p

r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
ournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
An IOP and SISSA journal
J
Energy of Einsteins static universe
and its implications for the CDM
cosmology
Abhas Mitra
Astrophysical Sciences Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai-400085, India
E-mail: amitra@barc.gov.in
Received January 14, 2013
Revised February 7, 2013
Accepted February 14, 2013
Published ???, 2013
Abstract. The total Einstein energy (P
0
) of a homogeneous and isotropic universe can be
computed by using an appropriate superpotential (Rosen 1994) and also by a direct method
(Mitra 2010). Irrespective of the physical signicance of P
0
, its eventual numerical value
must be same in both the cases because both are derived from the same Einstein pseudo
tensor and by employing the same coordinates. It follows then that the static isotropic and
homogeneous universe, i.e., Einsteins static universe (ESU), must have an innite radius and
which tantamounts to a spatially at case. The physical signicance of this result is that
the cosmological constant, , is actually zero and ESU is the vacuous Minkowski spacetime.
It is the same result which has recently been obtained in a completely independent manner
(Mitra, Bhattacharyya & Bhatt 2013). Thus even though, mathematically, one can conceive
of a static 3-sphere for the foundation of relativistic cosmology, physically, no such 3-sphere
exists. On the other hand, the spatial section of the universe could essentially be an Euclidean
space with local curvature spikes due to presence of lumpy matter. Since the Dark Energy
is associated with in the CDM model, the result obtained here suggests that it is an
artifact of departure of the lumpy and fractal universe from the ideal Friedmann Robertson
Walker model (Jackson et al. 2012, Cowley et al. 2013).
Keywords: superclusters, Lyman alpha forest, galaxy clusters, cosmic ows
c 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd and Sissa Medialab srl doi:xxxxxxx
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Application of pseudopotentials 5
2.1 Einstein-Tolman formula 6
2.2 Application for the ESU 7
3 Simplied calculation invoking superpotential 8
4 Results 9
5 Discussions 9
6 Conclusions 11
1 Introduction
For several decades, modern cosmology has been based on the hypothesis that the observed
universe looks isotropic and homogeneous to all fundamental (comoving) observers. The
space time geometry of such an universe is given by the Friedmann Robertson Walker (FRW)
metric [1]:
ds
2
= dt
2
S(t)
2
_
d r
2
1 k r
2
+ r
2
d
2
_
(1.1)
where S(t) is the scale factor of the universe, t is the universal cosmic time, r is a comoving
radial coordinate, d
2
= d
2
+ sin
2
d
2
, and the spatial curvature parameter k can assume
values of 0, +1, or 1. Further, following the observation that the distant Type IA supernovae
appear to be dimmer compared to the expected brightness as supposed standard candles,
most of the cosmologists now believe that the universe is not only expanding but also doing so
in an accelerated manner. If one would include Cosmological Constant into the Einstein
equations (G = c = 1), the dynamical equation for the scale factor becomes

S
S
=
4
3
(
e
+ 3p
e
) (1.2)
where an overdot denotes dierentiation by the comoving time t. Here, the eective matter
density in the presence of is

e
= (t) +

8
(1.3)
while the eective isotropic pressure is
p p
e
= p(t)

8
(1.4)
In principle, for a ne tuned > 0, one may have p
e
< 0 and
e
+ 3p
e
< 0. In such a
case, it is possible to have

S/S > 0; and this was the reason that got reinstated in mod-
ern cosmology giving birth to the so-called concordance CDM cosmology where CDM
stands for Cold Dark Matter. The most likely form of Dark Energy, the hypothetical
1
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
entity which is supposed to drive the supposed accelered expansion is thus a positive .
On the other hand, one may generalize the concept of Dark Energy (DE) as some time
dependent scalar eld/quintessence rather than a xed value classical . One might also
depart from standard general relativity, in which, G and are fundamental constants, and
presume = (t), G = G(t). But even such generalizations cannot resolve the puzzles (i)
why the required value of DE is almost 10
120
times less that what would be suggested by
canonical quantum gravity arguments, (ii) if any vacuum uctuations are responsible for DE,
why they leave such an incredibly tiny residue rather than just cancel one another exactly,
and (i) why this incredibly tiny residue conspires to be of the order of magnitude of the
matter energy density of the universe at the present epoch rather than any other epoch. An
honest introspection would show that any attempt to resolve such puzzles either in terms of
classical or quantum gravity is destined to be contrived and rather cooked up. Thus any
proof which can set DE to be zero must be explored with earnestness.
Recall that the concept of was rst necessitated by Einstein for having a static
isotropic and homogeneous universe; in other words, Einsteins static universe (ESU) is a
static form of the FRW universe. By setting matter pressure p = 0, Einstein found that for
his universe [2]:
=

