Speaker
Описание
Abstract
In A. A. Logunov’s Relativistic Theory of Gravity, it is postulated that the gravitational field—much like all other fields—evolves within Minkowski space, with the energy-momentum tensor of all matter fields (including the gravitational field itself) serving as the source for this field. In this framework, the tensor gravitational field necessarily acquires mass. This paper provides a retrospective examination of the construction of a relevant cosmological (Friedmann-type) model for a homogeneous and isotropic Universe. The presence of a rest mass fundamentally alters the Universe’s evolution: it becomes oscillatory, exists for an infinite duration, and maintains a matter density that is always finite and non-zero. Furthermore, this approach resolves several issues inherent to the standard cosmological scenario, namely the singularity, horizon, and flatness problems, as well as the overabundance of primordial monopoles. The discovery of cosmological acceleration necessitated the inclusion of "quintessence"—a scalar field with a non-trivial kinetic term—as a model for dark energy. The single parameter of this model was estimated through an analysis of Type Ia supernova (SNIa) data and by studying the local recession flow of galaxies within the Local Group. Another dark energy model is also discussed, which incorporates a global scalar field with a quadratic potential; this field drives current cosmological acceleration and facilitates a "bounce" at later stages. However, an analysis of the Universe’s contraction phase—characterized by a decreasing scale factor and increasing density—reveals that the emergence of Kasner-like anisotropy disrupts the bounce mechanism near the "Big Bang." Consequently, this cosmological scenario is limited to a single cycle, ultimately encountering the same problems found in the standard General Relativity-based cosmological model. During the contraction phase, anisotropy will increase, and the density of matter will reach the Planck scale. Furthermore, there is another indication that such a scenario is untenable. It is a well-known, significant prediction of Relativistic Theory of Gravity (RTG) that the gravitational collapse of a spherically symmetric star in a vacuum cannot continue indefinitely from the perspective of a distant observer; eventually, such stars must explode. To date, however, no such events have been confirmed by observation. The study demonstrates that for the duration of the collapse—up until the explosion—to be comparable to the age of the Universe, the mass of the graviton would have to be unnaturally small: $m < 10^{-10^{10}}$ g. This issue can be circumvented by accounting for a large background cosmological field—that is, by analyzing the collapse process not in a vacuum, but within a Friedmann-type Universe. Consequently, the formula for the collapse duration incorporates an effective graviton mass, $m \to m/a_0^3$, where $a_0$ represents a large value of the scale factor during the non-relativistic epoch. Post-Planckian inflation, which increased the scale factor by many orders of magnitude, is capable of providing the necessary value for this effective mass, while simultaneously resolving all the problems associated with the standard cosmological scenario.
Links
1. Логунов A.A., Мествиришвили M. A., Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 74. №.1. 3. (1988) (Logunov A.A., Mestvirishvili M. A., Chugreev Yu.V. // Theor.Math.Phys.74. N.1. 1. ( 1988)) 2. Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 79. №2. 307.(1989)( Chugreev Yu. V. // Theor. Math. Phys. 79. 554.(1989)) 3. Мествиришвили M. A., Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 80. №2. 305.(1989) (Mestvirishvili M. A., Chugreev Yu.V. // Theor.Math.Phys. 80. N2. 886.( 1989)) 4. Логунов A.A., Мествиришвили M. A., Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 86. №.2. 163.(1991) (Logunov A.A., Mestvirishvili M. A., Chugreev Yu.V. // Theor.Math.Phys. 86. N.2. 111.(1991)) 5. Емельянов Е. Ю., Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 97. №3. 459.(1993)( Emel'yanov E.Yu, Chugreev Yu.V. // Theor.Math.Phys. 97. N3. 1409.(1993)) 6. Герштейн С. С., Логунов A. A., Мествиришвили M. A. // ЯФ. 61.№8. 1526.(1998) (Gershtein S. S., Logunov A. A., Mestvirishvili M. A. // Phys.Part.Nucl. 61.N8. 1420.(1998)) 7. Герштейн С. С., Логунов A. A., Мествиришвили M. A., и др. // ЭЧАЯ. 36. №5. 1003. (2004) (Gershtein S. S., Logunov A. A., Mestvirishvili M. A., et al // Phys.Part.Nucl. 67. N5. 1596.( 2004)) (arXiv:astro-ph/0305125). 8. Мествиришвили M. A., Модестов K. A., Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 152. №3. 551.(2007)( Mestvirishvili M. A., Chugreev Yu.V. // Theor.Math.Phys. 152. N.3. 1342.(2007))(arXiv:gr-qc/0612105). 9. Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 161. №1. 115. (2009) (Chugreev Yu.V. // Theor.Math.Phys. 161. N1. 1420.( 2009)) 10. Чугреев Ю.В. // Письма в ЭЧАЯ. 12. №2. 281.(2015) (Chugreev Yu. V. // Phys.Part.Nucl.Lett. 12. N2. 195.(2015)) 11. Чугреев Ю.В. // Tеор.Maт.Физ. 194. №.3. С. 510.(2018)(Chugreev Yu. V. // Theor. Math. Phys. 194. N.3. 439.(2018)) 12. Чугреев Ю.В., Модестов K. A. // Письма в ЭЧАЯ. 10.№.4. С.478.(2013)(Chugreev Yu. V., Modestov K. A. // Phys.Part.Nucl.Lett. 2013. 10, N.4. 295.(2013)) 13. Чугреев Ю.В., Модестов K. A. // Письма в ЭЧАЯ. 10. №.4. 486.(2013) (Chugreev Yu. V., Modestov K. A. // Phys.Part.Nucl.Lett. 10, N.4. 300.(2013)) 14. Чугреев Ю.В. // Письма в ЭЧАЯ. 14. №.4. 346.(2017) (Chugreev Yu. V. // Phys.Part.Nucl.Lett. 2017. 14. N.4. 539(2017)) 15. Чугреев Ю.В. // Письма в ЭЧАЯ. 21. №.5. 946.(2024)(Chugreev Yu. V. // Phys.Part.Nucl.Lett. 21. N.5. 964.(2024)) 16. Чугреев Ю.В. // Вестник МГУ.Серия 3:Физика и Астрономия.. 79. №.4. 2440102-1.(2024)(Chugreev Yu. V. // Moscow University Physics Bulletin. 79. N.4. 432. (2024))