Abstract
We show that a slowly varying Newton’s constant, consistent with existing bounds, can potentially explain a host of observations pertaining to gravitational effects or phenomena across distances spanning from planetary to the cosmological, relying neither on the existence of dark matter or (and) dark energy, nor on any expected high proportions of either of them in the Universe. It may also have implications at very short distances or quantum gravity scales.


Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability Statement
The manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. Observational datasets used for the statistical estimation are retrieved from well-known references, duly cited in this paper.
Change history
22 December 2024
The original online version of this article was revised: In this article in PDF file the affiliations of the two authors were superimposed on one another making them unreadable. The original article has been corrected.
20 December 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05927-0
Notes
At the level of the cosmological density perturbations though, the quasi-Newtonian formalism is expected to differ significantly from the relativistic one. Nevertheless, while such a perturbative study, in an appropriate covariant formulation for the G-variation, is being carried out in some ongoing works [41, 42], we keep it beyond the scope of this paper.
References
D.R. Mikkelsen, M.J. Newman, Phys. Rev. D 16, 919 (1977)
C. Sivaram, K. Arun, L. Rebecca, J. Astrophys. Astron. 41(1), 4 (2020)
C. Brans, R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)
R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 125, 2163 (1962)
Y. Fujii, K. Maeda, The Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (2003)
V. Faraoni, Cosmology in Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2004)
T.P. Sotiriou, V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 451 (2010)
T. Clifton, P.G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012)
E. Papantonopoulos, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Switzerland (2015)
S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, V.K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rept. 692, 1 (2017)
J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70(8), 083509 (2004)
N.E. Mavromatos, M. Sakellariadou, M.F. Yusaf, Phys. Rev. D 79(8), 081301 (2009)
J.D. Bekenstein, R.H. Sanders, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 421, L59 (2012)
M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 270, 365 (1983)
M. Milgrom, R.H. Sanders, Astrophys J. 599(1), 25 (2003)
J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 83509 (2004)
F.W. Hehl, B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064028 (2009)
H.-J. Blome, C. Chicone, F.W. Hehl, B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D 81, 065020 (2010)
B. Mashhoon, Symmetry 14(10), 2116 (2022)
G. Nash, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32(06), 2350031 (2023)
M. Reuter, H. Weyer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 2011 (2006)
I.L. Shapiro, J. Solà, H. Štefančić, JCAP 0501, 012 (2005)
B.L. Giacchini, T. de Paula Netto and I.L. Shapiro, JHEP 10 (2020) 011
B.L. Giacchini, T. de Paula Netto and I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 106006
D.C. Rodrigues, P.S. Letelier, I.L. Shapiro, JCAP 1004, 020 (2010)
D.A.R. Dalvit, F.D. Mazzitelli, Phys. Rev. D 56, 7779 (1997)
T. de Paula Netto, L. Modesto, I.L. Shapiro, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 2, 160
N.R. Bertini, W.S. Hipólito-Ricaldi, F. de Melo-Santos, D.C. Rodrigues, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 479 (2020)
J. Solà, H. Štefančić, Phys. Lett. B 624, 147 (2005)
P.D. Alvarez, B. Koch, C. Laporte, Á. Rincón, JCAP 06, 019 (2021)
N.R. Bertini, D.C. Rodrigues, I.L. Shapiro, Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101502 (2024)
S. Das, S. Sur, Phys. Open 15, 100150 (2023)
D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, Astrophys. J. 604, 596 (2004)
D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, Astrophys. J. 648, L109 (2004)
J. Binney, S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics, Second Edition, Princeton (2008)
A. Yahalom, Symmetry 12, 1693 (2020)
R. D’Inverno, Introducing Einstein’s Relativity, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1992), Chapter 22, pp. 310-312
A. Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, Second Edition, Wiley (2003), Chapter 3, pp. 17-24
