text:
# Machian Cosmological Solution in the Generalized Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation

## Abstract

The Machian cosmological solution satisfying $`\varphi =O(\rho /\omega )`$ is discussed for the homogeneous and isotropic universe with a perfect fluid (with negative pressure) in the generalized scalar-tensor theory of gravitation. We propose $`\omega (\varphi )=\eta /(\xi 2)`$ for the coupling function in the Machian point of view. The parameter $`\xi `$ varies in time very slowly from $`\xi =0`$ to $`\xi =2`$ because of the physical evolution of matter in the universe. When $`\xi 2`$, the coupling function diverges to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the scalar field $`\varphi `$ converges to $`G_{\mathrm{}}^1`$. The present mass density is precisely predicted if the present time of the universe is given. We obtain $`\rho _0=1.6\times 10^{29}g.cm^3`$ for $`t_0=1.5\times 10^{10}yr`$. The universe shows the slowly decelerating expansion for the time-varying coupling function.
PACS numbers: 04.50.+h, 98.80.-k

In the previous paper , we discussed the Machian cosmological solution satisfying $`\varphi =O(\rho /\omega )`$ for the homogeneous and isotropic universe with a perfect fluid in the Brans-Dicke theory . We found that the gravitational constant really approaches to constant when the coefficient $`\gamma `$ of the equation of state goes to $`1/3`$ (negative pressure) for the closed model. If we assume the present mass density $`\rho _0`$ is identical to the critical density $`\rho _c`$, taking $`\left|\omega \right|10^3`$  into account, we obtain the difference $`ϵ`$ of the coefficient $`\gamma `$ from $`1/3`$ ($`ϵ3\gamma +1`$) has a value of order $`10^3`$ to support the present gravitational constant. These parameters lead to the time-variation of the gravitational constant $`\left|\dot{G}/G\right|10^{13}yr^1`$ which is compatible with the recent observational data .

The closed model ($`k=+1`$) of this Machian solution is valid for the coupling parameter $`\omega `$ satisfying $`\omega /2+B<0`$, where $`B3/(\xi +2)(\xi 2)`$ and $`\xi 13\gamma `$. The above parameter $`ϵ10^3`$ gives $`B10^3`$ which means $`\omega <10^3`$ at present. The expansion parameter $`a(t)`$ is explicitly a linear function of $`t`$, but its coefficient depends on the parameter $`\xi `$. As the parameter $`\xi `$ goes to $`2`$ through the quasi-static process, the coefficient of the expansion parameter increases very slowly for the constant coupling parameter $`\omega `$. Thus the universe exhibits the slowly accelerating expansion at present, which is also compatible with the recent measurements  of the distances to type Ia supernovae.

The above results strongly suggest that the coupling parameter $`\omega `$ of the Brans-Dicke scalar field should vary in time as the universe expands. A tentative conjecture is like $`\omega (t)B(\xi )`$. The coupling parameter $`\omega `$ is almost constant and varies in time very slowly through the quasi-static process of the parameter $`\xi `$. Therefore the time-variation of the coupling parameter depends on the physical evolution of matter in the universe.

In the present paper, we discuss the Machian cosmological solution and the behavior of the coupling parameter $`\omega (\varphi )`$ in the generalized scalar-tensor theory of gravitation -. We consider the homogeneous and isotropic universe filled with a perfect fluid with pressure. We require a proper cosmological solution satisfies the postulate that the scalar field $`\varphi `$ should have the asymptotic form $`\varphi =O(\rho /\omega )`$ when the coupling parameter $`\omega `$ is large enough in order that the scalar field converges to zero when $`\left|\omega \right|\mathrm{}`$.

The action - for the generalized scalar-tensor theory of gravitation is described in our sign conventions ($`c=1`$) as

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}[\varphi R+16\pi L_m\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi }g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }],$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\varphi (x)`$ is the Brans-Dicke scalar field, $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is an arbitrary coupling function, and $`L_m`$ represents the Lagrangian for the matter fields. The variation of Eq.(1) with respect to $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\varphi `$ leads to the field equations

$`R_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Rg_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\varphi }}T_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\varphi )}{\varphi ^2}}\left(\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{,\lambda }\varphi ^{,\lambda }\right)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi }}(\varphi _{,\mu ;\nu }g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\varphi ),`$
$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\frac{1}{3+2\omega (\varphi )}\left[8\pi T+\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }\varphi _{,\lambda }\varphi ^{,\lambda }\right],$$
(3)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor, $`T`$ is the contracted energy-momentum tensor, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the generally-covariant d’Alembertian $`\mathrm{}\varphi \varphi _{;\mu }^{,\mu }`$. These field equations satisfy the conservation law of the energy-momentum

$$T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(4)
The line element for the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric is

$$ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)[d\chi ^2+\sigma ^2(\chi )(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)],$$
(5)
where

$$\sigma (\chi )\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\chi fork=+1(closedspace)\hfill \\ \chi fork=0(flatspace)\hfill \\ \mathrm{sinh}\chi fork=1(openspace).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The energy-momentum tensor for the perfect fluid with pressure $`p`$ is given as

$$T_{\mu \nu }=pg_{\mu \nu }(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu ,$$
(7)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density in comoving coordinates and $`u^\mu `$ is the four velocity $`dx^\mu /d\tau `$ ($`\tau `$ is the proper time). The nonvanishing components are $`T_{00}=\rho `$, $`T_{ii}=pg_{ii}`$ ($`i0`$), and its trace is $`T=\rho 3p`$ for the homogeneous and isotropic universe.

The energy conservation Eq.(4) leads to the equation of continuity

$$\dot{\rho }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\left(\rho +p\right)=0.$$
(8)
Let us suppose the equation of state for the perfect fluid

$$p(t)=\gamma \rho (t),$$
(9)
where $`1\gamma 1/3`$. Now we are rather interested in the ”negative” pressure. Taking the equation of state into account, we can integrate the equation of continuity Eq.(8) and get

$$\rho (t)a^n(t)=const,$$
(10)
where $`n=3(\gamma +1)`$, which has $`n=4`$, $`n=3`$, and $`n=2`$ for the radiation era, the matter-dominated era, and the negative pressure $`\gamma =1/3`$ era respectively.

The independent field equations which we need solve simultaneously are

$$\frac{3}{a^2}\left(\dot{a}^2+k\right)=\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}\left(\frac{\dot{\varphi }}{\varphi }\right)^2+\frac{\ddot{\varphi }}{\varphi }+\frac{8\pi \rho }{\varphi }\frac{8\pi \left(\rho 3p\right)}{3+2\omega (\varphi )}\frac{1}{\varphi },$$
(11)
and

$$\ddot{\varphi }+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\varphi }=\frac{1}{3+2\omega (\varphi )}\left[8\pi \left(\rho 3p\right)\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2\right].$$
(12)
According to the postulate $`\varphi =O(\rho /\omega )`$, we expect a solution described as

$$\varphi (t)=\frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega (\varphi )}\mathrm{\Phi }(t),$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is an unknown function of $`t`$ and may generally include $`\omega `$ as the following form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(t)+O(1/\omega ).$$
(14)
In the Brans-Dicke theory, we know that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ should not include $`\omega `$ for the perfect fluid model , .

