evidence that ∼ 25% of the energy density of the Universe is in the form of dark matter [1 · 5], ∼ 70% is in a non-clustering negative-pressure component known as dark energy [1 · 6] (that acts like Einstein’s cosmological constant [1 · 7] and is driving a contemporary period of accelerated expansion), and surprisingly only ∼ 5% is in the form of the familiar elements listed on the periodic table and described by the standardmodel of particle physics. The geometry of the Universe is now known to be flat [1 · 1], which is presumed to be due to a period of exponential expansion or inflation [1 · 8] that also, through quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field or other fields present during inflation, created a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial Gaussian density perturbations [1 · 9] and gravitational waves [1 · 10]. These fluctuations have been observed in the angular power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background [1 · 1]. It is believed that, through gravitational instability, these very same fluctuations grew and seeded the formation of galaxies and the large-scale structure in the Universe (e.g. [1 · 11]). This model forms a consistent cosmological paradigm that has thusfar been consistent with all cosmological observations and can be used as a baseline to test refined or alternate theories of cosmology.
As a matter of fact, there has already been enormous progress in this undertaking over the last decades, leading to what is often called the StandardModel of Cosmology. In its most prominent manifestation, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model (ΛCDM), it can successfully describe the evolution of our universe in accordance with recent experimental data [4, 5, 6]. The ΛCDM model has only 6 free parameters 1 and it can, for exam- ple, account for the production of the light elements during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), the emission of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) during re- combination, the formation of the large scale structure due to the attractive nature of the gravitational interaction and the current accelerated expansion of our universe. Despite this success, however, the ΛCDM model still does not provide an answer to some very fun- damental questions. In particular, it neither explains the particle physics mechanism that lies behind cosmological inflation nor the generation of the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry.
The important thing about this formula is that for given experimental limit on minimum size of basic particles (which is equal to value of charge Q) and for limit on maximum speed of particle viz. speed of light, c; it gives limit on maximum mass of particle (k) in the range of TeV (What a Coincidence!). This coincidence tells us that the Universe must had started from the “One (Unified) Fundamental Particle” (Instead of one Unifying Force as in case of Grand Unification Theory) having above constants viz. h, k, c & Q in connected way. That means, if anyone wants to find the origin of each of these fundamental constants in separate way, then he/ she have to look into the past i.e. darkness (if possible) before the creation of the Universe. (May be, God doesn’t want us to look into past beyond this Limit, Who knows?).
influence on future systems design. Vendors and bibliographic utilities, like VTLS, OCLC, and RLG have already embraced the FRBR conceptual model in designing their future systems. These and other vendors are engaged in discussion of FRBR through the JSC’s Format Variations Working Group, led by Jennifer Bowen. Although somewhat slow to catch on in the United States, FRBR has been fundamental to recent system designs in Australia and Europe for many years. 7
In the Unification course, we will study the implications of symmetry in field theory. Quantum field theory is used to describe the fundamental interactions as probed in the particle accelerators at CERN, Fermilab, DESY, SLAC etc. It is also the key to understanding phase transitions, whether they took place in the early universe or in modern superconductor physics, so these ideas are also of vital importance to cosmologists and to condensed matter physicists. The course will mainly be concerned with symmetries described by continuous groups (Lie groups) and the discussion will be largely classical, although it is of course motivated by the full quantum theory. Accordingly, this course should only be taken in parallel with the QFT course (the converse, however, is not necessarily true). The objective is to understand the role of symmetry in the StandardModel of elementary particle physics, including a discussion of the mass generating sector of the StandardModel, i.e. the Higgs particle(s) which are currently being intensively searched for at Fermilab and CERN.
The StandardModel is a theory that has been proposed to unify the electromagnetic force, the strong force and the weak force with the exception of the gravity [1-5]. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the StandardModel is widely ac- cepted in particle physics [6-10]. However, its defici- encies that are inconsistent with general relativity, and give no explanation of the origin of mass, the strong CP problem, the neutrino oscillations, the matter-antimatter asymmetry and the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and in particular that the Higgs particle (also called the God particle) has not yet been discovered, allow us to raise doubt on the StandardModel and related theories [11-13].
