1: \documentstyle[epsfig,rotating,float,aps,preprint,local]{revtex}
2: \tightenlines
3: \begin{document}
4: \setcounter{figure}{0}
5:
6: \title{\bf The Cosmic Horizon}
7: \author{\bf Fulvio Melia\footnote{Sir Thomas Lyle Fellow and Miegunyah Fellow.}}
8: \address{Department of Physics and Steward Observatory, \\
9: The University of Arizona,\
10: Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA\ }
11: \maketitle
12: \def\ref{\par\vskip 12pt \noindent \hangafter=1 \hangindent=22.76pt}
13: \begin{abstract}
14: The cosmological principle, promoting the view that the universe is homogeneous
15: and isotropic, is embodied within the mathematical structure of the Robertson-Walker
16: (RW) metric. The equations derived from an application of this metric to the
17: Einstein Field Equations describe the expansion of the universe in terms of
18: comoving coordinates, from which physical distances may be derived using a
19: time-dependent expansion factor. These coordinates, however, do not explicitly
20: reveal properties of the cosmic spacetime manifested in Birkhoff's theorem and
21: its corollary. In this paper, we compare two forms of the metric---written in
22: (the traditional) comoving coordinates, and a set of observer-dependent
23: coordinates---first for the well-known de Sitter universe containing only
24: dark energy, and then for a newly derived form of the RW metric, for a universe
25: with dark energy and matter. We show that Rindler's event horizon---evident in
26: the co-moving system---coincides with what one might call the ``curvature
27: horizon" appearing in the observer-dependent frame. The advantage of this
28: dual prescription of the cosmic spacetime is that with the latest WMAP results,
29: we now have a much better determination of the universe's mass-energy content,
30: which permits us to calculate this curvature with unprecedented accuracy. We use
31: it here to demonstrate that our observations have probed the limit beyond which
32: the cosmic curvature prevents any signal from having ever reached us. In the case
33: of de Sitter, where the mass-energy density is a constant, this limit is fixed for
34: all time. For a universe with a changing density, this horizon expands until
35: de Sitter is reached asymptotically, and then it too ceases to change.
36: \end{abstract}
37: \vskip 0.3in
38:
39: \noindent Keywords: {cosmic microwave background, cosmological parameters, cosmology: observations,
40: cosmology: theory, distance scale}
41: \newpage
42: \section{\bf Introduction}
43: The smoothness of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) provides direct evidence that
44: the universe is isotropic about us. Invoking the Copernican principle---that we do not
45: live in a special place---allows one to argue further that the universe should be isotropic
46: around every point, i.e., that it is also (on average) homogeneous. Standard cosmology is therefore
47: based on the Robertson-Walker (RW) metric for a spatially homogeneous and isotropic
48: three-dimensional space, expanding or contracting as a function of time:
49: $$
50: ds^2=c^2\,dt^2-a^2(t)[dr^2(1-kr^2)^{-1}+
51: $$
52: $$
53: r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2)]\;.
54: \eqno(1)
55: $$
56: \vskip 0.1in\noindent
57: The coordinates for this metric have been chosen so that $t$ represents the proper time as measured by a
58: comoving observer, $a(t)$ is the expansion factor, and $r$ is an appropriately scaled radial coordinate
59: in the comoving frame. The geometric factor $k$ is $+1$ for a closed universe, $0$ for a
60: flat, open universe, or $-1$ for an open universe.
61:
62: Assuming that general relativity (GR) provides the correct framework for interpreting cosmological
63: dynamics, one may then apply the RW metric to Einstein's Field Equations (EFE) to obtain the
64: (FRW) differential equations of motion. These are the Friedman equation, written as
65: $$
66: H^2\equiv\left({\dot a\over a}\right)^2={8\pi G\over 3c^2}\rho-{kc^2\over a^2}\;,
67: \eqno(2)
68: $$
69: and the ``acceleration" equation,
70: $$
71: {\ddot a\over a}=-{4\pi G\over 3c^2}(\rho+3p)\;.\eqno(3)
72: $$
73: An overdot denotes a derivative with respect to cosmic time $t$, and $\rho$ and $p$
74: represent the total energy density and total pressure, respectively. A further application
75: of the RW metric to the energy conservation equation in GR yields the final equation,
76: $$
77: \dot\rho=-3H(\rho+p)\eqno(4)
78: $$
79: which, however, is not independent of equations (2) and (3).
