text:
# An Investigation of the Polarizable Vacuum Cosmology

## 1 Introduction

That the action of gravity on light can be interpreted as a variable vacuum refractive index has been a persistent theme in the literature - Eddington (1920); Gordon (1923); Balazs (1957); Skrotskii (1957); Plebanski (1959); Atkinson (1962, 1965); Bertotti (1966); Winterberg (1968); Volkov, Izmest’ev & Skrotskii (1971); de Felice (1971); Evans, Nandi & Islam (1996a, b) \- and in some of the standard texts on GR - Landau & Lifshitz (1980); Weyl (1960); Møller (1962); Fock (1964). The condition that gravitational action on light be *exactly* expressible in terms of a variable scalar refractive index $`n(𝐱,t)`$ is just that the metric can be put into isotropic form, whereupon $`c/n(𝐱,t)`$ is the coordinate speed of light (the proper speed of light is always $`c`$). Since this condition is met outside the event horizon of the Schwarzschild solution, and by all the FLRW metrics, the refractive index interpretation and corresponding mathematics of EM propagation in gravitational fields has wide application. In the event that the coordinate system cannot be put into isotropic form, de Felice (1971); Volkov, Izmest’ev & Skrotskii (1971); Landau & Lifshitz (1980) have given the general relationship between the metric tensor and the generalized constitutive relations to be ascribed to the vacuum that will correctly predict the behaviour of the EM fields. These relations include the requirement, in order that EM radiation suffer no bi-refringence, that the electric permittivity and magnetic susceptibility are mutually proportional. In summary, these works are based upon the premise that, ignoring the action upon matter but otherwise without loss of physical accuracy, the gravitational action on EM fields in a given metric can be interpreted as due to gravitationally-modulated *vacuum polarizability*.

Wilson (1921) was probably the first to suggest extension of the (specifically) refractive index paradigm to include matter, by which means he demonstrated agreement with theory to the level of the Newtonian approximation. Subsequently, Atkinson (1962, 1965) gave the dependence required of the rest mass on the local vacuum refractive index in order that matter precisely follow the geodesics of the Schwarzschild solution. Interpreted literally, though the details are omitted, the efforts of Wilson and Atkinson amount to the presumption of an electromagnetic basis for mechanical mass. Supposing this claim can be substantiated, such an approach, however, does not constitute an electromagnetic theory of gravity for as long as the Einstein action has no electromagnetic explanation. Barcelo (2001) have given suggestions for how the latter might emerge from an *effective* action wherein the observable degrees of freedom are really linearized fluctuations of an invisible *background* field.

In addition to the authors cited above, Dicke (1957, 1961), also, was an advocate of the refractive index interpretation of the action of gravity on light. Like Wilson and Atkinson, Dicke went on to speculate on an electromagnetic basis for mechanical mass, whereby the polarizable vacuum paradigm could be extended to encompass not only EM but also matter. His work has recently been re-visited by Puthoff (2002). Unlike all previously cited authors apart from Puthoff, however, it is evident in those papers that Dicke’s motivation was to demonstrate the viability of a theory that is electromagnetically motivated from the outset, rather than simply to forge agreement between GR and a theory of a polarizable vacuum (hereafter, ‘PV’). An important consequence of that difference is that Dicke adduces a metric that differs from that of Schwarzschild in the higher order terms of the PPN expansion. Specifically, if the components of the line element for the latter are written in isotropic coordinates as

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{1\psi }{1+\psi }\right)^2c^2dt^2\left(1+\psi \right)^4d𝐱^2$$
(1)
where $`\psi =Gm/2rc^2`$, then the corresponding PV line element, (Puthoff, 2002), is

$$ds^2=e^{4\psi }c^2dt^2e^{4\psi }d𝐱^2.$$
(2)
(Here and throughout, rather than set to 1 through redefinition of the time coordinate, the speed of light $`c`$ is retained in respect of the interpretation of $`K`$ as modifying the vacuum speed in a Euclidean background.) Consistent with this line element, the PV metric always has the form

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2/KKd𝐱^2$$
(3)
where $`KK(𝐱,t)`$ is the vacuum polarizability. The specification of PV is complete by assigning to the $`K`$-field, on the basis of maximum mathematical simplicity consistent with local Lorentz Invariance, the action of a scalar wave equation with speed $`c/K`$.

It is important that though Dicke’s reasoning lead him to equations (2)) and (3), it did not do so unambiguously; his choice rested ultimately on the criterion of mathematical simplicity, given that gravitational action is fundamentally electromagnetic and mediated by a polarizable vacuum. This is best demonstrated by contrasting the very simple expressions obtained by PV for the refractive index and mass-dependency on the gravitational field strength parameter $`\psi `$, for example, with the results of Atkinson (1962). In the latter, it is recalled, GR effects on EM and matter are driven by the requirement that the (GR) Schwarzschild metric be reproduced exactly. Atkinson’s work achieves the stated aim, but at the price of cumbersome expressions relating the refractive index and rest-mass to $`\psi `$, making the correspondence look like a force-fit (Atkinson, 1962). In particular, eliminating $`\psi `$, it can be shown that in the case of the Schwarzschild metric the rest-mass is a sixth-order polynomial in the refractive index, and cannot, therefore, be given in closed form. de Felice (1971), whose aim was to establish the formal correspondence for the EM fields alone, concludes likewise. Specifically he writes that “the medium equivalent approach does not look any simpler than general relativity; on the contrary it may be mathematically more cumbersome and less elegant”. By contrast, in PV the refractive index and mass-dependencies are both exponentials of $`\psi `$, and therefore are related by a simple power.

As noted by Dicke (1961), the Yilmaz theory of gravity (Yilmaz, 1992; Cooperstock & Vollick, 1996; Alley, 1995) has in common with PV a line element of the form (3) in the particular case that $`T_{00}`$ is the only non-zero element of the stress energy tensor, i.e. where the source matter is static, and the pressure / stress and momentum terms are zero (Alley, 1995). Given that Yilmaz originally conceived of his theory in terms of a polarizable vacuum, Yilmaz (1986), this shared characteristic lends some support to the ‘electromagnetic interpretation’ of the PV metric. Further connections between the two theories are discussed in section 5.

Though based upon a single scalar function, this remarkably simply theory passes the four standard tests of GR. Yet, to the extent that PV is driven fundamentally by an EM paradigm, it is a representative of a genre that is quite different from GR. However, apart from the recent report by Puthoff, it appears not to have been otherwise pursued since Dicke’s original publication. The aim of this document is to fill the gap and thereby permit a more informed assessment of the viability of PV and its domain of applicability. In the following then, the theory is applied to a few cosmological and astrophysical problems, and its predictions compared with the data.

## 2 PV Friedmann equation

### 2.1 Action

Dicke and Puthoff give the classical action for a single massive charge plus EM fields in a polarizable vacuum (in SI units)

$$\begin{array}{cc}& L=d^4x\{\frac{c^4}{32\pi GK^2}[(K)^2\left(\frac{K}{c}\frac{K}{t}\right)^2]\hfill \\ & +[\frac{m_0c^2}{\sqrt{K}}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{Kv}{c}\right)^2}+e(\varphi 𝐯.𝐀)]\delta ^3(𝐱𝐱\left(t\right))\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{2}[\frac{𝐁^2}{K\mu _0}K\epsilon _0𝐄^2]\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`𝐱\left(t\right)`$ is the particle trajectory, $`𝐯=d𝐱\left(t\right)/dt`$ the particle velocity, and $`v`$ its speed. If in the integrations one takes $`dx_0=cdt`$, then the action (equation (4) and subsequently) is $`c`$ times its usual definition. The particle mass $`m_0`$ is independent of $`K`$. The EM field strengths $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ have the usual relation to the potentials, $`𝐄=\left(\varphi +𝐀/t\right),𝐁=\times 𝐀.`$ The contribution from the $`K`$-field itself is that of a classical scalar wave-equation in curved space-time:

$$L_K=\frac{c^4}{32\pi G}d^4x\sqrt{g}g^{ab}_aK_bK$$
(5)
where, from equation (3), in Cartesian coordinates $`g^{ab}=\mathrm{diag}\{K,1/K,1/K,1/K\}`$. Evidently this action is not invariant under arbitrary coordinate transformations, and therefore, unlike GR, the background coordinates here contain some physical significance.

Several obvious changes and generalisations of equation (4) are required to render PV compatible with the Cosmological Principle:

1. Long-range EM forces are negligible compared to gravitational forces, whereupon the EM interaction part of the action due to any charge can be safely ignored.
2. The single charged particle must be replaced by a uniform distribution of neutral mass that is static in the background frame, whence $`v=0`$.
3. $`m_0c^2\delta ^3\left(𝐫𝐫\left(t\right)\right)\rho _m`$ where $`\rho _m`$ is a uniform (in the background frame) and constant energy density of matter. Subsequently we will choose $`K=1`$ at the present time, so that $`\rho _m`$ will be the present energy density of matter.
4. On the cosmological scale, the field $`K`$ is assumed to be isotropic, homogeneous, and therefore a function of time only, for which it will be convenient to make the substitution $`K=a^2\left(t\right)`$, which amounts to the selection of the flat-space metric out of the three FLRW space-times. The background to this choice is discussed further below.
5. In anticipation of the need to accommodate accelerated expansion, as in conventional GR the action will be supplemented with a cosmological (henceforth ‘vacuum’) term

$$L_{vac}=\rho _vd^4xa^2$$
(6)
where $`\rho _v`$ has the units of energy per unit volume (the energy density of the vacuum when $`a=1`$).