The standarduniversemodel (hot big-bang cosmology) successfully explains the observations of cosmic mi- crowave background (CMBR) but there are still some unresolved issues i.e origin of fluctuations, Horizon, Flat- ness and magnetic monopole. Inflation is very successfully resolved the theoretical and paradigm in addressing the shortcomings of standardmodel issues [1–8]. Scalar field as a primary ingredient of inflation provides the causal interpretation of the origin of Large scale structure (LSS) distribution and observed anisotropy of CMB [9, 10]. In- flationary standard models are classified into slow-roll and reheating epochs. In slow-roll period, potential energy dominates kinetic energy and all interactions between scalar (inflatons) and other fields are neglected, hence the uni- verse inflates . Subsequently, the universe enters into reheating period where the kinetic energy is comparable to potential energy. Thus, the inflaton starts an oscillation about minimum of its potential losing their energy to other fields that present in the theory . After this epoch, the universe is filled with radiation. According to the current universe, the cold inflation is the ending stage of the inflating universe as compare to the warm infltaion [13, 14]. The warm inflation is only a way that thermal radiation production and reheating epoch. The formation of Large scale structure (LSS) and also formation of initial fluctuation can be production of constant density by the thermal fluctuations can become the affects of dissipation. The Hubble parameter is also less then as comparative to decay rates, According to the process of microscope the thermalized particles can be produced. The radiation dominated phase is easily enters into the universe, when the inflating era can be stopped. Finally, the remaining matter parti- cles is produced [15, 16]. In the scenario of warm inflation discussed many points in . The motivation of warm inflation is completely different as compare to their result. In scenario of inflation era, the dissipative effects could be lead to a friction term in the equation of motion and also described the dissipative coefficient. In case of low, high and constant temperature regime particularly described in dissipation coefficient [18–29]. The dissipation coefficient is discuss the two cases weak R << 1 and strong R >> 1 [30, 31]. In scenario of warm inflation era, the general form of dissipation coefficient can be written as;
Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific com- munity, there are some attempts to re-habilitate Le Sage’s theory -. In this re- spect, we would like to stress the importance of the extended theories of gravity in the debate about gravitation, as it is clarified in . A possibility that gravity is not an in- teraction but a manifestation of a symmetry based on a Galois field is discussed in . In 1870, William Clifford made the statement that matter is nothing but ripples, hills and bumps of space curved in a higher dimension and the motion of matter is nothing more than variations in that curvature (see Section 5). Hypersphere WUM follows this idea of the 3D curved World locally bent in a fourth dimension. The local bending de- pends on a gravitoelectromagnetic charge of a macroobject and the elasticity of the hypersphere that is the surface energy density of the 4-ball Nucleus and is in fact the volume energy density of the Medium of the World. Then, according to Clifford the force of Gravity depends on the gravitoelectromagnetic charges of macroobjects and energy density of the Medium (see Equation (3.19)).
In addition to helping shape the Current StandardModel of the Universe, Hubble’s Law also has implications to many other aspects of astronomy. In particular, this simple concept has affected how astronomers view the nature of quasars. Quasars, often referred to as quasi-stellar objects or QSO’s for short, were first discovered in 1963 1 . Their most intriguing aspect lies in their enormously high redshifts, which by Hubble’s Law implies that they are receding away from us at extremely high relative velocities. The exceedingly large recession velocities of quasars imply that they are at distances of 5 to 10 billion light years from the earth. Furthermore, the apparent brightness of a QSO at such enormous separations would imply an energy output of 100 times that of the entire Milky Way Galaxy generated by an object roughly the size of our Solar System! There is no simple explanation for these phenomena, and it is proposed that matter falling into very massive black holes is the mechanism whereby such enormous amounts of energy are energy.
One may wonder—if there are so many neutrinos out there, how come the numerous neutrino detectors do not register them in significant quantities? Calculated Fermi energies for CNB  show that it consists of very low-energy neutrinos. Their interaction with matter is weak. Since the neutrino-induced cross-sections depend on the neutrinos energy linearly, such background neu- trinos will not be registered by standard neutrino detectors. In fact, we might never be able to directly observe the CNB.
Based on previous work, it is shown how a time varying gravitational con- stant can account for the apparent tension between Hubble’s constant and a newly predicted age of the universe. The rate of expansion, about nine per- cent greater than previously estimated, can be accommodated by two specific models, treating the gravitational constant as an order parameter. The devia- tions from ΛCDM are slight except in the very early universe, and the two time varying parametrizations for G lead to precisely the standard cosmolog- ical model in the limit where, G G → 0 , as well as offering a possible expla- nation for the observed tension. It is estimated that in the current epoch,
The standard Big Bang theory permits to explain how the universe had been expanding adiabatically, cooling from an initial high extreme condition of temperature and den- sity . After the first second neutrons and protons initi- ate the fusion reactions that set the beginning of nucleo- synthesis stage at temperatures of 10 10 K, where 100
The Swiss astronomer Zwicky named this phenomenon “tired light” . Recent research confirms that the idea of an accelerating universe is not in accord with astronomical observations : “ Using the largest available supernova data set, the JLA catalogue, we find that the timescape model fits the luminosity distance-redshift data with a likelihood that is statistically indistinguishable from the standard spatially flat Λ cold dark matter cosmology by Bayesian comparison. In the timescape case cosmic acceleration is non-zero but has a marginal amplitude, with best-fitting apparent deceleration parameter, q0=−0.043+0.004−0.000” .