The most important thing is to determine an arbitrary coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$. There are many literatures, for example -. We seek some possibilities in the Machian point of view. First, if the coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ obeys

$$\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2=8\pi \eta \rho (t),$$
(15)
we can adopt the similar procedure  for the Machian cosmological solution in the Brans-Dicke theory. The coefficient $`\eta `$ is an arbitrary constant.

Let us assume that the following relation is satisfied approximately enough because the coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is almost constant or large enough:

$$\dot{\varphi }(t)=\frac{8\pi }{3+2\omega (\varphi )}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}(t).$$
(16)
We need check later whether this simplification is valid or not for the obtained Machian solution. Taking Eq.(16) into account, we get from Eqs.(12) and (15)

$$\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\left(\xi +\eta \right)\rho ,$$
(17)
where $`\xi =13\gamma `$ or$`\xi =4n`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ should not include $`\omega `$ similarly in the Brans-Dicke theory for the Machian solution because the right-hand side of Eq.(15) does not depend on $`\omega `$. Thus the ratio $`\dot{a}/a`$ should not also include $`\omega `$, and so we find for the expansion parameter

$$a(t)A(\omega )\alpha (t),$$
(18)
where $`A`$ and $`\alpha `$ are arbitrary functions of only $`\omega `$ and $`t`$ respectively.

Taking Eqs.(13), (16), and (18), we obtain from Eq.(11) after elimination of $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ by Eq.(12)

$$\frac{\omega }{2}\left[\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2+\frac{4\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]\frac{3k}{A^2(\omega )\alpha ^2}=3\left(\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)^2+3\left(\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\frac{\left(3+\eta \right)\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(19)
We are not interested in the flat space ($`k=0`$) here. For the closed and the open spaces ($`k=\pm 1`$), if we require that Eq.(19) is identically satisfied for all arbitrary values of $`\omega `$, we find that the coefficient $`A(\omega )`$ must have the following form

$$\frac{3}{A^2(\omega )}=\left|\frac{\omega (\varphi )}{2}+B\right|,$$
(20)
where $`B`$ is a constant with no dependence of $`\omega `$. Thus we get

$$\frac{\omega }{2}\left[\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2+\frac{4\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}kj\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\right]=3\left(\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)^2+3\left(\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\frac{\left(3+\eta \right)\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}+kj\frac{B}{\alpha ^2},$$
(21)
where we introduce a notation $`j=1`$ for $`\omega /2+B<0`$ and $`j=+1`$ for $`\omega /2+B>0`$. Again, by requiring that Eq.(21) is identically satisfied for all $`\omega `$, we obtain two identities,

$$\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)^2+\frac{4\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}kj\frac{1}{\alpha ^2},$$
(22)
and

$$3\left(\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)^2+3\left(\frac{\dot{\alpha }}{\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)\frac{\left(3+\eta \right)\rho }{\mathrm{\Phi }}kj\frac{B}{\alpha ^2}.$$
(23)
We are convinced of the existence of the following type of solutions on the analogy of the previous paper :

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\zeta \rho (t)t^2,$$
(24)
$$\alpha (t)=bt,$$
(25)
where coefficients $`\zeta `$ and $`b`$ are constants respectively, and in fact we find

$$\zeta =\frac{\xi +\eta }{\xi (\xi 2)},$$
(26)
$$b^2=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\xi +\eta }{(\xi 2)\left[\xi ^2+(\eta +2)\xi 2\eta \right]},forkj=1and\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\xi <2\hfill \\ \frac{\xi +\eta }{(\xi 2)\left[\xi ^2+(\eta +2)\xi 2\eta \right]},forkj=+1and\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}<\xi 4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
and

$$B=\frac{\eta \xi ^2(5\eta +3)\xi +3\eta }{(\xi 2)\left[\xi ^2+(\eta +2)\xi 2\eta \right]}$$
(28)
from Eqs.(17), (22), and (23) successively.

For the closed space ($`k=+1`$), we require $`\eta >0`$ for $`\zeta <0`$ when $`0\xi <2`$ to give the attractive gravitational force ($`G>0`$). On the other hand we require $`\eta <0`$, for the coefficient $`b`$ is real when $`0\xi <2`$. So we encounter a contradiction. Let us adopt the other alternative that the coefficient $`\eta `$is a linear function of $`\xi `$ ($`\eta =\eta _1\xi +\eta _0`$). We put $`\eta _0=0`$ for the finite $`\zeta `$ when $`\xi =0`$. Thus we replace Eq.(15) to

$$\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2=8\pi \eta _1\xi \rho (t)=8\pi \eta _1\left(\rho 3p\right).$$
(29)
After similar discussions, we obtain as a solution

$$\zeta =\left(\eta _1+1\right)/(\xi 2),$$
(30)
$$b^2=\{\begin{array}{c}1/(\xi 2)(\xi \xi _1),forkj=1and\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\xi <2\hfill \\ 1/(\xi 2)(\xi \xi _1),forkj=+1and\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}<\xi 4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
and

$$B=[\eta _1(\xi ^25\xi +3)3]/(\xi 2)\left[(\eta _1+1)\xi 2(\eta _11)\right],$$
(32)
where $`\xi _12(\eta _11)/\left(\eta _1+1\right)`$.

We require $`1<\eta _1<1`$ for $`\zeta <0`$ and the real $`b`$ when $`0\xi <2`$ ($`k=+1`$). By analyzing the time-dependences of the solution, we get from Eq.(29)

$$\frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }=\frac{\eta _1\xi (3+2\omega )}{\left(\eta _1+1\right)(\xi 2)}\frac{1}{\varphi }.$$
(33)
After integration, we obtain the coupling function

$$\left|3+2\omega (\varphi )\right|=C\varphi (t)^{\left[2\eta _1\xi /\left(\eta _1+1\right)(\xi 2)\right]},$$
(34)
where $`C`$ is an integral constant. However, we realize that this coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is not consistent with Eq.(16) because $`\omega (\varphi )`$ varies in time too rapidly.

As the next alternative, we suppose

$$\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2=\frac{8\pi \eta \rho (t)}{3+2\omega (\varphi )}$$
(35)
to suppress the rapid time-variation of $`\omega (\varphi )`$. In this case, the right-hand side of Eq.(17) includes the coupling function, and so the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ may also include $`\omega (\varphi )`$ as Eq.(14). From now on, we restrict our calculations to the first order in $`1/(3+2\omega )`$. At least for the present time ($`\left|\omega \right|10^3`$), this restriction would give a good approximation. For the first order in $`1/(3+2\omega )`$, the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ does not include $`\omega (\varphi )`$. Thus we obtain the Machian solution for the first order in $`1/(3+2\omega )`$ again,

$$\zeta =1/(\xi 2),$$
(36)
$$b=\{\begin{array}{c}(4\xi ^2)^{1/2},forkj=1and\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\xi <2\hfill \\ (\xi ^24)^{1/2},forkj=+1and\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}<\xi 4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
and

$$B=3/(\xi 2)(\xi +2).$$
(38)
In Eqs.(33) or (34), the scalar field $`\varphi `$ includes the coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ itself. This expression causes ambiguities, and so let us define another function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$\omega (\varphi )=\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(39)
Taking this expression into account, we estimate Eq.(35) by the Machian solution for the first order in $`1/(3+2\omega )`$ and get

$$\frac{d\varpi }{d\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{\eta }{\xi 2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(40)
which leads to

$$\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{\eta }{\xi 2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\right|+W,$$
(41)
where $`W`$ is an integral constant.