With these changes the PV action, (4), becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L=d^4x\{\frac{c^2}{8\pi G}\left(a\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2& \rho _va^2\frac{\rho _m}{a}\frac{1}{2}[\frac{B^2}{a^2\mu _0}a^2\epsilon _0E^2]\}\hfill \end{array},$$
(7)
and consistent with equation (3) the line element is

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2/a^2\left(t\right)a^2\left(t\right)d𝐱^2.$$
(8)
### 2.2 Hamiltonian

Carrying out the space integrations, the Lagrangian is

$$L=V\left\{\frac{a^2c^2}{8\pi G}\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2\rho _va^2\frac{\rho _m}{a}+L_{EM}\right\}$$
(9)
where the electromagnetic part is

$$L_{EM}=\frac{1}{2V}d^3x\left\{a^2\epsilon _0E^2\frac{B^2}{a^2\mu _0}\right\}.$$
(10)
The corresponding contributions to the Hamiltonian are

$$H=\dot{a}\frac{L}{\dot{a}}L=\frac{a^2c^2}{8\pi G}\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2+\rho _va^2+\frac{\rho _m}{a}+H_{EM}\left(a\right)$$
(11)
where $`H_{EM}\left(a\right)`$ is the electromagnetic energy density. $`H_{EM}\left(a\right)`$ has the usual (i.e. GR) dependence on the scale factor $`\rho _r/a^2`$ say, as may be deduced by standard arguments (Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, 2000). With this in equation (11), the total energy density, $`\rho _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ say, is

$$\frac{a^2c^2}{8\pi G}\left(\frac{da}{dt}\right)^2+\rho _va^2+\frac{\rho _m}{a}+\frac{\rho _r}{a^2}=\rho _\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(12)
### 2.3 Relation to the GR Friedmann equation

In accord with equation (8) the proper time $`\tau `$ is given by $`d\tau =dt/a\left(t\right)`$, whereupon one recovers the FLRW line element

$$ds^2=c^2d\tau ^2a^2\left(\tau \right)d𝐱^2.$$
(13)
With this, equation (12) written in proper time is the familiar Friedmann equation of GR except for a missing factor of 3 and some changes in sign. The two equations can be united in the form

$$\lambda \frac{3c^2}{8\pi G}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)^2=\rho _va^2+\frac{\rho _m}{a}+\frac{\rho _r}{a^2}\rho _\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(14)
where in GR $`\lambda =1`$, and in PV $`\lambda =1/3`$. $`\rho _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has been defined so that when $`\rho _v=0`$ in GR, a positive value gives rise to collapse, I.E. it has the sign of ‘$`k`$’ in the traditional notation. In PV a positive $`\rho _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ connotes a positive net overall energy. In both cases - GR and PV - the magnitude and sign of both $`\rho _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\rho _v`$ can be decided, for example, by regression of the data for $`a`$ versus $`\tau `$ onto the corresponding Friedmann equation (i.e. equation (14) for either $`\lambda `$). Both the mass energy density and the electromagnetic energy density could, in principle, be determined locally, without reference to either the Friedmann equation or the theoretical framework in which it is to be employed (GR or PV). In any case, the sign of both will be positive.

Carrying out the usual normalisation using the present value of the Hubble constant

$$H_0\left(\frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)|_{\tau =\tau _0}=\frac{da\left(\tau _0\right)}{d\tau _0}$$
(15)
(the scale factor at the present time is 1), equation (12) can be written

$$\frac{\lambda }{H_0^2}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)^2=a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{a^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(16)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\frac{8\pi G\rho _i}{3c^2H_0^2};i\{m,r,v,\mathrm{\Sigma }\}$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\lambda $$
(18)
are true at all times. Of course equation (18) can be used to eliminate any one of the 4 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s in equation (16), restoring it to an equation that is explicitly dependent on just 4 observationally determined constants (3 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$’s and $`H_0`$ ). With the additional definition

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r$$
(19)
employed in the (GR) literature, one has (exclusively in GR) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Omega }1`$, whereupon $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ corresponds to flat space. But $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined in equation (19) has no such special significance in PV, and therefore the substitution (19) is less useful when PV and GR are being compared in parallel, and so will not be employed here. Also, in the flat-space version of PV presently under consideration, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ signifies non-zero overall energy, with no contribution from the spatial variation of $`K`$. By contrast, in the Friedmann equation of GR, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ always signifies a contribution from the (non-flat) geometry - it is not an arbitrary constant of integration.

## 3 Cosmology

### 3.1 Initial condition

From equation (16) the current age as a function of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is

$$\tau =\frac{1}{H_0}\underset{a\left(0\right)}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑a\sqrt{\frac{\lambda }{a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_m/a+\mathrm{\Omega }_r/a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}.$$
(20)
In the case of GR ($`\lambda =1`$) the operand of the square root is always positive as $`a0`$ because $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ is positive. Therefore in GR one is free to suppose that $`a\left(0\right)=0`$ was the initial state of affairs, and take the age as the proper time elapsed since then. By contrast in PV ($`\lambda =1/3`$) the scale factor cannot shrink to zero else the operand of the square root will go negative. Defining the age as the proper time since the most recent minimum (including the case that the scale factor oscillates), $`a\left(0\right)`$ is the smallest real positive root of

$$a^2\left(0\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_m/a\left(0\right)+\mathrm{\Omega }_r/a^2\left(0\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(21)
Evidently $`da/d\tau =0`$ at that point, and therefore the expansion is initially exclusively quadratic - i.e. is not a ‘bang’.

### 3.2 Very early history

The early history is decided by the magnitude of the initial (and therefore minimum) scale factor given by the solution of equation (21), for which some estimate of the value of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ coefficients is necessary. The CMB mass-equivalent energy density is $`2\times 10^{31}\text{ kg/m}^3`$ (the contribution from stellar radiation is around 20% of this value and can be ignored relative to the imprecision of this analysis). Taking $`H_070\text{ km/s/Mpc}`$, giving a ‘Hubble time’ $`1/H_014`$ Gyr, gives (from equation (17)) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r2\times 10^5`$. The widest possible range for the matter density is $`0.005<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.3`$ (absorbing therein any uncertainty in $`H_0`$). The lower limit corresponds to luminous baryonic matter (only). The upper limit is supplied by, for instance, fitting super-nova data to the (GR) Friedmann equation - see for example Perlmutter et al (1999) and Riess (2000). Although the applicability to PV of such a large value for the upper limit is questionable, it will turn out not to make any difference to the conclusion of this section.

To achieve a lepton era requires a temperature of around $`T_{lepton}10^{10}\text{ K}`$ and therefore an initial scale factor of no more than $`a\left(0\right)=T_{CMB}/T_{lepton}3\times 10^{10}`$. At those temperatures, the matter term in equation (21) is certainly negligible compared to the radiation term, and therefore one can take

$$a^2\left(0\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_r/a^2\left(0\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(22)
Equation (18) gives that the magnitudes of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can differ at most by a number of order unity, from which it is deduced that the first term in equation (22) is negligible compared with the second term. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_r/a\left(0\right)^22\times 10^{14}.`$ But such a large number has un-physical consequences on the age, for example, which can be shown as follows. With reference to equation (20), over the interval $`a\left(0\right)a1`$, the very large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ makes the square root very small everywhere except when $`a`$ is very close to $`a\left(0\right)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ have similar magnitudes, it follows that $`a^2\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_v\right|\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|`$ and $`a\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ over the region of importance. Therefore equation (20) is well approximated by

$$\tau \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}H_0}\underset{a\left(0\right)}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑a\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{/}a^2}}.$$
(23)
Rearranging a little and then performing the integral:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_r}H_0}\underset{a\left(0\right)}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑a\frac{a}{\sqrt{\left(a\mathrm{/}a\left(0\right)\right)^21}}\hfill \\ & =\frac{a^2\left(0\right)\sqrt{\left(a\mathrm{/}a\left(0\right)\right)^21}}{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_r}H_0}|_{a\left(0\right)}^1\frac{a\left(0\right)}{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_r}H_0}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Using the numbers above, this gives an age of only 540 yrs. Consequently it must be concluded that PV cosmology is incapable of accommodating either a lepton or a baryon era.

### 3.3 Radiation era

Existence of a radiation era requires that the initial radiation energy density is at least equal to that of matter: $`a\left(0\right)=\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{/}\mathrm{\Omega }_m.`$ Using this in equation (21) (where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ comes from equation (18), but in any case $`a^2\left(0\right)\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_v\right|\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right|`$ and so can be neglected) gives

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }2\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{/}a^2\left(0\right)=2\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2\mathrm{/}\mathrm{\Omega }_r2.5,$$
(25)
the upper limit corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.005.`$ The approximation used for the lepton era, (24), gives

$$\tau \frac{a\left(0\right)}{\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Omega }_r}H_0}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{3}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_mH_0}$$
(26)
which, using the numbers above, gives an age less than 7.2 Gyr. However, that approximation required $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }1`$, so this result cannot be expected to be very accurate. In fact an accurate numerical evaluation of equation (20) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=2.5`$ gives an age of 6.6 Gyr or less, the upper limit corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.005`$. This age is unacceptably short - too small to accommodate main-sequence behaviour in globular clusters for example (Peacock, 1999). It must be concluded that PV cosmology cannot encompass an era of radiation domination. In short, combining the conclusions of this and the previous section, PV cosmology starts with a big whimper.

### 3.4 Mass density

Current estimates of the matter density based upon observation of the proportions of the light elements inferred from big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) are around $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.1`$. But given the absence of a baryonic era in PV, the theory is denied the chain of inference that leads from BBN to this value. Further, though recent observations of super-nova lead to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v0.7,\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ \- the difference between this value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and the value inferred from BBN is missing matter - these super-nova $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ are due (effectively) to regression of the data onto the curve predicted by equation (16) when $`\lambda =1`$, which results cannot be carried over into PV, where $`\lambda =1\mathrm{/}3.`$ With the bases for large contributions from dark and missing matter gone, it seems that at least for the present PV should be examined with an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ much closer to the observed - luminous - density, plus whatever component is found to come from the neutrino. This conclusion is vulnerable to revision however, if a significant dark-matter contribution turns out to be demanded for other reasons, such as, for example, anomalous rotation of spiral galaxies.