A. Rai Choudhuri, Astrophysics for physicists, Cambridge (2010), Chapter 10, pp. 309-313
S. Weinberg, Cosmology, Oxford (2008)
S. Das, S. Sur, How much dark matter do we really need?, in preparation
S. Sur, R. Aggrawal, S. Das, Cosmological consequences of a varying Newton's constant from a nonlocal gravitational standpoint, in preparation
S. Das, S. Sur, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101331 (2023)
D. Scolnic et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 113 (2022)
D. Brout et al., Astrophys. J. 938, 110 (2022)
A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 934(1), L7 (2022)
The Pantheon+SH0ES data release plugin with cosmosys chains and likelihoods, is available at https://github.com/PantheonPlusSH0ES
M. Moresco et al., JCAP 08, 006 (2012)
M. Moresco, L. Pozzetti, A. Cimatti, R. Jimenez, C. Maraston, JCAP 05, 014 (2016)
N. Borghi, M. Moresco, A. Cimatti, Astrophys. J. Lett. 928 (2022) L4
E. Tomasetti et al., Astron. Astrophys. 679, A96 (2023)
A.G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. 853, 126 (2018)
E. Gaztañaga, A. Cabrè, L. Hui, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 399, 1663 (2009)
C. Blake et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 425, 405 (2012)
G.-B. Zhao et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 3497 (2019)
A. Font-Ribera et al., JCAP 2014, 027 (2014)
T. Delubac et al., Astron. Astrophys. 574, A59 (2015)
C. Dong et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 514, 5493 (2022)
R. Monjo, Astrophys. J. 967, 66 (2024)
H. Akaike, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19(6), 716 (1974)
A.R. Liddle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 377, L74 (2007)
J. Solà, A. Gomez-Valent, J. de Cruz Pérez, Astrophys. J. 836 (2017) 1, 43
F. Arevalo, A. Cid, J. Moya, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 565 (2017)
S. Sur, A.S. Bhatia, JCAP 1707, 039 (2017)
K. Pardo, D.N. Spergel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125(21), 211101 (2020)
L. Amendola, S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom (2010)
T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, M. Aspelmeyer, Nature 591, 225 (2021)
S. Das, M. Fridman, S. Sur, Asymptotic freedom in Gravity, communicated
S. Das, M. Fridman, S. Sur, A singularity free classical theory of gravity, in preparation
L. Iorio, M.L. Ruggiero, Schol. Res. Exch. 2008, 968393 (2008)
X.-M. Deng, Y. Xie, Ann. Phys. 361, 62 (2015)
S. Rahvar, B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104011 (2014)
D. Bini, B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D 90(2), 024030 (2014)
M. Roshan, B. Mashhoon, Astrophys. J. 934(1), 9 (2022)
J. Tabatabaei, S. Baghram, B. Mashhoon, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 530, 795 (2024)
J. Tabatabaei, A. Banihashemi, S. Baghram, B. Mashhoon, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32(14), 2342009 (2023)
J. Tabatabaei, A. Banihashemi, S. Baghram, B. Mashhoon, Astrophys. J. 965(2), 116 (2024)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. SS acknowledges financial support from the Faculty Research Programme Grant—IoE, University of Delhi (Ref.No./ IoE/ 2024-25/12/FRP). The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer of the paper, for making several important suggestions and bringing in notice a wealth of valued references.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The original online version of this article was revised: In this article in PDF file the affiliations of the two authors were superimposed on one another making them unreadable. The original article has been corrected.
Appendix: Covariant embedding of the varying G—an illustration
Appendix: Covariant embedding of the varying G—an illustration
Following refs. [17,18,19], consider the nonlocal extension of the teleparallel equivalent of general relativity (TEGR), which we shall refer henceforth as the nonlocal gravity (NLG) theory. The formalism is essentially developed in analogy with the nonlocal electrodynamics of media, wherein the constitutive relations between the electromagnetic excitation \(H^{\alpha \beta } = (\vec {\pmb D},\vec {\pmb H})\) and the field strength \(F_{\alpha \beta } = (\vec {\pmb E},\vec {\pmb B})\) depend on the evolution history and are hence nonlocal:
where g denotes the determinant of the metric tensor \(g_{\alpha \beta }\) and \(\chi ^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\) is a kernel which determines the degree of nonlocality of the electromagnetic configuration.