4
(1.5)
In general, a centrally symmetric static homogeneous spacetime metric has the form [1,
3, 4]
ds
2
= e

dt
2

dR
2
1 R
2
/R
2
0
R
2
d
2
(1.6)
where R is the circumference coordinate, a scalar, and R
0
is the radius of curvature the
universe. The constant spatial curvature K (not the normalized parameter k) is related to
R
0
in the following way:
K =
1
R
2
0
(1.7)
Here it may be noted that for the static case, the curvature time coordinate T = t, and
it is seen that [36]
1
R
2
0
=
8
e
3
(1.8)
By combining equations (1.1) and (1.6)(1.8), we nd that
R = S r (1.9)
and
R
2
0
=
S
2
k
; K =
k
S
2
(1.10)
Following this, it is found that, for the ESU
k =
8
3

e
S
2
(1.11)
It is interesting to see that, for a static case the signature of k is the same as that
of the eective matter density
e
. As is known, ESU presumes, k = +1 and
e
> 0. On
the other hand, for an assumed case of
e
< 0, in principle, one can have an ESU with
2
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
k = 1. However, since a negative matter density is unphysical, we rule out the possibility of
a negatively curved homogeneous 3-space even if the same is allowed by dierential geometry.
Further if one will introduce a new coordinate through
sin = R/R
0
(1.12)
one can write
ds
2
= e

dt
2
R
2
0
(d
2
+ sin
2
d
2
) (1.13)
Thus the spacetime geometry of ESU has two important parameters, and . And
by Einsteins equation spacetime geometry must be determined by matter energy momentum
tensor apart from relevant coordinates. And it was found that both and depend only on

e
, p
e
and not on any coordinates [5], i.e.,
= (
e
, p
e
) (1.14)
and
= (
e
, p
e
) (1.15)
While ESU was constructed, the fact = (
e
, p
e
) was taken into consideration. But the en-
ergy momentum dependence of was overlooked. This could be so because energy momentum
dependence of becomes apparent only by the application of Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volko
(TOV) equation, and in 1917, the TOV equation for hyrdostatic balance was not known. Of
course, for any homogeneous and isotropic cosmology, by denition,
e
and p
e
are homoge-
neous; and then eqs. (1.14) and (1.15) tell that, for the ESU, one must have
= constant (1.16)
and
= constant (1.17)
By using the fact that = constant, one can set = 0 without any loss of generality (actually
by a relabelling of the time parameter):
ds
2
= dt
2
R
2
0
(d
2
+ sin
2
d
2
) (1.18)
And by using eq. (1.17) i.e., sin = constant, it is seen from eq. (1.12) that, for the
ESU intrinsically, one has
R
0
= (1.19)
It must be so because by denition R is a variable while R
0
is a constant and we rule out
the possibility R
0
= 0 or
e
= . Then the general ESU equation [5]
1
R
2
0
= 8p
e
=
8
e
3
(1.20)
gets extended and not contradicted to [5]
1
R
2
0
= 8p
e
=
8
e
3
= 0 (1.21)
i.e.,

e
= p
e
= 0 (1.22)
3
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
and which shows that, intrinsically, both = p = = 0 for any ESU. And if one would set
p = 0 at the very beginning, the ESU equation (1.5) gets extended to and not contradicted
to [5]
=

4
= 0 (1.23)
which leads to the same result = = 0 for the ESU.
This obviously means that, ESU is actually vacuous with no matter at all, = 0,
and the ad hoc cosmological constant is actually non-existent, = 0. Hence although we
can mathematically conceive of a neatly curled up 3-space in the form of a 3-sphere by
extending the idea of tangible globes or 2-spheres, in reality there is no such exotic 3-sphere.
Instead, there is a at Eucledian 3-space which mathematically may be considered as a
attened 3-sphere with R
0
= . However such an overall at space must be undulated
with local spatial curvatures on various scales due to presence of planets, stars, compact
objects, galaxies etc, something like a at park is strewn with (curved) pebbles, trees and
may be boulders. Now note that the problems associated with the assumption of smooth
homogeneous distribution in relativistic cosmology is somewhat similar to the one faced by
the static Newtonian cosmology:
For a continuous homogeneous and isotropic distribution of static matter having nite
density, the gravitational eld may tend to blow up. Thus such a boundless static distrubu-
tion of matter is not allowed, i.e., one should have = 0. In ESU too, aleast in the absence of
a positive , initially, one obtains = 0 and = 0. And this was the reason a (supposedly)
> 0 was introduced. However, despite the presence of a hypothetical , with respect to a
given observer, GR potential tends to blow up at R = R
0
= 2GM
e
(R
0
)/c
2
or at tan =
(i.e., = /2), where the eective enclosed gravitational mass is [5, 6]
M
e
=
4
e
3
R
3
(1.24)
More precisely, the scalar acceleration needed to keep an object xed at R = R
0
is seen
to blow up just like the case of the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole a = [6].
Note, while a positive with its repulsive eect may appear at rst sight to tame the
attractive runaway matter gravity, it actually adds to the matter energy density rather than
oset the same. The blowing up of the acceleration a = at R = R
0
or equivalently at
tan = tan /2 = happens irrespective of the presence or absence of . And in GR, a
positive would actually accentuate this catastrophe by reducing the value of R
0
. This result
has an important physical implication: there are indeed coordinate singularites associated
with g

