Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T15:46:34.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Emergent Structures of Effective Field Theories

from Part II - Structures in the Universe and the Structure of Modern Cosmology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2017

Jean-Philippe Uzan
Affiliation:
Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
Khalil Chamcham
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Joseph Silk
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
John D. Barrow
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Simon Saunders
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Science and philosophy have a strong interaction and an unquestionable complementarity but one needs to draw a clear line between what they tell on the world, on their scope and implications.

Role of Cosmology

Cosmology does indeed play an important role in this debate. It has long been part of mythology and philosophy and, during the twentieth century, adopted a scientific method, thanks to the observational possibilities offered by astrophysics. We can safely state that scientific cosmology was born with Einstein's general relativity, a theory of gravitation that made space and time dynamical, a physical field that needs to be determined by solving dynamical equations known as Einstein field equations. The concept of spacetime was born with this theory, and in its early years cosmology was a space of freedom to think general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 1989). It led to the formulation of a ‘standard’ model, often referred to as the big bang model, that allows us to offer a history of the matter in the universe, in particular by providing an explanation for the synthesis of each of the elements of the Mendeleev table, and a history of the formation of the large scale structure. Cosmology has also excluded many possible models and hypotheses, such as the steady state model or topological defects as the seeds of the large scale structure.

The current standard cosmological model can be summarised by Figure 6.1 from which one can easily conclude that all the phenomena that can be observed in our local universe, from primordial big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) to today, rely mostly on general relativity, electromagnetism and nuclear physics, that is on physics below 100 MeV and well under control experimentally (see Ellis et al. (2012); Mukhanov (2005); Peter and Uzan (2009) for textbooks on modern cosmology). This is an important property since the fact that we can understand our observable universe does not rely on our ability to construct e.g. a theory of quantum gravity. This is the positive aspect, the negative one being that it may be very difficult to find systems in which gravity, quantum physics and observations appear together, inflationary perturbations and black holes being probably the only ones. At later time, the dynamics of the large scale structure becomes non-linear and requires the use of numerical simulations to be fully understood.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014. Planck intermediate results. XXIV. Constraints on variation of fundamental constants. arXiv:1406.7482.
Barnes, L. A.2012. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life.. Publ. Astron.Soc. Austral., 29, 529.
Bars, I.2001. Survey of two time physics. Class. Quant. Grav., 18, 3113ndash;30.Google Scholar
Bize, S., Diddams, S. A., Tanaka, U., et al. 2003. Testing the Stability of Fundamental Constants with 199Hg+ Single-Ion Optical Clock. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 150802.Google Scholar
Blatt, S., Ludlow, A. D., Campbell, G. K. et al. 2008. New Limits on Coupling of Fundamental Constants to Gravity Using 87Sr Optical Lattice Clocks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 140801.Google Scholar
Caldwell, R. R.and Stebbins, A.2008. A Test of the Copernican Principle. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 191302.Google Scholar
Carr, B. J.2007. Universe or multiverse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chand, H., Petitjean, P., Srianand, R.and Aracil, B.2004. Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample. Astron. Astrophys., 417, 853.