When $`\xi 2`$, the time-dependence of $`\rho (t)`$ goes to $`t^2`$ and so $`\rho (t)t^2const`$. However, the coefficient $`\zeta `$ diverges to the minus infinity as $`\xi 2`$ in the range of $`0\xi <2`$. So the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\zeta \rho (t)t^2`$ also diverges to the minus infinity very slowly as $`\xi 2`$ in the same range. Thus, if $`\eta >0`$, the coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ diverges to the minus infinity when $`\xi 2`$ in this range. On the other hand, when $`t0`$ and $`\xi 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ and $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ also diverge to the minus infinity. The time-derivative of the scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$ is described in the present solution as

$$\dot{\varphi }(t)=\frac{8\pi }{3+2\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}(t)\left[1\frac{16}{3+2\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })}\frac{\eta }{\xi 2}\right],$$
(42)
and the second term of the middle bracket ($`1/\mathrm{ln}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\right|`$) goes to zero when $`\xi 0`$ and $`\xi 2`$. Therefore the assumption Eq.(16) is consistent in our Machian solution near $`\xi =0`$ and $`\xi =2`$. The coupling function Eq.(41) satisfies the constraint

$$\frac{\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })}{2}+B<0,$$
(43)
which leads to

$$\eta \mathrm{ln}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\right|+(\xi 2)W>6/(\xi +2),$$
(44)
if $`\eta >0`$ in the range of $`0\xi <2`$ (at least near $`\xi =0`$ and $`\xi =2`$, or for the appropriate $`W`$). The behavior of the scalar field becomes

$$\varphi (t)(\xi 2)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}{\mathrm{ln}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\right|}=\frac{\rho (t)t^2}{\mathrm{ln}\left|\zeta \rho (t)t^2\right|}const0$$
(45)
when $`\xi 2`$. The scalar field is approaching to $`const`$ as the parameter $`\xi 2`$ and its value gradually converges to zero.

The expansion parameter is expressed as

$$a(t)A(\omega )bt=\left[\frac{6}{\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })(\xi +2)(\xi 2)6}\right]^{1/2}t$$
(46)
for the closed space ($`k=+1`$) in the range of $`0\xi <2`$. Taking $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{}`$ when $`t0`$ into account, we get $`a(t)0`$ near $`\xi =0`$. By replacing $`\eta `$ to $`\eta _1\xi `$, we might be able to improve the situation, that is,

$$\frac{d\omega (\varphi )}{d\varphi }\dot{\varphi }^2=\frac{8\pi \eta _1\left(\rho 3p\right)}{3+2\omega (\varphi )},$$
(47)
and thus

$$\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{\eta _1\xi }{\xi 2}\mathrm{ln}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\right|+W.$$
(48)
When we consider the case near $`\xi =2`$, we encounter a severe trouble: the coefficient of $`a(t)`$ in Eq.(46) converges to zero as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\mathrm{}`$ when $`t\mathrm{}`$. To satisfy the constraint Eq.(43), the coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ must decrease faster than $`B1/(\xi 2)`$ when $`\xi 2`$. On the other hand, the coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ must decrease slower than $`1/(\xi 2)`$ when $`\xi 2`$ in order to give the slowly accelerating expansion. After all, there are no alternatives but

$$\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{\eta }{\xi 2},$$
(49)
(which would give the almost linear expansion,) for the Machian cosmological solution. This means

$$\frac{d\varpi }{d\mathrm{\Phi }}=0.$$
(50)
The coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ does not depend on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Therefore the solutions (24) and (25) with Eqs.(36), (37), and (38) are exact for all coupling parameter $`\omega `$. The constraint Eq.(43) for all $`\xi `$ ($`0\xi <2`$) requires the condition $`\eta >3`$, which gives $`\omega <3/2`$ when $`\xi =0`$ and avoids the singularity. For this coefficient $`\eta >3`$, the expansion parameter $`a(t)`$ gives the extremely slowly decelerating expansion except the early stage with $`\xi =0`$. We obtain $`a(t)=t`$ for $`\xi 2`$ if $`\eta =3`$.

The scalar field $`\varphi `$ for the coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\eta /(\xi 2)`$ is given as the following and we get when $`\xi 2`$

$$\varphi (t)=\frac{8\pi \rho (t)t^2}{3(\xi 2)+2\eta }\frac{4\pi \rho (t)t^2}{\eta }const,$$
(51)
which converges to a definite and finite constant in the limit. If we assume $`\eta =3`$, taking $`t_0=1.0\times 10^{10}yr`$ and the present gravitational constant $`G_0=6.67\times 10^8dyn.cm^2.g^1`$ into account, we can estimate the present mass density $`\rho _0=3.5\times 10^{29}g.cm^3`$. If we adopt $`t_0=1.5\times 10^{10}yr`$, we obtain $`\rho _0=1.6\times 10^{29}g.cm^3`$, which is very near to the critical density $`\rho _c10^{29}g.cm^3`$. As the parameter $`\xi 2`$, the coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })`$ diverges to the minus infinity and the gravitational constant approaches dynamically to the constant $`G_{\mathrm{}}`$.

It should be remarked that the time-variation of the coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\eta /(\xi 2)`$ is derived from that of the parameter $`\xi `$. However, we have not known the details of the physical evolution of matter in the universe yet. Probably, our universe started (classically) from the Big Bang with $`\xi =0`$ (the radiation era), via the matter-dominated era ($`\xi =1`$), and now must be approaching to the negative pressure era (the *quintessence* era, $`\gamma =1/3`$, $`\xi =2`$). According to the recent measurements  of the coupling parameter ($`\left|\omega \right|10^3`$), we get $`ϵ2\xi 10^3`$ from Eq.(49). Over $`10^{10}yr`$, the state of the universe has been varying extremely slowly from $`\xi =0`$ to $`ϵ10^3`$. This situation would solve the problems existing in the solar system and the evolution of life in the time-varying gravitational constant. At $`t5\times 10^9yr`$, the parameter $`ϵ`$ had already been small enough and the gravitational constant did not differ much from the present value.

There is a discontinuity at $`\xi =2`$ for the Machian cosmological solution, and so it is not reasonable that the universe continues to evolve beyond $`\xi =2`$ to the state $`\xi =4`$. Our universe must be approaching to the state $`\xi =2`$ for ever ($`t+\mathrm{}`$). We require that the universe is closed ($`k=+1`$ ) for this range of $`\xi `$ ($`0\xi <2`$) to give the attractive gravitational force. As the parameter $`\xi `$ varies in time extremely slowly (the quasi-static process) in this range, we may regard that the parameter $`\xi `$ is constant when we execute the derivative with respect to $`t`$.

