Why all these prejudices against a constant? ("dark energy" is a fake probem)by marcus Tags: constant, dark energy, fake, prejudices, probem 

#1
Mar2010, 03:50 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

==sample quote==
It is especially wrong to talk about a mysterious “substance” to denote dark energy. The expression “substance” is inappropriate and misleading. It is like saying that the centrifugal force that pushes out from a merrygoround is the “eﬀect of a mysterious substance”. ==endquote== http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 Why all these prejudices against a constant? Eugenio Bianchi, Carlo Rovelli 9 pages, 4 figures (Submitted on 21 Feb 2010) "The expansion of the observed universe appears to be accelerating. A simple explanation of this phenomenon is provided by the nonvanishing of the cosmological constant in the Einstein equations. Arguments are commonly presented to the effect that this simple explanation is not viable or not sufficient, and therefore we are facing the 'great mystery' of the 'nature of a dark energy'. We argue that these arguments are unconvincing, or illfounded." 



#2
Mar2010, 04:09 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

The lambda constant is just a constant that naturally occurs when you write down the most general form of the action. With Einstein it was there already at the start! Not something he put in as an afterthought to make cosmology come out right.
==quote== In fact, it is not even true that Einstein introduced the λ term because of cosmology. He knew about this term in the gravitational equations much earlier than his cos mological work. This can be deduced from a footnote of his 1916 main work on general relativity [9] (the foot note is on page 180 of the English version). Einstein derives the gravitational ﬁeld equations from a list of physical requirements. In the footnote, he notices that the ﬁeld equations he writes are not the most general pos sible ones, because there is another possible term, which is in fact the cosmological term (the notation “λ” already appears in this footnote). The most general lowenergy second order action for the gravitational ﬁeld, invariant under the relevant sym metry (diﬀeomorphisms) is... ... which leads to (1). It depends on two constants, the Newton constant G and the cosmological constant λ, and there is no physical reason for discarding the second term... ==endquote== 



#3
Mar2010, 05:28 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

The cosmological constant becomes a mistery as soon as you do not write it on the left hand = "the gravity" side of the equations
[tex]R_{\mu\nu}  \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}[/tex] but it you write it on the right hand = "the matter" side. [tex]R_{\mu\nu}  \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}  \Lambda g_{\mu\nu}[/tex] In vacuum (with T=0) you still have some kind of "matter" which affects spacetime: [tex]R_{\mu\nu}  \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R =  \Lambda g_{\mu\nu}[/tex] If you leave this term on the left hand side, the question where it comes from and why it is there, is still open, but it is not a qustion about matter, dark energy or something like that; it is a question about gravity. 



#4
Mar2010, 06:58 PM

P: 343

Why all these prejudices against a constant? ("dark energy" is a fake probem)
lambda is the coupling to the volume of spacetime. It belongs on the lefthand side you can see this from the fact that G does not couple to it. G couples to the energymomentum.
The question is not why it is there but rather what sets its value. In particular why is it so small? One answer coming from the ERG approach is that there is an infrared fixed point for which lambda=0. Hence on large scales lambda is small. 



#5
Mar2010, 07:08 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005

I think Xu and Horava http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.0009 got a IR fixed point, but not at z=1, which I think is what one would like? BTW, has the evidence shifted away from AS now that CDT seems to have gone over to Horava? And does that mean that CDT is also problematic, since Horava seemed to have all sorts of problems. 



#6
Mar2010, 07:22 PM

P: 343

I don't know what your on about with CDT, AS and Horava. CDT does not violate lorentz (at least not in the way Horava does). CDT uses the Regge action which which is a discrete version of einsteinhilbert. So i don't see why you think there is a connection between CDT and horava? If there is its not obvious. 



#7
Mar2010, 08:17 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

Why is the ratio of electron mass to planck mass so small? I think part of the aim of the paper is to deflate some of the hype surrounding this particular constant. Not to say it's not interesting though! It would be great to get some handle on why it's that particular size. 



#8
Mar2010, 10:07 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005

http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.0401 http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3298 



#9
Mar2010, 11:01 PM

P: 343

The gaussian fixed point is always going to be there as it just corresponds to the vanishing of the dimensionless couplings. But I don't think you need to be on a trajectory that flows to the IR fixed point. Better to read this paper http://arXiv.org/abs/hepth/0410119 "Assuming that Quantum Einstein Gravity (QEG) is the correct theory of gravity on all length scales we use analytical results from nonperturbative renormalization group (RG) equations as well as experimental input in order to characterize the special RG trajectory of QEG which is realized in Nature and to determine its parameters. On this trajectory, we identify a regime of scales where gravitational physics is well described by classical General Relativity. Strong renormalization effects occur at both larger and smaller momentum scales. The latter lead to a growth of Newton's constant at large distances. We argue that this effect becomes visible at the scale of galaxies and could provide a solution to the astrophysical missing mass problem which does not require any dark matter. We show that an extremely weak power law running of Newton's constant leads to flat galaxy rotation curves similar to those observed in Nature. Furthermore, a possible resolution of the cosmological constant problem is proposed by noting that all RG trajectories admitting a long classical regime automatically give rise to a small cosmological constant." 



