A Cosmological basis for E = mc2

Fulvio Melia
Department of Physics, The Applied Math Program, and Department of Astronomy,
The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Submitted: 10 April 2018

Abstract
The Universe has a gravitational horizon with a radius Rh = c/H coincident with that of the
Hubble sphere. This surface separates null geodesics approaching us from those receding, and
as free-falling observers within the Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-Walker spacetime, we see it
retreating at proper speed c, giving rise to the eponymously named cosmological model Rh = ct.
As of today, this cosmology has passed over 20 observational tests, often better than ΛCDM.
The gravitational radius Rh therefore appears to be highly relevant to cosmological theory, and
in this paper we begin to explore its impact on fundamental physics. We calculate the binding
energy of a mass m within the horizon and demonstrate that it is equal to mc2 . This energy is
stored when the particle is at rest near the observer, transitioning to a purely kinetic form equal
to the particle’s escape energy when it approaches Rh . In other words, a particle’s gravitational
coupling to that portion of the Universe with which it is causally connected appears to be the
origin of rest-mass energy.
Keywords: General Relativity: exact solutions, Relativity and Gravitation, Observational
Cosmology, Mathematical and Relativistic Aspects of Cosmology

1. Introduction answer is no—cosmological redshift is simply the product of

these two [11], better known as the ‘lapse’ function in other
The Universe has a gravitational horizon with radius Rh = applications of general relativity.
c/H, where H is the Hubble constant, coincident with the The concept of a gravitational radius in cosmology is not
better known Hubble sphere [1–5]. Unlike its counterpart always easy to grasp because the observational evidence sug-
in the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, however, Rh is time- gests the Universe is infinite. We are embedded within it, how-
dependent so this surface may or may not eventually turn into ever, and the gravitational influence between us and another
an event horizon in the asymptotic future depending on the cos- spacetime point depends solely on the intervening energy con-
mic fluid’s equation of state. The gravitational horizon was tent. This may be understood quite easily in the context of the
formally introduced in ref. [1], though an unidentified prede- Birkhoff theorem [12] and its corollary (see also refs. [1, 13]).
cessor appeared almost a century ago in de Sitter’s [6] own ac- As such, every observer or particle—no matter where they
count of his now famous solution. In the intervening years, are—is surrounded by a gravitational horizon a proper distance
the choice of coordinates for which Rh appears explicitly in Rh away because the rest of the Universe exterior to this surface
the metric was lost following the popularization of the comov- has a vanishing gravitational influence on the interior.
ing frame, principally by Friedmann [7]. In this paper, we
shall have occasion to use the Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson- Such a limitation to our causal connectedness suggests
Walker (FLRW) metric written in terms of both sets of coordi- a possible impact on fundamental physics. In this paper,
nates. we begin to examine this issue by asking a very basic—
The role played by Rh in any interpretation of the data is yet profound—question concerning the nature of rest-mass
so important that a cosmological model based on its proper- energy—specifically, whether it may be related in some way
ties, known as the Rh = ct universe [1–4, 9, 10], has already to a particle’s binding energy within the gravitational horizon.
passed over 20 observational tests, typically better than ΛCDM. We should emphasize at the outset that we are here making
A summary of the model comparisons may be found in Table a clear distinction between the origin of inertia, i.e., rest mass,
1 of ref. [8]. An example of the impact Rh can have on our m, and the nature of rest-mass energy, mc2 . As far as we know
understanding of cosmological features is the role it played in today, the Higgs mechanism, with its SU(2) internal symmetry
resolving the question concerning whether or not cosmological group, endows inertia to elementary particles that couple to the
redshift represents a new kind of time dilation, separate from Higgs field [14, 15]. Why inertia is associated with an energy
the more conventional gravitational and Doppler effects. The mc2 is a different question.

