{max}}=\left(\frac{3K}{6K2}\right)(3\gamma 2).$$
(3.16)
Thus any measured value of $`\beta `$ gives one information on the upper-bound on $`K`$ for that period (which obviously would be better tightened by knowledge of $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$). For example, as observations indicate, the current value is $`\beta 2`$. This suggests that for the current (cold $`\gamma =1`$) universe, $`K\frac{4}{9}`$. Moreover from Eq. 3.10 one gets a lower bound on $`K`$ for the interactions to result in particle production. In the (idealized) limit $`\rho _m0`$, one finds that $`K\frac{1}{3}`$.

The two bounds above thus constrain the parameter space of the dissipation parameter $`K`$ in the current universe to

$$\frac{1}{3}<K\frac{4}{9}.$$
(3.17)
The one-way character of the dissipation process brings out yet another important feature. Clearly as the universe gets older, the upper bound on $`K`$ grows as $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}1`$ revealing the source of the current coincidence problem. In the next section we put bounds on their relative amplitudes as the fields evolve. The above lower bound $`\frac{1}{3}<K`$ suggests that, in this model, the parameter space $`0K\frac{1}{3}`$ is forbidden with regard to matter creation. One can, however, imagine a time in the very early history of the universe when the vacuum energy therein was very large and in a purely potential $`\left(PE\right)`$ form. Such conditions would imply that, at the time, $`K=0`$. Then Eq. 3.7 shows that $`\rho _va^{\left(6K\right)=0}`$ and the vacuum energy density is constant in time (albeit temporarily). Only then could the universe as an engine seem to operate at $`100\%`$ efficiency. Clearly this is the energy in a cosmological constant and it would inflate the universe. In turn, because inflation would tend to strongly and suddenly move the universe away from equilibrium conditions, the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture implies that the associated backreation also be strong and sudden. Thus, virtually all the physical (matter) modes are created in the early universe. The space $`0K\frac{1}{3}`$ during which matter creation is forbidden seems to provide a small window for inflation before the backreaction sets in as $`K0`$ from below. Accordingly, there are two consequences to this. First, it is in immediate reaction to this inflationary scenario that most of the present inertia (matter) and entropy is created. In turn, it is precisely the growth of such inertia (i.e. $`K\frac{1}{3}`$) that would lead the universe to a graceful exit from inflation. The inflationary scenario would probably last as long as it would take for the dissipation parameter to grow to $`K\frac{1}{3}`$. Thus, in this model, inflation and its immediate self destruction are natural initial conditions to the current evolution of the universe.

## 4 Consequences of vacuum decay

### 4.1 Evolution of the matter fields density, $`\rho _m\left(a\right)`$

The preceding analysis for the evolution of $`\rho _v`$ has been based on the source equation (Eq. 2.7). In order to discuss the evolution of the matter fields density $`\rho _m\left(a\right)`$ in the presence of a creation pressure $`\pi _c`$, the above results can be introduced either in the energy balance equation (Eq. 2.4) or the sink equation (Eq. 2.8). Choosing the latter and rewriting Eq. 2.4 as a function of $`a\left(t\right)`$ one finds

$$a\stackrel{´}{\rho }_m+3\gamma \rho _m+3\pi _c=0,$$
(4.1)
where we have used Eq. 2.10 and $`\theta =3H`$. From Eqs. 3.10,

$$3\pi _c=2\left(12\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \right)\rho _v,$$
(4.2)
where $`\rho _v`$ is given by Eq. 3.14. Introducing these results in Eq. 4.1 gives

$$a\stackrel{´}{\rho }_m+3\gamma \rho _m+2\left(12\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \right)\left[\overline{\beta }\left(\frac{\alpha }{a}\right)^{\left(2+\mathrm{sin}2\psi \right)}\right]=0,$$
(4.3)
where, as previously established, $`\frac{d\psi }{da}=\left[a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\alpha }{a}\right)\right]^1`$. Eq. 4.3 governs the evolution of the matter fields density $`\rho _m\left(a\right)`$ in the model.

