# Can a changing 𝛼 explain the Supernovae results?

## 1 Introduction

Two puzzling observations are challenging cosmologists. The Supernovae Cosmology Project and the High-z Supernova Search (Perlmutter et al (97); Garnavich et al (98); Schmidt (98); Riess et al (98)) have extended the reach of the Hubble diagram to high redshift and provided new evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This may imply that there exists a significant positive cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In separate work, the spacings between quasar (QSO) absorption lines were examined in Keck I data at medium redshifts, $`z1`$, (Webb et al (99)) and compared with those in the laboratory (see also Drinkwater et al (98); Damour and Dyson (96); Shylakhter (76); Barrow (87)). These observations are sensitive to time variations in the value of the fine structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/(\mathrm{}c)`$, (where $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`\mathrm{}`$ Planck’s constant, and $`c`$ the speed of light), at a rate one million times slower that the expansion rate of the universe. Evidence was found for a small variation in the value of $`\alpha `$ at redshifts $`1`$. This could be produced by intrinsic time variation or by some unidentified line-blending effect. In this Letter we assume that the variation is intrinsic and show that there may be a link between the observations of cosmological acceleration and varying $`\alpha `$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, then cosmology faces a very serious fine tuning problem, and this has motivated extensive theoretical work. There is no theoretical motivation for a value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of currently observable magnitude; a value $`10^{120}`$ times smaller that the ’natural’ Planck scale of density is needed if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes important near the present time. Such a small non-zero value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is ’unnatural’ in the sense that making it zero reduces the symmetry of spacetime. A tentative solution is quintessence (Zlatev et al (99)): the idea that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ might be a rolling scalar field exhibiting very long transients. Here we introduce another explanation.

There are a variety of possible physical expressions of a changing $`\alpha `$. Bekenstein proposed a varying $`e`$ theory (Bekenstein (82)). An alternative is the varying speed of light (VSL) theory (Moffat (93); Albrecht & Magueijo (99); Barrow (99)) in which varying $`\alpha `$ is expressed as a variation of the speed of light. The choice between these two types of theory transcends experiment, and merely reflects theoretical convenience in the choice of units (Barrow & Magueijo (98)). The simplest cosmology following from VSL is known to contain an attractor in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and matter remain at fixed density ratios throughout the life of the universe (Barrow & Magueijo (99)). Such attractor solves the fine tuning problem forced upon us by the supernovae results. Hence there is scope for the observed changing $`\alpha `$ to be related to the observed acceleration of the universe. In this Letter we propose a model which leads to good quantitative agreement, given experimental errors, between the observations of acceleration and varying $`\alpha `$. In Section 2 we examine the construction of the Hubble diagram in VSL theories, and the interpretation of varying-$`\alpha `$ experiments. Then in Section 3 we present an example of a VSL model which can jointly explain the supernovae results and the Webb et al varying-$`\alpha `$ results. We conclude with a discussion of some further aspects of the model proposed, to be investigated elsewhere.

## 2 The VSL Hubble diagram

The Hubble diagram is a plot of luminosity distance against redshift. The purpose is to map the expansion factor $`a(t)`$, where $`t`$ is the comoving proper time. Redshifts provide a measurement of $`a`$ at the time of emission. If the objects under observation are “standard candles” (as Type Ia supernovae are assumed to be), their apparent brightness gives their (luminosity) distance, which, if we know $`c`$, tells us their age. By looking at progressively more distant objects we can therefore map the curve $`a(t)`$.

We now examine how this construction is affected by a changing $`c`$. In Albrecht & Magueijo (99) we showed that $`Ec^2`$ for photons in free flight. We also showed that quantum mechanics remains unaffected by a changing $`c`$ if $`\mathrm{}c`$ (in the sense that quantum numbers are adiabatic invariants). Then all relativistic energies scale like $`c^2`$. If for non-relativistic systems $`\mathrm{}1/c`$, the Rydberg energy $`E_R=m_ee^4/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$ also scales like $`c^2`$. Hence all absorption lines, ignoring the fine structure, scale like $`c^2`$. When we compare lines from near and far systems we should therefore see no effects due to a varying $`c`$; the redshift $`z`$ is still $`1+z_e=a_o/a_e`$, where $`o`$ and $`e`$ label epochs of observation and emission.