Chand, H., Petitjean, P., Srianand, R.and Aracil, B.2005. Probing the time-variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on Si IV doublets from a UVES sample. Astron. Astrophys., 430, 47–58.
Cingöz, A., Lapierre, A., Nguyen, A.-T. et al. 2008. Limit on the Temporal Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 98.Google Scholar
Coc, A., Olive, K. A., Uzan, J.-P. and Vangioni, E. 2006. Big bang nucleosynthesis constraints on scalar-tensor theories of gravity. Phys. Rev. D. 73, 083525.Google Scholar
Coc, A., Nunes, N. J., Olive, K. A., Uzan, J.-P., and Vangioni, E. 2007. Coupled variations of the fundamental couplings and primordial nucleosynthesis. Phys. Rev. D. 76, 023511.Google Scholar
Damour, T. and Dyson, F. 1996. The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited. Nucl. Phys. B. 480, 37–54.Google Scholar
Deffayet, C., Gao, X., Steer, D. A. and Zahariade, G. 2011. From k-essence to generalised Galileons. Phys. Rev. D. 84, 064039.Google Scholar
Dent, . 2007. Composition-dependent long range forces from varying mp/me . J. Cosmol.Astropart. Phys., 2007(01). 013.Google Scholar
Dent, T. 2008. Eötvös bounds on couplings of fundamental parameters to gravity. Phys.Rev. Lett., 101, 041102.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. 1997. The fabric of reality. London: Allen Lane.
Dicke, R. H. 1964. Experimental relativity. In C. M., DeWitt.and B. S., DeWitt. eds., Relativity, Groups and Topology. Relativité, Groupes et Topologie. New York; London: Gordon and Breach, pp. 165–313.
Duff, M. J. 2014. How fundamental are fundamental constants? arXiv:1412.2040. Eddington, A. 1923. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenstaedt, J. 1989. In F. W., Meyerstein. ed., Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology. Singapore: World Scientific.
Ekström, S., Coc, A., Descouvemont, P., et al. 2010. Effects of the variation of fundamental constants on Population III stellar evolution. Astron. Astrophys. A. 514, 62.
Ellis, G. F. R. 2005. Physics, complexity and causality. Nature. 435, 743.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R. 2012. Recognising Top-Down Causation. arXiv:1212.2275,.
Ellis, G. F. R. and Uzan, J.-P. 2005. ‘c’ is the speed of light, isn't it? Am. J. Phys., 73, 240–47.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. F. R., Maartens, R. and MacCallum, M. A. H. 2012. Relativistic Cosmology. Oxford; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Esposito-Farèse, G., Pitrou, C. and Uzan, J.-P. 2010. Vector theories in cosmology. Phys.Rev. D. 81, 063519.Google Scholar
Fabre, O., Prunet, S. and Uzan, J.-P. 2013. Topology beyond the horizon: how far can it be probed? arXiv:1311.3509.
Fleury, P., Beltran, J. P. A., Pitrou, C. and Uzan, J.-P. 2014. On the stability and causality of scalar-vector theories. arXiv:1406.6254.
Friedman, J. L. 1998. Lorentzian universes from nothing. Class. Quant. Grav., 15, 2639–44.Google Scholar
Gibbons, G. W. and Hartle, J. B. 1990. Real Tunneling Geometries and the Large Scale Topology of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D. 42, 2458–68.Google Scholar
Gibbons, G. W. and Ishibashi, A. 2004. Topology and signature changes in brane worlds. Class. Quant. Grav., 21, 2919–36.Google Scholar
Girelli, F., Liberati, S. and Sindoni, L. 2009. Emergence of Lorentzian signature and scalar gravity. Phys. Rev. D. 79, 044019.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. 1995. Geocentrism reexamined. Phys. Rev. D. 52, 1821–7.Google Scholar
Gott, J.Richard, III. and Li, L.-X. 1998. Can the universe create itself? Phys. Rev. D. 58, 023501.Google Scholar
Halsted, G. B. 1982. Four-Fold Space and Two-Fold Time. Science. 19, 319.Google Scholar
Hartle, J. B. and Hawking, S. W. 1983. Wave Function of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D. 28, 2960–75.Google Scholar
Hogan, C. J. 2000. Why the universe is just so. Rev. Mod. Phys., 72, 1149–61.Google Scholar
Horndeski, G. W. 1974. Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 10, 363–84.Google Scholar
Karshenboim, S. G. 2006. The search for possible variation of the fine-structure constant. Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 38, 159.Google Scholar
Kehayias, J., Mukohyama, S. and Uzan, J.-P. 2014. Emergent Lorentz Signature, Fermions, and the Standard Model. Phys. Rev. D. 89, 105017.Google Scholar