and g

. But these are innocuous and occur even for a Minkowski metric expressed
in spherical coordinates. On the other hand, the singuarity in g
RR
in metric (1.6) is a physical
singularity even if one would like to hide it in the form of (1.13) by means of a coordinate
transformation (1.12).
In view of the importance of this conclusion, we would like to further analyze the
physics of ESU from an independent and dierent perspective. We will compute the total
mass energy of the ESU (P
0
) by using Einsteins canonical energy momentum tensor through
two equivalent clannels, by (i) using a direct brute force computation without introducing
any explicit superpotential [7], and then by (ii) using an intermediate superpotential [8].
And though the algebric expressions of P
0
for the two cases may look dierent, the
inherent (numerical) value in both cases must be same because both expressions rely on the
same pseudopotential and the same set of coordinates. From this consideration, we will again
nd that, for self-consistency, the ESU indeed has = 0 and = 0.
4
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
In this context, for the sake of argumentation, some readers may say that (i) pseuopo-
tentials are not reliable, (ii) one may consider other superpotentials too, (iii) whether gravi-
tational energy is localizable or not and so on.
Such objections would actually be irrelevant because here we are not interested in eval-
uating any absolute value of P
0
and claim that this must be the total energy of ESU. In
fact, our eventual conclusion would not even depend on whether P
0
can be considered a true
expression for total energy or not. This is so because we will only compare two dierent
algebric expressions for P
0
irrespective of its physical meaning and actual numerical value.
In other words, we will only bank on the fact the eventual numerical value of P
0
(whatever
it might be) must be same in the two cases since they are derived using the same canonical
prescription.
And though not important here, let us mention that, atleast for spherically symmetric
case, there is an unanimity that gravitational energy is very much localizable [911]. Further,
the psedopotential ansatz is actually equivalent to the quasi-local approach of dening total
matter plus gravitational eld energy [11, 12].
2 Application of pseudopotentials
We expect a at Minkowskian space time to possess zero energy. And this expectation is
realized only when one uses quasi-Cartesian coordinates for computing P
0
. This has led to
the unanimity that for computing an absolute value of P
0
one must use such coordinates
only. On the other hand, if one would use spherical coordinates, P
0
would blow up even for
an empty Minkowskian vacuum, a fact related to the blowing up of space-time connection
coecients in the spherical coordinates. In a strict sense, one might still obtain a nite value
of P
0
for the matter content even in spherical coordinates by subtracting two innities
P
0
(matter) = P
0
(matter + vacuum) P
0
(vacuum) (2.1)
in the spirit of normalization in quantum eld theories. However, in view of the much simpler
quasi-Caresian route where P
0
(vacuum) = 0, nobody seems to have ever (unnecessarily)
trodden this path laced with innites.
The total energy of the gravitating system may be dened as [3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11]
P
0
=
_

0
0
d
3
x (2.2)
where
b
a
is the appropriate energy momentum complex (EMC) and the integration extends
over entire 3-space. This is also the energy of a system having a nite boundary [1, 3, 4].
Here we will be mostly concerned with Einstein EMC

b
a
=

g (T
b
a
+ t
b
a
) (2.3)
and in particular its component:

0
0
=

g (T
0
0
+ t
0
0
) (2.4)
Here t
b
a
is the gravitation eld energy momentum (pseudo) tensor, T
b
a
is the matter energy
momentum tensor generating t
b
a
and the notation 0 denotes time coordinate.
5
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
2.1 Einstein-Tolman formula
The eld part in the Einstein EMC is given by [1, 3, 4]

g t
a
b
=
1
16
_

a
b
[L + 2

g]
L
g
pq
a
g
pq
b
_
(2.5)
where g
ab
is the metric tensor and is the cosmological constant. Here the Lagrangian
density is given by [2, 3, 5]
L =

g g
ab
_

p
ab

q
pq

p
aq

q
bp
_
(2.6)
where the Christoel symbols are

a
bc
=
1
2
g
ad
(
c
g
db
+
b
g
cd

d
g
bc
) (2.7)
Also, the symbol
a
denotes dierentiation with the coordinate x
a
and [24]
L
g
ab
c
=
c
ab
+
1
2

c
a

d
bd
+
1
2

c
b

d
ad
(2.8)
Nore, from eq. (2.5) we obtain,

g t
0
0
=
1
16
_
L + 2

g
L
g
pq
0
g
pq
0
_
(2.9)
Further recall that L is related to Einstein Lagrangian density L
G
=

gR, where R is the

Ricci scalar in the following way [1, 3, 4]:
L =
c
_
g
ab
L
g
ab
c
_

gR (2.10)
Also recall that for the asuumed perfect uid in its comoving frame, one has
R = 8T = 8
_
T
0
0
+ T
1
1
+ T
2
2
+ T
3
3
_
(2.11)
where T is trace of T
b
a
. Using these equations, Tolman showed [2, 3], in a most general way,
that one can write
P
0
=
_
1
2

g
_
T
0
0
T
1
1
T
2
2
T
3
3


4
_
d
3
x (2.12)
+
_
1
16
g
ab

c
_
L
g
ab
c
_
d
3
x
Since no assumption or precondition has been imposed for the derivation of the above formula,
it is valid for arbitrary system, whether it has a boundary or not, whether it is static or not
and whether it is spherical or not.
In particular, Tolman showed that (by dropping ) [2, 3] that if one would consider
an isolated system resting in an asymptotically at spacetime and use (quasi) Cartesian
coordinates with x
1
= x, x
2
= y and x
3
= z, one would obtain
P
0
=
_

g
_
T
0
0
T
1
1
T
2
2
T
3
3
_
dxdydz (2.13)
even if the system is not spherically symmetric. Interestingly, Landau & Lifshitz [13] (pp.348,
eq. (100.19)) obtained exactly the same relation for the total matter plus eld of a static
system without invoking any pseudo tensor at all. This shows the physical superiority of the
Einstein-Tolman formalism, and the merit in the comment that Einsteins EMC could be
best amongst many other alternatives [10].
6
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
2.2 Application for the ESU
For working out the Einstein-Tolman energy for the ESU, we need to rst express it in
isotropic quasi-Cartesian form. And introducing a coordinate transformation [1, 3, 4]
r =
r
1 + kr
2
/4
(2.14)
the metric (1.1) may be expressed in an isotropic form:
ds
2
= dt
2