In order to examine luminosity distances, we need to reassess the concept of standard candles. For simplicity let us first treat them as black bodies. Then their temperature scales as $`Tc^2`$ (Albrecht & Magueijo (99)), their energy density scales as $`\rho T^4/(\mathrm{}c)^3c^2`$, and their emission power as $`P=\rho /cc`$, implying that standard candles are brighter in the early universe if $`\dot{c}<0`$. However, the power emitted by these candles, in free flight, scales like $`c`$; each photon’s energy scales like $`c^2`$, its speed like $`c`$, and therefore its energy flux like $`c`$. The received flux, as a function of $`c`$, therefore scales like:

$$P_r=\frac{P_ec^2}{4\pi r^2c}c$$
(1)   
where $`r`$ is the conformal distance to the emitting object, and the subscripts $`r`$ and $`e`$ label received and emitted. In an expanding universe we therefore still have

$$P_r=\frac{P_{e0}}{4\pi r^2a_0^2}\left(\frac{a}{a_o}\right)^2,$$
(2)   
where $`P_{e0}`$ is the emitting power of standard candles today. Notice that the above argument is still valid if the candles are not black bodies; it depends only on the scaling properties of emitted and received power.

We can now set up the Hubble diagram. Consider the Taylor expansion

$$a(t)=a_0[1+H_0(tt_0)\frac{1}{2}q_0H_0^2(tt_0)^2+\mathrm{}]$$
(3)   
where $`H_0=\dot{a}_0/a_0`$ is the Hubble constant, and $`q_0=\ddot{a}_0a_0/\dot{a}_0^2`$ is the decceleration parameter. Hence up to second order $`z=H_0(t_0t)+(1+q_0/2)H_0^2(tt_0)^2`$, or

$$t_0t=\frac{1}{H_0}[z(1+q_0/2)z^2+\mathrm{}].$$
(4)   
From (2) we find that the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ is

$$d_L=\left(\frac{P_{e0}}{4\pi P_0}\right)^{1/2}=a_0^2\frac{r}{a}=a_0r(1+z_e).$$
(5)   
The conformal distance to the emitting object is given by $`r=_t^{t_0}c(t)𝑑t/a(t).`$ From (3) we have that

$$r=c_0[(t_0t)+\frac{1n}{2}H_0(t_0t)^2+\mathrm{}]$$
(6)   
where we have assumed that locally $`c=c_0a^n`$ (that is $`c=c_0[1+nH_0(tt_0)+\mathrm{}]`$). Substituting (4) we finally have <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Had we assumed that $`\mathrm{}c`$ for all systems we would have got instead $`d_L=(c_0/\stackrel{~}{H}_0)[z+\frac{1}{2}(1(q_0(1+4n)+n))z^2]`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0=(14n)H_0`$. This does not affect any of the conclusions. :

$$d_L=\frac{c_0}{H_0}[z+\frac{1}{2}(1(q_0+n))z^2+\mathrm{}]$$
(7)   
We see that besides the direct effects of VSL upon the expansion rate of the universe, it also induces an effective acceleration in the Hubble diagram as an “optical illusion” (we are assuming that $`c`$ decreases in time: $`n<0`$). This is easy to understand. We have seen that VSL introduces no intrinsic effects in the redshifting spectral line or in the dimming of standard candles with distance and expansion. The only effect VSL induces on the construction of the Hubble diagram is that for the same redshift (that is, the same distance into the past) objects are farther away from us because light travelled faster in the past. But an excess luminosity distance, for the same redshift, is precisely the hallmark of cosmological acceleration. However, we need to consider the other experimental input to our work: the Webb et al (99) results. By measuring the fine structure in absorption systems at redshifts $`zO(1)`$ we can also map the curve $`c(t)`$. Since $`c=c_0[1+nH_0(tt_0)+\mathrm{}]`$ we have $`c=c_0[1nz+\mathrm{}]`$, and so to first order $`\alpha =\alpha _0[1+2nz+\mathrm{}]`$. However, the results presented in Webb et al (99) show that $`n`$ is at most of order $`10^5.`$ This means that the direct effects of varying $`c`$ permitted by the QSO absorption system observations are far too small to explain the observed acceleration. We need to look at a fully self-consistent generalisation of general relativity containing the scope for varying $`c`$.