80:
81: But written in this form, equations (2), (3), and (4) do not explicitly reveal
82: the spacetime curvature most elegantly inferred from the \emph{corollary} to
83: Birkhoff's theorem (Birkhoff 1923). This theorem states that in a spherically
84: symmetric spacetime, the only solution to the Einstein equations in vacuum is
85: the Schwarzschild exterior solution. Furthermore, a spherically symmetric
86: vacuum solution in the exterior is necessarily static. Birkhoff's purpose
87: was to prove that for general relativity, as with the Newtonian theory, the
88: exterior gravitational field of a spherically symmetric distribution of matter
89: is independent of interior radial pulsations.
90:
91: However, what is relevant to our discussion here is not so much the
92: Birkhoff theorem per se, but rather its very important corollary. The
93: latter is a generalization of a well-known result of Newtonian theory
94: (which also finds a direct application in electrodynamics), in which
95: the gravitational field of a spherical shell vanishes inside the shell.
96: The corollary to Birkhoff's theorem states that the metric inside an
97: empty spherical cavity, at the center of a spherically symmetric system,
98: must be equivalent to the flat-space Minkowski metric. Space must be
99: flat in a spherical cavity even if the system is infinite. It matters
100: not what the constituents of the medium outside the cavity are, as long
101: as the medium is spherically symmetric.
102:
103: If one then imagines placing a spherically symmetric mass at the center
104: of this cavity, according to Birkhoff's theorem and its corollary, the
105: metric between this mass and the edge of the cavity is necessarily of
106: the Schwarzschild type. Thus the worldlines linked to an observer in
107: this region are curved relative to the center of the cavity in a
108: manner determined solely by the mass we have placed there. This situation
109: may appear to contradict our assumption of isotropy, which one might
110: naively take to mean that the spacetime curvature within the medium
111: should cancel since the observer sees mass-energy equally distributed
112: in all directions. In fact, the observer's worldlines are curved in
113: every direction because, according to the corollary to Birkhoff's
114: theorem, only the mass-energy between any given pair of points in
115: this medium affects the path linking those points. This is why, of
116: course, the universe does not expand at a constant rate, due to
117: the spacetime curvature induced (in every direction) by its internal
118: constituents.
119:
120: This consequence of the corollary to Birkhoff's theorem is so
121: important---and critical to the discussion in this paper---that
122: it merits re-statement: the spacetime curvature of a wordline
123: linking any point in the universe to an observer a distance $R$ away
124: may be determined by calculating the mass-energy enclosed within a
125: sphere of radius $R$ centered at the origin (i.e., at the location of
126: the observer). The mass-energy outside of this volume has a net zero
127: effect on observations made within the sphere.
128:
129: In this paper, we will introduce a new set of coordinates
130: (distinct from the co-moving coordinates $[r,t]$), that elicit this
131: effect directly from the transformed metric, originally appearing
132: in equation (1). We will show that, with the recent WMAP results
133: (Spergel et al. 2003), our observational limit clearly corresponds
134: to the distance beyond which the spacetime curvature prevents any
135: signal from ever reaching us.
136:
137: \section{The Asymptotic Universe: de Sitter's Cosmology}
138: Since the universe appears to be expanding indefinitely, the dark
139: energy (with constant density) will eventually dominate $\rho$
140: completely. Other contributions---from radiation and (luminous and
141: non-luminous) matter---drop off rapidly with increasing volume.
142:
143: The de Sitter cosmology (de Sitter 1917) corresponds to a universe devoid
144: of matter and radiation, but filled with a cosmological constant, whose
145: principal property is the equation of state (EOS) $p=-\rho$. The RW metric in
146: this case may be written
147: \vskip -0.05in
148: $$
149: ds^2=c^2\,dt^2-e^{2Ht}[dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2)]\;,
150: \eqno(5)
151: $$
152: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
153: where clearly $k=0$ and the expansion factor has the specific form
154: $a(t)\equiv \exp(Ht)$, in terms of the Hubble constant $H$. (Note that,
155: though this cosmology may represent the universe's terminal state, it may
156: also have corresponded to the early inflationary phase, where it would have
157: produced an exponentiation in size due to the expansion factor $\exp[Ht]$.)