In this article the main aim has been to build a framework for discussing both the Cosmological Constant Problem and point a way to discussing the dynamical problem. In the previous section we have touched on the question of “why $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is small now”. It still remains to discuss the remaining problems. As it turns out, the results of the preceding section are sufficient for such a discussion. Consequently, we defer a discussion of the solutions to Eq. 4.3 to concentrate on the two remaining problems.

### 4.2 The coincidence problem and the dynamical problem

Using the results of Eqs. 3.10 to 3.12 one finds that the vacuum dilution rates relate directly to the vacuum to matter ratios $`\beta `$ in the universe. In particular, at $`\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =0`$, when the vacuum is at its most dilution rate, Eq. 3.11 constrains the minimum density value of the vacuum to $`{}_{\mathrm{min}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}=\left(\frac{3K}{6K+2}\right)\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m.`$ On the other extreme at $`\mathrm{sin}^2\psi =1`$, when the vacuum is at its least dilution rate, Eq. 3.12 constrains the maximum density value of the vacuum to $`{}_{\mathrm{max}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}=\left(\frac{3K}{6K2}\right)\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m.`$ These results imply that as the universe evolves, the vacuum and matter fields are coupled through the coupling parameter $`K`$ (see Eq. 3.16). The vacuum then tracks the matter fields naturally within the bounds given by Eqs. 3.11 and 3.12 as

$$\left(\frac{3K}{6K+2}\right)\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m\rho _v\left(\frac{3K}{6K2}\right)\left(3\gamma 2\right)\rho _m.$$
(4.4)
In particular, during the radiation era $`\gamma =\frac{4}{3}`$, the vacuum oscillates between the values $`\left(\frac{3K}{3K+1}\right)\rho _m\rho _v\left(\frac{3K}{3K1}\right)\rho _m`$. On the other hand, during the cold matter era $`\gamma =1`$, the vacuum oscillates between the values $`\left(\frac{3K}{6K+2}\right)\rho _m\rho _v\left(\frac{3K}{6K2}\right)\rho _m`$. Clearly, provided $`K>\frac{1}{3}`$, the vacuum and matter field densities, $`\rho _v`$ and $`\rho _m`$ will track each other naturally. Further, as pointed out in Section. 3 the one-way character of the dissipation process implies that as the universe gets older, the upper bound on $`K`$ grows so that $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}1`$ in the far future as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Thus, as long as the universe expands, the vacuum energy and matter density fields track each other with decaying amplitudes. This is our explanation of the so-called current coincidence problem. Further, as the universe gets older, the field oscillation amplitudes become smaller and also more stretched out since in this case $`a>>a_0`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\psi \left(a\right)0`$. As a result the distant future universe creates conditions under which $`\left[\sigma \left(\psi \right)=2+\mathrm{sin}2\psi \left(a\right)\right]2`$. Under these conditions $`\sigma `$ can be replaced by its average value, $`<\sigma >=2`$.

Finally, since the dynamics of the universe is determined by the behavior of the fields therein, the foregoing results can be used to predict the future evolution of the universe. In this sense, the results also address the dynamical problem.

### 4.3 Observational tests

The model predicts that the universe undergoes periods of variable (quasi-periodic) acceleration. Thus the observed current cosmic acceleration is one of these phases. In this respect the local (in time) dynamical evolution of the universe has two possibilities (Eq. 3.10): the universe is either moving away or towards a local $`{}_{\mathrm{max}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}`$. An increase in acceleration as a function of redshift $`z`$, for example, would indicate the universe is moving away from a local maximum of vacuum domination $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, and vise versa. The effective equation of state, in Eq. 3.15 provides information about this variability and how the resulting motion in the current local phase deviates from that due to a (would-be) constant background $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vacuum. This behavior can be tested by future experiments like the SNAP project . Further, a signature of such oscillations should be imprinted on CMB. A consideration of these observables is ongoing and will be reported in future.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper a framework is proposed for addressing both the Cosmological Constant Problem and the associated dynamical problem. The underlying premise is that the background dark energy is both dynamical and interacting. Such a feature gives rise to a universe that behaves as a cosmic thermodynamic engine, with the vacuum (dark) energy as the input fuel. This energy does work by accelerating the universe. However, like any engine, it is impossible for the universe to use all the fuel (vacuum energy) to do work without some of it being dissipated. The rationale for such vacuum energy dissipation and the implied increased inertia (matter creation) is embodied in a Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture we make with regard to the need, on the part of the universe, to always seek for equilibrium conditions. The increase in inertia is facilitated by a creation pressure $`\pi _c`$ that arises as a back-reaction to the cosmic acceleration. The treatment, based on Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture, provides a basis for a first law of cosmic dynamics which naturally gives rise to the second (entropy law) of cosmic dynamics.