### 3.5 Cosmological red shift

A consequence of the non-zero initial scale factor is the upper limit it imposes on the cosmological redshift of distant objects: $`\mathrm{max}\left(z\right)=1/a\left(0\right)1,`$ where $`a\left(0\right)`$ is the smallest positive root of equation (21) ($`a\left(0\right)`$ \- and therefore $`\mathrm{max}\left(z\right)`$ \- are functions of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$). Fig. 1 is a plot of the maximum redshift versus matter density for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\pm 0.1`$ obtained from a numerical solution of equation (21). It is observed that PV can accommodate all the observed redshifts provided there is an overall deficit in the energy density. At the time of writing the largest claimed redshift for a radio galaxy is TN J0924-2201 at $`z=5.19`$ (Breugel, 2000). But Fig. 2 shows that if, axiomatically, (say) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, then PV is incompatible with a cosmological origin of redshifts beyond 3, since these correspond to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.005`$ \- the luminous mass density. Since the observational upper limit on the redshift is subject to constant review, it is not possible to use that to deduce a firm relation between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ in PV. Loose constraints on the range of these parameters can be inferred from Figs. 2 and 3, which shows simultaneously how they affect the maximum redshift, the current age, and the deceleration parameter over different ranges. In both figures redshifts beyond 10 are increasingly crowded and have been suppressed. Broadly, one sees PV requires that

$$0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }<0.4,0.005<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.1$$
(27)
the intersection of these two domains giving a reasonable range of ages, and a range of redshifts that encompass the most distant observations to date. Note however that in light of the arguments of the previous section (absence of motivation for dark or missing matter), current observations constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ to the lower end of this range.

### 3.6 Deceleration parameter

It would appear from the form of equation (16) that the deceleration parameter $`qa\ddot{a}/\dot{a}^2`$, since it is independent of the scale of both $`a`$ and $`\tau `$, is independent of $`\lambda `$. However, taking into account that the four $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ on the right hand side of equation (16) are internally related in a way that depends on $`\lambda `$ through equation (18), the PV prediction for the deceleration parameter as a function of the three remaining true degrees of freedom differs from that of GR. Differentiating both sides of equation (16) one obtains

$$\frac{2\lambda }{H_0^2}\frac{da}{d\tau }\frac{d^2a}{d\tau ^2}=\frac{da}{d\tau }\left(2a\mathrm{\Omega }_v\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a^2}\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_{EM}}{a^3}\right)$$
(28)
and therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q\frac{a\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}^2}& =\frac{a\left(a\mathrm{\Omega }_v\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_r/a^3\right)}{a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }_m/a+\mathrm{\Omega }_r/a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }}\hfill \\ & =\frac{a\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+\mathrm{\Omega }_ra^4\mathrm{\Omega }_v}{a^4\mathrm{\Omega }_va^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }+a\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
It may be observed that in PV, because the first derivative of the scale factor is zero when $`\tau =0`$ (it is infinite in the FLRW cosmologies), the deceleration parameter defined above is negative infinite there. The present (and therefore ‘local’) value for both theories is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q_0& q|_{a=1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_v}{\mathrm{\Omega }_v\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_v\right)=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left(3\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)1\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
where equation (18) was used. For PV in particular

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q_0& =3\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_v\right)\hfill \\ & =3\left(3\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_r\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
Rearranging equation (31), one sees that the condition for a locally accelerating universe ($`q_0<0`$ ) is that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }<3\mathrm{\Omega }_m/2+2\mathrm{\Omega }_r+1/3.$$
(32)
From equation (27) it is observed that the plausible range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ encompasses both local acceleration and deceleration. Specifically, the range of $`q_0`$ consistent with equation (27) is

$$1.15q_00.18.$$
(33)
Contours of constant $`q_0`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are plotted in Figs. 2 and 3.

Some caution is necessary in comparing published results of $`q_0`$ with the value predicted by equation (31): where $`q_0`$ is deduced effectively from a parametric fit of the Friedmann equation to the scale factor as deduced from redshift and brightness data, e.g. Riess (2000), the reported value will be applicable exclusively to GR and not PV.

### 3.7 Future collapse and oscillation

The condition for future collapse is that the right hand side of equation (16) becomes zero at some $`a>1`$, i.e. equation (21) possesses more than one real positive solution. At that point $`\left(da/d\tau \right)^2=0`$ and the expansion stalls and will subsequently reverse. Combining equations (18) and (21) gives that future collapse requires

$$a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_v1/3\mathrm{\Omega }_v\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_r+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{a^2}=0$$
(34)
to have a solution in the range $`a>1`$. Solving equation (34) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_v=\frac{1}{3\left(a^21\right)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a\left(a+1\right)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{a^2}$$
(35)
one sees that the range $`1<a<\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to

$$0<\mathrm{\Omega }_v<\mathrm{}.$$
(36)
An infinite vacuum density corresponds to a turn-around point at the present time when $`a=1`$. (A turn-around earlier than this has effectively been excluded by the normalisation process in which the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined in equation (17) are based upon on $`a=1`$ present-day values.) The condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=0`$ is a special ‘critical’ case and is discussed separately below. Inserting equation (36) into equation (18), the constraint on the total energy for future collapse is

$$1/3+\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_r<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }<\mathrm{}.$$
(37)
Solutions of equation (16) satisfying equation (37) are necessarily oscillating and symmetric about the times of maximum and minimum scale factor. If the constraint equation (37) is not satisfied, then the expansion is monotonic (‘open’). The locus of this constraint is shown as a heavy line in Fig. 3. (The line may be regarded as a contour of constant period for the particular case that the period is infinite - other equal-period contours could be drawn above this line.) It may be observed that a limited range of plausible combinations of age and maximum redshift lie above this line - the majority of plausible combinations lie below. Comparison of equation (37) with equation (32) reveals that monotonic expansion is a sufficient but not necessary condition for local acceleration. (Consequently, a local acceleration does not guarantee continued expansion.)

As an example, PV predicts an oscillating cosmology using values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.01`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.4`$, and therefore - from equation (18) - $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=0.06`$. The first positive root of equation (21) is $`a\left(0\right)=0.027`$, implying a maximum observable redshift of 36. Using this value for the lower limit of the integration in equation (20), and using $`1/H_0=14`$ Gyr, one obtains a present age of 14 Gyr. From equation (31), the present deceleration parameter is 0.16. From further numerical investigation it is deduced that for these values the expansion started to decelerate at an age of 7 Gyr, i.e. 7 Gyr ago. Figs. 4 and 5 show the evolution of the scale factor over time from numerical solution of equation (16) for these particular values. The oscillation has a period of 109 Gyr and a maximum scale-factor of 2.65. Also included for comparison is a plot of the scale factor according to GR for the currently favoured values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, whereupon equation (18) gives that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=0.7`$.

### 3.8 Monotonic expansion

Any combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ below the heavy line in Fig. 3 gives rise to monotonic expansion. If the mass density is left unchanged from the previous example at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.01`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is reduced by 0.1 from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.4`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.3`$, then, from equation (18), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=0.04`$. Recalling that the condition for oscillation is that the vacuum density is positive, this combination must lead to an open universe. The first positive root of equation (21) is $`a\left(0\right)=0.035`$, implying a maximum observable redshift of 28. Using this value for the lower limit of the integration in equation (20), and using $`1/H_0=14`$ Gyr, one obtains a present age of 15 Gyr. From equation (31), the present deceleration parameter is -0.15 - i.e. a positive acceleration.

### 3.9 Critical expansion

If there is no contribution from the vacuum at all, then from equation (35) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=0a=\mathrm{},`$ i.e. PV predicts an oscillating universe with an infinite maximum scale factor and therefore with an infinite period. Constructing an example using the same mass-density as in the previous example, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.01,`$ equation (18) gives that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.34.`$ The first positive root of equation (21) is $`a\left(0\right)=0.031,`$ implying a maximum observable redshift of 31. Using this value for the lower limit of the integration in (19), and using $`1/H_0=14`$ Gyr, one obtains a present age of close to 14.5 Gyr. From equation (31), the present deceleration parameter is -0.015 - i.e. a small positive acceleration. The scale factor versus time for this configuration is given in Figs. 4 and 5 along with the previous open and oscillating universe configurations, and the currently favoured GR evolution.

### 3.10 Comparisons

For the particular values considered above, there is little difference at the present time between the oscillating, monotonic, and critical expansions, and the currently favoured GR prediction. The present-day values and slopes are within a few percent of each other, and the second derivative of the scale factor (and therefore $`q_0`$) is close to zero for all four trajectories. It is not significant that, of the three PV scenarios considered, the oscillating evolution is the closest to the GR prediction, because there is sufficient leeway in the mass and vacuum density parameters to change the ranking. But it is noteworthy that with little or no vacuum term, and no clear need for ‘missing’ mass, PV comes close to the favoured GR-determined trajectory, achieving accord with current estimates of the Hubble constant, model-independent estimate of age, luminous mass-density, and accommodation of the maximum observed redshift.

### 3.11 Summary of cosmological findings

The principal characteristics of the scalar, flat-space, PV cosmology investigated above are summarized below:

1. Compared with GR, the scale factor evolves according to a Friedmann-like equation in which the $`\dot{a}^2`$ term is multiplied by $`1/3`$, with all the other terms appearing in the same way.
2. A consequence is that PV cosmology has no big bang, but starts smoothly from a non-zero scale factor.
3. The initial scale factor is too large for a baryon, lepton, or radiation era.
4. Consequently PV can explain neither present proportions of light elements nor the cosmic microwave background as the result of high temperatures in the very early history.
5. The non-zero scale factor gives rise to a maximum possible redshift.
6. PV can predict an age, deceleration parameter, and maximum possible redshift for particular values of mass density and overall system energy compatible with observation, without missing mass, and without a vacuum term.
7. PV cosmologies compatible with observation can be monotonic, critical, or oscillating.
8. Compatibility demands that PV contain a significant contribution from the vacuum, or an offset to the total energy, or both.