It is believed that the generalized scalar-tensor theory of gravitation reduces to general relativity with the same energy-momentum tensor when $`\left|\omega \right|+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega ^3d\omega /d\varphi 0`$, but this is not generally true. The present Machian cosmological solution has no ordinary correspondences in general relativity even when $`\left|\omega \right|+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega ^3d\omega /d\varphi 0`$. The scalar field of Machian solutions satisfies the asymptotic form $`\varphi =O(\rho /\omega )`$ and converges generally to zero when $`\left|\omega \right|+\mathrm{}`$ or $`\rho 0`$. It should be noted that the scalar field $`\varphi (t)`$ converges to the finite $`G_{\mathrm{}}^1`$ in the present Machian solution when $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho 0`$ as $`t+\mathrm{}`$, though it satisfies $`\varphi =O(\rho /\omega )`$. The parameter $`\omega `$ is no more arbitrary but is determined by the evolution of the universe in the generalized scalar-tensor theory of gravitation.

When we deal exactly with the time-varying coupling function $`\varpi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\eta /(\xi 2)`$, the expansion parameter $`a(t)`$ does not show the slowly accelerating expansion but rather the extremely slowly decelerating expansion (almost the linear expansion). If this is not compatible with the recent observations, we might need to introduce furthermore the cosmological constant to the present Machian cosmological model.

We have no criterions to determine the coupling function $`\omega (\varphi )`$ in the generalized scalar-tensor theory of gravitation. We discussed some examples here. They seem to suggest that it is not an arbitrary function of $`\varphi `$ but another scalar field which is derived from matter itself by another field equation. The scalar field $`\varphi `$ was introduced to the Brans-Dicke theory through the relation $`GM/c^2R1`$. By the similar analogy, the relation $`\omega 1/(\xi 2)`$ seems to require the existence of another unknown scalar field connected with matter.

The next straightforward problem is to determine the time-variation and the range of the parameter $`\xi (t)`$. We need investigate the evolution of a scalar field as the dark matter in the universe.
Acknowledgment

The author is grateful to Professor Carl Brans for helpful discussions and his hospitality at Loyola University (New Orleans) where this work was done. He would also like to thank the Nagasaki Prefectural Government for financial support.


format: text

text:
# DIFFRACTIVE STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS AT THE TEVATRON

## 1 Introduction

There are predominantly three classes of hard diffractive events at the Tevatron ($`\mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV). In Single Diffraction, SD, the p or $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ emerge with $`p_{\mathrm{out}}=(1\xi )p_{\mathrm{in}}`$ with $`\xi <0.1`$ (ideally $`\xi 0.05`$). It has small 4-momentum transfer squared $`t=(p_{\mathrm{in}}^4p_{\mathrm{out}}^4)^2`$. In hard Double Diffraction, DD, between a high $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ jet at large positive $`\eta `$ and one at large negative $`\eta `$ there is a rapidity gap of at least 3 units, and in hard Double Pomeron Exchange, DIPE, high $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ jets in the central region have rapidity gaps on both sides, with a leading p and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$. In SD, we can consider an exchanged entity, which we can call the pomeron IP for convenience (though there can be some other reggeons IR exchanged too), with momentum fraction $`\xi `$. If a pair of high $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ jets are produced, with pseudorapidities $`\eta `$, we can calculate the Bjorken-$`x`$, $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$, of the scattering partons from:aaaStrictly speaking, the formula should have true rapidity $`y`$ not pseudorapidity $`\eta `$.

$$x_{\mathrm{Bj}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\underset{JETS}{}E_\mathrm{T}e^{\pm \eta }.$$
(1)
If the interacting partons have fractional momenta $`\beta `$ of IP, then $`\beta =\frac{x_{\mathrm{Bj}}}{\xi }`$. If all the hadrons $`i`$ in the event are measured, with $`E_\mathrm{T}^i`$ and $`\eta _i`$, then $`\xi `$ can also be determined from:

$$\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}\underset{particles}{}E_\mathrm{T}^ie^{\pm \eta _i},$$
(2)
where the +(–) sign is for diffractively scattered $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}(\mathrm{p})`$. (The p have large positive $`\eta `$.) We define a diffractive structure function $``$$`(\xi ,t,x_{\mathrm{Bj}},Q^2)`$. In pomeron language, we measure the parton distribution function in the IP. In structure function language, we measure the $``$ of the p (or $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) when we have a large gap or a leading p (or $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$).

In Run I we measured, using the rapidity gap technique, the diffractive production of di-jets, $`W`$, high $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ b-jets, and J$`/\psi `$, and Jet-Gap-Jet JGJ events. Then, for the last two months of the run, we installed scintillating fiber tracking hodoscopes in roman pots to detect diffractively scattered $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$. We measured $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$JJ (SD) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$JJG (DIPE) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ events. The central detectors consist of tracking chambers in a 1.5T solenoidal field, surrounded by sampling electromagnetic and hadronic calorimetry used here for measuring particles and jets.

Our studies of diffraction using rapidity gaps can be summarized by saying that for all hard processes (at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 1.8 TeV) approximately 1% are diffractive. Comparing diffractive W, b-jet and di-jet production we can estimate that at the relevant $`Q^2M_\mathrm{W}^2`$ the gluon fraction in the IP is 0.54$`\pm `$0.15. W are made by $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ annihilation, b-jets by gg interactions and generic di-jets by a mixture. The soft IP at $`Q^20`$ may still be dominated by gluons. Another result is that if one uses a POMPYT Monte Carlo tuned to ep diffractive data and assumes factorization, one predicts a factor $``$ 5 too much hard diffraction at the Tevatron. This is an indication of the breakdown of factorization, implying that one cannot treat hard diffractive processes as the emission of a pomeron with a universally-defined parton distribution function (Ingelman-Schlein model $`^\mathrm{?}`$).

Although in this talk I concentrate on CDF results, DØ have presented $`^\mathrm{?}`$ a study of events with forward rapidity gaps and either forward or central di-jets at both $`\sqrt{s}=630`$ and 1800 GeV. They compared ratios of these conditions with Monte Carlo predictions with hard, soft or flat g-distributions in the pomeron. None of these choices fits the data. It is possible to compare the data to a prediction with a flat distribution and extract an effective distribution; also to use equ. (1) and (2) to estimate $`x_p`$ and $`\xi `$. However, what one really wants to do is to tag the IP by measuring the quasi-elastic (anti-)proton, so that one can measure the diffractive structure functions directly.

## 2 Single Diffraction with measured $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$

Near the end of Run I we installed small (2 cm $`\times `$ 2 cm) scintillating fiber x,y hodoscopes in three roman pots 56 m downstream from CDF. Antiprotons are measured after passing through 81.6 Tm of dipole field. In one low luminosity run at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 1.8 TeV, 3.1M events were collected which after clean up (single high quality central vertex, single clean pot track with $`0.035<\xi <0.095,|t|<1.0`$ GeV2) reduces to 1,639k events. Of these, 30.4k = 1.86% have at least 2 jets with $`E_\mathrm{T}>7`$ GeV. For comparison we took 342k non-diffractive events, of which 32.6k = 10.9% have at least two 7 GeV jets. The main reason why ND events are 6 times richer in jets than SD events is the higher available energy (1800 GeV cf $`\sqrt{\xi s}`$ = 330 - 550 GeV). The fraction of diffractive triggers that have di-jets rises with $`\xi `$ from 0.013 to 0.022. Interestingly there is no dependence on $`|t|`$ from $`|t|_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to 3 GeV2,

$$t_{\mathrm{min}}=2\left[m_p^2(E_{\mathrm{in}}E_{\mathrm{out}}p_{\mathrm{in}}p_{\mathrm{out}})\right].$$
(3)
The $`E_\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{JET}}`$ spectrum extends to 35 GeV, and is steeper than the ND jet spectrum. The jets are boosted towards the proton direction (positive rapidity) by about 1 unit, on average.