158:
159: It is not obvious from the form of this metric how the corollary to Birkhoff
160: theorem's may be recovered. But we must remember that $t$ and $r$ appearing
161: here are the local (comoving) coordinates. To compare distances and times
162: over large separations, one must also know $a(t)$. An alternative approach
163: not used before (or at best only used very rarely) is to introduce the
164: transformation relating these coordinates to those in the observer's frame.
165: Only then does the spacetime curvature emerge directly.
166:
167: For pedagogical purposes, it may be useful here---in understanding the roles
168: played by our two coordinate systems---to find an analogy between them and those
169: commonly used in the case of a gravitationally-collapsed object. The comoving
170: coordinates (including the cosmic time) play the same roles as those of an
171: observer falling freely under the influence of that object, whereas our new
172: coordinates correspond to an ``accelerated" frame, like that of an observer
173: held at a fixed spatial point in the surrounding spacetime. There is an important
174: difference, however, in that the new set of coordinates $(cT,R,\theta,\phi)$
175: we introduce below are observer dependent. They are not universal, nor do
176: they need to be.
177:
178: Let us now consider de Sitter's metric in its \emph{originally} published form:
179: $$
180: ds^2=c^2\,dT^2[1-({R/ R_0})^2]-dR^2[1-({R/ R_0})^2]^{-1}-
181: $$
182: $$\qquad\qquad\qquad R^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,
183: d\phi^2)\;.\eqno(6)
184: $$
185: The inspiration for this metric is clear upon considering Schwarzschild's (vacuum)
186: solution describing the spacetime around an enclosed, spherically-symmetric object
187: of mass $M$:
188: $$
189: ds^2=c^2\,dT^2[1-{2GM/ c^2R}]-dR^2[1-
190: {2GM/ c^2 R}]^{-1}-
191: $$
192: $$\qquad\qquad\qquad R^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,
193: d\phi^2)\;.\eqno(7)
194: $$
195: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
196: De Sitter's metric describes the spacetime around
197: a radially-dependent enclosed mass $M(R)$, as we have for a uniform density
198: $\rho$ permeating an infinite, homogeneous medium. In that case,
199: $$
200: M(R)=M(R_0)({R/ R_0})^3\;,
201: \eqno(8)
202: $$
203: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
204: and the Schwarzschild factor $[1-({2GM/c^2R})]$ transitions into
205: $[1-({R/R_0})^2]$. It should be emphasized that equation (6) implicitly
206: contains the restriction that no mass-energy outside of $R$ should
207: contribute to the gravitational acceleration inside of $R$, as required by the
208: corollary to Birkhoff's theorem.
209:
210: For a given interval $s$, the observer-dependent time $T$ clearly diverges
211: as $R$ approaches $R_0$. This is the limiting distance beyond which the
212: spacetime curvature prevents any signal from ever reaching us; the
213: quantity $R_0$ is the only (classical) scale in the system, and it should not
214: surprise us---in view of the corollary to Birkhoff's theorem---that it is
215: defined as a {\it Schwarzschild} radius:
216: $$
217: {2GM(R_0)\over c^2}=R_0\;.\eqno(9)
218: $$
219: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
220: That is, $R_0$ is the distance at which the enclosed mass is sufficient to
221: turn it into the Schwarzschild radius for an observer at the origin of
222: the coordinates.