1
2. The Friedmann-Lemaı̂tre-Robertson-Walker Metric which will signal the dependence of the metric coefficients gtt
and gRR on the proximity of R(t) to the gravitational radius Rh ,
We begin with the FLRW metric for a spatially homogeneous the first two terms in Equation (5) may be rewritten as follows:
and isotropic three-dimensional space, scaled by the expansion
R f˙ −1
" ! #
factor a(t): c dt − a dr = Φ c dt − Φ dR + 2c dt
2 2 2 2 2 2 −1 2
Φ dR
c
dr2
" #
#2
ds = c dt − a (t) + r (dθ + sin θ dφ ) . (1) R f˙ −1
2 2 2 22 2 2 2
" !
1 − kr2 = Φ c dt + Φ dR − Φ−1 dR2 . (8)
c

The comoving coordinates used in this expession include the We now consider the line element along the worldlines of par-
cosmic time t, an appropriately scaled radial coordinate r, and ticular observers, those that have t as their proper time from one
angular coordinates θ and φ. The geometric factor k is +1 location to the next, i.e., comoving observers, as it turns out. In-
for a closed universe, 0 for a flat universe, and −1 for an troducing the proper speed Ṙ ≡ dR/dt along these worldlines,
open universe. The high-precision measurements available to- we may then complete the square in Equation (8) and write
day [16, 17] suggest that the Universe is flat, so we will assume Equation (5) as
the value k = 0 throughout this paper. " ! #2
R Ṙ 2 2
As we proceed through this discussion, we shall see that ds2 = Φ 1 + Φ−1 c dt − Φ−1 dR2 − R2 dΩ2 (9)
Rh c
(ct, r, θ, φ) are the coordinates of a free-falling observer, analo-
gous to a counterpart in the Schwarzschild or Kerr spacetimes. Some may see a similarity between this form of the metric and
But for the latter, it has also been very useful to recast the met- that used to derive the Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations for the
ric in a form relevant to an accelerated observer—one who is interior of a star [19, 20] except, of course, that the latter is
at rest with respect to the central mass—and we shall similarly static, whereas both R(t) and Rh (t) are functions of t in FLRW.
follow this procedure in the cosmological context. To do this,
we introduce the proper radius, R(t) ≡ a(t)r, often used to ex-
3. Binding Energy
press the distance that changes along with the expansion of the
Universe. This proper distance R(t) is a direct consequence of Let us now define the 4-momentum of a particle
Weyl’s postulate applied to an isotropic universe [18], i.e., that
no two worldlines in a cosmology satisfying the Cosmological pµ ≡ (E/c, pR , pθ , pφ ) , (10)
principle should ever cross following the big bang—other than
from local peculiar motions—which requires every distance in where E is its energy, and pi are the usual spatial components,
FLRW to be expressible as the product of an unchanging co- and consider the invariant contraction pµ pµ . For the metric co-
moving length r and a universal, position-independent function efficients in Equation (9), one has
of time, a(t). #2
Ṙ  E 2
" !
We shall follow the procedure introduced in refs. [2, 5] to R  2
Φ 1+ Φ−1 − Φ−1 mṘ = K 2 , (11)
rewrite the FLRW metric in terms of R(t). Writing the expan- Rh c c
sion factor in the form
where K is a constant (i.e., a scalar) yet to be determined, and
we have assumed purely radial motion with pθ = pφ = 0 and
a(t) = e f (t)
, (2)
pR = mṘ , (12)
we put
in terms of the particle’s rest mass m. Note that no additional
r = Re− f , (3) factor, such as a time dilation, appears in Equation 12 because
the cosmic time t, used in the derivative, is also the local proper
so that time at every spacetime point in the cosmic fluid. In the Ap-
pendix, we demonstrate that the contraction of pµ with itself,
dr = e− f dR − f˙r dt . (4) based on the definitions in Equations (10) and (12), is a scalar
and a constant in the spacetime described by Equation (9).
The metric in Equation (1) thereby becomes Equation (11) thus expresses the particle’s energy E in terms
of its momentum mṘ everywhere in the medium, starting from
˙ 2 
 ! 
˙
!
R f  +2 R f c dt dR−dR2 −R2 dΩ2 , (5) the observer’s location at the origin (R = 0) all the way to the
ds = c dt 1 −
2

