Dark energy versus cosmological constant

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Dark energy and the cosmological constant are distinct concepts in cosmology. Dark energy refers to the unknown force driving the accelerating expansion of the universe, while the cosmological constant, introduced by Albert Einstein in his general relativity theory, serves as a negative force (lambda) that counteracts gravity. The Lambda-CDM model, established as the standard cosmological model, incorporates the cosmological constant as the simplest form of dark energy. Approximately 69% of the universe's mass-energy is attributed to dark energy, which is essential for understanding the universe's expansion dynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and its implications
  • Familiarity with the Lambda-CDM model
  • Knowledge of observational cosmology techniques
  • Basic grasp of quantum field theory concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Lambda-CDM model and its significance in cosmology
  • Study observational cosmology through resources like "What we have learned from Observational Cosmology"
  • Examine the paper "What do we really know about Dark Energy?" by Ruth Durrer
  • Explore the implications of the cosmological constant in the context of dark energy
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physics students interested in the dynamics of the universe's expansion and the underlying forces driving it.

edpell
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Are dark energy and the cosmological constant the same thing?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I'm only learning this stuff myself, but as I understand it: dark energy is the name given to whatever is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe. One possible explanation of this expansion (the simplest one!) is given by a nonzero cosmological constant.

However, other possibilities exist: the early universe expanded extremely rapidly (a process called inflation), and if that were caused by a cosmological constant then the rapid acceleration would never* have slowed down, so other mechanisms that can cause an acceleration must exist.

*Technical caveat: unless you regard your cosmological "constant" as a running coupling in a quantum field theory- don't worry if that means nothing to you.
 
who me worry :)
 
No, there are not the same thing. the cosmological constant was firstly introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory general relativity to hold back gravity, so it is a negative force also know as lambda. After Hubble discovery that our universe is expanding, it imply that cosmological constant exist. Because if lambda don't exist, then due to the gravity, our universe should collapse not accelerate, by the way, according to the survey about 69% mass-energy in the universe are dark energy. and dark energy is a hypothetical form that explain whatever matter is responsible for the accelerating or expanding of the universe, in other words, cosmological constant is the expression of the dark energy
 
Here's a link to the Cosmological Constant wiki: Cosmological Constant

It states:

The cosmological constant is the simplest possible form of dark energy since it is constant in both space and time, and this leads to the current standard model of cosmology known as the Lambda-CDM model, which provides a good fit to many cosmological observations as of 2014.
 
Kkangliu said:
No, there are not the same thing. the cosmological constant was firstly introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory general relativity to hold back gravity, so it is a negative force also know as lambda. After Hubble discovery that our universe is expanding, it imply that cosmological constant exist. Because if lambda don't exist, then due to the gravity, our universe should collapse not accelerate, by the way, according to the survey about 69% mass-energy in the universe are dark energy. and dark energy is a hypothetical form that explain whatever matter is responsible for the accelerating or expanding of the universe, in other words, cosmological constant is the expression of the dark energy

Hubble didn't discover the accelerated expansion of the Universe, that was done much much later by Saul Perlmutter and his group, for which they received the Nobel in 2011.

Hubble discovered only the expansion of the universe. There is no need for a cosmological constant to describe simple expansion, the expansion just comes from initial conditions. A lack of cosmological constant; however, would imply a decelerating universe, which the data back in Hubble's time was nowhere near accurate enough to rule out.
 
Some good material to look at. Those should fill in a few blanks, keep in mind dark energy is only one explanation as a possible contributor to the cosmological constant. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.5331v3.pdf "What do we really know about Dark Energy?" by Ruth Durrer (this article relates closest to the OP question)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0203330 "On the Cosmological Constant Problems and the Astronomical Evidence for a Homogeneous Energy Density with Negative Pressure"

My signature contains numerous other articles, at http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
737
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
92
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
11K