Cosmological constant and vacuum energy

[ftr]

Since Omega-lambda is very close to Omega-matter, what could it mean if we assume they are exactly equal to each other. Also, let's assume they were always equal since coincident problem is unnatural.

 

[Mordred]

Your use of terms is misleading in regards to your question.
In the title the vacuum energy is the same as the cosmological constant, lambda.

In your omega-matter, are you referring to the total mass including DM, radiation and energy. Or specifically just normal matter?

What you are probably looking for is the relation of the critical density vs lambda. Please confirm

Here is a quick article on critical density
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

[ftr]

Your use of terms is misleading in regards to your question.
In the title the vacuum energy is the same as the cosmological constant, lambda.

In your omega-matter, are you referring to the total mass including DM, radiation and energy. Or specifically just normal matter?

What you are probably looking for is the relation of the critical density vs lambda. Please confirm

Here is a quick article on critical density
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Thanks for the reply. Yes, you are right of course , first I used slash but I just added and., just a title. As for the question I am hypothesising if there was no dark matter just ordinary matter energy and vacuum energy. And both should add up to critical density.

 

[Mordred]

Your still not being clear so I will assume the intent.

If the total actual density equals (exactly and stable) equals the critical density then the universe is flat and static.

Judging from your descriptives you may not understand why that is the answer.

in short the relation between critical density and actual density determines not only spacetime geometry but also expansion rates.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

 

[Chronos]

They don't, which is one reason dark matter is the favored explanation. We can strongly constrain the contribution of omega baryonic and omega lambda to critical density, and they fall far short of that necessary to account for the measured critical density of the universe.

 

[Mordred]

They don't, which is one reason dark matter is the favored explanation. We can strongly constrain the contribution of omega baryonic and omega lambda to critical density, and they fall far short of that necessary to account for the measured critical density of the universe.

add to that the contributions of omega-relativististic particles such as neutrinos (in relativistic energy levels) or other factors to overall actual energy-mass density factors (radiation/energy
)

 

[Mordred]

One of the problems associated with forum based answers. Is the specific need of clarity on what the OP is asking for. This requires accurate feedback from the OP. Not only on a specified target but also a target of understanding vs the OP's line of thinking.

To answer your questions accurately in an educational manner requires us to formulate your thoughts. This is indicative of why I ask for better clarity on your understanding on the
related post

 

[ftr]

One of the problems associated with forum based answers. Is the specific need of clarity on what the OP is asking for. This requires accurate feedback from the OP. Not only on a specified target but also a target of understanding vs the OP's line of thinking.

To answer your questions accurately in an educational manner requires us to formulate your thoughts. This is indicative of why I ask for better clarity on your understanding on the
related post

ok Thanks. I have been going through some books to get some more info, but I am getting a bit confused. So I hope I can clarify my question shortly. but yes, it seems a static universe is the answer like the great blunder of Einstein. But I wonder what values he used.