It is found that our universe expands with acceleration [1-5]. The accelerating expansion of the universe may be explained in context of the dark energy . Due to nega- tive pressure, the simplest way for modeling the dark energy is the Einstein’s cosmological constant. On the other hand, the study of the cosmological constant is one of the important subjects in the theoretical and experi- mental physics [7-10]. Another candidate for the dark energy is scalarfield dark energy model [11-19]. How- ever, presence of a scalar field is not only requirement of the transition from a universe filled with matter to an exponentially expanding universe. Therefore, Chaplygin gas is used as an exotic type of fluid, which is based on the recent observational fact that the equation of state parameter for dark energy can be less than −1.
Existence of the Medium of the World was stated by Nikola Tesla: “All attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the pheno- mena are futile and destined to oblivion”. Unique properties of the Medium were discussed by James McCul- lagh in 1846. He proposed a theory of a rotationally elastic medium, i.e. a medium in which every particle resists absolute rotation. This theory produces equations analogous to Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations .
According to WUM, all stable particles are created in the 3-sphere World due to the surface energy of the 4-ball Nucleus of the World provided by the 4-dimensional Universe. The World consists of the Medium (protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos, and DMP) and Macroobjects (Galaxy clusters, Galaxies, Star clusters, Extrasolar systems, planets, etc.) made of these particles. There is no empty space or dark energy in WUM. The role of the Intergalactic plasma consisting of protons, electrons, and photons as part of the Medium of the World is analyzed in .
In this paper we will see the model of Universe according to Dynamic Un- iverse Model of Cosmology by visualizing various processes that are happen- ing in the Universe as per experimental evidences. For simplifying the matter here, we will see in part 1: about the Galaxy life cycle, where the birth and death of Galaxies discussed. Probably Universe gives guidance for the move- ment of Galaxies. We call this Part 1: Thinking and Reproducing Universe or Mindless Universe? (Galaxy life cycle). We see every day Sun, Stars, Ga- laxies etc., dissipating enormous energy in the form of radiation by the way of fusion of Hydrogen to helium. So after sometime all the Hydrogen is spent and Universe will die, is it not? … Dynamic UniverseModel says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). Hence Dynamic UniverseModel proposes another process where energy will be converted back into matter and the cycle energy to mass to energy continues, sustaining the Universe to maintain this present status for ever in this form something like a Steady state model without any expansion. This we will see in Part 2: Energy - Mass - Energy Cycle. After converting energy into mass “how various elements are formed and where they are formed?” will be next logical question. Dynamic UniverseModel says that these various particles change into higher massive particles or may get bom- barded into stars or planets and various elements are formed. Here we bifur- cate the formation of elements into 6 processes. They are for Elementary par- ticles and elements generated in frequency changing process , By Cosmic rays , By Small stars , By Large Stars , By Super Novae and Manmade elements By Neutron Stars. This we will discuss in Part 3: Nucleosynthesis.
Abstract The model of production of ordinary and dark matter in the decay of a hypothetical anti- gravitating medium in the form of a condensate of (zero-momentum) spinless massive particles, which ﬁlls the early universe, is proposed. The decays of these massive particles into baryons, leptons, and dark matter particles are caused by some (after-GUT) interaction with the mass scale between the electroweak and grand uniﬁcation. The observed dark energy is identiﬁed with a portion of a condensate which has not decayed up to the instant of measurement. We show that the mass of dark matter particle being close to 5 GeV and the mass of massive particle of a condensate approximately equal to 15 GeV can be extracted from the WMAP and other astrophysical data about the contributions of baryon, dark matter, and dark energy densities to the total matter-energy density budget in our universe. Such a mass of light WIMP dark matter agrees with the observations of CoGeNT, DAMA, and CDMS. The numerical values of the coupling constant of after-GUT interaction and of the decay rate of massive particle of a condensate, as well as other parameters are obtained.
In this paper on the basis proposed by the author model of creation of the Universe as a part of the exfoliated space of the Super-Universe it is considered a scheme of weak interactions in two adjacent spaces: two-dimensional space (World-3) and our three-dimensional space (World-4). This analys is allowed us to treat the processes of weak interaction adequately describing the known experimental results. In particular, it has been shown that the bosons W ± and Z o , responsible for the weak interaction,
 R. Donagi, B. A. Ovrut, T. Pantev, and D. Waldram, Spectral involutions on rational ellip- tic surfaces, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 5 (2002) 499–561, arXiv:math.ag/0008011. R. Don- agi, B. A. Ovrut, T. Pantev, and D. Waldram, Standard-model bundles, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 5 (2002) 563–615, arXiv:math.ag/0008010. R. Donagi, B. A. Ovrut, T. Pantev, and D. Waldram, Standard-model bundles on non-simply connected Calabi-Yau threefolds, JHEP 08 (2001) 053, arXiv:hep-th/0008008. R. Donagi, B. A. Ovrut, T. Pantev, and D. Wal- dram, Standard models from heterotic M-theory, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 5 (2002) 93–137, arXiv:hep-th/9912208. R. Donagi, B. A. Ovrut, T. Pantev, and R. Reinbacher, SU(4) in- stantons on Calabi-Yau threefolds with Z 2 × Z 2 fundamental group, JHEP 01 (2004) 022,