Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 333: 351356 DOI 10.

1007/s10509-011-0635-8

O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E

The matter in the Big-Bang model is dust and not any arbitrary perfect uid!
Abhas Mitra

Received: 6 January 2011 / Accepted: 31 January 2011 / Published online: 10 February 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract We consider a spherically symmetric general relativistic perfect uid in its comoving frame. It is found that, by integrating the local energy momentum conservation equation, a general form of g00 can be obtained. During this study, we get a cue that an adiabatically evolving uniform density isolated sphere having (r, t) = 0 (t), should comprise dust having p0 (t) = 0; as recently suggested by Durgapal and Fuloria (J. Mod. Phys. 1:143, 2010) In fact, we offer here an independent proof to this effect. But much more importantly, we nd that for the homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric having p(r, t) = p0 (t) and (r, t) = 0 (t), g00 = e2p0 /(p0 +0 ) . But in general relativity (GR), one can choose an arbitrary t t = f (t) without any loss of generality, and thus set g00 (t ) = 1. And since pressure is a scalar, this implies that p0 (t ) = p0 (t) = 0 in the Big-Bang model based on the FRW metric. This result gets conrmed by the fact the homogeneous dust metric having p(r, t) = p0 (t) = 0 and (r, t) = 0 (t) and the FRW metric are exactly identical. In other words, both the cases correspond to the same Einstein tensor Ga because they intrinsically have the same energy b momentum tensor Tba = diag[0 (t), 0, 0, 0]. Keywords General relativity Gravitational collapse Cosmology Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime Big-Bang model

1 Introduction In general relativity, spacetime geometry Ga is determined b by the matter energy momentum tensor Tba . In reality, however, it is extremely difcult to obtain precise expressions for the metric tensor gab by solving the Einstein equations. As one attempts to solve the Einstein equations, one simultaneously uses local energy momentum conservation equation Tba ;a = 0 (1)

A. Mitra ( ) Theoretical Astrophysics Section, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India e-mail: amitra@barc.gov.in

which actually follows from the Bianchi identities. It is known that this equation plays an important role in determining the lapse function g00 . Here, by considering a spherically symmetric uid, we point out that, one may obtain a general expression for g00 by using (1). In particular, we shall also obtain the general comoving lapse function for an isotropic and homogeneous perfect uid for which both = 0 (t) and p = p0 (t). And it would be found that the pertinent comoving g00 should indeed be unity with appropriate choice of time label. This occurrence of g00 = 1 would be seen to imply p0 (t) 0 for an assumed pressure and density homogeneity; i.e., for the so-called BigBang model. Although this is a rather unexpected result at rst sight, it will be pointed out that, in reality, this result is inevitable because the metrics for an (i) evolving homogeneous dust and (2) the Big-Bang model have exactly the same form. The occurrence of p0 (t) 0 for an isotropic and homogeneous spacetime would mean that a self-gravitating matter must generate a pressure gradient at least if pressure would be assumed to be non-zero. Conversely, pressure gradient can vanish only when pressure itself vanishes. It will be also seen that the form of g00 obtained for a collapsing homogeneous sphere too suggests that the collapsing

352

Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 333: 351356

matter actually comprises a dust having p = 0 as suggested by (Durgapal and Fuloria 2010). To conrm this, we shall obtain here an independent parallel proof to this effect.

Then the metric (2) becomes

2 ds 2 = e[(r,t )+(r,t )] dt e(r,t ) dr 2 R 2 (r, t )d 2

; (12)

2 General form of comoving lapse function Let us start with the diagonal form of any spherically symmetrical metric in comoving coordinates r and t: ds 2 = e(r,t) dt 2 e(r,t) dr 2 R 2 (r, t)d
2

i.e., C(t ) = 0. After dropping the asterisk, in the new time coordinate, we may also rewrite the metric for any spherically symmetric spacetime as ds 2 = e(+ ) dt 2 e dr 2 R 2 d i.e., (r, t) = (r, t) + (r, t) 2.1 Trivial case of a dust As a simple test for this general form of comoving lapse function obtained above, we consider the case of a dust. From (6) and (7), we see that for a dust with p = 0, homogeneous or inhomogeneous, one will have (r, t) = (r, t) = 0; (15) (14)
2

(13)