## 4 Gravitational radiation

### 4.1 Gravitational potential in the far-field

$`K`$-field radiation induced by the motion of ‘local’ matter can be decoupled from Cosmologically induced variations provided the (retarded) distance to the radiation source is small on the Cosmological scale. Then, neglecting any EM contribution (including pressure), and the vacuum term, the appropriate action is

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill L=c^2d^4x\left\{\frac{1}{32\pi G}\left(c^2\left(\mathrm{log}K\right)^2\left(\frac{K}{t}\right)^2\right)+\rho _m\sqrt{\frac{1}{K}\frac{v^2}{c^2}K}\right\}\end{array}$$
(38)
where $`\rho _m(𝐱,t)`$ is presumed known distribution of matter and $`𝐯(𝐱,t)`$ its local velocity field. Writing $`K(𝐱,t)=1+2\varphi (𝐱,t)`$ ($`\varphi `$ is the dimensionless Newtonian gravitational potential) and going immediately to the weak-field limit $`\left|\varphi \right|1`$, the action is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L& =c^2d^4x\{\frac{1}{8\pi G}(c^2(\varphi )^2\left(\frac{\varphi }{t}\right)^2)\hfill \\ & +\rho _m(\sqrt{1v^2\mathrm{/}c^2}\varphi \frac{1+v^2\mathrm{/}c^2}{\sqrt{1v^2\mathrm{/}c^2}}+O\left(\varphi ^2\right))\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
To first order, the Euler equation for $`\varphi `$ is a scalar wave equation sourced by the matter:

$$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2\varphi }{t^2}^2\varphi =\frac{4\pi G\rho _m}{c^2}.$$
(40)
In the case of relativistic speeds, it is easily seen from equation (39) that the right hand side of the above has an additional coefficient $`\left(1+v^2\mathrm{/}c^2\right)\mathrm{/}\sqrt{1v^2\mathrm{/}c^2}.`$ From application of the virial theorem Dicke (1961) interprets this term as the total energy. His interpretation rests, however, upon the assumption of particles interacting principally electromagnetically, whereas the ‘particle’ sources of mass contemplated here are stars interacting gravitationally. Further, in the latter case relativistic orbital speeds are possible only in the presence of strong fields - the weak-field limit is necessarily non-relativistic. Consequently equation (40) cannot be extended to the relativistic domain, which obviates interpretation of the relativistic terms and discussion of the applicability of the virial theorem to this case.

The attention here is exclusively on the power lost to gravitational radiation, for which it is sufficient to take the far-field limit of the retarded Green function, whereupon the solution of equation (40) is

$$\varphi (𝐫,t)\varphi _{far}(𝐫,t)=\frac{G}{c^2r}d^3𝐫^{}\rho _m(𝐫^{},t\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|/c)$$
(41)
for large $`r`$. Expanding,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|& =\sqrt{r^2+r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2𝐫.𝐫^{}}\hfill \\ & =r\left(1\frac{\widehat{𝐫}.𝐫^{}}{r}+\frac{r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(\widehat{𝐫}.𝐫^{})^2}{2r^2}+\mathrm{}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
the far-field potential is

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \varphi _{far}(𝐫,t)=\frac{2G}{c^2r}d^3𝐫^{}\{1+\widehat{𝐫}.𝐫^{}\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}+\frac{(\widehat{𝐫}.𝐫^{})^2}{2c^2}\frac{^2}{t^2}+O\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)\}\rho _m(𝐫^{},tr/c).\end{array}$$
(43)
Since in the Laurent expansion of the gravitational potential only terms proportional to $`1/r`$ contribute to the radiated power, the higher order terms can be ignored. The first two terms of equation (43) are the monopole and dipole contributions to the potential, proportional respectively to the total energy and momentum of the source matter. For a closed system (ignoring the radiation itself), these are constant in time and cannot contribute to radiation since the latter is driven by non-vanishing time-derivatives of the potential (see below). For radiation, therefore, it is sufficient to take

$$\varphi _{rad}(𝐫,t)=\frac{G}{c^4r}\frac{^2}{t^2}d^3𝐫^{}(\widehat{𝐫}.𝐫^{})^2\rho _m(𝐫^{},tr/c).$$
(44)
### 4.2 Radiation and radiated power

The Euler equation for distant test particles gives a force proportional to $`\varphi `$ which, in the far field, is directed away from the source - the radiation is longitudinally polarized. For maximum sensitivity therefore, PV radiation detectors should be aligned correspondingly. Since this is orthogonal to the direction predicted by GR, direct detection of gravitational radiation from a Cosmological source would be a decisive test in favor of one of the two theories.

Disregarding the polarization, the total power radiated is the rate of energy crossing a closed surface far from the source. Corresponding to the Lagrangian density $`,L=d^4x,`$ the energy density in the radiation field is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\varphi _{rad}\right)& =\frac{}{\left(\varphi _{rad}/t\right)}\frac{\varphi _{rad}}{t}\hfill \\ & =\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}\left[\left(\varphi _{rad}\right)^2+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{\varphi _{rad}}{t}\right)^2\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
At sufficiently great distances from the source, the field momentum is exclusively radial and therefore the power $`P`$, say, is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P& =cd\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐫r^2\left(\varphi _{rad}\right)\hfill \\ & =\frac{c^5}{8\pi G}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐫r^2\left\{\left(\varphi _{rad}\right)^2+\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{\varphi _{rad}}{t}\right)^2\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
With reference to equation (44), the spatial gradient of $`\varphi `$ will introduce additional powers of $`1/r`$ when it operates on the $`\widehat{𝐫}`$, and therefore does not contribute to the power through a surface at a large distance from the source. The spatial gradient operating on the retarded time *does* contribute however:

$$\left(f\left(tr/c\right)\right)^2=\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{f\left(tr/c\right)}{t}\right)^2.$$
(47)
Using this, and the expression for the potential equation (44), the radiated power, (46), is

$$P=\frac{G}{4\pi c^5}d\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐫\left(\widehat{𝐫}^T\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\widehat{𝐫}\right)^2$$
(48)
where $`𝐈`$ is the matrix of retarded quadrupole moments:

$$I_{i,j}=d^3𝐫^{}r_i^{}r_j^{}\rho _m(𝐫^{},tr/c).$$
(49)
The orientation average in equation (48) can be computed as follows. Since $`𝐈`$ and $`\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}`$ are symmetric they can be diagonalised by a similarity transform, $`\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}=𝐔^T𝚲𝐔`$, where $`𝚲`$ is diagonal and $`𝐔`$ is a real orthogonal matrix representing a proper rotation. It follows that the integration in equation (48) can be performed in the rotated coordinate system, $`𝐫\mathrm{𝐔𝐫}`$, with $`\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}`$ replaced by $`𝚲`$:

$$P=\frac{G}{c^5}\left(\widehat{𝐫}^T𝚲\widehat{𝐫}\right)^2,$$
(50)
where $``$ denotes the orientation average. (The Jacobian for the transformation is $`det\left(𝐔^1\right)=det\left(𝐔\right)=1.`$) Writing $`𝐑\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{𝐫}^T=𝐑^T,`$ one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\widehat{𝐫}^T𝚲\widehat{𝐫}\right)^2& =\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(𝐑𝚲\right)^2\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{ijkl}{}R_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jk}R_{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{li}=\underset{ij}{}R_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
In a Cartesian basis $`R_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ has only two distinct values: one for all the diagonal terms, and one for all the off-diagonal terms. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\widehat{𝐫}^T𝚲\widehat{𝐫}\right)^2& =R_{aa}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+R_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j\\ ij\end{array}}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ii}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}\hfill \\ & =R_{aa}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{tr}\left(𝚲^2\right)+R_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{tr}^2\left(𝚲\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
where $`ab.`$ One finds by explicit calculation that $`R_{aa}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1/5`$ and $`R_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1/15.`$ Using this and that the trace is insensitive to rotations, one finally obtains

$$P=\frac{G}{15c^5}\left(2\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}^2\right)+\mathrm{tr}^2\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)\right).$$
(53)
By contrast, the GR result is (Landau & Lifshitz, 1980; Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, 2000):

$$P_{GR}=\frac{G}{5c^5}\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{\stackrel{-}{𝐈}}^2\right)$$
(54)
where $`\stackrel{-}{𝐈}`$ is the reduced quadrupole moment tensor $`𝐈\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{tr}\left(𝐈\right)/3.`$ Using that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{\stackrel{-}{𝐈}}^2\right)& =\mathrm{tr}\left(\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{3}\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)\right)^2\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}^2\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)+\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{tr}^2\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}^2\right)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{tr}^2\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)\hfill \end{array},$$
(55)
the GR and PV results can be combined into a single expression

$$P\left(\lambda \right)=\frac{G}{60c^5}\left(3\left(3+\lambda \right)\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}^2\right)+2\left(13\lambda \right)\mathrm{tr}^2\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)\right)$$
(56)
where, as before, the values $`\lambda =1,1/3`$ correspond to GR and PV respectively.

