Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in High Energy Physics
Volume 2018, Article ID 7124730, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7124730
Research Article

Energy Definition and Dark Energy: A Thermodynamic Analysis

1Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM), P.O. Box 55134-441, Maragha, Iran
2Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Caixa Postal 5008, 58051-970 João Pessoa, PB, Brazil
3Institut de Mathématiques et de Sciences Physiques (IMSP), 01 BP 613 Porto-Novo, Benin

Correspondence should be addressed to H. Moradpour; moc.liamg@ruopdarom.nh

Received 19 May 2018; Revised 16 July 2018; Accepted 30 July 2018; Published 9 August 2018

Academic Editor: Elias C. Vagenas

Copyright © 2018 H. Moradpour et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The publication of this article was funded by SCOAP3.

Abstract

Accepting the Komar mass definition of a source with energy-momentum tensor and using the thermodynamic pressure definition, we find a relaxed energy-momentum conservation law. Thereinafter, we study some cosmological consequences of the obtained energy-momentum conservation law. It has been found out that the dark sectors of cosmos are unifiable into one cosmic fluid in our setup. While this cosmic fluid impels the universe to enter an accelerated expansion phase, it may even show a baryonic behavior by itself during the cosmos evolution. Indeed, in this manner, while behaves baryonically, a part of it, namely, which is satisfying the ordinary energy-momentum conservation law, is responsible for the current accelerated expansion.

1. Introduction

Friedmann equations, the ordinary energy-momentum conservation law (OCL) (or the continuity equation), and its compatibility with the Bianchi identity (BI) are the backbone of the standard cosmology which forms the foundation of our understanding of cosmos [1]. Since on scales larger than about 100 Megaparsecs, cosmos is homogeneous and isotropic [1], the FRW metric is a suitable metric to study the cosmic evolution [1]. Relations between thermodynamics and Friedmann equations have been studied in various setups which help us in getting more close to the thermodynamic origin of space-time, gravity, and related topics [220].

A thermodynamic analysis can also lead to a better understanding of the origin of dark energy, responsible for the current accelerated universe [1533]. In fact, there are thermodynamic and holographic approaches claiming that the cosmos expansion can be explained as an emergent phenomenon [18, 3446]. Two key points in these approaches are the definition of energy and the form of the energy-momentum conservation law [14, 19, 3438], and indeed their results are so sensitive to the energy definitions that have been employed [19].

In order to make the discussion clearer, consider a flat FRW universe with scale factor [1]filled by a prefect fluid source with energy density and pressure . Einstein field equations and energy-momentum conservation law (or equally the Bianchi identity) lead toforming the cornerstone of standard cosmology. Although, the third equation (OCL) is in full agreement with our observations on the cosmic fluid in matter and radiation dominated eras [1, 47], its validity for the current accelerated cosmos is questionable [48], which may encourage us to consider the relaxed types of OCL to describe the current universe [18, 49]. Combining the Friedmann equations with each other, we getwhich can finally be added to the time derivative of the first Friedmann equation to reach OCL. Therefore, although the third equation of (2) is generally obtained from the conservation law (), one can easily find it by only using the Friedmann equations, a result which is the direct consequence of the Einstein field equations satisfying the Bianchi identity. It means that two equations of the above set of equations (2) are indeed enough to study the cosmos, and the third equation will be automatically valid and inevitable in this situation.

From the viewpoint of thermodynamics, if OCL is valid, then by applying the thermodynamics laws to the apparent horizon, as the proper causal boundary located at [24]where is the comoving radius of apparent horizon, one can reach the Friedmann equations (2) [518]. Indeed, the validity of OCL is crucial, and its relaxation leads to modification of the Friedmann equations [1416, 18]. These results propose that the cosmos is so close to its thermodynamic equilibrium state [1928], motivating us to be more confident of thermodynamical quantities, such as pressure, to study the cosmos [19].

For a FRW background filled by a fluid whose energy density is at most a function of time, we may reachas the total energy confined to the volume and felt by a comoving observer with four velocities . Equation (5) is fully compatible with the combination of the Misner-Sharp mass, thermodynamics laws, and standard cosmology (2) [518].

