The Cosmological Constant: a New Law

[Little Bang]

coldc, virtual particles are everywhere but they can only become real in areas of high energy density and 99.9 % of those areas are inside stars.

[spennithorne]

If the clocks were ticking backwards, going back in time, the entropy of the universe decreases until it reaches or nearly reaches zero. But that does not imply that zero would be reached at some equilibrium state a beginning in time.

 

The entropy of the universe could continue decreasing as time tends towards minus infinity without therefore attaining the zero value....

 

The solution has to be, as one tends to minus infinity, the universe approaches equilibrium without ever reaching it.

 

The cosmological constant, lambda, always stays the same. It is a universal constant.

 

coldcreation

:rant:

 

I'm mystified by the above entire thread...

 

Here's something I do understand:

 

"In general relativity, the rate of change in the cosmic expansion is proportional to

-(rho total + 3p total),

where rho total is the density of all the matter and energy in the universe

and p total is the corresponding pressure.

 

To account for the accelerated expansion, however, this quantity must be positive. Since rho total is a positive quantity, and the mean pressure due to both ordinary and dark matter is negligible because it is cold (non-relativistic), we arrive at the requirement that

3w x rho dark + rho total < 0

for an accelerating expansion. Since rho dark ~ 2/3 rho total, we find that w≥-1/2, so the pressure of the dark energy is not just a little negative but a lot negative!

 

Why does pressure influence the expansion of the universe? Since matter and energy curve space-time, for a hot gas the kinetic motions of atoms contribute to their gravitational pull, as measured through the acceleration of distant test bodies. However, in these experiments, the forces required to contain or isolate the hot gas count against this pressure bonus. The universe, on the other hand, is neither isolated nor bounded. The expansion of a cosmos filled by hot gases is effectively slowed by the attraction of its self-gravity, more so than a universe that is filled with an equivalent energy density of cold, pressureless gas. And by the same logic a medium that allows negative pressure such that rho total + 3p total < 0 will expand more quickly, repelled by its own anti-gravity.

 

Negative pressure is not such a rare phenomenon. On the microscopic level, a bath of Higgs bosons - the hypothetical particles that give rise to mass in the Standard Model of particle physics - exerts negative pressure when its thermal or kinetic excitations are small. Indeed, the inflation can be viewed as a heavier version of the Higgs, and one of the proposed forms of dark energy called quintessence might be an even lighter version of the Higgs.

 

In principle there is no lower bound to the pressure in the universe, although strange things happen if w falls below -1 (an isolated lump of such material could appear to have negative mass, which is just what one might need to prop open a wormhole). However, most proposed forms of dark energy can buckle or bend only slightly, and even then only over distances much bigger than galaxies, making it hard to get a handle on the stuff. But one thing is certain: such strongly negative pressure does not happen for normal particles and fields in general relativity.

 

The detailed observations lead to slightly tighter constraints on the dark-energy parameters than those given by the simple estimates above. When the predictions of the different theoretical models are combined with the best measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), galaxy clustering and supernova distances, we find that

 

0.62 < Ωdark < 0.76, where Ω dark = rho dark/rho critical, and -1.3 < w < -0.9.

[Little Bang]

Time is a lot like gravity, no one knows what it's modus operandi is. As far as the arrow of time I don't think there is one, nor does anyone have proof that there is one.

[spennithorne]

One has to distinguish the human sense of time from the reality in physical world. The mental notion (and the human sensation) of the "arrow of time" is one thing. The actual nature of the space-time continuum is that the "forwardness" of events is woven into material and energetic existence; that is, thermodynamics do not allow reversals of events because entropy increases unless there is energy input from outside such local systems.

 

I'd still like Coldcreation and others to address my previous post. By the way, vacuum energy w = -1 is the boundary between the need for Quintessence, vs the more standard cosmological constant. There are lots of specific practicalities contained in that post that require rigorous addressing for coldcreation's theory to hold any water at all.

[Tormod]

Time is a lot like gravity, no one knows what it's modus operandi is. As far as the arrow of time I don't think there is one, nor does anyone have proof that there is one.

 

The arrow of time is more or less a definition. The arrow of time points in the direction if increased entropy.

[coldcreation]

The arrow of time is more or less a definition. The arrow of time points in the direction if increased entropy.

 

This is why entropy decreases if we turn the clocks around. I hope no one thought I meant something else, e.g., that time was reversible. It is only a logical deduction of the second law that because entropy increases in time, that a long time ago (whatever theory of origin you adhere to) entropy was very close to zero, if not exactly zero at minus infinity.

 

I did read somewhere, and I’ll find the reference, that the big bang was a states of very high entropy. Inflation once again is supposed to fix the entropy problem. But I seriously doubt it can without invoking that false vacuum again. So entropy according to the big bang decreases and then increases. I understand....

CC

[coldcreation]

;)

 

I'm mystified by the above entire thread...

 

Here's something I do understand:

 

"In general relativity, the rate of change in the cosmic expansion is proportional to...

...To account for the accelerated expansion, ... so the pressure of the dark energy is not just a little negative but a lot negative!

 

...Since matter and energy curve space-time...

 

... And by the same logic a medium that allows negative pressure such that rho total + 3p total < 0 will expand more quickly, repelled by its own anti-gravity...