223:
224: It is trivial to show that, in terms of $\rho$, we must have
225: $$
226: R_0=\left({3c^4\over 8\pi G\rho}\right)^{1/2}\;,\eqno(10)
227: $$
228: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
229: or more simply, $R_0=c/H$. As it should be, this is also the radius
230: corresponding to Rindler's event horizon (Rindler 1956), which we will discuss
231: below. The impact of $R_0$, and hence the corollary to Birkhoff's theorem,
232: may be gauged directly by considering the transformation of coordinates
233: $(cT,R,\theta,\phi)\rightarrow (ct,r,\theta,\phi)$, for which
234: $$
235: R=e^{Ht}r=e^{ct/R_0}r\;,\eqno(11)
236: $$
237: and
238: $$
239: T=\ln[\exp(-2Ht)-({r/R_0})^2]^{-1/2H}\;.\eqno(12)
240: $$
241: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
242: It is clear from the definition of $a(t)=\exp(Ht)$, and the metric
243: coefficients in equation (6), that $R$ is the expanded (or physical) radius,
244: and $T$ is the time corresponding to $R$ as measured by an observer at the
245: origin of the coordinates---not the local time measured by a comoving
246: observer at $r$ (which we have also called the cosmic time $t$). An observer's
247: worldline must therefore always be restricted to the region $R<R_0$, i.e.,
248: to radii bounded by the cosmic horizon, consistent with the corollary to
249: Birkhoff's theorem.
250:
251: \section{A Universe with Dark Energy and Matter}
252: But though the contribution from radiation has by now largely subsided,
253: the universe does contain matter, in addition to dark energy. Unfortunately,
254: the de Sitter metric is not a good representation of this cosmology. However,
255: the impact of a cosmic horizon should be independent of the actual metric
256: used to describe the spacetime. The restrictions on an observer's worldlines
257: should be set by the physical radius $R_0$, beyond which no signal can reach
258: her within a finite time, no matter what internal structure the
259: spacetime may possess.
260:
261: There now exists empirical evidence that our observation of the early universe
262: is already close to this limit. The precision measurements (Spergel et al. 2003)
263: of the CMB radiation indicate that the universe is extremely flat (i.e.,
264: $k=0$). Thus $\rho$ is at (or very near) the ``critical" value $\rho_0\equiv
265: 3c^2H_0^2/8\pi G$. The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project (Mould et al. 2000)
266: on the extragalactic distance scale has measured $H$ with unprecedented accuracy,
267: finding a current value $H_0\equiv H(t_0)=71\pm6$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. (Throughout
268: this paper, subscript ``0" denotes values pertaining to the current cosmic time $t_0$.)
269: It is straightforward to show that with this $H_0$, $R_0\approx ct_0$ (specifically,
270: $13.4$ versus $13.7$ billion lightyears). Note that this $t_0$ is the same as $T$
271: for an observer at the origin. However, even though $T$ changes
272: with radius $R$ (see equation 12), the difference between $t$ and $T$ emerges
273: only when $R\rightarrow R_0$. Thus, as long as $R<R_0$, $t$ and $T$ remain
274: close to each other. We will consider the properties of $T(R,t)$ for a universe
275: containing both matter and dark energy shortly.
276:
277: The near equality $R_0\approx ct_0$ may be an indication that by now our worldlines
278: are already bounded by the cosmic horizon. It is trivial to see from the FRW
279: equations that the condition $R_0\approx ct_0$ is equivalent to the statement
280: that $\ddot a\approx 0$. Type Ia supernova data clearly do not support a
281: decelerating universe (Perlmutter et al. 1999, Riess et al. 2004), pointing
282: instead to a universe that is currently coasting ($\ddot a=0$) or, more likely,
283: one that has undergone periods of past deceleration and present acceleration.
284: (This should not be confused with the Milne universe (Milne 1940), which itself expands
285: at a constant rate, though is completely empty with $\rho=0$; such a cosmology is
286: not relevant to this discussion.) It is easy to write down the appropriate RW
287: metric when $R_0$ is strictly equal to $ct_0$, for then $\ddot a=0$,
288: and therefore
289: \vskip -0.05in
290: $$
291: ds^2=c^2dt^2-(H_0t)^2[dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\, d\phi^2)]\;,\eqno(13)
292: $$
293: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
294: with an expansion factor $a(t)=H_0t$. This is the form of the RW metric we will
295: use in the rest of this paper, albeit understanding that $R_0$ may not be exactly
296: equal to $ct_0$ currently. The latter would be realized if $\ddot a/a$ were slightly
297: greater than zero, as suggested by observations of Type Ia supernovae. But finding
298: a metric appropriate for a universe containing both matter and dark energy is
299: very difficult when $\ddot a/a\not=0$, forcing us to adopt this approximation
300: in order to extend our analysis beyond simply de Sitter. Fortunately, our
301: results will not depend on this simplification, since we will confirm that a
302: cosmic horizon emerges in both cases; it is a general property of cosmological
303: models, independent of the actual spacetime.
