View Single Post
Mar2-12, 02:02 PM
P: 939
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
I don't think we have any convincing evidence that there is a "dark energy". The observed accel. of expan. is simply and neatly explained by a positive cosmological constant Lambda.
Okay, we have a small mixup in terms. To me, subtracting [itex]\Lambda g_{\mu \nu} [/itex] is such an elementary operation, I count cosmological constant as one model of dark energy. I think you will find that this classification is followed by most authors.

Also I don't think we share the definition of "neat". For example, do you think it's just a coincidence that [itex] \Omega_{\Lambda} \sim \Omega_{M} [/itex]? Even worse, is it also a coincidence that currently [itex] Ht \simeq 1 [/itex]? Just because you think you cannot assign prior probabilities to these parameters (citing the article you linked to), which I completely agree with, you are still left with no explanation for these numerical accidents.

How far are you willing to trust the coincidence explanation? Do you think just because GR allows for different initial conditions, that explains the primordial power spectrum measured from the CMB (therefore making inflation obsolete)?