(2)

where d 2 = (d 2 +sin2 d 2 ). In the comoving frame, the components of the energy momentum tensor of the perfect uid are(G = c = 1): T00 = (r, t); T11 = T22 = T33 = p(r, t) (3)

Conservation of energy-momentum yields (Landau and Lifshitz 1962) = 2p +p (4)

Here a prime and dot denote partial differentiation with r and t respectively. We integrate (4) by parts between the limits (r, t) and (0, t) without setting any condition on p or beforehand: (r, t) (0, t) = (r, t) (0, t) + (r, t) where (r, t) = 2p(r, t) , p(r, t) + (r, t)
r 0

Accordingly, any general spherically symmetric dusty metric may be written as ds 2 = dt 2 e(r,t) dr 2 R 2 (r, t)d
2

(16)

(5)

without any loss of generality. Having considered this trivial case of a dust, let us consider non-trivial cases. 2.2 Homogeneous dust For a homogeneous dust having = 0 (t), i.e., for the Oppenheimer-Snyder (OS) problem, it is well known that, the above metric can be uniquely solved : ds 2 (Hom Dust) = dt 2 a 2 (t) dr 2 r 2d 1 kr 2
2

(6) (7)

(r, t) = 2

p + pdr (p + )2

If we club the two terms independent of r in (5) as C(t) = (0, t) (0, t), we may rewrite it as (r, t) = (r, t) + (r, t) + C(t) (9) (8)

(17)

where a(t) is the scale factor, k = +1, 0, 1, and R(r, t) = ra(t). Accordingly, a homogeneous dust obeys Hubbles Law!

Had we integrated (4) in the indenite mode, we would have obtained (9) directly where C(t) would have appeared as an integration constant. Now, let us recall that, in general relativity, given one time label t, one can always choose another time label (Landau and Lifshitz 1962) t t = f (t) (10)

3 Collapsing homogeneous density sphere Now consider the case of a collapsing homogeneous density uid (r, t) = 0 (t) for which (r, t) = 2
0 r

(18)

without any loss of generality. And let us use this coordinate freedom to choose a new label t such that dt = e
2 C(t)

dt

(11)

p pdr (p + 0 )2

(19)

Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 333: 351356

353

If we now call z(r, t) = p(r, t) + 0 (t) we will have (r, t) = 2

0 r

But from (26), we see that for p(r, t) = p0 (t), one has (20) ds 2 = e0 (t) dt 2 e dr 2 R 2 d
2

(32)

(z 0 )z 20 dr = 2 ln z + C1 2 z z

(21)

By combining (6), (9) and (20), we nd that (r, t) = 2 + C1 2 ln z This means that, one should have eC1 e = (p + 0 )2

Now comparing (31) and (32), it transpires that for the homogeneous and isotropic case, one may conceive 0 = 0 without any loss of generality. We can invoke the coordinate freedom condition (10) again to introduce another new time coordinate dt 2 = e0 (t) dt 2 so that (31) will become (33)

(22)

(23)

2 ds 2 = dt e(r,t ) dr 2 R 2 (r, t )d

; (34)

0 (t ) = 0

On the other hand, had we integrated (4) directly for = 0 , we would have obtained g00 = e(r,t) = p0 + 0 p + 0
2

As before, we may drop the asterisks in the above equation to obtain ds 2 = dt 2 e dr 2 R 2 d

2

e0 (t)

(24)

0 (t) = 0

(35)

where 0 (t) = (0, t). By comparing the two foregoing equations, we see that eC1 = e0 (p0 + 0 )2 (25)

Therefore, for a collapsing constant density spherical self-gravitating uid, one may start with a metric of the form ds 2 = e0 p0 + 0 p + 0
2

By recalling (30), note that the result 0 = 0 implies that, one would eventually have p0 (t) = 0, if one would assume (r, t) = 0 (t) and p(r, t) = p0 (t). If one would instead use only (34), one would obtain p(t ) = 0. But since pressure is a scalar, one would again have p(t ) = p(t) = 0 in this case. Let us also recall that for the homogeneous and isotropic case, one can in fact solve for e too to obtain ds 2 (F RW ) = dt 2 a 2 (t) dr 2 r 2d 1 kr 2
2

dt 2 e(r,t) dr 2 R 2 (r, t)d

(26)

(36)

4 Evolving homogeneous and isotropic perfect uid Now we shall consider the case of a truly homogeneous and isotropic uid not having any boundary at all. Here one has = 0 (t); and p = p0 (t); p =0 (28) =0 (27)

where, as in the OS case, a(t) is the scale factor and R(r, t) = ra(t). Note, both OS and FRW metrics obey the same Hubbles Law!