304:
305: The difficult part is to find a transformation, analogous to equations (11) and
306: (12), that will permit us to write the metric in terms of physical coordinates
307: ($R$ and $T$). The main hurdle here is that, whereas $\rho$ is constant in a de
308: Sitter universe and no velocity relative to $\rho$ is discernible (so that the
309: four-velocity in the stress-energy tensor has just a single non-vanishing
310: component), quite the opposite is true when $\rho$ changes with expansion.
311:
312: Recognizing that
313: $$
314: R=(H_0t)r\;,\eqno(14)
315: $$
316: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
317: we transform the RW metric (equation 13) into the form
318: $$
319: ds^2=c^2dt^2[1-(R/ct)^2]+(2R/t)dt\,dR-dR^2
320: $$
321: \vskip -0.1in
322: $$
323: -R^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\, d\phi^2)\;.\eqno(15)
324: $$
325: \vskip 0.1in\noindent
326: Already one begins to see the role played by $ct$, which here becomes the
327: cosmic (or ``curvature") horizon analogous to $R_0$ in equation (6). To diagonalize
328: the metric and complete the transformation, we put
329: \vskip -0.05in
330: $$
331: dT= \exp[-(1/2)(R/ct)^2]\{dt+dR\,(R/c^2t)
332: $$
333: \vskip -0.08in
334: $$
335: [1-(R/ct)^2]^{-1}\}[(R/ct)^2-1]^{-1}\;,\eqno(16)
336: $$
337: \vskip 0.1in\noindent
338: which produces the final form,
339: \vskip -0.05in
340: $$
341: ds^2=c^2dT^2[1-(R/ct)^2]^3\exp(R/ct)^2-
342: $$
343: \vskip -0.13in
344: $$
345: dR^2[1-(R/ct)^2]^{-1}-R^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2)\;.\eqno(17)
346: $$
347: \vskip 0.08in
348:
349: Unlike the situation with the de Sitter metric, however, this $dT$ is not an exact
350: differential. Physically, this simply means that the time difference between two
351: spacetime points, according to the observer at the origin, depends on the path of
352: integration. This should not be surprising given that diverse paths sample different
353: expansion rates as seen in the observer's frame. (Contrast this with the RW metric,
354: in which the cosmological time $t$ is the same everywhere.)
355:
356: But since $dT$ depends on only two variables, there exists an integrating factor
357: (call it $\tau[R,t]$) that converts $dT$ into an exact differential. To find it,
358: let us define the functions $A(R,t)$ and $B(R,t)$ such that equation (16) may be
359: written in the form
360: $$
361: dT=A(R,t)\,dt+B(R,t)\,dR\;.\eqno(18)
362: $$
363: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
364: In the $R-t$ plane, curves of constant $T$ are specified by the condition
365: $dT=0$, or equivalently, $dR/dt=-A/B$, which provides the simple solution
366: \vskip -0.03in
367: $$
368: \chi(R,t)\equiv 2\ln (t/t_0)+(R/ct)^2=\chi_0\;.\eqno(19)
369: $$
370: \vskip 0.1in\noindent
371: We have chosen the (integration) constant multiplying $t$ to yield a value
372: $\chi_0=0$ for $R=0$ at the current time. The constant $\chi_0$ represents the value
373: of $T$ on the isochronal curve. In terms of $\chi$, the integration factor $\tau(R,t)$
374: may then be found from the equations
375: $$
376: A(R,t)=\tau(R,t){\partial\chi\over\partial t}\;,\eqno(20)
377: $$
378: and
379: $$
380: B(R,t)=\tau(R,t){\partial\chi\over\partial R}\;.\eqno(21)
381: $$
382: Evidently,
383: $$
384: \tau(R,t)=-{1\over 2}t\,\left[1-\left({R/ct}\right)^2\right]^{-2}\times\qquad\qquad\qquad
385: $$
386: $$
387: \qquad\qquad\qquad\exp\left[-(1/2)\left({R/ct}\right)^2\right]\;,\eqno(22)
388: $$
389: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
390: and the exact differential representing the time in this coordinate
391: system is
392: $$
393: d\chi={dT\over \tau}\;,\eqno(23)
394: $$
395: \vskip 0.05in\noindent
396: which allows us to migrate from one isochronal curve to the next.