Now, if we write , where is the comoving volume [1], using (5) and the thermodynamic pressure definitionthen we easily get OCL. In fact, it shows that the form of the conservation law depends on the energy definition. The above arguments also motivated the authors of [19] to use various energy definitions such as the Komar mass [50, 51] andinstead of (2), in order to study the relations between energy definitions, thermodynamics laws, and the cosmic evolution, which led to a model for the cosmic fluid consistent with observations [19].

The Einstein field equations also admit another mass definition, namely, the Komar mass [47, 50, 51]:which clearly differs from (5) unless we have a pressureless fluid [41, 47]. Although this energy definition has originally been obtained by using the Einstein field equations [47], it is in accordance with various thermodynamic and holographic approaches [3446]. In fact, if we accept this energy definition as a basic equation and not a secondary equation [3437], then there are various thermodynamic and holographic approaches employed to get the Friedmann and gravitational field equations in various theories by using the Komar mass definition [3446].

Now, inserting the Komar energy definition into (6) and using , one can easily reach a new conservation law asmet by Komar mass, and we call it the Komar conservation law (KCL). For the pressureless systems, everything is consistent due to the fact that the above addressed energy definitions are equal. Similar types of this energy-momentum conservation law have also been obtained in theories which include a nonminimal coupling between the geometry and matter fields [14, 49, 52].

One basic consequence of the Komar mass is that not only , but both of and participate in building the system energy which leads to appropriate models for dark sectors of cosmos, if one uses (7) to model the cosmos [19]. On the other hand, (9) claims that if we use the Komar mass, then OCL and thus (7) are not valid and other modified Friedmann equations should be employed to describe the cosmos.

In the general relativity (GR) framework, where , the satisfaction of BI by the Einstein tensor () is equivalent to the satisfaction of OCL by . We saw that the form of conservation law depends on the energy definition (6), and indeed, if the Komar mass notion is used, then one can easily find that should satisfy KCL instead of OCL. Thus, in the GR framework, there is an inconsistency between the notions of BI (or equally OCL) and the Komar mass. This inconsistency together with the results of recent observations [48], admitting the break-down of OCL in the current accelerated era, motivates us to modify GR and, thus, the Friedmann equations by modifying the matter side of the field equations in the manner in which the modified matter part meets OCL, in agreement with the satisfaction of BI by the geometrical part. In summary, we think that OCL is very restrictive constraint on . Probably, OCL should not be applied to the whole of , and it should only be applied to some parts of , the parts which may modify GR in a compatible way with the current accelerated cosmos [18, 48, 49].

There is also an elegant consistency between (5) and (2); i.e., is the energy density in (5), and it also appears in the first Friedmann equation. On the other hand, (8) implies that the quantity () plays the role of energy density, while it is not present in the first Friedmann equation. In fact, if we define , then (9) can be rewritten asequivalent to a hypothetical fluid with an effective energy-momentum tensor of , meeting OCL (see [53] for a debate on effective energy-momentum tensor). In this manner, (5) for will be equal to (8) for . Indeed, the above arguments (specially (9)) claim that, even in the Einstein framework, OCL (2) may not be valid, if Komar mass is employed. In this situation, because OCL is the backbone of the Friedmann equations, we may conclude that the Friedmann equations (2) should be modified.

In summary, (i) the energy definition and the form of energy-momentum conservation law play crucial roles in getting the Friedmann equations in various theories [519]. (ii) We also showed that the form of energy-momentum conservation law depends on the energy definition, and if one uses the Komar mass, then KCL is obtained instead of OCL. (iii) The Komar mass is the backbone of some holographic and thermodynamic attempts to obtain field equations of various gravitational theories [3446] motivating us to use KCL instead of OCL. (iv) Observational data admit the break-down of OCL in the current accelerated era [48]. It also motivates us to use the relaxed forms of OCL in order to describe the current universe. On the other hand, there are also various models for the current accelerated universe satisfying OCL [1]. Therefore, it seems that some inconsistency exists between the various definitions of energy, continuity, and Friedmann equations. One may conclude that the fluid obtained from the observation may not be the real cosmic fluid, and it indeed represents some less well-known or even unknown parts of the energy source which become important, effective, and tangible in the current cosmos. We want to say that the real cosmic fluid may satisfy conservation laws such as KCL instead of OCL, while some of its parts, responsible for the current accelerated expansion, may satisfy OCL.

