Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is cosmological constant solved?

  1. Jul 15, 2015 #1
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2015 #2

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I see three points here:
    1) The author proposes a modification of FLRW metric which is in rotation. First, this metric should be a solution of Einstein Field Equations with a SEM tensor. Second that SEM tensor should have theoretical backup too.
    2) This won't be the solution people wanted, because this only explains cosmological constant in one particular solution of Einstein Field Equations, not in general.
    3) Even if the above considerations are satisfied, both the rotation of the universe and the SEM tensor above should have experimental backup.
     
  4. Jul 15, 2015 #3
    You are saying without experimental evcidence it cant be true and
    Whats the requirement of general solution ?
    Thank you
     
  5. Jul 15, 2015 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Here is the ordinary arXiv reference in case anyone wants it http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.0892
    and the record of publication
    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732312501064
    which shows one citation
    Zorba has one other paper on arXiv:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.3021
    Dark Energy and Dark Matter as Inertial Effects
    Serkan Zorba
    (Submitted on 10 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 20 Oct 2012 (this version, v3))
    A globally rotating model of the universe is postulated. It is shown that dark energy and dark matter are cosmic inertial effects resulting from such a cosmic rotation, corresponding to centrifugal and a combination of centrifugal and the Coriolis forces, respectively. The physics and the cosmological and galactic parameters obtained from the model closely match those attributed to dark energy and dark matter in the standard {\Lambda}-CDM model.
    Comments: Apart from some changes in the choice of words previously used and omitting the claim about a "Big Spin," the main results of the dark matter discussion is also included in the table given for dark energy

    Here is Zorba's page at Whittier College in southern California
    http://www.whittier.edu/academics/physics/Zorba
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  6. Jul 15, 2015 #5

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, if our universe is not rotating, but has a cosmological constant, then rotation can't be the reason for the cosmological constant!
    That's hard to say(maybe for me). But the cosmological constant is something that is present in the Lagrangian for gravity and so also in the equations of motion. This means it will affect all the solutions of the Einstein Field Equations, not only the ones that rotate. So we need a more general solution that explains why the constant is in the equations.
     
  7. Jul 15, 2015 #6
    I understand the idea.But I want to ask something. Its just a theory.Like multi-universe theory or maybe like String theory.
    Is that a good theory like these ?.We dont have any provement but they are still theory.Or this theory just useless.
     
  8. Jul 15, 2015 #7
    It means it is an unproven theory, some would call that merely a hypothesis.
    Unproven doesn't mean it's 'wrong', it just means it's not supported by evidence, even indirectly.
    A hypothesis is not useless. but does require some actual evidence if it is to considered as real science.
     
  9. Jul 15, 2015 #8
    Why I asked I am in high school and I was trying to find same theory for over 6 months.But I see it was found already.Did it make me happy or sad.
     
  10. Jul 15, 2015 #9

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I don't know. Did it?
     
  11. Jul 15, 2015 #10
    In the first paper posted by Marcus, the author writes:
    "... the observed so-called cosmic “axis of evil” and non-Gaussian properties of
    the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies (CMBA)."...

    In my view, all of the foregoing are 3 evocative of a rotating universe....

    What is observed and are alternative explanations?
     
  12. Jul 15, 2015 #11
    I am happy cause my theory became true and I found it myself without knowing GR and I in high school and I can prove you that I found same thing.I am sad cause If I found it I will be much more happy.I was planning to write an article 3 years later but now I am sad.
     
  13. Jul 15, 2015 #12

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Just to be clear, we don't know that the theory in the paper is "true". It's just speculation at this point. It needs a lot more review and comparison with experimental data, and probably a lot more experimental data, before we will be able to say with reasonable certainty whether it is "true" or not.

    Also, I strongly doubt that what you found for yourself was "the same thing" as the theory in the paper. Just saying "I think the universe might be rotating" is nowhere near the same as having an actual mathematical model that meets the fairly strict theoretical requirements that a cosmological model must meet, and makes quantitative predictions that can be tested, which is what the theory described in the paper does. I'm not saying you shouldn't have ideas; I'm just saying that having a simple idea is not the same thing as "finding a theory". Coming up with a theory is a lot more work than just having an idea, and requires a lot more background knowledge. (Not that you should be expected to have all that background knowledge yet, either. But there is no shortcut; you have to learn what we currently know before you can move beyond it.)

    There are plenty more things left to discover, so I wouldn't be too sad. If you are really interested in the subject, and take the time to build yourself a good foundation of background knowledge, you will find plenty of areas where our knowledge is incomplete and you can discover new things.
     
  14. Jul 15, 2015 #13
    Thanks Peter Donis.I understand your idea.I dont know GR.So I used Friedmann equation to find the solution.I will gonna learn GR three years later (maybe two).

    In these ages If I wrote a theory nobody will be believe me why cause I am just a high school student.But I found the main idea.But I dont have enough math.Two months later I will start university and I will study physics.So That was my plan.Wait three years to develop your theory then make a good start to better university to show everyone that I have a theory.
    I am just a curious man who wants the discover the secrets of universe.

    Thanks PeterDonis.And I asked you that GR question to develop my theory use GR.

    I asked Shyan cosmology and GR books to develop my theory again.Same purpose.And I ordered them.But the mystery is solved

    Everyone is not a quack.If every high school student or student be a quack in this life then there will be no einstein,dirac,heisenberg and more students.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2015
  15. Jul 15, 2015 #14

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Quite true. And if your plan is to learn physics and then use what you've learned to develop a theory and show it to people, you're doing fine. What tends to get people labeled quacks is trying to show people their theory and claiming that it's right, without having learned physics first.
     
  16. Jul 15, 2015 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The rotating universe idea raises at least one big question - rotating with respect to what? That question aside CMB measurements severly constrain the possibe amount of rotation - re: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575, Is the universe rotating? For a more recent discussion there is http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2013.48A012, On the Modern Status of the Universe Rotation Problem. The scientific consensus appears to be - if it is rotating, it does so with extraordinary leisure. I would argue the simplest conclusion is it doe not rotate, but, it may be one of those questions that will contine to resist our best efferts to answer conclusively.
     
  17. Jul 15, 2015 #16
    Doesn't rotation of a four dimensional space induce universal hyperbolic expansion of the three dimensional subspace?
     
  18. Jul 15, 2015 #17

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Unclear, do you have reference in mind?
     
  19. Jul 16, 2015 #18
    I read both articles which chronos post.Theres some evidences which universe rotates.The rotation said must be less then 10-9 rad/year.I dont know GR so I cant read the math.
     
  20. Jul 16, 2015 #19

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That's not what the articles Chalnoth posted say. They say that there is no evidence that the universe is rotating. But we can never prove that the rate of rotation of the universe is exactly zero; the best we can do is to set a limit on how much it can be rotating, based on the fact that we see no evidence of rotation and how accurate our measurements are. That limit is currently about ##10^{-9}## radians per year--in other words, if the universe is rotating, it must be rotating slower than that, because otherwise we would see evidence of the rotation, and we don't.
     
  21. Jul 16, 2015 #20
    I understand ok.My english level is middle so excuse me.

    In serkan paper w=H=2.3 10-18 rad/sec If we turn this rad/year we get 7.2 10-11 which its smaller then 10-9.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is cosmological constant solved?
  1. Cosmological Constant (Replies: 13)

  2. Cosmological constant (Replies: 6)

  3. Cosmological constant (Replies: 3)

  4. Cosmological constant (Replies: 5)

Loading...