Cosmological Constant: Unravelling the Mysteries of Dark Matter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cosmological constant and its relationship to dark matter and dark energy, exploring its implications for the universe's expansion and the conditions required for a static versus an accelerating universe. Participants examine theoretical frameworks, historical context, and observational evidence related to these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to maintain a static universe, but question how it fits with the current understanding of an expanding universe influenced by dark matter.
  • Others argue that the cosmological constant has always been part of Einstein's Field Equations, initially set to zero to align with observations, and recent findings suggest a non-zero value that matches observed expansion closely.
  • There is a distinction made between dark matter and dark energy, with some asserting that dark energy is more accurately identified with the cosmological constant, which is necessary for an accelerating universe.
  • Participants discuss the concept of negative pressure associated with the cosmological constant, suggesting it can yield both static and accelerating solutions, raising questions about how one constant can lead to contradictory outcomes.
  • Some contributions emphasize that the cosmological constant must be finely tuned to balance gravitational forces for a static universe, while an incorrect value could lead to either collapse or runaway expansion.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of local density fluctuations potentially disrupting a balanced state between expansion and collapse, as noted by Einstein.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the role of the cosmological constant in different cosmological models, and the discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on how the constant relates to dark matter and dark energy.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the precise value of the cosmological constant, the unresolved nature of dark energy, and the implications of observational data on the expansion rate of the universe.

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1
Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to keep a static universe

But we know the universe is expanding due to dark matter?

The exstistence of dark matter promotes the cosmoloigcal constant again.

How does that make sense?

Static universe: need cosmological constant
Expanding universe with dark matter: need cosmological constant

Or is it the case of adding the constant and the latter case minusing the constant
 
Space news on Phys.org
It's a matter of the size of the cosmological constant. The constant's actually always been there, it's a part of the general form of solutions to Einstein's Field Equations, however it was chosen to be zero to match observations at the time. There has been talk recently of re-introducing it, I believe I read something recently where some researchers found a value that matched observed expansion to within 10%.
 
pivoxa15 said:
The exstistence of dark matter promotes the cosmoloigcal constant again.
How does that make sense?
No - it is Dark Energy that may be identified as the cosmological constant.
Static universe: need cosmological constant
Expanding universe with dark matter: need cosmological constant
Or is it the case of adding the constant and the latter case minusing the constant
It is the accelerating universe that needs a cosmological constant.

Counter-intuitively adding pressure to the universe increases the deceleration of its expansion rate. This is because pressure adds a form of energy and energy is equivalent to mass that adds gravitation. It is the self gravitation of the mass-energy within the universe that should cause its expansion to decelerate.

The cosmological constant may be interpreted as a form of negative pressure, which Einstein originally used to counter this self-attraction. He wanted to prevent the universe either expanding or collapsing to yield a static universe, the CC balanced the gravitational forces on a large scale within the universe.

When observations of distant Type Ia super novae were interpreted to indicate that the universe was actually accelerating, not decelerating as previously expected, then a negative pressure was invoked to deliver this.
The negative pressure is a property of something called Dark Energy, and about 73% of the universe's mass is required to be in this form to make the standard LCDM model work. It is anybody's guess as to what Dark Energy actually is and something can be learned from the equation of state it must have to 'save the appearances' of that model.

The simplest suggestion and the one with an equation of state that seems to work ([itex]p = -\rho c^2[/itex]) is the Cosmological Constant.

I hope this helps,

Garth
 
Last edited:
The cosmological constant may be interpreted as a form of negative pressure, which Einstein originally used to counter this self-attraction. He wanted to prevent the universe either expanding or collapsing to yield a static universe, the CC balanced the gravitational forces on a large scale within the universe.

So the negative pressure which is the CC will yield a static universe?

When observations of distant Type Ia super novae were interpreted to indicate that the universe was actually accelerating, not decelerating as previously expected, then a negative pressure was invoked to deliver this.

So the negative pressure which is the CC will yield an accelerating expanding universe?


How can an equation containing one particular (in this case negative pressure in both cases) constant yield two solutions that contradict each other? That is a static universe and an acclerating expanding universe.
 
pivoxa15 said:
How can an equation containing one particular (in this case negative pressure in both cases) constant yield two solutions that contradict each other? That is a static universe and an acclerating expanding universe.

The cosmological constant is a multiplicitive factor in front of a term which has the effect of a negative pressure. If you choose the value of that constant to be one number you get Einstein's static universe, if you choose it to be another number you get the accelerating expansion case.
 
pivoxa15 said:
The cosmological constant may be interpreted as a form of negative pressure, which Einstein originally used to counter this self-attraction. He wanted to prevent the universe either expanding or collapsing to yield a static universe, the CC balanced the gravitational forces on a large scale within the universe.
So the negative pressure which is the CC will yield a static universe?
When observations of distant Type Ia super novae were interpreted to indicate that the universe was actually accelerating, not decelerating as previously expected, then a negative pressure was invoked to deliver this.
So the negative pressure which is the CC will yield an accelerating expanding universe?
How can an equation containing one particular (in this case negative pressure in both cases) constant yield two solutions that contradict each other? That is a static universe and an acclerating expanding universe.
In the first case, the CC is finely tuned such that it exactly balances the gravitational attaction. This actually turned out to be a problem because unless the CC had exactly the right value, it would lead to either a colapse or run away expansion of the universe.

When it was discovered that the universe was expanding rather than static, the whole CC term was put aside as it really was no longer needed. (the expansion could be explained as the lingering effect of the impetus of the Big Bang)

If this were the case, then we would expect the expansion rate to slow over time. The supernovae observations mentioned were an attempt to determine whether this slowing was enough to ever stop the expansion completely, or if the universe would keep on expanding forever.

The results indicated, as already mentioned, that the expansion rate was actually speeding up. IOW, it appeared to be undergoing the run away expansion suggested if the CC had too large a value.

Simply put:

For a static universe the negative pressure has to have a precise value in order to perfectly balance the gravitational attraction of the universe.

If it is too small, the universe collapses
If it is too large, the universe expands at an accelerating rate.

If the universe is expanding simply due to the impetus of the Big bang,(no CC) the expansion will decelerate with time.

Due to changes in our understanding of the universe through improved observations, the expected value of the CC has had to change.
 
The problem is, as Einstein realized, the universe cannot remain perfectly poised between collapse and expansion indefinitely. Small, local fluctuations in density [such as galaxies] would eventually tip the balance in one or the other direction.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
14K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K