We can use the jet kinematics to measure Bjorken-$`x`$, $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$, of the colliding partons, see equ. (1). A 3rd jet is included if it has $`E_\mathrm{T}>5`$ GeV. Let the ratio of SD:ND jets be $`R(\frac{SD}{ND})(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}},\xi )`$ and the ND di-jet effective structure function be:

$$F_{jj}(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})=x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}\left[g(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})+\frac{4}{9}(q_i(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})+\overline{\mathrm{q}}_i(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}))\right].$$
(4)
For $`F_{jj}(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})`$ we use the GRV98LO structure function. Then

$$F_{jj}^\mathrm{D}(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}},\xi )=R(\frac{\mathrm{SD}}{\mathrm{ND}})(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}},\xi )\times F_{jj}(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})$$
(5)
and through the change of variables $`\beta =\frac{x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}}{\xi }`$ we can derive $`F_{jj}^\mathrm{D}(\beta ,\xi )`$.

The ratio $`R(\frac{\mathrm{SD}}{\mathrm{ND}})(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})`$ for different $`\xi `$ is shown in Fig.1 vs $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$(antiproton) = $`x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$. It is not flat, showing that when a lower $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$ parton gives rise to the jets it is more likely (than a higher $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$ parton) to be a diffractive event. The middle part of the distribution, not affected by kinematic boundaries, fits a power law:

$$R(\frac{\mathrm{SD}}{\mathrm{ND}})(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})=(6.1\pm 0.1)\times 10^3\times (x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}/0.0065)^{0.45\pm 0.02}.$$
(6)
Figure 1. Ratio of diffractive to non-diffractive di-jet event rates as a function of $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$. Different $`\xi `$ regions are plotted separately and displaced for clarity.

Figure 2. Data $`\beta `$ distribution (points) compared with expectations from diffractive deep inelastic scattering (H1). The dashed(dotted) lines are from H1 fit 2(3).

When we change variables and plot $`F_{jj}^\mathrm{D}(\beta )`$ vs $`\beta `$ we find (see Fig.2) a falling distribution with no sign of a $`\beta =1`$ peak (“superhard pomeron”) and normalization a factor $`>10`$ lower than the H1 fits (ep). This is showing a breakdown of (ep $``$ pp) factorization. The $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$(antiproton) and $`\beta `$ distributions appear to be independent of $`\xi `$ from 0.035 to 0.095; we have a factorizing form for $`\frac{10^3}{\xi }<\beta <0.5`$:

$$F_{jj}^\mathrm{D}(\beta ,\xi )=C.\beta ^{1.04\pm 0.01}\xi ^m.$$
(7)
At larger $`\beta `$, $`m`$ rises from $``$ 0.85 at $`\beta `$ = 0.03 to $``$ 1.2 at $`\beta `$ = 1, similar to the behavior observed at H1 and ZEUS.

## 3 Double Pomeron Exchange

We now turn to double pomeron exchange, which provides another test of factorization. We take the SD di-jet events and look for rapidity gaps ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta >3.5`$) on the outgoing p-side, by counting hits in the region $`2.4<\eta <5.9`$. We find 132 events with 0 hits, while an extrapolation of the bulk of the multiplicity distribution gives 14 events, so the signal is very significant with a S:N = 10:1. (This is with both jet $`E_\mathrm{T}>7`$ GeV; with a 10 GeV cut we still have 17 events.) The mean $`<\xi _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}>`$ is slightly larger (within the range 0.035 - 0.095) for these DIP events than for the SD events. As well as measuring $`\xi _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$ with the pot track, we can estimate it from the sum over all hadrons, see equation (2). By comparing the two we find a correction factor of 1.7 (not all particles are detected and/or well measured). Then we can estimate the $`\xi _\mathrm{p}`$ of the unseen proton as

$$\xi _\mathrm{p}=1.7\times \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}E_\mathrm{T}^ie^{+\eta _i}.$$
(8)
Most of the events have $`0.01<\xi _\mathrm{p}<0.03`$ and for definitiveness we make that cut. The $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ spectrum of the jets is like that in SD, but the statistics are poor above 12 GeV. The $`\eta `$ of the di-jet tends to be negative (towards the $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) as one expects from $`\xi _\mathrm{p}\xi _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}`$. In fact:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \mathrm{ln}\xi _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}\mathrm{ln}\xi _\mathrm{p}.$$
(9)
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ distribution between the leading jets is slightly more peaked at $`180^{}`$ than in SD (and SD more than ND). The fraction of all the central mass carried by the two leading jets, $`R_\mathrm{X}^{\mathrm{JJ}}`$, is a broad distribution with no sign of a peak near 1, which might be expected from a non-factorizing DPE diagram.

Just as before we could plot $`R(\frac{\mathrm{SD}}{\mathrm{ND}})(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})`$, now we can plot $`R(\frac{\mathrm{DPE}}{\mathrm{SD}})(x_\mathrm{p})`$ in the same range of $`x_{\mathrm{Bj}}`$. If we had factorization among these processes we would expect these quantities to be equal; in fact the latter is a factor $``$5 higher. This does not seem to be due to the different $`\xi `$ ranges of the p and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$, as we saw before no $`\xi `$-dependence in $`R(\frac{\mathrm{SD}}{\mathrm{ND}})(x_{\overline{\mathrm{p}}})`$.

We can quote a cross section for $`0.01<\xi _\mathrm{p}<0.03`$, $`0.035<\xi _{\overline{\mathrm{p}}}<0.095`$, $`4.2<\eta ^{\mathrm{jet1},2}<+2.4`$, $`E_\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{jet1},2}>7(10)`$ GeV of 43.6$`\pm `$22 (3.4$`\pm `$2.2) nb, where the error is essentially all systematic resulting from the difficulty of measuring such low $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ jets. Removing the $`\xi _\mathrm{p}`$ cut to gain statistics, at 95% c.l. $`<`$ 8.5% of the 7 GeV di-jets are exclusively produced, i.e. with $`R_\mathrm{X}^{\mathrm{JJ}}`$ 1. This is much smaller than a prediction of $``$ 1 $`\mu `$b.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

In conclusion, we measured non-factorizing effects in hard diffraction. The “pomeron” does not have a unique structure function; it depends on the environment (ep, p$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$(SD), p$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$(DPE)). In hard diffraction, a more realistic picture than the Ingelman-Schlein model is probably one where a hard scatter takes place (on a very short space-time scale) and before or after (on a much longer space-time scale) soft gluons are exchanged which can create rapidity gaps and can leave the $`\mathrm{p},\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ or both in their ground state. These soft color interactions are quite different when the interaction involves an $`e_{\mathrm{in}},e_{\mathrm{out}},\gamma `$ than when it does not.

## 4 Acknowledgements

I thank Dino Goulianos, Albert de Roeck and the organizers of ISMD 2000 for their invitation, and the Fermilab staff and the staffs of CDF institutions for their contributions. This was a supplementary program (E876) within CDF, and additional support from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan is gratefully acknowledged.