2 2
c c gravitational horizon at Rh .
Let us re-write it in a somewhat more conventional form,
where, for convenience, we have defined
(cK)2 Φ + (mc)2 Ṙ2
E2 =   i2 , (13)
dΩ ≡ dθ + sin θ dφ .
2 2 2 2
(6)
h
Φ + RRh Ṙc
Now introducing the function and first consider what happens at the horizon. There R = Rh
!2 and Ṙ = c, while Φ = 0. Clearly,
R
Φ≡1− , (7) E(Rh ) = mc2 . (14)
Rh
2
But notice that this value comes—not from K, which one would this is how much energy the particle would need to free itself
naively have assumed ab initio—but rather from the momentum from its gravitational coupling to the Universe within Rh . The
transitioning to its relativistic limit, i.e., pR → mc, while the region exterior to Rh does not participate in this gravitational
contribution from K itself gets redshifted away completely as a interaction. It is apparently this E that is gradually converted
result of Φ → 0 when R → Rh . This result is quite remarkable into kinetic energy (in the form of pR ), reaching its “escape”
because it tells us that the particle’s escape energy as it nears the value pR c = (mc)c at the gravitational radius Rh . Note that in
gravitational horizon is what we would normally call its rest- this sense, mc2 is literally the binding energy required to climb
mass energy mc2 . The emphasis here is on the phrase ‘escape out of the gravitational potential well.
energy’ because this value of E is entirely due to pR at Rh . Mathematical consistency with these ideas is ensured by the
Assuming that the particle has no peculiar velocity at R < Rh , invariance of the contracted 4-momentum vector, pµ pµ , which
we may also write tells us exactly how the energy is changing in terms of the par-
! ticle’s momentum. The physical descriptions we provide here
R inform our understanding of what is happening, but ultimately
mṘ = mc , (15)
Rh it is the invariance of the scalar K that yields the dependence of
pR on R. We do not actually have to calculate E from the grav-
and therefore the general expression for the total energy is
itational interaction itself. This is already done for us through
 !2  !2 the presence of Φ(R) in the metric. In other words, the redshift
R   K 2 2 2 R
E = (mc ) 1 − + (mc ) . effect represented by Φ accounts for the gravitationl attraction
2