As we mentioned, based on (8), one may conclude that pressure has some contribution to the energy density of system. The question that arises here is, what if this contribution can describe the current accelerated universe? In other words, are there combinations of and of a baryonic source which can play the role of dark energy? Here, we are going to find out the answers of the mentioned questions by studying some consequences of accepting (6), the Komar mass definition, and thus (9), in cosmological setups. In the next section, using thermodynamics laws, Bekenstein entropy, and (9), we address some models for dark energy. The third section is devoted to a summary and concluding remarks. Throughout this work, the unit of , where denotes the Boltzmann constant, has been employed.

2. Komar Definition of Energy and the Friedmann Equations

For an energy-momentum source with , the amount of energy crossing the apparent horizon is evaluated as [8]where and denote the horizon area and the work density, respectively. is also the comoving area. After some calculations, one obtains [8, 1417]combined with the Clausius relation (), to get [8, 15]where the additional minus sign in the Clausius relation is due to the direction of energy flux [8, 15]. Here, is the horizon entropy and the Cai-Kim temperature () is used to reach this equation [8, 15]. The role of energy-momentum conservation law in deriving the Friedmann equations is now completely clear. The effects of considering various approximations and temperatures have been studied in [15].

2.1. Modified Friedmann Equations

Here, using some simple examples, we are going to show the effects of considering KCL in modifying the standard cosmology.

Case (). If OCL is valid, then (13) is reduced tocovering the first Friedmann equation whenever . In this situation, (9) implies thatwhere is the integration constant and we considered ( is the current value of the scale factor). In this manner, for , we reachinstead of (2). It is easy to check that for power law regimes in which , conservation law leads to and , which is nothing but the dust source, in full agreement with our previous results indicating that for a pressureless source everything is consistent. The geometrical parts of the two first equations of (16) lead us to the Einstein tensor. It is in fact the direct result of attributing the Bekenstein entropy to the horizon [8]. Therefore, mathematically, since the Einstein tensor obeys BI, the appearing and should also satisfy OCL, an expectation in full agreement with (15) and thus the third line of (16).

However, the general solution of the obtained conservation law (16) iswhere is the integration constant. It clearly covers the ordinary matter era whenever . From (15) and (17), we reachfor the current era. Thus, if we have and , where and denote the current values of the energy density and the equation of state (EoS) of dark energy, respectively, then the obtained fluid may theoretically generate the current accelerating universe whenever . Now, we can writeIn this manner, EoS () and the deceleration parameter () are evaluated asAt the limit, independently of the value of , we have and . Moreover, one can easily see that, at the limit, the consistent values with observations for and are also obtainable, depending on the value of . Despite this compatibility, there is a singularity at the behavior of and for , located at , meaning that this solution may be at most useable to study the era. However, as it is obvious from Figure 1, it does not lead to suitable and even for . Therefore, as we previously saw, only the case can meet all of the desired expectations; i.e., it is in agreement with the Friedmann equations, which both addressed energy definitions and thus the matter dominated era.

Figure 1: Here, , dot and solid lines represent and , respectively.

Case (). If , satisfying (10), is used instead of in order to evaluate (11) and we follow the Cai-Kim approach [8, 1418], then some calculations lead towhenever . These equations would also be obtainable by modifying the Einstein field equations as , in agreement with attributing the Bekenstein entropy to the apparent horizon (see the paragraph after (16)). Now, considering the simple case and using the above equations, we can easily find . This result indicates that a baryonic source, with , cannot lead to a hypothetical fluid with in cosmos, meaning that the obtained modified Friedmann equations cannot describe the current accelerated universe.

Case (). Now, bearing (9) in mind and defining an effective pressure as , one reachesreduced towhenever we havewhere is the integration constant. Inserting this result into (23), it is easy to obtainHere, is an integration constant, and it is worthwhile to mention that the ordinary matter and radiation dominated eras are recovered at the limits of and , respectively, meaning that the obtained fluid can unify these eras into one model. In this manner, we can argue that although is the true energy-momentum tensor, an effective tensor of should be considered, which may lead us to a modified gravitational equation of the form . Now, combining (24) and (25) with each other, one findsFor and , we have and , respectively, at the limit. Moreover, independently of the value of , one can see that , leading to , whenever . Using the latest result and the relation, where is the redshift, we can finally rewrite (26) as