#10
Mar2010, 11:01 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

However I'm used to seeing the constant given in the form Omega_{Lambda}. A common estimate is Omega_{Lambda} = .73 That means the (fictional?) dark energy is 73% of critical density. If I express critical density in terms of today's Hubble rate H, then what I seem to get is that Lambda = 3 *H^2* Omega_{Lambda} = 3*0.73* (71 km/s per megaparsec)^2 ~ 10^{35} second^{2} Can you confirm that this is right way to get the lefthandside Lambda from the information we are usually given? 



#11
Mar2710, 08:19 AM

P: 5,634

Finbar posted:
"The man who had the courage to tell everybody that their ideas on space and time had to be changed, then did not dare predicting an expanding universe, even if his jewel theory was saying so..." and " Even a total genius can be silly, at times." .....suggests Einstein did not appreciate the nature of lambda early on. 



#12
Mar2710, 01:41 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307





#13
Mar2710, 04:56 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

What I never (or almost never) see an estimate for is LAMBDA ITSELF. The genuine lefthand side article. That is what I want to calculate. I think it comes to 1.1 x 10^{35} second^{2} or thereabouts. Would it be more correct to express it in units of reciprocal area, like in meter^{2}? That's what I think of as a common unit for curvature? What I want confirmation for, or at least your opinion on, is if we are thinking just of the lefthandside form of the cosmo constant, which we are calling Lambda, and if we are given the commonly published figures of 71 for Hubble, and 0.73 for (fictional?) "dark energy fraction," then do we use the stated formula to get Lambda? Namely: Lambda = 3 *H^2* Omega_{Lambda} 



#15
Mar2710, 09:32 PM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 22,800

71 km/s per megaparsec, and 0.73 (for the Hubble rate and the "darkenergy fraction") I can plug the blue thing into google and get Lambda. 3*0.73*(71 km/s per megaparsec)^2 Anybody can do it themselves. If you paste that blue expression into the google window, what you get is: 1.15946854e35 s^2 So that is what Lambda "really is", if you round off appropriately: Lambda = 1.16 x 10^{35} seconds^{2} plus or minus whatever uncertainty is contributed by the 0.73 and the 71. And you can change the numbers 71 and 0.73 to agree with whatever the latest observations indicate, and the google calculator will give you the corresponding estimate for Lambda, accordingly. If Rovelli is right, and the others that share his views on the subject, then this is a basic constant of nature and we better start getting to know it, and getting used to it, and treating with some of the same respect we normally show basic constants. 



#16
Mar2710, 11:04 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005

Bianchi and Rovelli are not saying anything new, are they? Take eg. this 2007 review
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2533 "The observational and theoretical features described above suggests that one should consider cosmological constant as the most natural candidate for dark energy. Though it leads to well known problems, it is also the most economical [just one number] and simplest explanation for all the observations. Once we invoke the cosmological constant, classical gravity will be described by the three constants G, c and Lambda" 



#17
Mar2810, 02:08 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 5,307

I agree, they are not saying anything new. The stress the following
1) it is natural to consider Lambda as a constant of nature 2) one should distinguish between "QFT is the source of Lambda" and "QFT could cause corrections to the value of Lambda" 3) the reason for the puzzle is not Lambda, but Lambda on the right hand side of the equation ... 4) ... plus an idea how to calculate it  which fails by 120 orders of magnitude Let's assume I have some biological theory; unfortunately it says not so much about about mammals, birds etc. but I claim that this theory provides an explanation of the zoogenesis of the duckbill from first principles. But applying this theory, it predicts the duckbill to look like an orca ... Now I ask you: does this make the duckbill even more enigmatic, or does it mean that my theory is plainly wrong? 



#18
Mar2810, 02:52 AM

P: 2,799

I guess ultimately, one would seek a deeper understanding of why all constants of nature are what they are, and why the laws are like they are. Maybe alot of the mystery around lambda is due to the fact that it appears to be so closely (although there are certainly the known problems with this) related to the expected zero point energy density that it's hard to resist the temptation that there is something more to this  that may or may not explain the value of this constant that in a deeper way that we probably all seek anyway?
As far as I am concerned, I still seek a deeper understanding of all the EH action where all terms and constants beg for explanation. My working picture at the moment, makes me think, also in line wit some of the statistical approach to this, is to rather think of Einsteins equations as a equation of state, defining an equilibrium, suggesting that the "constants" might not be proper constants, maybe they just appear constant to us at this moment. So maybe it's not that important what the values are, the most interesting thing is the logic that sets it's value. The actual logic today, is our cosmological models, from hubble expansions we infer the value, but this is a human level mechanism, and it's value would in principle evolve with the evolution of human science cosmology. But we still don't have the depper intrinsic physical mechanism for it's evolution. But I also think that seeking the answer in the form of hidden or dark matter or energy "out there" that are like ordinary matter, except not visible might be a sidetrack. I think the "appearance" of hidden energy or accelerating universe could be better understood from the information point of view, where one considers expanding and accelerating evnet horizons, rather than expanding universes etc. But that's still very underdeveloped. /Fredrik 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Simple probem check  Precalculus Mathematics Homework  8  
some probem in my salters investigation  Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework  0  
Cycle over slope probem  Introductory Physics Homework  2  
PHysics 11 Pulley probem  Introductory Physics Homework  5 