## 3 The model

We start with some general properties of the dynamics of $`c`$. Drawing inspiration from dilaton theories (like Brans-Dicke gravity) we take $`\psi =\mathrm{log}(c/c_0)`$ as the dynamical field associated with $`c`$. Indeed, powers of $`c`$ appear in all coupling constants, which in turn can be written as $`e^\varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is the dilaton. Another theory using a similar dynamical variable is the changing $`\alpha `$ theory of Bekenstein (82) (which uses $`\mathrm{log}(\alpha )`$).

We then endow $`\psi `$ with a dynamics similar to the dilaton. The left-hand side for the $`\psi `$ equation should therefore be $`\mathrm{}\psi `$ (in the preferred Lorentz frame - to be identified with the cosmological frame). This structure ensures that the propagation equation for $`\psi `$ is second-order and hyperbolic, i.e. propagation is causal. Since VSL breaks Lorentz invariance other expressions would be possible - but then the field $`\psi `$ would propagate non-causally. An example is $`(g_{\mu \nu }+u_\mu u_\nu )(_\mu \psi )(_\nu \psi )`$, where $`u^\mu `$ is the tangent vector of the local preferred frame.

On the other hand one need not choose (as in Brans-Dicke theories) the source term to be $`\rho 3p`$, where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the energy density and pressure of matter respectively. Without the requirement of Lorentz invariance other expressions are possible, and using them does not conflict with local causality. If $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the stress-energy tensor we can choose as a source term $`T^{\mu \nu }(g_{\mu \nu }+u_\mu u_\nu )`$; that is changes in $`c`$ are driven by the matter pressure. We find this choice is the one that gives interesting effects.

For a homogeneous field in an expanding universe we therefore have $`\ddot{\psi }+3(\dot{a}/a)\dot{\psi }=4\pi G\omega p/c^2`$, where $`p`$ is the total pressure of the matter fields and $`\omega `$ is a coupling constant (distinct from the Brans Dicke coupling constant). The full self-consistent system of equations in a matter-plus-radiation universe containing a cosmological constant stress $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2)/(8\pi G)`$ is therefore 

$`\ddot{\psi }+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\rho _\gamma }{3}},`$ (8)   
$`\dot{\rho }_\gamma +4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\rho _\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`2\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{\psi },`$ (9)   
$`\dot{\rho }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`2\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\dot{\psi },`$ (10)   
$`\dot{\rho }_m+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\rho _m`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)   
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi G}{3}}(\rho _m+\rho _\gamma +\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ (12)   
where subscripts $`\gamma `$ and $`m`$ denote radiation and matter respectively. We have assumed that the sink term (10) is reflected in a source term in (9) (and not in (11)). This is due to the fact that this term is only significant very early on, when even massive particles behave like radiation. We have ignored curvature terms because in the quasi-lambda dominated solutions we are about to explore we know that these are smaller than $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, (Barrow & Magueijo (99)). Here, in complete contrast to Brans-Dicke theory, the field $`\psi `$ is only driven by radiation pressure in the dust-dominated era. In other words, only conformally invariant forms of matter couple to the field $`\psi `$.

In a radiation-dominated universe the behaviour of this system changes at the critical value $`\omega =4`$. For $`\omega <4`$ we reach a flat $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ attractor as $`t\mathrm{}`$. For $`4<\omega <0`$ we have attractors for which $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\rho _\gamma `$ maintain a constant ratio (see Barrow & Magueijo (99)). In Fig. 1 we plot a numerical solution to this system, with $`\omega =4.4`$ (a $`10\%`$ tuning below the critical value $`\omega =4`$) and $`n=2.2`$ during the radiation epoch. As expected from Barrow & Magueijo (99), this forces $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to drop to zero, while the expansion factor acquires a radiation-dominated form, with $`at^{1/2}`$. By the time the matter-dominated epoch is reached, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of order $`10^{12}`$. During the matter epoch, the source term for $`\psi `$ disappears in eq. (8), $`n`$ starts to approach zero, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ starts to increase, and the expansion factor takes on the $`at^{2/3}`$ dependence of a matter-dominated universe. A few expansion times into the matter epoch, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ becomes of order 1 and the universe begins accelerating. By the time this happens $`n`$ is of order $`10^5`$, in agreement with the expectations of Webb et al (99). This type of behaviour can be achieved generically, for different initial conditions, with a tuning of $`\omega `$ that never needs to be finer than a few percent.