2 2  (16)
Rh  mc Rh the particle feels to the rest of the Universe within Rh .
A quick inspection of Equation (9) shows that in the Rh = A more subtle point has to do with why the particle’s in-
ct universe, the metric coefficients gtt and gRR are time- ertial mass is proportional (or even equal) to its gravitational
independent. This is because both R(t) and Rh are proportional mass. We do not attempt to broach this subject here, but as is
to t. And as is well known in general relativity [13], energy well known, this is the basis for the Principle of Equivalence
is conserved along a particle geodesic—here represented by in general relativity. With it, we may use the particle’s inertia
Equation (15)—when the spacetime metric is independent of to characterize the strength of its gravitational interaction with
time [21]. In addition, the fact that the Rh = ct universe has the surrounding medium, so it is legitimate for us to ask what
zero active mass, i.e., ρ + 3p = 0 [3, 4], means that the parti- its gravitational binding energy is in terms of m. Of course, this
cle experiences zero net acceleration, so it cannot gain or lose is the reason we can interpret mc2 as a gravitational binding
energy from the background, and therefore E in Equation (16) energy in the first place. If inertia were unrelated to the gravi-
must be constant within the framework of Rh = ct. But ac- tational mass, then there would be no physical reason at all for
cording to this energy conservation equation, E can be constant us to argue that the rest energy associated with m should have
only for one particular value of K, and that is K = mc, in which anything to do with gravity.
case When discussing such concepts, it clearly matters who the
observer is. From the perspective of an observer fixed at the
E = mc2 (17) origin of the coordinates (ct, R, θ, φ), the Universe is not static.
Every particle moves away from him at the Hubble speed, Ṙ,
everywhere and at all times. which increases steadily and reaches c when R = Rh . From his
This equally remarkable result tells us that the total energy E perspective, the cosmic fluid has a total energy commensurate
can remain constant even though pR increases from 0 at the ori- with its momentum pR . Thus, if the origin of a particle’s rest
gin to its maximum value mc at Rh . We interpret this to mean energy mc2 were independent of its recessional velocity, the
that the particle’s binding energy mc2 at the origin is gradu- Hubble flow would be progressively more energetic as R → Rh
ally converted into kinetic energy as its proper distance from us which, as we have seen, is not confirmed by the invariance of
nears our gravitational horizon, and E becomes entirely kinetic pµ pµ . So for this particular observer, the quantity mc2 repre-
when R = Rh , but always equal to mc2 . sents a blend of stored and kinetic energy, which transitions to
Notice also that we began our comparison of the grav- pR c completely at the gravitational horizon.
itational horizon in cosmology with its counterpart in When viewed in the comoving frame, however, the cosmic
Schwarzschild and Kerr by emphasizing the fact that Rh fluid is always at rest (other than for peculiar velocities that do
changes with time. Yet none of the results, particularly Equa- not contribute to the true Hubble flow). Observers in this frame
tions (14) and (17), are affected by this. Even as Rh increases therefore see only the energy E = mc2 corresponding to pr = 0.
with time, E always remains constant and pR depends only on Strictly speaking, there is a different free-falling frame at each
the ratio R/Rh . So the value E = mc2 and its transition from new location, so the particle’s rest energy is measured by differ-
binding to kinetic energy (via Eqs. 13 and 15) remain valid for- ent observers at different spacetime points. It is this switching
ever. As long as a proton’s mass has remained constant in time, from one observer to the next that replaces the variation of pR
its rest-mass energy today is identical to its rest-mass energy with distance in the accelerated frame.
minutes after the big bang. Finally, it may be worth mentioning that the approach we
have followed here in deriving our result has some overlap
4. Discussion with the method commonly used to infer the mass-energy of
so-called cosmological black holes. Unlike static black holes
The quantity E = mc2 may be interpreted as a gravitational in a flat spacetime background, real black holes must neces-
binding energy because, according to the observer at the origin, sarily be embedded within an expanding FLRW metric (see,
3
e.g., refs [22–27]). Modeling these extended bodies in a curved mU µ . That is, we shall proceed to evaluate the derivative
background introduces various degrees of coupling between
d  µ  dU µ dUµ
their mass-energy and the geometry of the Universe at large, p pµ = m2 U µ + m2 U µ . (19)
notably its apparent (or gravitational) horizon [28]. This in turn dt dt dt
affects their dynamics and their own horizon. While this topic With the four-velocity in Equation (18), and its covariant ana-
does not directly refer to the nature of rest-mass energy per se, logue
the relationship between the enclosed energy of cosmological
black holes and the type of background metric arises from the Uµ ≡ gµν U ν , (20)
same gravitational interaction within a causally connected re-
gion that we have invoked to calculate the binding energy of in which only the metric coefficients
a fundamental particle within the Universe’s horizon. Some is- " ! #2
sues revolving around how to best define masses and energy for R Ṙ
gtt ≡ Φ 1 + Φ−1 (21)
cosmological black holes still remain unresolved, but the steps Rh c
taken to couple the Kerr (or Schwarzschild) and FLRW metrics
are based on similar physical principles that we have used in and
this paper.
gRR ≡ −Φ−1 (22)

5. Conclusion are non-zero, Equation (19) becomes

The identification of rest-mass energy with the binding en- d  µ    d

p pµ = 2m2 Ṙ −Φ−1 R̈ − m2 Ṙ2 Φ−1 +
ergy inside our gravitational horizon is thus quite compelling. dt  " dt
#2 
Indeed, our argument is based entirely on core principles in
!
d  R Ṙ 
m2 c2  Φ 1+ Φ−1 .
 
(23)
 