If and , then for and (or equally ) we have , , and meaning that this fluid may describe the universe history from the matter dominated era to the current accelerating phase. In this manner, if we either modify Einstein equations as or follow the Cai-Kim recipe by using , then we obtainAs before, two first equations imply that should satisfy OCL, in full agreement with (23), and thus the third line of (28). Calculations for the deceleration parameter lead toSuitable values of should be found by considering the transition point at which and . In addition, simple calculations for the transition redshift lead toindicating that should also meet the condition to reach positive meaningful solutions for . Because , we have the relation meaning that the condition is in agreement with the previously obtained condition (). Besides, although we can obtain suitable values of for , in this manner, negative amounts will be attained by which finally reject this case. For other values of , energy density will grow much faster than the matter density, proportional to , by increasing . Thus, only the case can be meaningful. In Figure 2, deceleration parameter, and have been plotted versus for some values of .

Figure 2: , , and versus when . Solid lines: . Dot lines: .

Hence, if we accept both the Komar mass definition and the thermodynamic pressure notion, we can modify the standard cosmology as (28) in which the solutions of the field equations can theoretically unify both the matter dominated era and the current accelerated universe. However, in this manner, since , the original source has a negative pressure (). Therefore, it is useful to emphasize that, despite the proper obtained results, since , this approach does not lead to a baryonic model for the energy source during the cosmos evolution, i.e., a model with .

Case (). As another case, bearing (9) in mind, defining , , where and are unknown constants that should meet the condition, and considering the case, one can follow the above recipes to obtainwhere is the integration constant. As the previous cases, since the rhs of the two first equations are nothing but the Einstein tensor meeting BI, and should satisfy OCL (or equally the last line). Indeed, since we have , the constraint is unavoidable only if we want KCL to be reduced to OCL (the last line). We finally reach As we know, the current accelerated universe () implies and (or equally ) [1]. Thus, the above results admit a fluid with positive pressure whenever . In this manner, for , if , satisfied when leading to (or equally ), then we have . This result indicates that we should have , in agreement with some observations [1], to meet the condition. For this case, while, unlike , is always negative, both and approach zero for . Using the above results, we finally getleading to for the transition redshift. The parameters , , and have been plotted in Figures 3 and 4 for [1]. It is also worth remembering that the current observational data on dark energy density and pressure in fact give us the corresponding values of and . As is apparent, there are some values of (and thus ) for which the maximum value of is at most equal to , signalling us to a baryonic source (since and , we have and ). Therefore, and display proper behavior, meaning that it is mathematically enough to only consider some parts of , represented by , to modify the standard cosmology as (31) (or equally the Einstein field equations as ) which gives us a suitable description for the current phase of the universe.

Figure 3: has been depicted versus for some values of .
Figure 4: and versus .

3. Conclusion

Mach principle states that geometry inherits its properties from inside it; i.e., the geometrical information is related to the energy of the source. Hence, it does not limit us to certain information for the energy source. This principle along with OCL and BI is the backbone of Einstein theory and thus, standard cosmology, in full agreement with the thermodynamics laws. Based on this theory, the Einstein () and energy-momentum () tensors are in a direct relation as . Hence, by having the whole information of the matter source (), one can find and then the space-time metric which finally gives us the whole information of geometry. It is also worth mentioning that the recent observation admits the break-down of OCL in the current accelerated era [48].

Besides, there are various approaches to gravity and cosmology in which the Komar definition of energy is their foundation. Here, by accepting this energy definition and using the thermodynamic pressure definition, a relaxed energy-momentum conservation law (KCL) has been obtained, helping us in getting some modified energy-momentum tensors () satisfying OCL. Consequently, applying the thermodynamics laws to the apparent horizon and attributing the Cai-Kim temperature to it, we could find out some simple modified Friedmann equations. Our results are in fact equal to modifying the Einstein field equations as . Therefore, in agreement with the satisfaction of BI by the Einstein tensor, is also meeting OCL. The study shows that an appropriate choice of allows us to unify the dark sectors of cosmos into one model. In fact, the analysis of the last case () confirms that if suitable is used instead of in order to modify the standard cosmology (31), then can mathematically describe the current accelerated cosmos, while can display a baryonic source.