397:
398: Finally, an alternative form of the metric in equation (17) may be obtained
399: by replacing $dT$ with the exact differential $d\chi$, using equation (23). The result is
400: \vskip -0.0in
401: $$
402: ds^2=c^2(t\,d\chi)^2\{4[1-(R/ct)^2]\}^{-1}-
403: $$
404: \vskip -0.18in
405: $$
406: dR^2 [1-(R/ct)^2]^{-1}-R^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\phi^2)\;.\eqno(24)
407: $$
408: \vskip 0.06in
409:
410: The derivation of the metric in equations (17) and (24) is one of the principal results of
411: this paper. As was the case with de Sitter, we see directly through its coefficients
412: the fact that the time $T$ diverges at a specific radius, here equal to $ct=cT(0)$---the
413: cosmic horizon for this particular spacetime. No wordlines are permitted with $R$
414: extending beyond this limiting radius. For this reason, it is reasonable to conclude
415: that the observed near equality $R_0\approx ct$ is not a coincidence, but is instead
416: an indication that our observational limit has reached the universe's cosmic horizon.
417:
418: \section{Concluding Remarks}
419: The cosmic horizon we have discussed in this paper coincides with the event horizon
420: derived earlier by Rindler (1956) because they represent aspects of the same spacetime,
421: though viewed in two different coordinates systems. Rindler formalized the
422: definition of two horizons in cosmology, both functioning as hypersufaces in spacetime
423: that divide ``things" into two separate non-null classes. For a fundamental observer
424: $A$, the {\it event} horizon is defined to be a hypersurface that divides all events
425: into the class in which these have been, are, or will be, observable by $A$, and the
426: complementary class in which the events are forever outside of $A$'s power of observation.
427: These event horizons are created by the universe's expansion, which produces distant
428: regions receding from $A$ at such speeds that no causal contact can ever occur between
429: them and the observer. Since the comoving coordinates represent the universe's
430: ``freely falling" frame, it is clear that this critical condition must therefore
431: correspond to the radius $R_0$ at which the curvature in the cosmic spacetime causes
432: $T$ to diverge.
433:
434: Rindler's second type of horizon is called a {\it particle} horizon. For the
435: fundamental observer $A$ and cosmic instant $t_0$, the particle horizon is a
436: surface in instantaneous 3-space at time $t=t_0$ that divides all fundamental
437: particles into two classes: those that have already been observed by $A$ at
438: time $t_0$, and those that have not. These horizons are therefore created
439: by the finite propagation speed of signals that couple particles at distance
440: $d$ to the observer $A$ for times $t>d/c$. The cosmic horizon $R_0$ is not
441: related to the particle horizon.
442:
443: An interesting property of $R_0$ emerges upon closer scrutiny of its value in
444: the case of de Sitter and the alternate cosmology containing both matter and
445: dark energy. First of all, the density $\rho$ is constant in the former, so
446: $R_0$ does not change with time. Thus, the horizon in de Sitter is fixed forever,
447: and no events occurring beyond it can ever be in causal contact with the observer
448: at the origin. This is presumably the situation that emerges as the universe
449: approaches de Sitter asymptotically, in which limit $R_0$ must be
450: calculated for $\rho$ due to dark energy alone. Second, the density $\rho$
451: in the alternate metric decreases with time and therefore $R_0$ correspondingly
452: increases---i.e., $R_0(t)$ is a function of $t=T(0)$. This means, of course,
453: that some portions of the universe that produced effects at $R<R_0(t)$ we
454: measure at time $t$ have by now moved beyond the limiting radius. However,
455: the effects of gravity travel at the speed of light, so what matters in
456: setting the structure of the universe within the horizon at time $t$ is the
457: mass-energy content within $R_0$. The influence of these distant regions
458: of the universe ended once their radius from us exceeded $R_0$.