S
2
(1 + kr
2
/4)
2
_
dr
2
+ r
2
d
2

(2.15)
Further, this form can easily be written in terms of Cartesian coordinates:
ds
2
= dt
2

S
2
f
2
(dx
2
+ dy
2
+ dz
2
) (2.16)
where
f(r) = 1 + kr
2
/4 (2.17)
and
r
2
= x
2
+ y
2
+ z
2
(2.18)
Extension of the Einstein-Tolman ansatz for a boundary-less and further non-static
system is quite complex. For the FRW metric such a tedious exercise was carried out for
the rst time by the present author [7]. For the corresponding static case, it is seen that
(eq. (99) of ref. [7] )
P
0
=
k
16R
2
0
__
12r
2
dr + k
_
r
4
dr
_
(2.19)
For the k = 0 and R
0
= case, obviously one has
P
0
= 0; k = 0; R
0
= (2.20)
For the k = +1 case, one can easily integrate eq. (2.19). by recalling that the range of r in
this case is 0, :
P
0
=

16R
2
0
(2.21)
If one would indeed interpret P
0
as the total energy of the k = +1, ESU, the occurrence
of the ve value of P
0
would appear by be contradictory, because a k = +1 ESU corresponds
to +ve eective matter density
e
> 0.
Also recall that, if one would assume k = +1, the proper 3-volume of the universe
would be
v = 2
2
R
3
0
(2.22)
so that the ESU would have a mean eective matter density:
<
e
>=
P
0
v
=

32
2
R
5
0
(2.23)
Since all physically meaningful densities must be bounded, the above expression again shows
that one must have R
0
= . Thus even if one would assume k = +1, eventually, K = 0
implying S = .
7
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
From such a physical reasoning, one would immediately realize that, intrinsically, the
ESU should have R
0
= so that neither P
0
nor <
e
> could be . Yet, here we shall
not appeal to any physical signicance of P
0
for arriving at the eventual conclusion.
3 Simplied calculation invoking superpotential
For direct computation of P
0
, one obviously needs to explicitly introduce T
b
a
and the computa-
tions are excessively tedious. But it was noted long ago that one can avoid such complexities
by using appropriate supperpotentials. In fact whether it is, Einsteins or Landau-Lifstitzs
or Weinbergs pseudo tensor, in every case, there is an appropriate superpotential. The
interesting thing about this detour is that here one need not explicitly introduce T
b
a
. Instead,
in this approach, one is concerned only with g
ab
and its derivatives. And it was done not by
Einstein but by Mller [14]:

a
b
=
1
16
H
ac
b,c
(3.1)
where a comma denotes partial dientiation and
H
ac
b
=
1

g
g
ap
_
g(g
bp
g
cq
g
cp
g
bq
)
_
,q
(3.2)
For our interest, we may consider only one component of
a
b
:

0
0
=
1
16
H
0c
0,c
(3.3)
The rst author to calculate the energy a closed k = +1 universe using this Einstein-
Mller superpoterpotential was Rosen [8]. As is the convention, Rosen [8] worked out the
Einstein super-potential in quasi-Cartesian coordinates by setting k = 1, where
H
0a
0
=
2Sx
a
(1 + r
2
/4)
2
(3.4)
It can be easily veried that, if one would instead retain the k term in f(r), one would obtain
H
0a
0
=
2Skx
a
(1 + kr
2
/4)
2
(3.5)
In such a case, by using the fact that

a
f =
1
2
kx
a
(3.6)
one would obtain

0
0
=
kS
8
_
3
(1 + kr
2
/4)
2

kr
2
(1 + kr
2
/4)
3
_
(3.7)
For k = 0, one directly obtains
0
0
= 0 and hence P
0
= 0. But when one uses k = +1
(as Rosen did), one still obtains
P
0
= 0 (3.8)
It may be also mentioned that Cooperstock [15], and Cooperstock and Israelit [16] also
argued that both the local and global energy of the FRW universe should be zero.
Then by comparing the equations, (2.19), (2.20) and (3.8), we arrive at the same result,
R
0
= , for the ESU, a fact which eectively means k = 0 even if one would initially assume
k = +1!
8
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
4 Results
It is important to note that the above result R
0
= and = 0 did not at all depend on
any physical interpretation of P
0
. On the other hand, it followed from comparison of two
mathematical expressions of P
0
which must have same numerical value. As emphazied at the
beginning, the same result was ealier obtained from a completely dierent consideration [5].
As far the latter conclusion = 0 is concerned, it may be obtained from from additional
independent considerations.
For the de-Sitter model, the Einstein-Tolman energy is found to be [7]
P
dS
0
=

6
r
3
e
t
(4.1)
where the expansion scalar associated with the de-Sitter metric is
=