5 Additional physical importance To explore additional physical importance of this general study, we revert to the case of metric (26), i.e., an adiabatically evolving uniform density sphere. By Birkhoffs theorem, the exterior vacuum will be described by the vacuum Schwarzschild spacetime R Rb ): ds 2 = (1 2Mb /R)dT 2 (1 2Mb /R)1 dR 2 R 2 d
2

Then from (7), we will again have (r, t) = 0 just like the dust uid case. Also from (6), we will have 2p0 = = 0 (t) p0 + 0 Then, from (13), we will have ds 2 = e0 (t) dt 2 e dr 2 R 2 d
2

(29)

(37) having

(30)

e g00 = 1 2Mb /R 1;

R Rb

(38)

(31)

where Mb is the gravitational mass of the sphere. This choice of the exterior time label seems natural because it leads to g00 = 1, as is expected for the asymptotically at

354

Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 333: 351356

spacetime. Similarly, for the interior metric, the choice of a time label t for which e0 = 1 seems to be natural in order that, for a non-collapsed uid, the spacetime is at at r = 0. Under such a natural choice of interior time label, at the interior boundary of the uid, one nds
i g00 =

By differentiating this we obtain 4 0 R 3 + 40 R 2 R M= 3 (46)

p0 + 0 0

Also, an adiabatically evolving spherical uid obeys the following equation M = 4R 2 Rp And by combining (45)(47) we nd that R 0 + 3 (p + 0 ) = 0 R (48) (47)

1;

r = rb

(39)

Even though the interior clocks marked by t are moving with respect exterior xed clocks marked by T , we have a suspicion, that the two facts
e g00 1;

R = Rb

(40)

and
i g00 1;

We have already noted that for a uniform density sphere, regularity of the mass function at the center, requires that the mass function assumes the simpler form: M(r, t) = 40 (t)R(r, t)2 R dr = 4 0 (t)R(r, t)3 (49) 3

R = Rb

(41)

may not be compatible. On the other hand, an occurrence of

i g00 = 1;

R = Rb

(42)

may be much more compatible with (38). But such a compatibility is possible only if the collapsing matter will be a dust having p = 0. It should be borne in mind however that gik s are not scalars and one needs to explore such a possibility with rigour. In fact, by considering specic models of isolated collapsing uid spheres (Durgapal and Fuloria 2010) have claimed that, indeed the matter within a collapsing homogeneous sphere is bound to be a dust. This claim however is in stark contrast with the all relevant previous works (Bondi 1969; Bonnor and Faulkes 1967; Landau and Lifshitz 1962; Misra and Srivastava 1972; Nariai 1967; Thompson and Whitrow 1967, 1968). And therefore, it would be appropriate to verify the claims of Durgapal and Fuloria in an independent manner. 5.1 Collapsing homogeneous sphere with a boundary In general, for the adiabatically evolving spherically symmetric uid, the gravitational mass is given by M(r, t) =
0 r

For a static case with R = 0 and dR = R dr, one can promptly understand such a simplication. But for an assumed non-static case, such a simplication is possible only when R(r, t) is separable as R(r, t) = ra(t) so that M(r, t) = 4 0 (t)a 3 (t)r 3 3 (51) (50)

In such a case, (48) reduces to a 0 + 3 (p + 0 ) = 0 a (52)

Further, if we would consider that the sphere has a boundary with p = pb = 0, the above equation will yield 0 (t) + 3 a(t) 0 (t) = 0 a(t) (53)

4R 2 R dr

(43)

It is important here to note that, the foregoing equation is valid everywhere because it does not involve r at all. On the other hand, had been a function of r along with t, we would not have obtained either (52)(53) or the preceding equations (44)(51). One can now integrate (53) to obtain 0 (t)a 3 (t) = constant = K so that, from (51), we will have (54)

And when, the sphere is homogeneous with = 0 (t), one has M(r, t) = 4 0 R 3 (r, t) M(0, t) 3 (44)

But since the regularity of the metric at R = 0 requires M(0, t) = 0, for an assumed uniform density case, we have (Thompson and Whitrow 1967, 1968) M(r, t) = 4 0 R 3 (r, t) 3 (45)