## References


text:
# I Transformation laws for thermodynamical parameters using absolute synchronization; 𝑤⁰=1/√{(1+𝑢⁰𝒖⋅𝒗)²-(𝒗)²}.

THERMODYNAMICS AND PREFERRED FRAME

| Jakub Rembieliński, Kordian Andrzej Smoliński, |
| --- |
| Grzegorz Duniec |
| Department of Theoretical Physics, University of Lodz, |
| ul. Pomorska 149/153, 90-236 Łódź, Poland |
| jaremb@krysia.uni.lodz.pl, smolin@krysia.uni.lodz.pl |

The Lorentz covariant statistical physics and thermodynamics is formulated within the preferred frame approach. The transformation laws for geometrical and mechanical quantities such as volume and pressure as well as the Lorentz-invariant measure on the phase space are found using Lorentz transformations in absolute synchronization. Next, the probability density and partition function are investigated using the preferred frame approach, and the transformation laws for internal energy, entropy, temperature and other thermodynamical potentials are established. The Lorentz covariance of basic thermodynamical relations, including Clapeyron’s equation and Maxwell’s relations is shown. Finally, the relation of presented approach to the previous approaches to relativistic thermodynamics is briefly discussed.

Key words: preferred frame, covariant thermodynamics, transformation of temperature.

1. INTRODUCTION

The question of relativistic formulation of thermodynamics is almost as old as Special Relativity. The first attempt for the formulation of relativistic thermodynamics was done by Einstein, Planck and von Laue einstein07 ; laue61  in 1907–1908. They concentrated on establishing of transformation laws of thermodynamical quantities by defining the transformation properties of work and heat. The main results of these works were the transformation laws for the change of entropy $`dS`$, temperature $`T`$ and heat transfer $`\delta Q`$

$$dS=dS_0,T=T_0\sqrt{1v^2},\delta Q=\delta Q_0\sqrt{1v^2},$$
(1)
where the index $`0`$ denotes values taken in the center of mass system of the gas, and $`v`$ is the velocity of the observer with respect to the center of mass system of the gas (hereafter we work in the natural system of units, where $`c=1`$).

The derivation of transformation laws of thermodynamical quantities by Einstein and Planck was questioned in 60’s by Ott ott63  and Arzeliès arzelies65 . Their argumentation led to the transformation laws opposite to (1), namely

$$\delta Q=\frac{\delta Q_0}{\sqrt{1v^2}},T=\frac{T_0}{\sqrt{1v^2}}$$
(2)
(with the same notation as above). We refer the Reader to the review by ter Haar and Wergeland haar71  for extensive discussion regarding the formulation of relativistic thermodynamics by Planck and Ott.

Moreover, Landsberg landsberg66 ; landsberg68  had questioned the traditional relativistic generalization of the thermodynamics law and came into conclusion that temperature and heat transfer are invariant

$$T=T_0,\delta Q=\delta Q_0$$
(3)
(internal energy $`dU=dU_0`$ and pressure $`p=p_0`$ are invariant in Landsberg’s approach, too).

In this paper we look at this old-standing problem from a completely new point of view. Our approach is motivated by the fact that the proper formulation of quantum mechanics needs a preferred frame bell81 . In this way one avoids many serious interpretational problems in quantum mechanics caban99 ; hardy92 ; percival98 ; percival00 ; rembielinski97 . Moreover, Einstein himself had accepted the existence of such a “non-mechanical” preferred frame einstein22 . We would like to point out that the notion of preferred frame has nothing to do with the obsolete notion of “ether”.

We will study consequences of the absolute synchronization scheme caban99 ; rembielinski80 ; rembielinski97  and the existence of a preferred frame for thermodynamics and statistical physics. As a result we will find the transformation laws for thermodynamical quantities with as few as possible changes in the thermodynamical relations. It is remarkable that in the simplest physical situations the transformation law for the temperature is exactly the formula found by Einstein and Planck (1).

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we sketch basic properties of the kinematics in absolute synchronization—namely we state the Lorentz transformations and show how geometrical and mechanical quantities transform in absolute synchronization. In Section 3 we construct the probability density and partition function in absolute synchronization approach, then we derive transformation properties for basic thermodynamical quantities, such as internal energy, entropy and temperature. Section 4 discusses some basic thermodynamical relations and shows their Lorentz covariance in absolute synchronization approach. The last section contains final remarks and conclusions.

2. KINEMATICS IN ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION

2.1. Lorentz transformations in absolute synchronization

In this section we briefly describe main results related to the absolute synchronization scheme. Derivation of these results can be found in rembielinski80 ; rembielinski97 . The main idea is based on the well known fact that the definition of the time coordinate depends on the procedure used to synchronize clocks. The choice of this procedure is a convention anderson98 ; croca99 ; jammer79 ; mansouri77 ; reichenbach69 ; will92 ; will93  (this fact is known as “conventionality thesis”). Therefore, the form of Lorentz transformation depends on the synchronization scheme, and we can find a synchronization procedure which leads to the desired form of Lorentz transformation. To perform such a choice under assumed absolute time synchronization we have to distinguish, at least formally, one inertial frame. Such a frame is called preferred frame caban99 ; rembielinski80 ; rembielinski97 ; it can be possibly identified with the cosmic background radiation frame. The four-velocity of the preferred frame with respect to the observer in an inertial frame $`𝒪_u`$ is denoted by $`u^\mu `$.

In absolute synchronization the transformation law of contravariant components of coordinates between inertial frames is expressed by the formula caban98 ; caban99 ; rembielinski97

$$[x^{}(u^{})]^\mu =[D(\mathrm{\Lambda },u)]^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}[x(u)]_{}^{\nu },$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an element of Lorentz group, $`u`$ is a four-velocity and $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda },u)`$ is $`4\times 4`$ matrix depending on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`u`$. Transformation law for the contravariant components of four-velocity $`u^\mu `$ is

$$u^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=[D(\mathrm{\Lambda },u)]^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}u_{}^{\nu }.$$
(5)
Matrix $`D(\mathrm{\Lambda },u)`$ for any rotation $`R\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ has the form

$$D(R,u)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ & \\ 0& R\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
while for the boosts $`w`$ is given by

$$D(w,u)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{w^0}& 0\\ & \\ 𝒘& I+\frac{𝒘𝒘^T}{1+\sqrt{1+(𝒘)^2}}u^0𝒘𝒖^T\end{array}\right),$$
(7)
where $`w^\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the system $`𝒪_u^{}`$ with respect to the system $`𝒪_u`$ (here $``$ denotes the direct product of matrices). We can express the four-velocity $`w^\mu `$ by the four-velocities of the preferred frame $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ observed from the system $`𝒪_u`$ and $`𝒪_u^{}`$ respectively

$$w^0=\frac{u^0}{u^{}^0},𝒘=\frac{(u^0+u^{}{}_{}{}^{0})(𝒖𝒖^{})}{1+u^0u^{}{}_{}{}^{0}(1+𝒖𝒖^{})}.$$
(8)
The components $`w^\mu `$ can be expressed in terms of the velocity $`𝒗=𝒘/w^0`$ of the frame $`𝒪_u^{}`$ with respect to $`𝒪_u`$ via the relation