### 4.3 Orbital decay of a binary system

The components of the quadrupole moment tensor for a pair of objects in mutual elliptical orbit in the $`x,y`$ plane are (Peters & Mathews, 1963)

$$\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}=\beta \left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^2𝐌$$
(57)
where $`𝐌`$ is a 3x3 matrix with components

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_{xx}& =3e\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}^2\psi 2\mathrm{sin}2\psi \hfill \\ \hfill M_{yy}& =e\mathrm{sin}\psi \left(1+3\mathrm{cos}^2\psi \right)+2\mathrm{sin}2\psi \hfill \\ \hfill M_{xy}& =M_{yx}=2\mathrm{cos}2\psi +e\mathrm{cos}\psi \left(3\mathrm{cos}^2\psi 1\right)\hfill \\ \hfill M_{iz}& =M_{zi}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
where $`i\{x,y,z\},`$ and

$$\beta ^2=\frac{4G^3m_1^2m_2^2\left(m_1+m_2\right)}{a^5\left(1e^2\right)^5},$$
(59)
and where the $`m_i`$ are the respective masses, $`\psi `$ is the phase, $`a`$ is the semi-major axis, and $`e`$ is the eccentricity of the orbits. Use of equations (57) and (58) gives

$$\mathrm{tr}\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}^2\right)=\beta ^2\left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^4\left(e^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +8\left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^2\right)$$
(60)
and

$$\mathrm{tr}^2\left(\stackrel{\dot{}\dot{}\dot{}}{𝐈}\right)=\beta ^2\left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^4e^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi .$$
(61)
Substitution of these into equation (56) gives that the total power is

$$P(\lambda ,\psi )=\frac{G\beta ^2}{60c^5}\left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^4X(\lambda ,\psi )$$
(62)
where

$$X=\left(113\lambda \right)e^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +24\left(3+\lambda \right)\left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^2.$$
(63)
Since interest is restricted to secular effects, it is safe to work with the power averaged over an orbital cycle, $`\tau `$, say: $`\overline{P}\left(\lambda \right)=\underset{0}{\overset{\tau }{}}𝑑tP(\lambda ,\psi )/\tau `$. Using that, for any function $`f`$,

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\tau }{}}𝑑tf\left(\psi \right)=\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\psi f\left(\psi \right)\mathrm{/}\dot{\psi }$$
(64)
and that the rate of change of phase of an elliptical orbit is

$$\dot{\psi }=k\left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^2$$
(65)
where $`k`$ is a constant, the time-average of equation (62) is

$$\overline{P}\left(\lambda \right)=\frac{G\beta ^2}{60c^5}\frac{\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\psi \left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^2X(\lambda ,\psi )}{\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\psi \left(1+e\mathrm{cos}\psi \right)^2}.$$
(66)
Performing the integrations and recalling equation (59) one obtains

$$\overline{P}\left(\lambda \right)=\frac{32}{5}\frac{G^4m_1^2m_2^2\left(m_1+m_2\right)}{a^5c^5}f(\lambda ,e)$$
(67)
where

$$f(\lambda ,e)=\frac{\left(227+69\lambda \right)e^4+4\left(443+141\lambda \right)e^2+192\left(3+\lambda \right)}{768\left(1e^2\right)^{7/2}}$$
(68)
is the model-dependent ‘enhancement factor’, with coefficient chosen so that $`f(1,0)=1`$. It is easily verified that the familiar (GR) result of Peters and Mathews is recovered when $`\lambda =1`$. The ratio of the PV to GR radiated powers,

$$\frac{\overline{P}\left(1/3\right)}{\overline{P}\left(1\right)}=\frac{f(1/3,e)}{f(1,e)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{51e^4+396e^2+128}{37e^4+292e^2+96}\right)$$
(69)
is plotted in Fig. 6 as a function of the eccentricity. The value of the ratio in the limit of perfectly circular orbits ($`e=0`$) is exactly 2/3, and changes only by 1.5% across the full range of eccentricity. That the ratio is less than one is to be expected given the reduced number of polarizations available to the vacuum $`K`$-field compared with the two independent polarizations of weak-field GR radiation. This is in accord with divergence between GR and other theories that have different rules governing generation of radiation (Will, 1977).

### 4.4 Test against observations of orbital decay of a binary system

Using the Kepler results that the energy of the binary system is $`E=Gm_1m_2/2a`$, and its period is $`\tau _b=2\pi a^{3/2}\mathrm{/}\sqrt{G\left(m_1+m_2\right)}`$, one has $`\dot{\tau }_b/\tau _b=3P/2E`$ and therefore (Damour & Taylor, 1991; Wagoner, 1975)

$$\dot{\tau }_b=\frac{192\pi }{5}\nu \left(\frac{2\pi G\left(m_1+m_2\right)}{\tau _bc^3}\right)^{5/3}f(\lambda ,e)$$
(70)
where $`\nu =m_1m_2\mathrm{/}\left(m_1+m_2\right)^2,`$ and where the period has been used to eliminate the semi-major axis. Estimates for the masses may be obtained from the rate of periastron advance, $`\dot{\omega }`$, and the time-dilation parameter $`\gamma `$ in the case there is apsidal motion (Blandford & Teukolsky, 1976). It is important that though inference of these quantities from observation is potentially model dependent, they are computed using the static metric of the center of mass system, in which case the PPN expansion of PV is known to give the same result as GR to the required order (Puthoff, 2002). Consequently, the PV-dependent observational inference of these quantities, and therefore $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, is the same as that of GR. Then, if one regards (66) as a theoretical prediction for the decay rate $`\dot{\tau }_b`$ in terms of the observationally determined quantities $`\tau _b`$, $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, it is concluded that the prediction from PV differs from that by GR by the factor given in equation (69) of approximately 2/3. But since the observed decay rate of PSR 1913 + 16 agrees with the prediction of GR to better than 1%, with more recent research concerned with checking relativistic corrections and other refinements of the analysis presented here (Taylor & Weisberg, 1989), it follows that PV is incompatible with observation.

### 4.5 Summary of gravitational radiation findings

PV predicts gravitational radiation with the following properties

1. Radiation is polarized along the direction of propagation; there is just one polarization degree of freedom.
2. The orbital decay due to radiation of a binary system is always close to 2/3 that predicted by GR, with the exact relation as a function of eccentricity given by equation (69), and is plotted in Fig. 6.
3. This prediction is at variance with the observational data for PSR 1913 + 16.

## 5 Developments

### 5.1 Anisotropic polarizability and the Yilmaz theory

At the time of Dicke’s writing, his theory passed the then four standard tests of GR. Dicke did not investigate the cosmological predictions of the theory, which are reported here for the first time. The major shortcoming of PV reported immediately above - its failure to predict the correct (observed) orbital decay rate of a binary system due to radiation - was unknown to Dicke. The factor of 2/3 disagreement between PV and GR possibly can be attributed to the reduced number of polarization states permitted to the radiation. Depending on the details, a theory accommodating vacuum anisotropy has the potential to accommodate two independent transverse polarization degrees of freedom of radiation, thereby bringing about agreement with the binary pulsar data (and GR). In fact Dicke briefly considered the possibility of an anisotropic version of the theory as plausible, but argued in favor of the scalar version, since it was sufficient to explain the standard test data available at that time (Dicke, 1957).

The Yilmaz theory is a candidate for the generalized - anisotropic - version of PV. As remarked in the introduction, the Yilmaz theory shares with PV the electromagnetic motivation, and, in the case that only $`T_{00}`$ is non-zero, the same form for the metric. This suggests that PV may turn out to be a truncated version of the Yilmaz theory, in the same sense that a theory of electromagnetic interaction would be truncated by keeping $`\varphi `$ but ignoring $`𝐀`$. Since the Yilmaz theory has the full compliment of 10 functional degrees of freedom in the metric, it has the potential to resolve the problem of the reduced radiation rate suffered by PV. To date there have been no published studies of the cosmological predictions of the Yilmaz theory, so it would be interesting to pursue this matter further in a future report. Since the Friedmann equation is predicated on isotropy and homogeneity on the cosmological scale, it is conceivable that such a development will affect only the compatibility with the binary pulsar data through the polarization states available to radiation, without affecting the cosmological predictions of PV reported above. However, no conclusions are possible based on these very broad arguments.

### 5.2 Vacuum contribution

It is recalled that for the Einstein equation with a Cosmological term to retain its tensor form, it is necessary that the vacuum action must have the form $`\text{constant}\times \sqrt{g}`$. With this, the FLRW flat-space metric (i.e. with line element equation (13)) gives that the vacuum contribution appears in the Lagrangian density as $`\text{constant}\times a\left(t\right)^2`$ (equation (6)). The PV field $`K`$, however, is a scalar, and therefore its (Euler-Lagrange) equation of motion is a scalar. It follows that there is no such constraint on the vacuum contribution to the PV action. In principle therefore, other vacua may be contemplated, with potentially radical consequences for the resulting cosmology. In the absence of a solid mathematical basis for a particular form for the vacuum term, some other argument in favor of a particular alternative would have to be provided in order to proceed further. It is noteworthy though that PV cosmology is in closest agreement with observation when the vacuum term is close to zero. Given this, and the arbitrariness of the function dependence of the vacuum term on the scale factor, it could be argued that the vacuum term be expunged from PV altogether.

Alternatively, one might argue that with no constraints on the vacuum dependence on the scale factor there is some justification for regarding the total energy term ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in equation (16)) as a novel, negative-energy vacuum term. That is, equation (6) could be replaced with

$$L_{vac}d^4xa^2\rho _v\left(a\right);\rho _v\left(a\right)=\rho _v/a^2$$
(71)
where now $`\rho _v`$ is a positive constant, which would then generate the Friedmann equation

$$\frac{\lambda }{H_0^2}\left(\frac{da}{d\tau }\right)^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_m}{a}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{a^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_v.$$
(72)
The advantage of this view is that there is now no arbitrary overall energy - the total energy is now zero. Of course, the arbitrariness in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has just been subsumed into the arbitrariness of the vacuum.

