PDA

View Full Version : Cosmological Constant


davidoff404
May10-04, 05:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nI\'m wondering if anyone wishes to give their thoughts on the following.\nIn classical GR the scalar curvature of a manifold can be changed such\nthat R -&gt; R - L. Now, everyone knows that this is essentially an\nintroduction of a cosmological constant into the field equations of\ngeneral relativity.\n\nRegardless of one\'s attitude towards experimental evidence for the\nexistence of a cosmological constant, one has to acknowledge that it\'s a\nbit of a fudge; we\'re effectively introducing a free parameter into the\nfield equations for the purpose of making GR agree with observation. I\'d\nlike to know your ideas on placing a bound on the value of L. As far as\nI know, standard GR will not allow you to restrict the possible values\nof L, so is there any way in which one can derive a result like L &lt;=\nL_max, i.e., can we place an upper bound on the possible values of L\npurely from theory?\n\nI\'ve got only a passing familiarity with string theory and LQG, so any\npointers you could give towards the way in which these theories may\naddress the cosmological constant would be a great help.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I'm wondering if anyone wishes to give their thoughts on the following.
In classical GR the scalar curvature of a manifold can be changed such
that R -> R - L. Now, everyone knows that this is essentially an
introduction of a cosmological constant into the field equations of
general relativity.

Regardless of one's attitude towards experimental evidence for the
existence of a cosmological constant, one has to acknowledge that it's a
bit of a fudge; we're effectively introducing a free parameter into the
field equations for the purpose of making GR agree with observation. I'd
like to know your ideas on placing a bound on the value of L. As far as
I know, standard GR will not allow you to restrict the possible values
of L, so is there any way in which one can derive a result like L <=L_{max}, i.e., can we place an upper bound on the possible values of L
purely from theory?

I've got only a passing familiarity with string theory and LQG, so any
pointers you could give towards the way in which these theories may
address the cosmological constant would be a great help.

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
May12-04, 02:58 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article &lt;c7j28c\\$va6\\$1@kermit.esat.net&gt;, davidoff404\n&lt;davidoff404_AT@_Yahoo_.com&gt; writes:\n\n&gt; I\'m wondering if anyone wishes to give their thoughts on the following.\n&gt; In classical GR the scalar curvature of a manifold can be changed such\n&gt; that R -&gt; R - L. Now, everyone knows that this is essentially an\n&gt; introduction of a cosmological constant into the field equations of\n&gt; general relativity.\n&gt;\n&gt; Regardless of one\'s attitude towards experimental evidence for the\n&gt; existence of a cosmological constant, one has to acknowledge that it\'s a\n&gt; bit of a fudge; we\'re effectively introducing a free parameter into the\n&gt; field equations for the purpose of making GR agree with observation.\n\nHistorically, that is what happened; Einstein introduced the\ncosmological constant to make GR agree with what he thought at the time\nwere valid observations (i.e., static universe). However, Einstein\ncould have originally written his equations with the cosmological\nconstant, on the grounds of writing "the most general form". I think we\nhave to agree that the historical contingency which led Einstein to do\nthe former instead of the latter has no bearing on the likelihood of the\ncosmological constant having a particular value in the universe in which\nwe live. One could then say that claiming the cosmological constant is\nzero without further evidence is tantamount to introducing a new\nsymmetry principle, and of course the burden of proof is on the person\nmaking that claim. (In particle physics, it is common practice to\nexpect whatever is not explicitly forbidden to happen, and detectors\ncosting millions are built to observe such things, so strong is this\nexpectation (and shored up by experience). A surprise is when something\nwhich is not forbidden by theory is not observed, which means that one\nhas discovered a new conservation law (symmetry, quantum number).)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">&nbsp;&nbsp;View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <c7j28c$va6$1@kermit.esat.net>, davidoff404
<davidoff404_AT@_Yahoo_.com> writes:

> I'm wondering if anyone wishes to give their thoughts on the following.
> In classical GR the scalar curvature of a manifold can be changed such
> that R -> R - L. Now, everyone knows that this is essentially an
> introduction of a cosmological constant into the field equations of
> general relativity.
>
> Regardless of one's attitude towards experimental evidence for the
> existence of a cosmological constant, one has to acknowledge that it's a
> bit of a fudge; we're effectively introducing a free parameter into the
> field equations for the purpose of making GR agree with observation.

Historically, that is what happened; Einstein introduced the
cosmological constant to make GR agree with what he thought at the time
were valid observations (i.e., static universe). However, Einstein
could have originally written his equations with the cosmological
constant, on the grounds of writing "the most general form". I think we
have to agree that the historical contingency which led Einstein to do
the former instead of the latter has no bearing on the likelihood of the
cosmological constant having a particular value in the universe in which
we live. One could then say that claiming the cosmological constant is
zero without further evidence is tantamount to introducing a new
symmetry principle, and of course the burden of proof is on the person
making that claim. (In particle physics, it is common practice to
expect whatever is not explicitly forbidden to happen, and detectors
costing millions are built to observe such things, so strong is this
expectation (and shored up by experience). A surprise is when something
which is not forbidden by theory is not observed, which means that one
has discovered a new conservation law (symmetry, quantum number).)