As pointed out in Section 2, the “why is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ small now?” part of the Cosmological Constant Problem is addressed by noting that in this model $`<\sigma >=2`$, so that $`<\rho _v>`$ evolves as $`a^2`$. Such inverse square behavior was established in Section 3 From the inflation era to date, $`a(t)`$ has evolved by about $`10^{60}`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{now}10^{60<\sigma >}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pl}=10^{120}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pl}`$, a result which is consistent with observations.

It was discussed, in some detail, how the vacuum energy density $`\rho _v`$ couples to the matter fields $`\rho _m`$ through matter creation pressure $`\pi _c`$. This coupling is facilitated by a parameter $`K`$ which to date (for the post-inflationary period) we have constrained to $`\frac{1}{3}<K\frac{4}{9}`$. The process gives rise to a cosmic vacuum energy density which oscillates with a decaying amplitude. In turn, the coupled matter fields oscillate in sympathy. Consequently, the two coupled fields track each other naturally, as they evolve in time. We have put bounds (Eq. 4.4) on the relative evolution of the magnitudes of these fields up to the constrained free parameter $`K`$. Because vacuum dissipation is a one-way process, in this treatment, it follows that as the universe grows older the extremum values of the fields $`{}_{\mathrm{max}}{}^{}\rho _{v}^{}`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{min}}{}^{}\rho _{m}^{}`$ become increasingly comparable so that $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}1`$. It is in this sense that the model addresses the coincidence problem and predicts that in future acceleration periods the fields will become even more comparable. The bounds put on the relative magnitudes of these fields (Eq.4.4) also imply that the future evolution of these fields is predictable. Further, since it is these same fields that drive the universe, in the first place, the result is that the future dynamics of the universe becomes equally predictable. In this way the model addresses the dynamical problem.

It is pointed out that the coupling parameter $`K`$ must have, at one time, had to grow from zero to its minimum operative value $`\frac{1}{3}`$. This growth corresponds to the cosmic vacuum energy changing from a purely potential form at $`K=0`$ to a partially dissipated form $`K>0`$. As long as $`K<\frac{1}{3}`$, there would be little or no matter created and the universe, essentially, behaves as a near-perfect engine with $`100\%`$ efficiency. The vacuum energy is then, mostly, in the form of a cosmological constant and the universe must inflate. Consequently, our treatment requires inflation as a natural initial condition, both for creation and for the current classical dynamics of the universe. Moreover, the growth of the dissipation parameter $`K`$ in the early universe (and hence that of the creation pressure) as a back-reaction to the inflationary acceleration, creates a natural graceful exit out of inflation through increase of the universe’s internal energy. Thus, in this model, the Cosmic Equilibrium Conjecture implies that inflation (through dissipative processes) oversees its own (almost immediate) destruction, to end almost immediately. It is in this sense that the approach predicts both inflation and a graceful exit, while at the same time justifying matter creation. Moreover, using the same mechanism, the universe enters and eventually exits from any subsequent accelerations, including the current one.

The model proposed here makes testable predictions that the dynamics of the universe is predictable with a quasi-periodic character that can be verified by future experiments. There are several issues that the model raises which are under consideration for future report. They include, among others, a discussion of the background global geometry as a solution of the gravitational field equations and a consideration of effects of the model on CMB.

###### Acknowledgement 2

This work was made possible by funds from the University of Michigan.