### 5.3 PV with a spatially-varying $`K`$-field

Recalling that the PV action is as if the matter and fields are in a curved space-time with line element (3), (of which the flat-space FLRW line-element of equation (8) is obviously, therefore, a special case), it is observed that Dicke’s scalar PV is committed to an isotropic space. In the case that $`K`$ is just a function of time - as it is here - then equation (8) is the FLRW flat space metric (with proper time $`\tau `$ then given by $`d\tau =dt\mathrm{/}\sqrt{K\left(t\right)}=dt\mathrm{/}a\left(t\right)`$ ). It is obvious from the form equation (8) that the other FLRW space-geometries (spherical and hyperbolic) are not accommodated PV. The line elements corresponding to those geometries were first derived independent of GR (see for example Tolman (1987)) based upon Milne’s Cosmological Principle, which, if regarded as an axiom, dictates that PV cosmology entertain only the flat-space metric.

It is noteworthy that the specific form of the three FLRW line elements (plus, of course, the Friedmann equation) can be generated from ‘within’ GR, i.e. without direct appeal to the Cosmological Principle, and without enforcing any symmetry by hand. For example, it sufficient (in order to generate all FLRW three metrics), that that the matter is required to be static and uniformly distributed (in whatever space it exists), and that the metric can be written in the form

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2f(t,𝐱)d𝐱^2$$
(73)
Given that this derivation of the FLRW metrics is, in some sense, achieved more ‘directly’ by the theory of gravity (rather than by a symmetry principle), it could be argued that this is the physically superior of the two routes to the metric. From that standpoint, a similar procedure should be used to decide on the cosmological metrics appropriate to PV. To that end, alternatives to the flat space assumption might arise from an ‘effective’ cosmologically-appropriate version of the PV action, equation (4), that does not, a priori, exclude spatial variation of $`K`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L=d^4x\{\frac{c^4}{32\pi G}& [\left(\frac{K}{K}\right)^2\left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{K}{t}\right)^2]+\frac{\rho _m}{\sqrt{K}}+\frac{\rho _r}{K}+K\rho _v\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
Variation of $`K`$ gives the Euler equation

$$\frac{^2K}{K}\left(\frac{K}{K}\right)^2\frac{K}{c^2}\frac{^2K}{t^2}=\frac{16\pi G}{c^4}\left(\rho _v\frac{\rho _m}{2\sqrt{K}}\frac{\rho _r}{K}\right)$$
(75)
where the $`\rho _i`$ are constant. In principle, given plausible boundary conditions for, say, $`K`$ and $`K/t`$ everywhere at $`t=0`$, solutions to equation (75) should provide cosmologically acceptable functions of $`K`$ that vary in space and time and which will generate PV analogues of the FLRW metrics.

### 5.4 Relation between spatially-varying $`K`$-field and vacuum and overall energy densities

In the Hamiltonian corresponding to the action in equation (74) the spatial gradient term contributes positively, with the same sign as the matter and radiation terms (the sign of the vacuum term is not fixed). Consequently any spatial variation in the metric increases the overall system energy. This is to be contrasted with the effect of the spherical and hyperbolic FLRW metrics in GR, which contribute terms of opposite signs to the Friedmann equation for the scale factor $`a\left(t\right)`$. Since agreement with observation in a flat-space zero vacuum cosmology already requires that PV have non-zero positive energy (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }0.3`$ identified above), it follows that the introduction of space-dependent forms for $`K`$ cannot be used to offset this requirement. In other words, PV without a contribution from the vacuum cannot have zero overall energy in any space-time.

### 5.5 Possibility of a radiation era

Analysis above showed that flat-space PV has no baryon, lepton, or radiation eras. Though the baryon and lepton eras were shown to be orders of magnitude beyond the reach of PV, the same was not true of the radiation era, which was discounted on the basis of an inferred age of 6.6 Gyr or less. It is conceivable that a spatially varying $`K`$-field satisfying equation (75) with appropriately-chosen boundary conditions could satisfy the observational constraints on age etc, and bring a radiation era within the scope of PV by a small adjustment of the metric at very early times (yet without significantly changing the later evolution).

### 5.6 Gravitational redshift and Yilmaz stars

With reference to equation (75), the vacuum behaviour of the $`K`$-field near a massive object (ignoring Cosmological influences) is given by

$$^2K\mathrm{/}K\left(K\mathrm{/}K\right)^2=0.$$
(76)
Setting $`\psi =\mathrm{log}K`$ gives the Laplace equation, $`^2\psi =0`$, from which it is inferred that

$$\psi =\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\left(a_{lm}r^l+b_{lm}r^l\right)Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )$$
(77)
where the $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ are spherical harmonics, and where $`a_{lm}`$ and $`b_{lm}`$ are arbitrary constants to be determined by the boundary conditions. But far from the source of the field $`K`$ must return to a constant value, so all the $`a_{lm}`$ and $`b_{0m}`$ must be zero, and therefore

$$K=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(b_{lm}Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{/}r^l\right)$$
(78)
where the remaining $`b_{lm}`$ can be determined by the conditions at the surface of the source. The important feature of equation (78) is that, regardless of the mass distribution, $`K`$ is everywhere finite outside the mass. Recalling the PV line element, (3), it is seen that the coefficient of the $`dt^2`$ term in the line element is never zero, from which it is deduced that PV does not admit event horizons outside the matter distribution; PV predicts that light from the surface of any star, however massive, cannot be infinitely redshifted, i.e., a star can grow to an arbitrary density without disappearing from view. Hence it is concluded that PV does not admit black holes. This statement does not address the issue of stability; properly applied with an appropriate equation of state, PV may or may not concur with GR predictions for instability and collapse. At this point the only certain (but important) difference is that any collapsed star will nonetheless remain visible, albeit with an arbitrarily large redshift. As a result of this difference with GR, a more thorough appraisal of the validity of PV might need to take into account the possibility that GR-designated cosmological redshifts may have a significant gravitational component. Since, as pointed out in section 5.1, the exponential form of the vacuum metric, equation (78), is common to PV and the Yilmaz theory, the lack of black holes is a prediction common to both theories.

### 5.7 Relation to the quasi-steady-state cosmology

Several authors have presented arguments in favor of a quasi-steady-state cosmology (QSSC) that has no big bang (Burbidge, 2001; Narlikar, Vishwakarma & Burbidge, 2002; Volkov, Izmest’ev & Skrotskii, 1971). A presentation of both sides of the QSSC-GR debate may be found in Burbidge, Hoyle & Narlikar (1999) and Albrecht (1999), respectively. Lacking BBN, they have argued that observed abundances of the light elements are the result of stellar rather than big bang nucleosynthesis - a feature of potential relevance to PV. Also in common with PV, QSSC also lacks an era of radiation domination. QSSC claims that the CMB is thermalized starlight, thermalisation occurring principally in the most contracted phase of an oscillating cosmology. This component of the QSSC hypothesis is potentially relevant exclusively to the oscillating PV cosmologies, including the particular example discussed above and shown in Fig. 4 (which happens to have the same oscillation period, of around 100 Gyr, as that preferred by QSSC). The degree of thermalisation of light from a previous cycle will depend on the rate and depth of the contraction, the details of which differ in QSSC and PV. Further investigation would be necessary to test the viability of this idea within PV.

## Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful to H.E. Puthoff and S. Little for fruitful and enjoyable discussions and suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Contact boundaries of hypersurface singularities and of complex polynomials

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f:(^{n+1},\mathrm{𝟎})(,0)`$ be a germ of holomorphic function having an isolated singular point at the origin. Its boundary $`_\mathrm{𝟎}(f)`$ is the intersection of the hypersurface $`V(f):=f^1(0)`$ with a small sphere $`S_\epsilon `$ centered at the origin, of radius $`\epsilon >0`$. This is a closed oriented $`(2n1)`$-dimensional smooth manifold, which does not depend on $`\epsilon 1`$ up to isotopy. If we consider its embedding in the sphere $`S_\epsilon `$, that is, the link $`_\mathrm{𝟎}(f):=(S_\epsilon ,S_\epsilon V(f))`$, then it determines completely the topological type of $`V(f)`$ (see \[Mi\]). On the other hand, the natural CR-structure on $`S_\epsilon V(f)`$, defined by the maximal complex hyperplane distribution in its tangent bundle, determines its analytical type (see \[Sch\]). Thus we see that the boundary equiped with some additional structure can encode a lot of information on the singularity.

If one considers a polynomial function $`f:^{n+1}`$ then we have to deal with more global objects. Replacing small spheres by large ones, the boundary at infinity of the general fiber of $`f`$ can be defined. Its embedding in the large sphere or its naturally defined CR-structure also provide potentially interesting invariants of $`f`$.

We present here some recent results on an intermediate structure: the contact structure defined by the maximal complex hyperplane distribution. Section 2 collects the definitions and results in contact geometry that we use in the following.

In the local case, Varchenko \[V\] showed that this structure is an analytic invariant of the singularity; we review this work in Section 3. In the global case, we present the authors’ construction \[CT\] of the contact boundary at infinity attached to some polynomial. We therefore have well-defined contact boundaries attached to isolated singularities or to complex polynomials.

These contact boundaries are analytic (respectively algebraic) invariants, but a priori not topological invariants. This motivates the study of their variation in topologically trivial families of hypersurface singularities or of polynomials.

Section 4 is devoted to recent results showing that the formal homotopy class (i.e. the most primitive contact invariant, see Example 2.5) of these contact boundaries is constant in the following types of families, provided $`n>2`$:

1. topologically trivial families of isolated hypersurface singularities, \[C1\].

2. families of polynomials $`f_s`$ such that their general fibers are homotopy equivalent to a wedge of $`n`$-spheres and such that their $`n^{\text{th}}`$ betti numbers are constant in the family, \[CT\].

We end this survey by some remarks and questions in Section 5.

## 2. A reminder on contact and almost contact structures

### 2.1. Families of contact manifolds

For generalities on contact structures, see e.g. \[Bl\], or \[El2\] for a more up-to-date overview.