459:
460: The light-travel time distance ($\sim$13.7 billion light-years) could only have been
461: identified with the cosmic horizon once the data (Spergel et al. 2003) confirmed
462: that the universe is flat, and revealed that the density $\rho$ is close to, or at,
463: its ``critical" value. It has never been quite clear why this critical condition
464: exists, except for the possibility that inflation in the early universe could have
465: led to this. But based on our analysis of the various metrics in this paper, an
466: alternative interpretation---or perhaps simply an additional reason---for this criticality
467: is that the universe has now expanded long enough for the condition $R_0\approx ct$
468: to have been attained.
469:
470: One can easily show from the FRW equations that once $R_0$ has been reached,
471: the expansion thereafter proceeds at a constant rate. But this does not necessarily
472: mean that this dynamical state must have been present since the Big Bang, so it is
473: by no means trivial to see how such a scenario would affect Big Bang nucleosynthesis
474: (Burles et al. 2001), and structure formation in the early universe (Springel et al.
475: 2006).
476:
477: But for the current universe, the near-equality $R_0\approx ct$ would produce an observable
478: signature because it is equivalent to the condition $\ddot a\ge 0$. At least out to
479: a redshift of $\sim 1.8$, the universe appears to be expanding with a slight positive
480: acceleration (Riess et al. 2004). With ongoing observations of Type Ia supernovae, the
481: value of $\ddot a$ will continue to be refined and, with it, so too the value of $R_0-ct$.
482:
483: Clearly, more work needs to be done. There is little doubt that a cosmic horizon
484: exists. It is required by the application of the corollary to Birkhoff's theorem
485: to an infinite, homogeneous medium, and there is some evidence that we have already
486: observed phenomena close to it. However, it may be that observational cosmology
487: is not entirely consistent with the condition $R_0\approx ct$ in the current epoc.
488: If not, there must be some other reason for this apparent coincidence. Perhaps the
489: assumption of an infinite, homogeneous universe is incorrect. Whatever the case may
490: be, the answer could be even more interesting than the one we have explored here.
491:
492: \section*{Acknowledgments}
493: This research was partially supported by NSF grant 0402502 at the
494: University of Arizona, and a Miegunyah Fellowship at the University
495: of Melbourne. Helpful discussions with Ray Volkas and Hideki Maeda
496: are greatly appreciated. I am particularly grateful to Roy Kerr for
497: many inspirational discussions. In addition, the anonymous referee
498: provided a thoughtful analysis that has led to an improvement in
499: presentation. Part of this work was carried out at the Center for
500: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology in Paris.
501:
502: \begin{references}
503:
504: \bibitem[] {} Birkhoff, G. 1923, Relativity and
505: Modern Physics, Harvard University Press
506:
507: \bibitem[] {} Burles, S., Nollett, K. M.,
508: and Turner, M. S. 2001, ApJ, 552, L1
509:
510: \bibitem[] {} de Sitter, W. 1917, Proc.
511: Akad. Weteusch. Amsterdam, 19, 1217
512:
513: \bibitem[] {} Milne, E. A. 1940, ApJ, 91, 129
514:
515: \bibitem[] {} Mould, J. R. et al.
516: 2000, ApJ, 529, 786
517:
518: \bibitem[] {} Perlmutter, S. et al.
519: 1999, ApJ, 517, 565
520:
521: \bibitem[] {} Riess, A. G. et al.
522: 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
523:
524: \bibitem[] {} Rindler, W. 1956, MNRAS, 116, 662
525:
526: \bibitem[] {} Spergel, D. N. et al.
527: 2003, ApJS, 148, 175
528:
529: \bibitem[] {} Springel, V., Frenk, C. S.,
530: and White, S. D. 2006, Nature, 440, 1137
531:
532: \end{references}
533:
534: \end{document}
535:
536: