Inflation and Rapid Expansion in a Variable G Model

Abstract

Cosmic inflation is considered assuming a cosmologically varying Newtonian gravitational constant, G. Utilizing two specific models for, ( ), where, a , is the cosmic scale parameter, we find that the Hubble parameter, H, at inception of G −1 , may be as high as 7.56 E53 km/(s Mpc) for model A, or, 8.55 E53 km/(s Mpc) for model B, making these good candidates for inflation. The Hubble parameter is inextricably linked to G by Friedmanns' equation, and if G did not exist prior to an inception temperature, then neither did expansion.The CBR temperatures at inception of 1 G − are estimated to equal, 6.20 E21 Kelvin for model A, and 7.01 E21 for model B, somewhat lower than CBR temperatures usually associated with inflation. These temperatures would fix the size of Lemaitre universe in the vicinity of 3% of the Earths' radius at the beginning of expansion, thus avoiding a singularity, as is the case in the ΛCDM model. In the later universe, a variable G model cannot be dismissed based on SNIa events. In fact, there is now some compelling astronomical evidence, using rise times and luminosity, which we discuss, where it could be argued that SNIa events can only be used as good standard candles if a variation in G is taken into account. Dark energy may have more to do with a weakening G with increasing cosmological time, versus an unanticipated acceleration of the universe, in the late stage of cosmic evolution.

On the Cosmic Evolution of the Quantum Vacuum Using Two Variable <i>G</i> Models and Winterberg’s Thesis

“…Newton's constant, G, is assumed to depend solely on the CMB radiation temperature, which permeates space. As a matter of fact, we consider G −1 to be a fundamental property of the vacuum, an order parameter, which vanishes at sufficiently high temperatures [17] [18] [19], much like magnetization in a paramagnet. If we did not allow G to vary with cosmological time, then there would be no mechanism for the Planck length, Pl l , to scale.…”

“…Moreover, these two functions were also used to present a different version of inflation. For a discussion of this, we refer the reader specifically to reference [19].…”

“…The mass densities for the component parts, ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy, are nothing compared to this ocean surface of zero net vacuum mass density, and zero net vacuum pressure. See, Equations (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) through (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Because of the mass compensating effect between the positive and negative mass planckions, the cosmological constant problem has also been greatly reduced in scope.…”

“…This defines the zero net vacuum energy density and, the zero net vacuum pressure surface. If we compare the values in, Equations (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) through (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19), to, Equation (6-20), we see that they are nothing but very minute perturbations (ripples) upon this vast ocean surface (assembly) of a positive, with negative Planck particle mass density. This is a further indication that the mass densities, which are present in today's universe, are residual effects, or anomalies upon a much greater whole, which is seemingly "not there".…”

“…The point, however, is that these scaling laws are totally at odds with the vacuum energy density scaling laws given in the previous two sections. They look nothing like, In the third line we made use of, Equations (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21) and (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20). We are using the scaling laws employed in column "O", in Table 2, and Table 4.…”