###### Definition 2.1.

A contact form on a $`(2n1)`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$ is a global 1-form $`\alpha `$ on $`M`$ satisfying the non-integrability condition $`\alpha (d\alpha )^{n1}>0`$. A contact structure on $`M`$ is the hyperplane distribution defined by a contact form. The notions of contactomorphism or of contact isotopy are naturally defined.

###### Example 2.2.

Any smooth level set of a strictly plurisubharmonic function on a complex manifold admits a natural contact structure, given by the maximal complex distribution in its tangent bundle (see e.g. \[El1\] for more details about contact structures and plurisubharmonic functions).

We now give the most general criterion for two contact structures to be isotopic.

###### Theorem 2.3.

(J.W. Gray \[G\]) Let $`\pi :MB`$ be a smooth fiber bundle such that the fiber $`M_{}`$ is a closed, oriented, odd-dimensional manifold. Suppose we are given a contact structure $`\xi _b`$ on each fiber $`M_b`$ which depends smoothly on the points $`b`$ of the base. Then the contact manifolds $`(M_b,\xi _b)_{bB}`$ are all contact isotopic.

This theorem will be used in Section 3 to show that the contact manifolds we associate to isolated singularities or complex polynomials are well defined.

### 2.2. Homotopies of almost contact manifolds

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth closed oriented odd-dimensional manifold. An almost contact structure111This definition differs slightly from the common one, see e.g. \[Bl\]. on $`M`$ is a hyperplane distribution $`\xi TM`$ endowed with a complex multiplication $`J:\xi \xi `$. An almost contact manifold is a manifold endowed with an almost contact structure. Finally, two almost contact manifolds $`(M_1,\xi _1,J_1)`$ and $`(M_2,\xi _2,J_2)`$ are almost contact homotopic if they are isotopic submanifolds of a manifold $`W`$ and if any isotopy between them carries $`(\xi _1,J_1)`$ on an almost contact structure on $`M_2`$ which is homotopic to $`(\xi _2,J_2)`$ in the space of almost contact structures on $`M_2`$.

###### Example 2.5.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a contact manifold. Then any choice of a riemannian metric on $`M`$ and of a contact form defines a complex structure on $`\xi `$: the restriction of the 2-form $`d\alpha `$ on $`\xi `$ is non-degenerate, so it gives a complex structure on $`\xi `$ in presence of the metric. While this almost contact structure is not well defined, its homotopy class in the space of all almost contact structures on $`M`$ is: it is called the formal homotopy class of the contact structure $`\xi `$. This class is easily seen to be invariant up to contact isotopy, and provides the most primitive global invariant of contact structures (see \[El2\]).

###### Example 2.6.

Any (real, cooriented) hypersurface $`M`$ in an almost complex manifold $`(W,J)`$ is naturally endowed with an almost contact structure: the complex hyperplane distribution $`(\xi _M,J_M)`$ is just the maximal complex subbundle $`TMJTM`$ of the tangent bundle to the hypersurface equipped with the complex structure induced by $`J`$. Moreover, we have the following:

###### Proposition 2.7.

Any two isotopic real hypersurfaces in an almost complex manifold are almost contact homotopic.

###### Sketch of proof.

There are two equivalent ways to prove this. The first is to consider homotopy classes of almost contact structures on a $`(2n1)`$-dimensional oriented manifold as group reductions of its tangent bundle from $`SO_{2n1}`$ to $`U_{n1}`$. Then in the context of this proposition, one builds a homotopy between the Gauss maps induced from the embeddings of the hypersurfaces in the almost complex manifold, which gives a homotopy of almost contact structures. This is the approach used in \[C1\].

The second way, used in \[CT\], is to identify almost contact structures with 2-forms of maximal rank when a riemannian metric is fixed. One then chooses a hermitian metric on the ambiant almost complex manifold and constructs a homotopy between the associated 2-forms on the two hypersurfaces. ∎

This proposition means that if we define the formal homotopy class of a hypersurface in an almost complex manifold as the homotopy class of its almost contact structure, this formal homotopy class is an isotopy invariant. Of course, for a strictly pseudoconvex hypersurface (that is, a smooth level set of a strictly plurisubharmonic function) in a complex manifold, which is then also a contact manifold, the two notions of formal homotopy classes coincide.

This proposition will be used in Section 4 to show to that the contact manifolds we associate to isolated singularities or complex polynomials stay in the same formal homotopy class in certain deformations.

## 3. Definition of the contact boundary in the local and global cases

### 3.1. The local case: Varchenko’s work

We summarize in this subsection the main results obtained by Varchenko in \[V\]. While it was known long before that the regular level sets of strictly plurisubharmonic functions on complex manifolds were natural examples of contact manifolds, it was the first time when this was used in the context of singularity theory.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`f:(^{n+1},\mathrm{𝟎})(,0)`$ be a germ of holomorphic function with 0 as an isolated singular point. The contact boundary of $`f`$ is the boundary $`_\mathrm{𝟎}(f)`$ of $`f`$ equipped with the contact structure defined by the maximal complex distribution of its tangent bundle.

The fact that this hyperplane distribution is indeed a contact structure is due to the strict plurisubharmonicity of the squared norm function $`z|z|^2`$.

###### Proposition 3.2.

(\[V\]) The contact boundary of an isolated hypersurface singularity does not depend on the radius of the small sphere defining it up to contact isotopy. Moreover, it neither depends on the choice of analytic coordinates at 0 in $`^{n+1}`$.

###### Sketch of proof.

Gray’s theorem 2.3 is used two times. First, the squared norm function restricted to $`V(f)`$ is a proper submersion over $`(0,\epsilon _0)`$ for $`\epsilon _01`$ sufficiently small: this defines a family of contact manifolds, hence a contact isotopy. Second, since the group of analytic changes of coordinates is path connected, and because of Whitney’s (b)-property satisfied by $`(V(f)\{\mathrm{𝟎}\},\{\mathrm{𝟎}\})`$ (see \[V\] for details), one can construct a convenient family of contact manifolds and then conclude. ∎

This proposition shows that the contact boundary is a well-defined analytic invariant of the singularity defined by $`f`$.

Having shown this invariance, Varchenko applies it to quasi-homogeneous singularities. He proves that in this case the contact boundary is Sasakian (a certain integrability condition, see e.g. \[Bl\]), which implies that its odd Betti numbers are even up to half its dimension. This gives a strong restriction for a singularity to be topologically equivalent to a quasi-homogeneous one. Varchenko considers as examples Brieskorn’s cusp singularities:

$$f_{p,q,r}:(x,y,z)x^p+y^q+z^r+xyz,\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{r}<1.$$

Their boundaries satisfy $`dimH_1(_\mathrm{𝟎}(f_{p,q,r}))=1`$, hence these singularities are not topologically equivalent to quasi-homogeneous ones.

### 3.2. The global case

Let us first take a complex algebraic set $`V^{n+1}`$ having at most isolated singularities. It is proved in \[CT\] that, for large enough radius $`R`$, the intersection $`S_RV`$ is a contact manifold, which is independent on $`R`$, up to contact isotopy. It turns out that instead of using spheres $`S_R`$, which are levels of the squared distance function, one can use the levels of some pseudo-convex rug function at infinity, i.e. a proper real polynomial map $`\rho :^{n+1}_0`$ which is strictly plurisubharmonic (see Remark 5.1 for the relation with the local case). Then the intersections $`\rho ^1(R)V`$ do not depend on the choice of $`\rho `$ and of $`RR_\rho 1`$, up to contact isotopy. These observations yield a well-defined contact boundary of $`V`$ which we shall denote in the following by $`_{\mathrm{}}(V)`$.

Let now $`f:^{n+1}`$ be a complex polynomial function. It is well-known (see \[Th\], \[Br\]) that there exists a finite set $`B_f`$ (which we shall suppose minimal) such that the restriction $`f_|:f^1(B_f)B_f`$ is a locally trivial C fibration. Any value $`tB_f`$ is called typical, as is the corresponding fiber $`f^1(t)`$. The atypical values (i.e. those in $`B_f`$) are due not only to the critical points of the function $`f`$, but also to a certain bad asymptotic behaviour at infinity.

It follows from the above discussion that any typical fiber $`f^1(t)`$ has a well-defined contact boundary $`_{\mathrm{}}(f^1(t))`$. Moreover, we shall show how to define a generic contact boundary, independent on the fiber $`f^1(t)`$, except for finitely many values of $`t`$.

Let $`\rho :^{n+1}_0`$ be a pseudo-convex rug function at infinity. We say that the fiber $`f^1(t_0)`$ is $`\rho `$-regular-at-infinity if there exists a (small enough) disk $`D_\delta `$ centered at $`t_0`$ and a (large enough) real $`R_\delta 0`$ such that, for any $`RR_\delta `$, the level $`\rho ^1(R)`$ is transversal to $`f^1(t)`$ for all $`tD_\delta `$.

It follows from this definition that a $`\rho `$-regular-at-infinity fiber can have at most isolated singularities. By \[T1\], \[T2, Prop. 2.6\], if the fiber $`f^1(t_0)`$ is non-singular and is $`\rho `$-regular-at-infinity for some $`\rho `$, then $`t_0`$ is a typical value of $`f`$.222The converse of this statement is an open problem, to our knowledge (see \[ST\], \[T2\]).

Let $`Reg_{\mathrm{}}f`$ denote the set of values $`t`$ such that the fiber $`f^1(t)`$ is $`\rho `$-regular-at-infinity, where $`\rho `$ is some pseudo-convex rug function at infinity. Then the precise meaning of the notion of “generic contact boundary” of a polynomial $`f`$ is given by the following.