3 (4.2)
On the other hand, from Einstein-Mller superpotential based on the same Einstein
pseudo tensor, for any FRW k = 0 metric including the de-Sitter metric, one has
P
dS
0
= 0 (4.3)
And from eqs. (4.1) and (4.3), one obtains the same result = 0. Had we appealed
to the physical interpretation of P
0
as the total energy, we could have obtained the same
conclusion from eq. (4.1) alone by demanding that total energy must be conserved rather
than blow up indenitely [7, 17].
Further, if the expansion scalar =

3 would indeed be non-zero, the de-Sitter

expansion must not look static to any observer. However, for the de-Sitter expansion, the
observers at xed curvature cooordinates do not see any expansion. And this self-contraction
can be removed only by realizing that = 0.
As far as de-Sitter model is concerned, probably, the result = 0 could be obtained
from a very basic and fundamental reason: it is known that the vacuum energy momentum
tensor T
a
b
is Lorentz Invariant. Then from the Einsteins equation, G
a
b
= 8T
a
b
, it follows
that, the metric of the vacuum must be Lorentz Invariant too. But the only metric which is
globally Lorenz Invariant is the vacuum Minkowski space time not containing any at all.
5 Discussions
Though cosmic distance ladder calibartion may be reasonably accurate and even if the Type
1A supernove might be assumed to be standard candles, we may note the argument that
Lyman Alpha clouds may be absorbing lights from the distant supernovae, and the acceler-
ation could be an apparent eect [18].
It has also been argued that the acceleration is an apparent eect arising from the
very large proper motion of Milkyway with respect to the cosmic rest frame [19].
Even if one would ignore such suggestions, there is no denying that the obersed universe
is lumpy and inhomogeneous on various scales in contrast to the FRW picture where matter
distribution is perfectly homogeneous on any appreciable scale. When inhomogeneities occur
very much within the observable scales, it has been argued that metric perturbations could
9
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
give rise to back reactions [2025]. Very crudely, it has been claimed that, even in the absence
of a or DE, such back reactions might modify the ideal FRW equation (1.2) to

S
S
=
4
3
( + 3p) + Back Reaction Terms (5.1)
And if the additional terms on the r.h.s. are positive with right values, they may cause

S > 0 and simulate a DE.

Recall here that the ideal Hubbles law follws only when one assumes perfect isotropy
and homogeneity. In this ideal scenario, in the comoving frame one galaxy nds all other
galaxies to move radially away with no collision, no intersection of geodesics. On the other
hand, the very concepts of temperature and pressure are related to random motions and
mutual collisions. Thus for the ideal Hubble ow, the uid motion should correspond to nil
temperature and pressure. Even if the radiation uid would follow the ideal Hubble ow,
the radiation quanta would behave as a null dust having zero radial pressure. Indeed this
intutitive physical expectation has been veried in a rigourous manner: for the ideal FRW
uid p
e
= 0 [26, 27]. In such a case, the dynamic equation (1.2) would assume its perfect
Newtonian form

