PDA

View Full Version : Special relativity and the cosmological constant

alistair
Jun30-04, 05:38 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>Why didn\'t general relativity,when Einstein first formulated it,\npredict the existence of dark energy/ the cosmological constant? Is\nthere something missing from the foundations of general relativity\ni.e. is there something missing from the theory of special relativity?\nIs special relativity a theory that should be built from another\ntheory\nthat has the cosmological constant at its core?\nWhat if the cosmological constant is the cause of the inertia of\nmasses and not the Higgs field? Special relativity does not account\nfor why certain particles have certain masses - it just accounts for\nthe quantity of mass they have.\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>Why didn't general relativity,when Einstein first formulated it,
predict the existence of dark energy/ the cosmological constant? Is
there something missing from the foundations of general relativity
i.e. is there something missing from the theory of special relativity?
Is special relativity a theory that should be built from another
theory
that has the cosmological constant at its core?
What if the cosmological constant is the cause of the inertia of
masses and not the Higgs field? Special relativity does not account
for why certain particles have certain masses - it just accounts for
the quantity of mass they have.
Rob Woodside
Jun30-04, 05:39 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>rwmw@telus.net (Rob Woodside) wrote in message news:&lt;4d06b9d7.0406231715.dd9750b@posting.google.c om&gt;...\nsnip\n&gt; Dark energy is very bizarre with a negative energy density that is\n&gt; minus the isotropic pressure.\nsnip\n\nSorry, it has a positive energy density when the cosmological constant\nis positive and an isotropic tension equal to the energy density.\nConsidering an electromagnetic field, Dark energy is only moderately\nBizarre.\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>rwmw@telus.net (Rob Woodside) wrote in message news:<4d06b9d7.0406231715.dd9750b@posting.google.com>...
snip
> Dark energy is very bizarre with a negative energy density that is
> minus the isotropic pressure.
snip

Sorry, it has a positive energy density when the cosmological constant
is positive and an isotropic tension equal to the energy density.
Considering an electromagnetic field, Dark energy is only moderately
Bizarre.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Jul2-04, 04:31 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\nIn article &lt;861c1b21.0406281451.67bf8826@posting.google.com&gt;, \nalistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:\n\n&gt; Why didn\'t general relativity,when Einstein first formulated it,\n&gt; predict the existence of dark energy/ the cosmological constant?\n\nBecause that\'s not the way he initially wrote it down. Actually, it is\nentirely conceivable that someone else might have written down the\nequations with a cosmological constant the first time. It depends on\nwhich approach one takes: write the most general form (i.e. with the\ncosmological constant) or write down only the terms which are needed\nbased on the current state of knowledge?\n\n&gt; What if the cosmological constant is the cause of the inertia of\n&gt; masses and not the Higgs field? Special relativity does not account\n&gt; for why certain particles have certain masses - it just accounts for\n&gt; the quantity of mass they have.\n\nThis sounds like "what if angels are the cause of inertia and not the\nHiggs field" unless you have some CONCRETE idea about how the\ncosmological constant can cause inertia.\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 <861c1b21.0406281451.67bf8826@posting.google.com>,
alistair@goforit64.fsnet.co.uk (alistair) writes:

> Why didn't general relativity,when Einstein first formulated it,
> predict the existence of dark energy/ the cosmological constant?

Because that's not the way he initially wrote it down. Actually, it is
entirely conceivable that someone else might have written down the
equations with a cosmological constant the first time. It depends on
which approach one takes: write the most general form (i.e. with the
cosmological constant) or write down only the terms which are needed
based on the current state of knowledge?

> What if the cosmological constant is the cause of the inertia of
> masses and not the Higgs field? Special relativity does not account
> for why certain particles have certain masses - it just accounts for
> the quantity of mass they have.

This sounds like "what if angels are the cause of inertia and not the
Higgs field" unless you have some CONCRETE idea about how the
cosmological constant can cause inertia.
mathman
Jul4-04, 07:39 AM
Special relativity is limited in scope. The cosmological constant was originally an add on to general relativity. It has no connection with special. S.R. was never intended to account for mass. It simply showed a relationship between mass and energy.