###### Theorem 3.3.

(\[CT\]) Let $`f:^{n+1}`$ be a complex polynomial function. The contact boundary of a regular-at-infinity fiber $`f^1(t)`$ does not depend, up to contact isotopy, on the choice of the value $`tReg_{\mathrm{}}f`$.

###### Sketch of proof.

Let $`d_0`$ denote the squared distance function. We have proved in \[T2, Cor. 2.12\] that the set of values $`t`$ such that the fiber $`f^1(t)`$ is not $`d_0`$-regular-at-infinity is a finite set. It then follows that the complement of $`Reg_{\mathrm{}}f`$ in $``$ is a finite set (which of course contains $`B_f`$).

We first reduce the problem to the case when $`t_1,t_2Reg_{\mathrm{}}f`$ are both $`d_0`$-regular-at-infinity values. Then use a path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from $`t_1`$ to $`t_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of only $`d_0`$-regular-at-infinity values. For sufficiently large $`R`$, $`f_{|\mathrm{\Gamma }}:f^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })S_R\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a smooth fibration. One applies Gray’s Theorem 2.3 to show that the contact boundaries of the fibers $`f^1(t_1)`$ and $`f^1(t_2)`$ are contact isotopic. ∎

The above theorem defines an invariant which we call contact boundary of $`f`$ and which we denote by $`_{\mathrm{}}f`$. Let us remark that it does not depend on changes of coordinates in the automorphism group $`Aut^{n+1}`$ since the class of pseudo-convex rug functions at infinity is right-invariant by the action of $`Aut^{n+1}`$.

## 4. Evolution of the contact boundary in numerically constant deformations

### 4.1. The local case: invariance of the formal homotopy class in $`\mu `$-constant deformations

Let $`f:(^{n+1},\mathrm{𝟎})(,0)`$ be a holomorphic germ defining an isolated singularity at 0. In \[C1\], the first named author adresses the following question: how does the contact boundary vary in topologically trivial deformations $`f`$? A partial answer was obtained (see also Remark 5.2 on Eliashberg’s question): the most primitive global invariant of the contact boundary is preserved in such deformations. More precisely, we have the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

(\[C1\]) Let $`n>2`$ and let $`(f_s)_{s[0,1]}:(^{n+1},\mathrm{𝟎})(,0)`$ be a smooth family of holomorphic function germs having an isolated singular point at 0. Suppose that all these germs are topologically equivalent. Then the contact boundaries $`_\mathrm{𝟎}f_0`$ and $`_\mathrm{𝟎}f_1`$ are almost contact homotopic.

###### Sketch of proof.

We rely on the proof in \[LR\] of the Lê-Ramanujam theorem relating topological triviality and $`\mu `$-constancy of deformations. For small enough, well-chosen positive real parameters $`s,t,\epsilon _0,\epsilon _s`$, one can use Gray’s Theorem 2.3 to show the following contact isotopies:

$$_\mathrm{𝟎}f_0=f_0^1(0)S_{\epsilon _0}\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_0^1(t)S_{\epsilon _0}\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_s^1(t)S_{\epsilon _0}:=M_0$$

$$_\mathrm{𝟎}f_s=f_s^1(0)S_{\epsilon _s}\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_s^1(t)S_{\epsilon _s}=:M_s.$$

Denote by $`W:=f_s^1(t)(B_{\epsilon _0}\stackrel{}{B_{\epsilon _s}})`$ the piece of the fiber $`f_s^1(t)`$ between the two spheres of radius $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\epsilon _s`$. The same reasoning as in \[LR\] shows that, under our hypotheses, $`W`$ is a $`h`$-cobordism between $`M_0`$ and $`M_s`$. Since $`n>2`$, the two hypersurfaces $`M_0_\mathrm{𝟎}f_0`$ and $`M_s_\mathrm{𝟎}f_s`$ are isotopic in the complex manifold $`W`$. We then use Proposition 2.7 to conclude. ∎

### 4.2. The global case: invariance of the formal homotopy class in $`\gamma `$-constant V-deformations

We shall call family of polynomials a family $`f_s:^{n+1}`$ depending smoothly on the parameter $`s[0,\epsilon ]`$, for some real $`\epsilon >0`$. We have used in the local case the equivalence between the topological triviality and the $`\mu `$-constancy, which allowed us to conclude by using the $`h`$-cobordism theorem. In case of polynomial functions, even if we suppose that $`f_s`$ has isolated singularities, the total Milnor number is by far not enough to control the topology of $`f_s`$. A class of polynomials which turns out to be a good candidate for the analogue of the class of germs of isolated singularities is given in the following.

###### Definition 4.2.

We say that a family of polynomials is a V-deformation of $`f=f_0`$ if, for all $`s[0,\epsilon ]`$, the following condition is satisfied:

$$\text{(V)\hspace{1em}the typical fiber of }f_s\text{ is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of spheres }\underset{\gamma _s}{}S^n.$$

If moreover the number $`\gamma _s`$ of spheres is independent on $`s`$, then we say that we have a $`\gamma `$-constant V-deformation.

The class of $`\gamma `$-constant V-deformations has been considered in \[T1, T2\] for proving a Lê-Ramanujam type result concerning the constancy of the monodromy at infinity. It is easy to see that if a V-deformation is topologically trivial then it is $`\gamma `$-constant. The converse is not true, see \[T2\], \[CT\].

###### Example 4.3.

The polynomials with isolated $`𝒲`$-singularities at infinity in the sense of Siersma-Tibăr \[ST\] are examples of polynomials satisfying condition (V). This class includes the polynomials such that all their fibers are $`\rho `$-regular-at-infinity (for some $`\rho `$) and all polynomials of 2 complex variables with irreducible fibers.

###### Theorem 4.4.

(\[CT\]) Let $`n>2`$ and let $`(f_s)_{s[0,\epsilon ]}:^{n+1}`$ be a $`\gamma `$-constant V-deformation of polynomial functions. Then the contact boundaries $`_{\mathrm{}}f_0`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}f_1`$ are almost contact homotopic. In particular, this is the case in topologically trivial V-deformations.

###### Sketch of proof.

It has been observed in \[T1, T2\] that the arguments used in the local case by Lê-Ramanujam (\[LR\]) can be applied in case of polynomials satisfying the condition (V) when replacing the small spheres by large ones. In our context, we paraphrase the proof of Theorem 4.1 like this: for a smooth $`d_0`$-regular at infinity fiber $`f_0^1(t)`$ and for a good choice of parameters satisfying $`1R_0^1s\delta R_s^1>0`$, we get the following contact isotopies:

$$_{\mathrm{}}f_0\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_0^1(t)S_{R_0}\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_s^1(t)S_{R_0}\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_s^1(t+\delta )S_{R_0},$$

$$_{\mathrm{}}f_s\stackrel{\mathrm{cont}}{}f_s^1(t+\delta )S_{R_s}.$$

The cobordism $`W:=f_s^1(t+\delta )(B_{R_s}\stackrel{}{B_{R_0}})`$ between the two contact boundaries is a product $`h`$-cobordism under our hypotheses, which allows us to conclude using Proposition 2.7. Notice that we were bound to pass from $`t`$ to $`t+\delta `$ in the base, since the $`d_0`$-regularity at infinity of $`f_s^1(t)`$ is not guaranteed. ∎

## 5. Remarks and questions

###### Remark 5.1.

For simplicity, we have defined in the local case the boundary of an analytic function germ by means of the squared norm function. But this choice may seem too restrictive: for instance, in \[Lo\] the boundary in defined by any rug function, that is, any proper real analytic function $`\rho :(^{n+1},\mathrm{𝟎})_0`$ such that $`\rho ^1(0)=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. This doesn’t change the isotopy type of the boundary. Since we want to get a well-defined contact structure on the boundary, the good generalization in our context is the notion of pseudo-convex rug function, that is, a strictly plurisubharmonic rug function333 This was used by Ehlers, Neumann and Scherk in \[ENS\] for surface singularities. This doesn’t change the contact isotopy type of the contact boundary, which gives another proof of Proposition 3.2: the class of pseudo-convex rug functions is right invariant by the action of the group $`Aut(^{n+1},\mathrm{𝟎})`$ of analytic changes of coordinates. This is the approach we have used in the global case.

###### Remark 5.2.

In \[El1\], Eliashberg raises the following “$`J`$-convex $`h`$-cobordism problem”: suppose we have a strictly plurisubharmonic function $`f`$ on a product $`W=M\times [0,1]`$, such that the two boundary components $`M\times \{i\}`$, $`i=0,1`$, are level sets of $`f`$. Is it possible to find another strictly plurisubharmonic function $`g`$ which coincides with $`f`$ on the boundary and without critical points?

Were this true, the proof of Theorem 4.1 would improve to yielding that the contact boundary is invariant in topologically trivial deformations. In the global case too (Theorem 4.4) this would yield the invariance of the contact boundaries in $`\gamma `$-constant (and, in particular, topologically trivial) V-deformations.

###### Remark 5.3.

The results of Section 4 were proved using the $`h`$-cobordism theorem, which excludes the surface case $`n=2`$. For normal surface germs, thanks to the plumbed structure of the boundary given by its topological type (see \[N\]), one can show that the formal homotopy class of the contact boundary is in fact a topological invariant. This will appear elsewhere \[C2\].

###### Remark 5.4.

Following the preceding Remark, one may ask in the general case if the formal homotopy class of the contact boundary is a topological invariant, which is a priori a stonger condition than being an invariant of topologically trivial deformations. The answer is only known in the particular case when this boundary is diffeomorphic to the standard sphere $`S^{2n1}`$. This is yes, in the local case, by Morita’s work \[Mo\]. Morita gives formulae expressing the formal homotopy class (which is then an element of $`\pi _{2n2}(SO_{2n1}/U_{n1})`$) in terms of the Milnor number $`\mu `$ and of the signature of the Milnor fiber, which are both topological invariants.