S
S
=
4
3

e
(5.2)
even though one can formally derive the FRW metric by assuming the underlying uid to
be perfect [28]. Thus even if one would assume > 0, there cannot be any accelerated
expansion for an idealized FRW uid.
In the CDM cosmology or even the earlier Big Bang cosmology, one would ideally like
the universe to be homogeneous on the scale of 10Mpc. But from the latest studies of
Sloan Digital Survey, it transpires that, the lumpiness of the observed universe happens even
on 1 Gpc scale [29]. And very recently, a cosmic structure has been discovered whose linear
dimension in one direction is close to 1.2 Gpc [30]. Such obervations seriously challenge
the assumption of perfect homogeneity inherent in the CDM paradigm (even if it can
explain the cosmic microwave uctutations). Further, the conceivable time required for the
very formation of such a 1.2 Gpc structure is likely to be much larger than 14 Billion years.
Even before this recent observation of a 1.2 Gpc structure, by studying the spatial
distribution of ultra compact radio sources on largest scale, Jackson et al. concluded that [31]
This is interpreted as meaning that the Universe is not spatially homogeneous on the
largest scales, and is better represented at late times by a spherically symmetric model with
a density enhancement at its centre.
Let us now recall the motivations for introducing relativistic cosmology by Einstein in
1917: (i) likely innite gravitational eld and (ii) a preferred center in case of a nite Newto-
nian cosmos. But a decade before Einsteins paper, the Swedish astronomer Carl Charlier [32]
had explicitly constructed the model of a hierarchic cosmos following earlier speculations of
Fournier DAlbe. In this hierarchial model, Charlier was able to produce a mass distribution
which avoided the Newtonian divergence of gravitational eld. Most interestingly, it avoided
having a preferred center. Charliers model had a fractal structure: stars are grouped into
spherical galaxies, galaxies into spherical metagalaxies, and so on. Charlier derived con-
straints on how densely the systems at one level could be packed into a system of the next
level up without producing divergences. He showed that it was possible to build up a uniform
cosmos in this way with an innity of total (baryonic) mass, and yet an average mass den-
sity of zero, and a convergent gravitational potential. Newtonian gravitational theory could
10
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
be consistently applied to such a hierarchic universe without leading to either of Einsteins
problems [33].
In 1922, Franz Selety spelled out how Charliers hierarchic model avoided all the prob-
lems associated with convention Newtonian cosmology in painstaking detail [34], and com-
municated the same to Einstein. However, Einstein was struck by the philosophical as well
as mathematical elegance of a closed spherical universe and ignored Charliers important
research. But here we found that, Einstein closed spherical universe actually never existed
even in theory.
Further note that even in an overall static Newtonian hierarchial cosmos, no matter
really should be static. As we know, whether it is the atoms, atmosphere, oceans, or planets in
the solar system, everywhere there is localized motion; stars move around respective galactic
centers, galaxies move within galaxy clusters and so on. The Newtonian kinetic energy
associated with such motions might almost cancel the local Newtonian potential energies or
at the best leave a residual gravitational acceleration which need not blow up. On the other
hand, if such localized random and organized motions would be ignored in any continuous
hydrodynamic model, the gravitational potential may tend to blow up. And as rst shown by
Charlier, Newtonian potential may be nite for the idealized static hierarchial cosmos [32]
even when one would ignore the sources of localized kinetic energy.
It has indeed been claimed that the Newtonian gravitational and potential energies
are of the same order of magnitude for typical globular clusers, galaxies, galaxy clusters
at the best leaving a residual gravitational acceleration of 1.10
10
m/s
2
[35, 36]. For a
continuous distribution of matter, on the other hand, gravitational potential must keep on
increasing whether one would analyze the problem by Newtonian gravitation or GR. But for
a hierachial fractal distribution comprising discrete matter clumps, it might be possible that
even on the scale of 100 Mpcs, one may obtain the same residual gravitational acceletation
10
10
m/s
2
.
In fact, painstaking analyes of galaxy distrution by appropriate statistical tools have
revealed that galaxy distributions follow fractal structure upto 100 Mpc with hardly any
sign of homogeneity beyond [3742] in broad agreement with the central idea of Charlier.
Such conclusions are also in agreement with the latest actual observations [3032]. It is
entirely possible that a hierarchial fractal distribution of luminous matter obeys Copernical
Principle rather than exact cosmological principle envisaged in relativistic cosmology [40,
41, 4345]. Note, there have been various eorts to describe fractal cosmic models as well as
their problems [4348].
6 Conclusions
The best studied and best developed cosmology is the inationary CDM paradigm. Once
one would accept the implicit and explicit assumptions behind the paradigm, bulk of the
present day observations would appear to be in agreement with it. However it may be
borne in mind that cosmology is far from usual science deveoped through experimentions
and laboratory tests. And there are instances in the history of science where a paradigm
has eventually been discarded even if it could explain many natural phenomena. Note even
before the advent of the Heliocentric theories of cosmos, the Ptolemaic system was a
sophisticated astronomical system, and it was able to calculate the positions for the planets
to a fair degree of accuracy. Occurrences of tides and some astronomical events like eclipses
could be predicted by even more primitive theories of cosmos.
11
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
The result = 0 invalidates the basis of the CDM cosmology. Mathematicians might
argue that for a dynamic universe, = (t) and even G = G(t). If so, the atomic ne
structure constant too could be time dependent; but as of now, there is no evidence for any
temporal dependence of either G or . Of course, one can think of more complex forms of DE
like quintessence or decaying scalar elds; one may also generate reasonable theories about
DE by using f(R) gravity [49]. But here we would like to stick to the standard GR, and in
view of the = 0 result, and in view of much more contrived nature of other contending
theories of DE, it may be concluded that there is no DE, and the supposed acceleration
of the observed universe is an apparent eect. Further since for idealized radial and non-
colliding Hubble ow p
e
= 0 [27, 28], even the CDM model cannot explain any cosmic
acceleration.
Though dierential geometry allows us to conceive of positively and negatively curved
homogeneous 3-spaces, introduction of physics rules out their existence atleast for a static
space-time. The reason that ESU had to be vacuous is that, otherwise, the singularity in
g
RR
in (1.6) would demand innite scalar acceleration for matter to be at rest at R = R
0
.
This strongly suggests that in view of the singularity in g
rr
in the FRW metric, it too should
eventually correspond to only k = 0.
The Big Bang model is plagued with multitude of conceptual problems starting with
the notion of Expansion of Space (EOS) and a singular origin. Such problems are still
hotly debated and there is hardly any likelihood of their real resolution [5054]. Further, for
the expanding universe, the principle of energy conservation appears to be badly violated [8].
Since any exponential de-Sitter like expansion in the comoving frame can be transformed
away into perfectly static picture in the curvature frame, and since genuine physical phe-
nomenon must be apparent to all observers, one should have = 0 and no-Sitter phase [17].
This observation almost rules out the bizarre hypothesis of ination. In contrast a modest
expansion of say S(t) t
1/2
cannot be transformed away and seems to be acceptable.
The observed universe has fractal structure up to 100 Mpc and may be all the way.