We can provide an approximate argument explaining why this theory should display this type of behaviour and why we need so little fine tuning of $`\omega `$ to explain the supernovae experiments. If we neglect changes in $`c`$ after matter-radiation equality, $`t_{eq}`$, we are going to require $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_{eq})/\rho (t_{eq})z_{eq}^310^{12}`$. Let $`c=c_0a^{n(t)}`$, with $`n=2\delta `$, and $`n=\omega /2`$ during the radiation epoch. We can integrate the conservation equations to give

$$\frac{\rho }{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{A}{a^4\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{n}{n+2},$$
(13)   
with $`A`$ constant, from which it follows that

$$\frac{\rho }{\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{2}{\delta }\left[\left(1+\frac{\delta }{2}\frac{\rho _i}{\rho _{\mathrm{\Lambda }i}}\right)\left(\frac{a}{a_i}\right)^{2\delta }1\right].$$
(14)   
We see that assymptotically $`\rho /\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ grows to infinity, if $`\delta >0`$ (the flat $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ attractor of Barrow & Magueijo (99)). However the growth is very slow even if $`\delta `$ is not very small. Our theory displays very long transients, and a very slow convergence to its attractor, a property similar to quintessence models (Zlatev et al (99)). It is therefore possible to achieve $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }/\rho 10^{12}`$ at the end of the radiation epoch, with $`\delta `$ chosen to be of order $`0.1`$.

Now, why is the change in $`c`$ of the right order of magnitude to explain the results of Webb et al (99)? With a solution of the form $`c=c_0a^{n(t)}`$ we find that

$$n(t)\frac{\omega \rho _\gamma }{3(\rho _m+2\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(15)   
valid in the matter dominated era, regardless of the details of the radiation to matter transition. With $`\omega 4`$ we therefore have

$$n(t_0)\frac{4}{3}\frac{2.3\times 10^5}{h^2(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })}$$
(16)   
of the right order of magnitude. The order of magnitude of the index $`n10^5`$, observed by Webb et al (99), is therefore fixed by the ratio of the radiation and the matter energy densities today.

## 4 Discussion

In this Letter we proposed a theory relating the supernovae results and the observations by Webb et al (99). The theory we have proposed is one example within a class whose members exhibit similar behaviour. In these theories the gravitational effect of the pressure drives changes in $`c`$, and these convert the energy density in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ into radiation. Thus $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is prevented from dominating the universe during the radiation epoch. As the universe cools down, massive particles eventually become the source of pressureless matter and create a matter-dominated epoch. In the matter epoch the variation in $`c`$ comes to a halt, with residual effects at $`z15`$ at the level observed by Webb et al. As the $`c`$ variation is switched off, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ stress resurfaces, and dominates the universe for a few expansion times in the matter-dominated era, in agreement with the supernovae results.

In a forthcoming publication we shall address other aspects of this theory, beyond the scope of this Letter. We mention nucleosynthesis, the location in time of a quantum epoch, and perturbations around the homogeneous solution discussed here (see Barrow & O’Toole (99)). Nucleosynthesis in particular may provide significant constraints on this class of models. However we expect a variation in $`\alpha `$ to require variations in other couplings if some unification exists. Nucleosynthesis involves many competing effects contributed by weak, strong and electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions and we do not know how to incorporate all the effects self-consistently. Studies of the effects of varying constants coupled by Kaluza-Klein extra dimensions have been made by Kolb et al (86) and Barrow (87). The most detailed study to date was conducted by Campbell and Olive (95).

## Acknowledgements

JDB is partially supported by a PPARC Senior Fellowship. JM would like to thank K. Baskerville and D. Sington for help with this project.