Kuroda, P. K. 1956. On the nuclear physical stability of uranium mineral. J. Chem. Phys., 25, 781.Google Scholar
Luo, F., Olive, K. A. and Uzan, J.-P. 2011. Gyromagnetic Factors and Atomic Clock Constraints on the Variation of Fundamental Constants. Phys. Rev. D. 84, 096004.Google Scholar
Mars, M., Senovilla, J. M. M. and Vera, R. 2007. Lorentzian and signature changing branes. Phys. Rev. D. 76, 044029.Google Scholar
Mielczarek, J. 2014. Signature change in loop quantum cosmology. Springer Proc. Phys., 157, 555–62.Google Scholar
Moore, G. D. and Nelson, A. E. 2001. Lower bound on the propagation speed of gravity from gravitational Cherenkov radiation. JHEP. 0109, 023.Google Scholar
Mukhanov, V. 2005. Physical foundations of cosmology. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mukohyama, S. and Uzan, J.-P. 2013. From configuration to dynamics: Emergence of Lorentz signature in classical field theory. Phys. Rev. D. 87(6), 065020.Google Scholar
Mukohyama, S. and Uzan, J.-P. 2013. Emergence of the Lorentzian structure in classical field theory. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D. 22, 1342018.Google Scholar
Olive, K. A., Pospelov, M., Qian, Y.-Z., et al. 2004. Reexamination of the 187Re bound on the variation of fundamental couplings. Phys. Rev. D. 69, 027701.Google Scholar
Olive, K. A., Peloso, M. and Uzan, J.-P. 2011. TheWall of Fundamental Constants. Phys.Rev., D83, 043509.Google Scholar
Peebles, P. J. and Dicke, R. H. 1962. Cosmology and the Radioactive Decay Ages of Terrestrial Rocks and Meteorites. Phys. Rev., 128, 2006–11.Google Scholar
Peter, P. and Uzan, J.-P. 2009. Primordial Cosmology. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Petitjean, P., Srianand, R., Chand, H., et al. 2009. Constraining fundamental constants of physics with quasar absorption line systems. Space Sci. Rev., 148, 289–300.Google Scholar
Polchinsky, J. 1998. String theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uzan, J.-P. 2003. The Fundamental constants and their variation: Observational status and theoretical motivations. Rev. Mod. Phys., 75, 403.Google Scholar
Uzan, J.-P. 2005. Variation of the constants in the late and early universe. AIP Conf.Proc., 736, 3–20.
Uzan, J.-P. 2009. Fundamental constants and tests of general relativity: Theoretical and cosmological considerations. Space Sci. Rev., 148, 249.Google Scholar
Uzan, J.-P. 2010. Dark energy, gravitation and the Copernican principle. In P., Ruiz- Lapuente. ed., Dark Energy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–47.
Uzan, J.-P. 2011. Varying Constants, Gravitation and Cosmology. Living Rev. Rel., 14, 2.Google Scholar
Uzan, J.-P. 2012. Variation of fundamental constants on sub- and super-Hubble scales: From the equivalence principle to the multiverse.. AIP Conf. Proc., 1514, 14–20.
Uzan, J.-P. 2013. Models of the cosmos and emergence of complexity. In G. F. R., Ellis. M., Heller.and T., Pabjan. eds., The Causal Universe. Krakow: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 93–119.
Uzan, J.-P. and Bernardeau, F. 2001. Lensing at cosmological scales: A Test of higher dimensional gravity. Phys. Rev. D. 64, 083004.Google Scholar
Uzan, J.-P. and Lehoucq, L. 2005. Les constantes fondamentales. Paris: Belin.
Uzan, J.-P., Clarkson, C. and Ellis, G. F. R. 2008. Time drift of cosmological redshifts as a test of the Copernican principle. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100, 191303.Google Scholar
Webb, J. K., Flambaum, V. V., Churchill, C.W., Drinkwater, M. J. and Barrow, J. D. 1999. Search for time variation of the fine-structure constant. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82, 884–7.Google Scholar
Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., Flambaum, V. V., et al. 2001. Further evidence for cosmological evolution of the fine-structure constant. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87, 091301.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. 1983. Overview of theoretical prospects for understanding the values of fundamental constants. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A. 310, 249.Google Scholar
Will, C. M. 1993. Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics. 2nd edn. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×