In particular for an innite hierachial fractal structure, the average density < > 0 as
R suggesting the problems of innite gravitational eld, typical of both Newtonian and
relativistic models based on continuous homogeneous distributions of matter may vanish.
Further, the internal kinetic energy associated with both organized and random motions of
various cosmic structures might be neutralizing the negative gravitational potential energies
at all levels even for a cosmos which as a whole is not expanding into anything else.
If Hubble ow is genuine, there is one puzzle which even a non-static hierarchial models
may not resolve, and it is known as Hubble de Vaucouleurs paradox [4345]. It is well known
that exact Hubbles law is a consequence of perfect homogeneity and isotropy inherent in the
FRW model. But it is now certain that the universe is highly discrete and inhomogeneous on
a scale of few Mpc. Accordingly, the Hubble ow should be very non-linear and overwhelmed
by peculiar velocities of galaxies. But surprisingly, Hubble ow is quite linear despite acute
inhomogeneities! The ideal resolution of this paradox would be that the galactic red-shifts
are due to some yet unknown tired light eect rather than due to any kinematic eects.
From time to time, claims have been made that many cosmological data can be better
explained in terms of a static universe rather than an expanding universe [55, 56]. In par-
ticular, it has been claimed that the Gamma Ray Burst data do not show the EOS eect or
even can be better explained by a static model. However, as of now, there is no well accepted
theory for non-kinemartical tired light origin of cosmic redshifts; and even if there may be
no Dark Energy, the interpretation of cosmic redshifts in terms of Expansion of Space
hypothesis looks elegant.
12
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
Acknowledgments
I thank the anonymous referee for pointing out several minor errors in the intial version. The
closely related ref. [6] was earlier about to be published in JCAP. However the referee Dr
N. Spyrou insisted that I highlight one paper by him which claimed that is simulated by
increased pressure of warm Dark Matter. As I refused, he eventually refused. Similarly, one
PRL editor, Dr E. Weinberg, refused to process the ref. [27] presumably because its conclusion
was against his academic beliefs. In this context, I especially appreciate the academic and
professional integrity of the present referee.
References
[1] K.D. Krori, Fundamentals of Special and General Relativity, PHI Learning, New Delhi (2010).
[2] A. Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativit atstheorie, Preussische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte, part 1 (1917) 142.
[3] R.C. Tolman, On the Use of the Energy-Momentum Principle in General Relativity, Phys. Rev.
35 (1930) 875 [INSPIRE].
[4] R.C. Tolman, Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press, Oxford
(1962).
[5] A. Mitra, S. Bhattacharyya and N. Bhatt, LCDM Cosmology Through The Lens of Einsteins
Static Universe, The Mother of , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22 (2013) in press.
[6] A. Mitra, An Astrophysical Peek into Einsteins Static Universe: No Dark Energy, Int. J.
Astron. Astrophys. 1 (2011) 183.
[7] A. Mitra, Einstein energy associated with the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric, Gen. Rel.
Grav. 42 (2010) 443 [arXiv:0911.2340] [INSPIRE].
[8] N. Rosen, The energy of the universe, Gen. Rel. Grav. 26 (1994) 319 [INSPIRE].
[9] H. Bondi, Conservation and non-conservation in general relativity, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A
427 (1990) 249 [INSPIRE].
[10] S.S. Xulu, The Energy momentum problem in general relativity, hep-th/0308070 [INSPIRE].
[11] L.B. Szabados, Quasi-Local Energy-Momentum and Angular Momentum in General Relativity,
Living Rev. Rel. 12 (2009) 4.
[12] C.-C. Chang, J.M. Nester and C.-M. Chen, Pseudotensors and quasilocal gravitational energy
momentum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1897 [gr-qc/9809040] [INSPIRE].
[13] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Classical Theory of Fields, Pergamon, Oxford (1962).
[14] C. Mller, On the Localization of the energy of a physical system in the general theory of
relativity, Annals Phys. 4 (1958) 347 [INSPIRE].
[15] F.I. Cooperstock, Perspectives on the energy of the universe, Gen. Rel. Grav. 26 (1994) 323
[INSPIRE].
[16] F.I. Cooperstock and M. Israelit, The energy of the Universe, Found. Phys. 25 (1995) 631.
[17] A. Mitra, Interpretational conicts between the static and non-static forms of the de Sitter
metric, Nature. Sci. Rep. 2 (2012) 923.
[18] R.E. Schild and M. Dekker, The transparency of the universe limited by ly- clouds,
Astronomische Nachrichten 327 (2006) 729 [astro-ph/0512236] [INSPIRE].
[19] C.G. Tsagas, Peculiar motions, accelerated expansion and the cosmological axis, Phys. Rev. D
84 (2011) 063503 [arXiv:1107.4045] [INSPIRE].
13
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
[20] B.M. Leith, S.C. Ng and D.L. Wiltshire, Gravitational energy as dark energy: Concordance of
cosmological tests, Astrophys. J. 672 (2008) L91 [arXiv:0709.2535] [INSPIRE].
[21] D.L. Wiltshire, Average observational quantities in the timescape cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 80
(2009) 123512 [arXiv:0909.0749] [INSPIRE].
[22] E.W. Kolb, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto, On cosmic acceleration without dark energy, New J.
Phys. 8 (2006) 322 [astro-ph/0506534] [INSPIRE].
[23] E.W. Kolb, Backreaction of inhomogeneities can mimic dark energy, Class. Quant. Grav. 28
(2011) 164009.
[24] C. Clarkson and R. Maartens, Inhomogeneity and the foundations of concordance cosmology,
Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 124008 [arXiv:1005.2165] [INSPIRE].
[25] C. Clarkson and M. Regis, The Cosmic Microwave Background in an Inhomogeneous Universe
why void models of dark energy are only weakly constrained by the CMB, JCAP 02 (2011)
013 [arXiv:1007.3443] [INSPIRE].
[26] A. Mitra, The matter in the Big-Bang model is dust and not any arbitrary perfect uid!,
Astrophys. Space Sci. 333 (2011) 351.
[27] A. Mitra, Why the Big Bang Model Cannot Describe the Observed Universe Having Pressure
and Radiation, J. Mod. Phys. 2 (2011) 1436.
[28] A. Mitra, Deriving Friedmann Robertson Walker metric and Hubbles law from gravitational
collapse formalism, Res. Phys. 2 (2012) 45.
[29] S.A. Thomas, F.B. Abdalla and O. Lahav, Excess Clustering on Large Scales in the MegaZ
DR7 Photometric Redshift Survey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 241301 [arXiv:1012.2272]
[INSPIRE].
[30] R.G. Cowley, et al., A structure in the early Universe at z1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity
scale of the R-W concordance cosmology, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 429 (2012) 2910.
[31] J.C. Jackson, Ultra-compact radio sources and the isotropy and homogeneity of the Universe,
Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 426 (2012) 779.
[32] C.V.L. Charlier, Wie eine unendliche Welt aufgebaut sein kann, Arkiv for Matematik,
Astronomi och Fysik 4 (1908) 1.
[33] C. Smeenk, Einsteins Role in the Creation of Relativistic Cosmology in The Cambridge
Companion to Einstein, M. Janssen and C. Lehner eds. (2008).
[34] F. Selety, Beitrage zum kosmologischen Problem, Annalen der Physik 373/68 (1922) 281.
[35] H.K. Tank, A new law emerging from the recurrences of the critical-acceleration of MOND,
suggesting a clue to unication of fundamental forces, Astrophys. Space Sci. 330 (2010) 203
[INSPIRE].
[36] H. Tank, Some clues to understand MOND and the accelerated expansion of the universe,
Astrophys. Space Sci. 336 (2011) 341.
[37] T. Antal, F.S. Labini, N.L. Vasilyev and Y.V. Baryshev, Galaxy distribution and extreme value
statistics, Europhys. Lett. 88 (2009) 59001 [arXiv:0909.1507] [INSPIRE].
[38] F.S. Labini and Y.V. Baryshev, Testing the Copernican and Cosmological Principles in the
local universe with galaxy surveys, JCAP 06 (2010) 021 [arXiv:1006.0801] [INSPIRE].
[39] F.S. Labini and L. Pietronero, The complex universe: recent observations and theoretical
challenges, J. Stat. Mech. 1011 (2010) P11029 [arXiv:1012.5624] [INSPIRE].
[40] F.S. Labini, Very large-scale correlations in the galaxy distribution, Europhys. Lett. 96 (2011)
59001.
[41] F.S. Labini, Inhomogeneities in the universe, Class. Quant. Grav.28(2011) 164003.
14
p
r
o
o
f
s