general relativity. Were rest-mass energy due to something dt 
 Rh c 


else, one would need to explain—within the framework of this
theory—why the total energy at Rh is not greater than mc2 , in In evaluating the right-hand side of this equation, it will be
spite of the fact that pR → mc. helpful to see that
The success of the Rh = ct cosmology in providing such
an elegant, accessible explanation for the origin of rest-mass d d
Φ = Φ−1 = 0 , (24)
energy adds to its credentials as a viable description of nature. dt dt
Its principal divergence from ΛCDM is that it does not have a
and that
horizon problem, so it does not have or need inflation to account
for the uniformity of the microwave background across the sky " ! #2
d R −1 Ṙ R R̈
[29]. Without inflation [30, 31], the standard model could not 1+ Φ = 2Φ−2 . (25)
dt Rh c Rh c
survive, yet even after four decades of study, we still do not
have a complete, self-consistent understanding of the inflaton Therefore,
field (see, e.g., refs. [32, 33]). Perhaps this too is an indication
that inflation never happend, pointing to the Rh = ct universe as d  µ  d R R̈
p pµ = −m2 Φ−1 Ṙ2 + 2m2 c2 Φ−1
the only viable cosmology. Additional high-precision tests are dt dt Rh c
underway [34], and we may have a definitive answer within a d d
= −m2 Φ−1 Ṙ2 + m2 Φ−1 Ṙ2
matter of years. dt dt
= 0, (26)
6. Appendix
so the contraction of the four-momentum pµ is clearly a scalar
and a constant in this spacetime.
In this appendix, we demonstrate that the contraction pµ pµ ,
with the four-momentum defined in Equations (10) and (12), is
a scalar and a constant in the spacetime given by the metric in Acknowledgement
Equation (9). In doing so, we recall the discussion concerning I am grateful to the Instituto de Astrofı́sica de Canarias in Tenerife
the selected worldlines with proper speed Ṙ ≡ dR/dt preceding and to Purple Mountain Observatory in Nanjing, China for their hos-
this equation, and we simplify the procedure by invoking the pitality while part of this work was carried out. I also acknowledge
condition of zero peculiar motion everywhere, i.e., ṙ = 0. As partial support from the Chinese Academy of Sciences Visiting Profes-
such, Ṙ = ȧr = HR, where H is the Hubble constant H ≡ ȧ/a. sorships for Senior International Scientists under grant 2012T1J0011,
In addition, it is trivial to see that R˙h = c in the Rh = ct universe, and from the Chinese State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs
since Rh ≡ c/H (see, e.g., refs. [2, 10]). Since the Universe is under grant GDJ20120491013.
isotropic and homogeneous, the geodesics are radial so, with
zero peculiar velocities, we may also write the four-velocity
U µ ≡ dX µ /dτ = dX µ /dt, where X µ = (ct, R, θ, φ), as

U µ = (c, Ṙ, 0, 0) . (18)

Let us now consider the time evolution of pµ pµ , with pµ ≡

4
References
[1] Melia F 2007 MNRAS 382 1917
[2] Melia F and Abdelqader M 2009 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 18 1889
[3] Melia F 2016 Frontiers of Phys. 11 118901
[4] Melia F 2017 Frontiers of Phys. 12 129802
[5] Melia F 2017 Am. J. Phys. in press
[6] de Sitter W. 1917 Proc Akad Wetensch Amsterdam 19 1217
[7] Friedmann A 1923 Zeitschrift für Physik 10 377
[8] Melia F 2017 MNRAS 464 1966
[9] Melia F 2003 The Edge of Infinity–Supermassive Black Holes in
the Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[10] Melia F and Shevchuk ASH 2012 MNRAS 419 2579
[11] Melia F 2012 MNRAS 422 1418
[12] Birkhoff G 1923 Relativity and Modern Physics (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press)
[13] Weinberg S 1972 Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and
Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (New York: Wi-
ley)
[14] Englert F and Brout R 1964 PRL 13 321
[15] Higgs P W 1964 Phys. Lett. 12 132
[16] Planck Collaboration 2014 A&A 571 A12
[17] Planck Collaboration 2014 A&A 571 A15
[18] Weyl H 1923 Z Phys 24 230
[19] Oppenheimer J R and Volkoff G M 1939 Phys. Rev. 55 374
[20] Misner C W and Sharp C H 1964 Phys. Rev. 136 571
[21] Killing W 1892 J. f. d. reine u. angew. Math. (Crelle) 109 121
[22] Nolan B C 1998 PRD 58 id. 064006
[23] Nolan B C 1999 CQG 16 1227
[24] Kaloper N Kleban M and Martin D 2010 PRD 81 id. 104044
[25] Firouzjaee J T and Feghhi T 2018 Astrophys. Sp. Sc. 363 i.d 256
[26] Moradi R et al. 2017 PRD 96 id. 104007
[27] Lake K and Abdelqader M 2011 PRD 84 id. 044045
[28] Melia F 2018 AJP 86 585
[29] Melia F 2013 A&A 553 id. A76
[30] Guth A H 1982 Phys. Rev. D 23 347
[31] Linde A 1982 Phys. Lett. B 108 389
[32] Ijjas A Steinhardt P J and Loeb A 2013 PLB 723 261
[33] Ijjas A Steinhardt P J and Loeb A 2014 PLB 736 142
[34] Melia F 2016 MNRAS Letters 463 L61