$$w^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+u^0𝒖𝒗)^2(𝒗)^2}}.$$
(9)
Now the transformation law for the covariant components of coordinates reads

$$(D^1(w,u))^T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w^0& 𝒘^T\\ & \\ 0& I\frac{𝒘𝒘^T}{1+\sqrt{1+(𝒘)^2}}+\frac{u^0}{w^0}𝒖𝒘^T\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
Comparing the transformation laws for the contravariant and covariant components of coordinates we see that under the transformation contravariant components of spatial coordinates mix with the time coordinate, while covariant do not. Notice also that the time coordinate $`x^0`$ is rescaled by a positive factor only. Indeed, for Lorentz boosts we can rewrite (4) using (7) as follows

$$x^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=\frac{1}{w^0}x^0,𝒙^{}=𝒘x^0+M𝒙,$$
(11)
where

$$M=I+\frac{𝒘𝒘^T}{1+\sqrt{1+(𝒘)^2}}u^0𝒘𝒖^T;$$
(12)
while (10) gives

$$x_0^{}=w^0x_0+𝒘\underset{¯}{𝒙},\underset{¯}{𝒙}^{}=\underset{¯}{M}\underset{¯}{𝒙},$$
(13)
where

$$\underset{¯}{M}=I\frac{𝒘𝒘^T}{1+\sqrt{1+(𝒘)^2}}+\frac{u^0}{w^0}𝒖𝒘^T$$
(14)
and $`\underset{¯}{𝒙}`$ denotes the covariant position three-vector. The above transformation laws apply to contravariant and covariant components of any tensor in the absolute synchronization. It is also important to stress that the time transformation law enables us to introduce the notion of absolute causality within this framework.

The line element

$$ds^2=g(u)_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu $$
(15)
is invariant under Lorentz transformations if the metric tensor is of the following form

$$[g(u)_{\mu \nu }]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& u^0𝒖^T\\ & \\ u^0𝒖& I+(u^0)^2𝒖𝒖^T\end{array}\right);$$
(16)
while its contravariant counterpart is

$$[g(u)^{\mu \nu }]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(u^0)^2& u^0𝒖^T\\ & \\ u^0𝒖& I\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
From (17) it follows that the geometry of the three-space is Euclidean, i.e. $`dl^2=d𝒙^2`$.

Note also that in every inertial frame $`u_\mu =(u_0,\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟎}})`$ (this follows immediately from $`u_\mu =g_{\mu \nu }u^\nu `$, the relation $`u^\mu u_\nu =1`$ and (17)), so the condition $`u^\mu u_\mu =1`$ turns into the relation

$$u^0u_0=1.$$
(18)
Finally the relationship of $`x^\mu `$ with coordinates in the standard (Einstein–Poincaré) synchronization scheme is given by

$$x_E^0=x^0u^0𝒖𝒙,𝒙_E=𝒙,$$
(19)
so the time lapses in the same point of the space are identical in both synchronizations. From (19) we are able to derive also the relationship between the velocities in absolute and standard synchronizations rembielinski97 .

A more exhaustive discussion of the absolute synchronization, and its geometrical interpretation in terms of frame bundles is given in caban99 ; rembielinski97 .

2.2. Transformation properties of volume

The (three-) volume of the infinitesimal cube is defined by $`dV=dx^1dx^2dx^3d^3𝒙`$ where all the $`dx`$’s are taken in the same time, i.e. with $`dx^0=0`$. Note that the condition $`dx^0=0`$ is invariant under the transformations (4), because if $`dx^0=0`$ in the frame of the observer $`𝒪_u`$, it follows from (11) that $`dx^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=0`$ for any other observer $`𝒪_u^{}`$.

To find the transformation law for $`dV`$ first consider the invariant quantity $`ud\sigma u_\mu d\sigma ^\mu `$, where $`d\sigma ^\mu =\frac{1}{3!}ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }dx_\nu dx_\kappa dx_\lambda `$ is an element of hyper-surface,

$$ud\sigma =u_0d\sigma ^0=\frac{ϵ^{0ijk}}{3!}u_0dx_idx_jdx_ku_0d^3\underset{¯}{𝒙}.$$
(20)
Using the metric tensor $`g^{\mu \nu }(u)`$ we may rewrite $`dx_i`$’s in terms of $`dx^\mu `$’s and for $`dx^0=0`$ we obtain

$$u_0d\sigma ^0=u_0det\left(I+(u^0)^2𝒖𝒖^T\right)d^3𝒙=u^0dV.$$
(21)
Therefore $`dV=\frac{1}{u^0}ud\sigma `$ transforms according to the Eq. (11) as follows

$$dV^{}=w^0dV,$$
(22)
so

$$V^{}=w^0V,$$
(23)
where $`V=_{t=\mathrm{const}}𝑑V`$.

2.3. Invariant measure on the phase space

Now we construct an invariant measure on the phase space of a free particle.

Let us begin with an invariant measure in momentum space, assuming proper spectral conditions for the particle four-momentum, namely $`p^0>0`$ and $`p^2=m^2`$ (see caban99 ):

$$d\mu (p)\theta (p^0)\delta (p^2m^2)d^4p,$$
(24)
i.e.

$$d\mu (p)=\frac{d^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}}{2p^0},$$
(25)
where $`\underset{¯}{𝒑}`$ is covariant momentum three-vector. Multiplying (25) by the invariant $`2(u_\mu p^\mu )`$ we obtain an invariant measure on the phase space with proper scaling behavior:

$$2upd\mu (p)=u_0d^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}.$$
(26)
Finally, taking into account (21), we obtain the following invariant measure on a single particle phase space

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }=2d\mu (p)u_\mu d\sigma ^\mu u_\nu p^\nu =d^3𝒙d^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}.$$
(27)
We see that $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the form analogous to the non-relativistic case.

2.4. Pressure

The pressure $`P`$ of perfect fluid can be defined by the relation to its stress-energy tensor, namely by

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=(\rho +P)𝔴^\mu 𝔴^\nu Pg^{\mu \nu },$$
(28)
where $`\rho `$ is the fluid density and $`𝔴^\mu `$ is the four-velocity of fluid with respect to the observer $`𝒪_u`$. Pressure is then invariant

$$P^{}=P$$
(29)
and can be separated from the density using invariant relations

$$\mathrm{Tr}\sigma \sigma ^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }=\rho +3P,\mathrm{Tr}\sigma ^2=\rho ^2+3P^2.$$
(30)
Summarizing this section, we conclude that in the absolute synchronization scheme the volume and pressure have simple transformation laws (23) and (29), while the invariant measure on phase space has the very suggestive form (27).

3. STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION

3.1. Probability density and partition function

Consider the perfect gas of $`N`$ non-interacting particles. We start with the following formula for a probability density of finding the $`i`$-th particle in an infinitesimal element of phase space $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$

$$\frac{1}{Z_i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^np_{(i)}^0\right),$$
(31)
which is the natural modification of the Boltzmann–Maxwell distribution. Here $`\beta =\frac{1}{kT}`$, $`n`$ is an arbitrary power to be fixed later, $`Z_i`$ is the normalization factor—partition function

$$Z_i(\beta ,V)=𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^np_{(i)}^0\right).$$
(32)
The factor $`(u^0)^n`$ is introduced to preserve the invariance of the argument of the exponential function under transformations (4).