J
C
A
P
_
0
2
4
P
_
0
1
1
3
[42] A. Verevkin, Y. Bukhmastova and Y. Baryshev, The Non-Uniform Distribution of Galaxies
from Data of the SDSS DR7 Survey, Astron. Rep. 55 (2011) 324 [arXiv:1104.0884] [INSPIRE].
[43] Y.V. Baryshev, Conceptual problems of fractal cosmology, astro-ph/9912074 [INSPIRE].
[44] Y. Baryshev, Conceptual problems of the standard cosmological model, AIP Conf. Proc. 822
(2006) 23 [astro-ph/0509800] [INSPIRE].
[45] Y. Baryshev, P. Teerikorpi, Fundamental Questions of Practical Cosmology Exploring the
Realm of Galaxies, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Volume 383, Springer (2012).
[46] G. de Vaucouleurs, The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, Science 167 (1970) 1203.
[47] P. Grujic and V. Pankovic, On the Fractal Structure of the Universe, arXiv:0907.2127
[INSPIRE].
[48] P.V. Grujic, The concept of fractal cosmos: III. Present state, Serbian Astron. J. 182 (2011) 1.
[49] C. Corda, Interferometric detection of gravitational waves: the denitive test for General
Relativity, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18 (2009) 2275 [arXiv:0905.2502] [INSPIRE].
[50] P. Kroupa, M. Pawlowski and M. Milgrom, The failures of the standard model of cosmology
require a new paradigm, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 21 (2012) 123003.
[51] M. Chodorowski, A direct consequence of the expansion of space?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.
378 (2007) 239 [astro-ph/0610590] [INSPIRE].
[52] R.J. Cook and M.S. Burns, Interpretation of the Cosmological Metric, Am. J. Phys. 77 (2009)
59 [arXiv:0803.2701] [INSPIRE].
[53] J. Peacock, A diatribe on expanding space, arXiv:0809.4573 [INSPIRE].
[54] Y. Baryshev, Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics,
arXiv:0810.0153 [INSPIRE].
[55] P.A. Laviolette, Is the universe really expanding?, Astrophys. J. 301 (1986) 544.
[56] J.G. Hartnett, Is the universe really expanding?, arXiv:1107.2485 [INSPIRE].
[57] D.F. Crawford, Observational evidence favors a static universe, arXiv:1009.0953 [INSPIRE].
[58] D. Kocevski and V. Petrosian, On The Lack of Time Dilation Signatures in Gamma-ray Burst
Light Curves, Astrophys. J. 765 (2013) 112 [arXiv:1110.6175] [INSPIRE].
15