M(r, t) =

4 Kr 3 = M(r) 3

(55)

Therefore, we have found the important result, that for an isolated uniform density sphere, the mass function is independent of the time label, i.e., M =0 (56)

Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 333: 351356

355

By using this result in (47), we promptly nd that, in such a case, one has Rp = 0 (57)

6 Summary By integrating the energy momentum conservation equation we obtained here a general form of comoving g00 (13). And this expression has never been presented earlier in any literature. By starting from here, we obtained the lapse function for a homogeneous spherically symmetric uid. To crosscheck the correctness of the general (13), we obtained the same g00 (for = 0 (t)) in a direct manner too. Again, by starting from the general (13), we studied the case of a uid having both pressure and density homogeneity. And we found that the potential g00 is directly related to components of the energy momentum tensor (see (20)(32)), namely, p0 and 0 in the true spirit of the Einstein equation. However, by invoking the coordinate freedom of choosing an arbitrary time label as per (10), we found that, the lapse function, in this case, can indeed be set to unity (see (35)). And in view of (30), this eventually meant that, for the Friedman-RobertsonWalker model, one must intrinsically have a matter pressure p0 (t) 0. Although many readers will have difculty in accepting this direct mathematical result, it can nevertheless be conrmed from the fact both a homogeneous dust having (r, t) = 0 (t) and p(r, t) = p0 (t) = 0 and the FRW metric have exactly same form, namely (17) and (36). Further 0 (t) = 0 in both the cases. In fact, earlier many authors have wondered why the FRW metric and the homogeneous dust metric look exactly same; but today we found the answerboth correspond to not only (r, t) = 0 (t), but also to p0 (t) = 0! Conversely both the cases correspond to same Ga because they correspond to same Tba ; i.e., b Ga (FRW) = 8Tba (FRW) b while for a homogeneous dust, the Einstein equation is Ga (Hom Dust) = 8Tba (Hom Dust) b (64) (63)

And this immediately shows that for an evolving uniform density sphere having a boundary, one must have p = 0. But in case, p = 0, one must have R = 0; p=0 (58)

And this was the result obtained earlier in a non-generic manner (Durgapal and Fuloria 2010). Note for an inhomogeneous case with = 0 (t), at the boundary of the sphere (pb = 0), (47) would yield Mb = 0; Mb = Mb (t) (59)

But despite this, none of (50)(54) would be valid even at the boundary. On the other hand, the (54), obtained for the very special case of = 0 (t), is the signature of the dust equation of state and not a mere boundary condition pb = 0. One may cross check that (53) is valid everywhere and not only at r = rb by assuming for a moment that the conclusion obtained in Debnath et al. (2005) is correct. Because with p = 0, (47) gives M = 0; i.e., 4 0 (t)R 3 (r, t) = M(r) 3 (61) M = M(r) (60)

This equation can be satised only if (50) would be valid and which would lead to 4 0 (t)a 3 (t) r 3 = M(r) 3 (t)a 3 (t) (62)

= Constant everywhere and i.e., one must have 0 not only at r = rb . Finally by differentiating the foregoing equation, one would nd that (53) is valid everywhere and not only at r = rb . In contrast to such most idealized models of gravitational collapsing, in reality, the collapse object must be inhomogeneous and the collapse must be accompanied by heat ow. There are innumerable studies on such physical gravitational collapse; in particular, an interested reader may look into (Herrera and Santos 2004; Herrera et al. 2006a, 2006b, 2009; Kramer 1992; Pant et al. 2010; Pant and Tewari 2011; Pinheiro and Chan 2008, 2010). Such physical studies may be also extended for a quasi-spherical case and in arbitrary higher dimensions too (Debnath et al. 2005). Also in general, the collapsing object must satisfy Zeldovich Condition; i.e., p < everywhere. Further, one also expects p < 0; i.e., pressure should decrease as one would move outward.