Therefore the probability distribution of finding $`N`$ non-interacting identical particles of the gas in an element of the phase space $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ is

$$\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^n\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{(i)}^0\right),$$
(33)
where the partition function $`Z(\beta ,V)`$ for the gas is

$`Z(\beta ,V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^n\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{(i)}^0\right)}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`\left(V{\displaystyle d^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^np^0\right)}\right)^N.`$
Of course the partition function must be an invariant of the Lorentz transformations (14)

$$Z^{}=Z.$$
(35)
This requires that the argument of the exponential in (34) also must be an invariant. Since $`p^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=\frac{1}{w^0}p^0`$ and $`u^{}{}_{}{}^{0}=\frac{1}{w^0}u^0`$ it follows that $`\beta ^{}=(w^0)^{n+1}\beta `$, i.e.

$$T^{}=\frac{1}{(w^0)^{n+1}}T.$$
(36)
3.2. Internal energy

In Lorentz covariant dynamics with absolute synchronization Hamiltonian, as the generator of the time translations, is identified with 0-th covariant component of four-momentum: $`H_ip_{0}^{}{}_{(i)}{}^{}`$. Therefore energy of the system of $`N`$ non-interacting particles is equal to

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{0}^{}{}_{(i)}{}^{}.$$
(37)
The internal energy is defined as the mean value of Hamiltonian, i.e.,

$`U=H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{0}^{}{}_{(k)}{}^{}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^n\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{(i)}^0\right)}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\left(V{\displaystyle d^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}p_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^np^0\right)}\right)^N,`$
where $`p_0`$ and $`p^0`$ are covariant and contravariant components of the momentum of a single particle of the gas under consideration, respectively.

On the other hand in statistical physics internal energy is related to the partition function by

$$U=\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\beta }\frac{1}{Z}\frac{Z}{\beta }.$$
(39)
Taking into account Eq. (34) we obtain from (39) that

$$U=\frac{1}{Z}\left((u^0)^{n+2}Vd^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}p_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (u^0)^np^0\right)\right)^N.$$
(40)
Comparison of (38) and (40) fixes the power of $`u^0`$, so we have to choose $`n=2`$. Therefore $`\beta ^{}=\beta /w^0`$ and in consequence

$$U^{}=w^0U$$
(41)
and

$$T^{}=w^0T.$$
(42)
Therefore the probability distribution (33) finally takes the form

$$\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left(u_0\beta \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}up_{(i)}\right),$$
(43)
while the partition function is

$$Z(\beta ,V)=\left(Vd^3\underset{¯}{𝒑}e^{u_0\beta up}\right)^N,$$
(44)
where we have used (18) and $`upu_\mu p^\mu =u_0p^0`$.

Notice, that in the preferred frame ($`u^0=1`$, $`𝒖=0`$) $`Z`$ takes the standard form.

3.3. Entropy

In fixed external conditions every simple thermodynamical system is uniquely described by its internal energy $`U`$ and volume $`V`$. The entropy $`S=S(U,V)`$ is a unique function of these parameters and is maximal for equilibrium states of the system.

We treat entropy as the measure of the information on the system. According to this approach we use Boltzmann definition of entropy

$$S(U,V)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _i\mathrm{ln}\rho _i,$$
(45)
where $`\rho _i`$ are probabilities of finding the $`i`$-th particle in a given microscopic event realizing the macroscopic state of the system described by energy $`U`$ and volume $`V`$.

If the observer staying in the frame $`𝒪_u`$ describes the system under consideration by $`U`$, $`V`$, the other observer, staying in the frame $`𝒪_u^{}`$ describes the system by $`U^{}`$, $`V^{}`$. Entropy $`S^{}`$ in the frame $`𝒪_u^{}`$ is equal to

$$S^{}(U^{},V^{})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\rho _i\mathrm{ln}\rho _i,$$
(46)
because the macroscopic state $`(U^{},V^{})`$ is realized by the same microscopic events. So, entropy is invariant

$$S^{}=S.$$
(47)
Note that using (35), (41), and (42) we obtain the same transformation law (47) on a basis of the relation between entropy and partition function

$$S=k\mathrm{ln}Z+\frac{U}{T}.$$
(48)
4. LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS AND ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION

We can easily check that the usual laws of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics are consistent with the transformation law of physical quantities derived in sections 2 and 3.

The transformation law for pressure (29) is consistent with the statistical definition of pressure

$$P=kT\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{V}\right)_T,$$
(49)
provided the transformation laws for volume (22), partition function (35) and temperature (42) hold.

The form of the partition function of the perfect gas (44) and the above equation imply the relation

$$PV=NkT,$$
(50)
i.e. the usual Clapeyron’s equation of the state of the perfect gas.

Moreover, the relation $`P^{}=P`$ agrees with the thermodynamical definition of pressure (Maxwell’s equation)

$$P=\left(\frac{U}{V}\right)_S.$$
(51)
Maxwell’s equation for temperature is covariant in the absolute synchronization, too. Indeed, consider the relation

$$T=\left(\frac{U}{S}\right)_V$$
(52)
and use (41) and (47) to obtain $`T^{}=w^0T`$ again.

The above relation allows us to keep the first law of thermodynamics unchanged:

$$dU=TdSPdV.$$
(53)
Therefore we can define the heat

$$\delta Q=TdS$$
(54)
and work

$$\delta L=PdV.$$
(55)
It is easy to check that $`\delta Q^{}=w^0\delta Q`$ and $`\delta L^{}=w^0\delta L`$.

Transformation laws for the thermodynamical parameters are collected in Table I.

The fundamental thermodynamics relations that are covariant under Lorentz group in absolute synchronization scheme are shown in Table II.

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have formulated Lorentz-covariant thermodynamics. Such a formulation can be possible due to use of a preferred frame and absolute synchronization. As it was suggested in caban99 ; rembielinski80 ; rembielinski97 , the preferred frame can be possibly identified with the cosmic background radiation frame.

We have defined the distribution density and partition function that transforms covariantly under Lorentz boost in the framework of absolute synchronization. This is possible because the absolute synchronization allows for the existence of invariant measure on the phase space of a one-particle system. On this basis we derive transformation properties of all thermodynamical quantities, including entropy, temperature, internal energy and pressure. We can also check that some basic thermodynamical relations such as thermodynamical relation for pressure, Maxwell’s relations, and Clapeyron’s equation are Lorentz covariant in the absolute synchronization scheme.

We would like to point out that, in contrary to the transformation laws found by Einstein, Planck and von Laue einstein07 ; laue61  or the ones found by Ott and Arzeliès arzelies65 ; ott63 , the preferred frame approach allows one to find the transformation laws for thermodynamical quantities in any two inertial frames, not only between a given inertial frame and the system of center of mass of the gas. Moreover, it is easy to verify that in the simplest physical situations: (i) when the observer is in the preferred frame, and (ii) when the gas is in the preferred frame, the transformation law (42) becomes<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1To compare transformation laws in absolute and standard synchronizations we must replace the velocities in absolute synchronization by the velocities in the standard (Einstein–Poincaré) synchronization (see rembielinski97 ). the Einstein–Planck law (1).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is supported by the University of Lodz grant.