Teleparallelism, on the other hand, concerns preferred orthonormal tetrad frames, such that
where \(e_\mu ^{~\hat{\alpha }}\) denotes the tetrad field, and \(\eta _{\hat{\alpha }\hat{\beta }}\) is the Minkowski metric of the local tangent space, with \(\hat{\alpha },\hat{\beta },\dots \) being the corresponding coordinate labels, different from \(\alpha ,\beta ,\mu ,\nu ,\dots \), which are the usual curved space coordinate labels. Defining an asymmetric affine connection, known as the Weitzenböck connection
one perceives curvature-freeness, i.e. the space-time is parallelizable, in accord with \(\nabla _\nu e_\mu ^{~\hat{\alpha }} = 0\), and as such, the metricity condition \(\nabla _\nu g_{\alpha \beta } = 0\), where \(\nabla _\nu \) denotes the covariant derivative in terms of \(\Gamma ^\sigma _{\mu \nu }\) given by eq. (37). The space-time nonetheless admits a nonzero torsion
which is nothing but the gravitational field strength, similar to the field strength \(F_{\alpha \beta } = 2 \partial _{[\alpha } A_{\beta ]}\) in electrodynamics (with \(A_\beta \) being the corresponding field potential). On the whole, the teleparallel gravitational formulation is that of a translational gauge theory—an Abelian one, analogous to electrodynamics. Such a formulation is in fact equivalent to general relativity (GR) in the sense that it leads to the same field equations, with the gravitational gauge field strength given by the Einstein tensor expressed in terms of the tetrads and the Weitzenböck connection as
where \(\kappa ^2 = 8 \pi G\) (with G being the usual Newton’s constant), and
In analogy with the electrodynamics of media, Eq. (40) is generally considered as a constitutive relation, with \(\mathcal {H}_{\mu \nu \sigma }\) treated as the gravitational excitation from the gauge theoretic perspective. The nonlocal generalization to this, proposed in a series of papers [17,18,19], is an augmentation of the modified torsion tensor \(\mathcal {C}_{\mu \nu \sigma }\) on the right hand side of Eq. (40) with a nonlocal term \(N_{\mu \nu \sigma }\) whose tangent space projection is expressed as
where \(\chi \) is a causal kernel, and
with \(\widetilde{C}_{\hat{\mu }}\) denoting the tangent space projection of the torsion pseudo-trace vector
and q being a dimensionless constant which determines the extent of the gravitational parity violation.
The Newtonian limit of the NLG theory leads to a modified Poisson’s equation which corresponds precisely to a logarithmic correction term in the gravitational potential we are dealing here in the context of the G-variation. The NLG Newtonian regime has therefore been of interest and extensive studies have been carried out from the point of view of explaining the flat rotation curves of galaxies [72,73,74]. However, beyond linearization, the (fully covariant) NLG theory has no known nonlinear exact solution till date. As such, the focus has shifted in recent times to the study of the local limit of the nonlocal TEGR, construed from the following form of the NLG kernel [75,76,77]:
where S(x) is a dimensionless scalar function of coordinates, which is referred to as the gravitational susceptibility function, in analogy with electrodynamics.
For the spatially homogeneous cosmological space-times, the susceptibility function can be taken to be varying with time only. The nonlocal TEGR equations lead to the modified Friedmann equations:
where \(\rho \) and p denote, respectively, the total energy density and the total pressure, and \(k = 0, \pm 1\) is the spatial curvature constant. In addition, there are two constraints, viz.
Therefore, either (i) \(\, k = \pm 1\) and \(\,S =\) constant, or (ii) \(k = 0\) and S is an arbitrary function of time. While the case (i) implies the same closed and open Friedmann solutions, modulo a numerical scaling of \(\rho \) and p by a factor \((1 + S)^{-1}\), the case (ii) is potentially of much interest as it not only complies with the assumption of the spatial flatness of the universe, which the observations grossly indicate, but also marks the outcome of an effective G-variation, since the above equations (47) and (48) can be recast as the following set:
where
As such, choosing suitably the function S(t), and hence \(G_{\text {eff}}(t)\), one can reproduce the cosmological equations (18) and (21) obtained in the quasi-Newtonian framework (upon replacing G by \(G_0\) and \(G_{\text {eff}}(t)\) by G(t)). Nevertheless, whether such a choice is justifiable from a physical standpoint is presently being examined, among several issues, in the ongoing works [41, 42].
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Das, S., Sur, S. Varying Newton’s constant: a cure for gravitational maladies?. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 1049 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05827-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05827-3