In summary, () , made of , satisfies OCL (or equally ) and can describe the current accelerated universe. () In this manner, , satisfying KCL, can even show a baryonic behavior by itself. These results may be translated as follows: the less well-known or even unknown aspects of , represented by , are responsible for the current accelerated phase of the universe. The origin and the emergence conditions of may be found out by studying this part in the framework of other physical theories such as quantum field theory.

Data Availability

There is no data used in this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The work of H. Moradpour has been supported financially by Research Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM). J. P. Morais Graça and I. P. Lobo are supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

References

  1. M. Roos, Introduction to Cosmology, John Wiley and Sons, UK, 2nd edition, 2003.
  2. S. A. Hayward, “Unified first law of black-hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 15, no. 10, p. 3147, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  3. S. A. Hayward, S. Mukohyana, and M. C. Ashworth, “Dynamic black-hole entropy,” Physics Letters A, vol. 256, no. 5-6, pp. 347–350, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  4. D. Bak and S. J. Rey, “Cosmic holography,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 17, no. 15, pp. L83–L89, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R.-G. Cai, “Cardy-Verlinde formula and thermodynamics of black holes in de Sitter spaces,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 628, no. 1-2, pp. 375–386, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  6. R.-G. Cai, “Cardy-Verlinde formula and asymptotically de Sitter spaces,” Physics Letters B, vol. 525, no. 3-4, pp. 331–336, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  7. A. V. Frolov and L. Kofman, “Inflation and de Sitter thermodynamics,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, vol. 2003, no. 5, p. 9, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. R. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, “First Law of Thermodynamics and Friedmann Equations of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2005, no. 2, p. 50, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  9. R. Whisker, “Transplanckian energy production and slow roll inflation,” Physical Review D, vol. 71, Article ID 023516, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. R. S. Bousso, “Cosmology and the S matrix,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 71, Article ID 064024, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R. G. Cai, “Thermodynamical Properties of Apparent Horizon in Warped DGP Braneworld,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 779, no. 1, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  12. A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, “Deep connection between thermodynamics and gravity in Gauss-Bonnet braneworlds,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 76, no. 2, Article ID 023515, 5 pages, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  13. D. W. Tian and I. Booth, “Apparent horizon and gravitational thermodynamics of the universe: solutions to the temperature and entropy confusions and extensions to modified gravity,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 92, Article ID 024001, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. H. Moradpour, “Thermodynamics of flat FLRW universe in Rastall theory,” Physics Letters B, vol. 757, pp. 187–191, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. H. Ebadi and H. Moradpour, “Thermodynamics of universe with a varying dark energy component,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, vol. 24, no. 14, Article ID 1550098, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  16. H. Moradpour and R. Dehghani, “Thermodynamical study of FRW universe in quasi-topological theory,” Advances in High Energy Physics, vol. 2016, Article ID 7248520, 10 pages, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. H. Moradpour, “Implications, consequences and interpretations of generalized entropy in the cosmological setups,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 4176–4184, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  18. H. Moradpour, A. Bonilla, E. M. Abreu, and J. A. Neto, “Accelerated cosmos in a nonextensive setup,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 96, no. 12, Article ID 123504, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. H. Moradpour, R. C. Nunes, E. M. Abreu, and J. A. Neto, “A note on the relations between thermodynamics, energy definitions and Friedmann equations,” Modern Physics Letters A, vol. 32, no. 13, 1750078, 20 pages, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  20. H. Moradpour, “Implications, consequences and interpretations of generalized entropy in the cosmological setups,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 55, no. 268, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  21. H. Moradpour, A. Sheykhi, N. Riazi, and B. Wang, “Necessity of dark energy from thermodynamic arguments,” Advances in High Energy Physics, vol. 2014, Article ID 718583, 9 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. N. Radicella and D. Pavón, “Thermodynamical analysis on a braneworld scenario with curvature corrections,” Physics Letters B, vol. 704, no. 4, pp. 260–264, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. N. Radicella and D. Pavón, “A thermodynamic motivation for dark energy,” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 685–702, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  24. D. Pavón and W. Zimdahl, “A thermodynamic characterization of future singularities?” Physics Letters B, vol. 708, no. 3–5, pp. 217–220, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  25. D. Pavón and N. Radicella, “Does the entropy of the universe tend to a maximum?” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 63–68, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  26. D. Pavón, “Why the expansion of the Universe is accelerated,” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, vol. 11, no. 2, Article ID 1460007, 16 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  27. J. P. Mimoso and D. Pavón, “Considerations on the thermal equilibrium between matter and the cosmic horizon,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 94, no. 10, Article ID 103507, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  28. P. B. Krishna and T. K. Mathew, “Holographic equipartition and the maximization of entropy,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 96, Article ID 063513, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  29. F. C. Santos, M. L. Bedran, and V. Soares, “On the thermodynamic stability of the modified Chaplygin gas,” Physics Letters. B. Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, vol. 646, no. 5-6, pp. 215–221, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  30. M. Bedran, V. Soares, and M. Araújo, “Temperature evolution of the FRW universe filled with modified Chaplygin gas,” Physics Letters B, vol. 659, no. 3, pp. 462–465, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. M. L. Bedran and V. Soares, “Negative pressures in classical and cosmological fluids and their thermodynamic stability,” Progress of Theoretical Physics, vol. 123, p. 1, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  32. E. M. Barboza, R. C. Nunes, E. M. Abreu, and J. A. Neto, “Thermodynamic aspects of dark energy fluids,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 92, no. 8, Article ID 083526, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. G. Z. Babar, M. Jamil, and Y.-K. Lim, “Dynamics of a charged particle around a weakly magnetized naked singularity,” International Journal of Modern Physics D, vol. 25, no. 2, Article ID 1650024, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. T. Padmanabhan, “Entropy of static spacetimes and microscopic density of states,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 21, no. 18, pp. 4485–4494, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  35. T. Padmanabhan, “Equipartition of energy in the horizon degrees of freedom and the emergence of gravity,” Modern Physics Letters A, vol. 25, no. 14, pp. 1129–1136, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  36. R.-G. Cai, L.-M. Cao, and N. Ohta, “Friedmann equations from entropic force,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 81, no. 6, Article ID 061501, 4 pages, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. E. Verlinde, Journal of High Energy Physics (JHEP), vol. 2011, no. 04, p. 29, 2011.
  38. T. Padmanabhan, “Emergence and Expansion of Cosmic Space as due to the Quest for Holographic Equipartition,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4916.
  39. Y. Ling, J. P. Wu, and J. Cosmol, “A note on entropic force and brane cosmology,” Astroparticle Physics, vol. 1008, p. 017, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  40. A. Sheykhi, “Modified Friedmann equations on the brane from entropic,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 51, p. 185, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  41. A. Sheykhi, H. Moradpour, and N. Riazi, “Lovelock gravity from entropic force,” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1033–1049, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  42. A. Sheykhi, M. H. Dehghani, and S. E. Hosseini, “Friedmann equations in braneworld scenarios from emergence of cosmic space,” Physics Letters B, vol. 726, no. 1-3, pp. 23–27, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. H. Moradpour and A. Sheykhi, “From the Komar mass and entropic force scenarios to the Einstein field equations on the Ads brane,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 1145–1155, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  44. H. Moradpour, A. Amiri, and A. Sheykhi, “Implications of maximum acceleration on dynamics,” Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions A: Science, pp. 1–7, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  45. N. Komatsu, “Cosmological model from the holographic equipartition law with a modified Rényi entropy,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 77, p. 229, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  46. H. Moradpour, A. Sheykhi, C. Corda, and I. G. Salako, “Implications of the generalized entropy formalisms on the Newtonian gravity and dynamics,” Physics Letters B, vol. 783, pp. 82–85, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1972.
  48. T. Josset and A. Perez, “Dark energy from violation of energy conservation,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 118, Article ID 021102, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  49. H. Moradpour, Y. Heydarzade, F. Darabi, and I. G. Salako, “A generalization to the Rastall theory and cosmic eras,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 77, no. 4, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  50. A. Komar, “Covariant conservation laws in general relativity,” Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 113, pp. 934–936, 1959. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. A. Komar, “Positive-Definite Energy Density and Global Consequences for General Relativity,” Physical Review A: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 129, no. 4, pp. 1873–1876, 1963. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. P. Rastall, “Generalization of the Einstein theory,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 6, pp. 3357–3359, 1972. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  53. F. Darabi, H. Moradpour, I. Licata, Y. Heydarzade, and C. Corda, “Einstein and Rastall theories of gravitation in comparison,” The European Physical Journal C, vol. 78, no. 1, p. 25, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar