Vacuum solution with nonzero cosmological constant

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a non-zero cosmological constant in the context of Einstein's equations and its compatibility with Newtonian gravity and special relativity. Participants explore the mathematical formulation of the radial geodesic and the potential implications of an r^2 term in the potential energy function.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the presence of a non-zero cosmological constant introduces an r^2 term in the potential energy function, which they argue does not align with ordinary Newtonian gravity.
  • Others express skepticism about the compatibility of a non-zero cosmological constant with our universe, questioning how such a potential could exist without being experimentally detected.
  • One participant suggests that the smallness of the cosmological constant could explain why its effects are only noticeable on cosmological scales, implying that it may not be detectable at smaller scales.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that a small cosmological constant would not produce detectable effects, arguing that even a small constant could lead to significant potential at large distances.
  • A later reply introduces a criterion involving the relationship between the cosmological constant and the maximum distance over which Newtonian gravity has been observed, seeking to determine if current estimates of the cosmological constant are consistent with this condition.
  • One participant cites a paper estimating the cosmological constant to be around 10^-52, indicating that it is indeed very small.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of a non-zero cosmological constant, particularly regarding its compatibility with observed phenomena and the nature of its potential. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the cosmological constant's effects and the conditions under which Newtonian gravity holds. The discussion also highlights the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of the mathematical relationships involved.

La Guinee
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Consider the vacuum solution to Einstein's equations with non-zero cosmological constant. Following Carroll, we can find the equation for the radial geodesic with the aid of killing vectors. It takes the standard form: E = T + V. But, with non-zero cosmological constant V(r) now has a term proportional to r^2. This obviously doesn't reduce to ordinary Newtonian gravity. If there were actually a term proportional to r^2 we would have experimentally detected it. What's going on?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
La Guinee said:
Consider the vacuum solution to Einstein's equations with non-zero cosmological constant. Following Carroll, we can find the equation for the radial geodesic with the aid of killing vectors. It takes the standard form: E = T + V. But, with non-zero cosmological constant V(r) now has a term proportional to r^2. This obviously doesn't reduce to ordinary Newtonian gravity. If there were actually a term proportional to r^2 we would have experimentally detected it. What's going on?
General Relativity with a non zero cosmological constant is not compatible with special relativity in flat spacetimes or Newtonian gravity in the limit.
 
MeJennifer said:
General Relativity with a non zero cosmological constant is not compatible with special relativity in flat spacetimes or Newtonian gravity in the limit.

Ok. But if a nonzero cosmological constant has an r^2 potential it can't be compatible with our universe either. How does one reconcile this with the fact that people think the cosmological constant isn't zero?
 
La Guinee said:
But if a nonzero cosmological constant has an r^2 potential it can't be compatible with our universe either.
How do you conclude as such?
 
MeJennifer said:
How do you conclude as such?

Wouldn't we have experimentally detected a potential that grows as r^2?
 
La Guinee said:
Wouldn't we have experimentally detected a potential that grows as r^2?
Not if the constant of proportionality is exceedingly tiny!

The effect of a tiny cosmological constant is only noticeable on huge (cosmological!) scales, and it's only in the last decade or so that we've found astronomical evidence to suggest it isn't zero.
 
DrGreg said:
Not if the constant of proportionality is exceedingly tiny!

The effect of a tiny cosmological constant is only noticeable on huge (cosmological!) scales, and it's only in the last decade or so that we've found astronomical evidence to suggest it isn't zero.

I don't see how that makes sense. No matter how small the cosmological constant is, I can find an r much much greater than the cosmological constant. Unless you're saying the cosmological constant is small even compared to the size of the universe.
 
La Guinee said:
I don't see how that makes sense. No matter how small the cosmological constant is, I can find an r much much greater than the cosmological constant. Unless you're saying the cosmological constant is small even compared to the size of the universe.

I take back what I just said. The condition would be that Lambda R^2 would have to be much less than 1, where R is the maximum distance over which Newtonian gravity has been observed to hold. Is this consistent with current estimates of the cosmological constant? In particular, the current upper bound would have to be less than or equal to the upper bound implied by this criterion. Anyone know if this is true?
 
I found a paper that gives the estimate Lambda ~ 10^-52. That is indeed pretty small.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K