But since Ga (FRW) = Ga (Hom Dust), it follows from the b b two foregoing equations that Tba (FRW) = Tba (Hom Dust) = diag[0 (t), 0, 0, 0] (65)

i.e., for the Big-Bang model, one should have p0 = 0 as found here. Some readers may still argue that but the FRW metric (46) allows existence of Einstein equations having arbitrary EOS p = p() and therefore the Big-Bang model can indeed support arbitrary pressure and EOS. The fallacy of such an argument can be gauged by noting the fact that formally, one can also make the metric (17) for the homogeneous dust satisfy arbitrary EOS! However, by

356

Astrophys Space Sci (2011) 333: 351356

denition, in this case, one has p = 0. Therefore the mere fact that one can force an arbitrary EOS into a given metric is no proof that the actual physical situation corresponds to an arbitrary EOS. Note that, in view of (4), in general, one may have (r, t) = f (p, , t) (66)

And with the assumption of homogeneity, one must have = 0 (t) = f (p0 , 0 , t) (67)

Further, in view of the coordinate freedom (10), any explicit t dependence can always be absorbed in the denition of g00 so that 0 (t) = f (p0 , 0 ) And direct integration of (4) showed that 0 (t) = 2p0 p0 + 0 (69) (68)

without solving any Einstein equation at all, and then one can imagine that, one can also ll such a 3-space with a uid having a homogeneous pressure. But we found that when GR is inserted in the problem with all its subtlety, i.e., incorporation of the coordinate freedom (10), one cannot make pressure gradient vanish in the presence of self-gravity. And the only way one can fulll this differential geometry dream is by having a hypothetical uid (dust) which has no pressure at all! Since zero pressure implies zero temperature, the Big-Bang model actually cannot explain the observed cosmic microwave background radiation.
Acknowledgements I thank the anonymous referee of Astrophysics & Sp. Sc. for his constructive suggestions. Earlier, this manuscript also got accepted in J. Mod. Phys., and I thank the anonymous referee of this journal too for his sincere and constructive critique which helped in improving the presentation. It may however be noted that this paper was later withdrawn from J. Mod. Phys. as it demanded a substantial processing fee.

in accordance with (68). Finally since 0 (t) can be set to zero without any loss of loss of generality, there is no escaping from the conclusion that Big-Bang model has intrinsically p0 (t) = 0 just like the metric (17), in combination of Einstein equations, intrinsically corresponds to p0 (t) = 0. During this study of the collapse of an isolated uniform density sphere having a boundary, we got a cue that, the collapsing matter in this case, could be a dust. This cue is in accordance with a recent claim (Durgapal and Fuloria 2010). However none of the previous studies of this problem (Bondi 1969; Bonnor and Faulkes 1967; Misra and Srivastava 1972; Nariai 1967; Thompson and Whitrow 1967, 1968) ever brought out this point. Accordingly, we cross- checked this claim by offering an independent generic proof which is model-independent unlike the case of (Durgapal and Fuloria 2010). Thus the cue obtained from the study of the lapse function was indeed a correct one. Hence, eventually we found that for an adiabatically evolving uniform density sphere, pressure is bound to be zero irrespective of whether it has a boundary (isolated sphere) or not (cosmological case). From a purely differential geometry perspective, one can obtain the metric (36)

References
Bondi, H.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 142, 333 (1969) Bonnor, W.B., Faulkes, M.C.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 137, 239 (1967) Debnath, U., Nath, S., Chakraborty, S.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 37, 215 (2005) Durgapal, M.C., Fuloria, P.: J. Mod. Phys. 1(2), 143 (2010) Herrera, L., Santos, N.O.: Phys. Rev. D 70, 084004 (2004) Herrera, L., Di Prisco, A., Barreto, W.: Phys. Rev. D 73, 024008 (2006a) Herrera, L., Di Prisco, A., Ospino, J.: Phys. Rev. D 74, 044001 (2006b) Herrera, L., Di Prisco, A., Fuenmayor, E., Troconis, O.: Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18(01), 129 (2009) Kramer, D.: J. Math. Phys. 33, 1458 (1992) Landau, L.D., Lifshitz, E.M.: Classical Theory of Fields. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1962) Misra, R.M., Srivastava, D.C.: Nat. Phys. Sci. 238, 116 (1972) Nariai, H.: Prog. Theor. Phys. 38, 92 (1967) Pant, N., Mehta, R.N., Tewari, B.C.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 327, 279 (2010) Pant, N., Tewari, B.C.: Astrophys. Space Sci. 331, 645 (2011) Pinheiro, G., Chan, R.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 2149 (2008) Pinheiro, G., Chan, R.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. (2010). doi:10.1007/ s10714-010-1132-z Thompson, I.H., Whitrow, G.J.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 136, 207 (1967) Thompson, I.H., Whitrow, G.J.: Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 139, 499 (1968)