 

...Negative pressure is not such a rare phenomenon. On the microscopic level, a bath of Higgs bosons - the hypothetical particles that give rise to mass in the Standard Model of particle physics - exerts negative pressure when its thermal or kinetic excitations are small. Indeed, the inflation can be viewed as a heavier version of the Higgs, and one of the proposed forms of dark energy called quintessence might be an even lighter version of the Higgs...

 

...In principle there is no lower bound to the pressure in the universe, although strange things happen...

 

...The detailed observations lead to slightly tighter constraints on the dark-energy parameters than those given by the simple estimates above. When the predictions of the different theoretical models are combined with the best measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), galaxy clustering and supernova distances, we find that

 

0.62 < ?dark < 0.76, where ? dark = rho dark/rho critical, and -1.3 < w < -0.9.

 

 

Dear Spennithorn,

 

Permit me to point out a couple of flaws in your well-trained and highly academic reasoning.

 

You write "In general relativity, the rate of change in the cosmic expansion is...”

 

In general relativity there is no rate of change of cosmic expansion. The rates of changes in Einstein’s general relativity refers to those of clocks and standard measuring rods in a gravitational field, i.e., in a non-Euclidean curved space-time continuum. (Special relativity or Newtonian mechanics will suffice to prove the point you are trying to make).

 

In fact, in GR there is no cosmic expansion at all, just instability, in its original form. Recall that the cosmological constant had made it’s entrance as a term that countered expansion and contraction.

 

Note too that lambda’s return to cosmology (to physics, more generally) highlights an extraordinary blunder, not on the part of Einstein, but on the part of all those physicists who for all those years had written lambda off as the greatest mistake (blunder) of 20th century physics. Einstein’s greatest missed opportunity was to have abandoned the cosmological before having defined its physical qualities and its relation to the gravitational interaction. “If the cosmological constant exists, then away with expansion” he would have said if he were alive today.

 

The same stance as those expressed in your writing Spennithorn (as if part of some final solution to the cosmological problem) is held by an entire ponderous structure of well educated men and women that have nevertheless been unable to come to terms with the big bang, at least as far as ground zero, t = 0, in concerned, with the artificial concept of a false vacuum, dark matter, and dark energy. The fact is, no one knows what these things, forces or states are.

 

You write: “...the pressure of the dark energy is not just a little negative but a lot negative.” No one knows what the heck is dark energy is.

 

And with the same logic you write that the universe “will expand more quickly, repelled by its own anti-gravity.” Nothing repels by its own gravity.

 

The only thing you mention that is not speculative in origin is “matter and energy curve space-time.”

 

Finally, you write “I'm mystified by the above entire thread...”

 

The idea of this thread is to show that the cosmological constant is real. That it was introduced ad hoc by Einstein, but for the right reason...to stabilize his equations, the universe.

 

The cosmological constant, lambda, is a universal constant. I have not yet stated its value, nor the new law of physics to which it is attached but will do so shortly in a thread to be titled Cold Creation).

 

One more thing perhaps Spennithorn. What you write is in every post-1998 article or textbook on cosmology. It is nothing new. But that is alright. Not everyone has novel ideas to express, but most like to express the generally accepted view because they know most will agree. It always feels good to have moral majority standing behind oneself. It doesn’t even matter if they’re wrong in their assertions, as long as most agree to back the claims.

 

One thing did catch my attention though, and I would like to ask you a question about it. You wrote, and again, I’ve read it before, that “In principle there is no lower bound to the pressure in the universe” My question is: what principle do you base this hypothesis on? If there is a principle that forbids it, you can kiss your entire well-learned-premise goodbye. You do realize, I am sure, that if the cosmological constant is real and equal to zero, that the theory to which you adhere so understandingly is also worth zero. Meaning, the big bang theory is not the right theory if what we are trying to explain is the essence of the physical universe and its evolution in time.

 

You realize too certainly that negative pressure of the vacuum implies implicitly and explicitly that space can be emptied continually until zero in reached (that is a perfect vacuum with no energy or flux). Once zero pressure is attained a process by which there is no physical explanation continues to suck the vacuum until a state never observed in any vacuum physics laboratory on earth or in outer-space, beyond the atmosphere, is reached where pressure becomes negative. This concept is as ugly as negative mass, or negative energy.

 

You wrote too, “There are lots of specific practicalities contained in that post that require rigorous addressing for coldcreation's theory to hold any water at all.” I have not yet stated the essence of the Cold Creation theory. I can tell you now though that non of the requirements (or practicalities) you mention in you mail are operational in the Cold Creation theory. The cosmological constant, however, is directly involved, Einstein’s not yours. Also, objectively, i.e., judging for the results of supernova survey of the 1990s, and other observations mentioned in previous mails in the same thread, the big bang along with inflation have begun taking on water, if they haven’t sunk yet. Openly, someone has to have the courage to annul the standard model and assume full responsibility for the decision. But the majorities feel that this type of courage is really just panic. Like the old fight or flight syndrome of psychology 101; invalidation of the model is seen as retreating, a renunciation, a withdrawal not dignified of mankind, as if it was dignified of man to follow-the-leader into obscurity, to tread inextricably in muddy waters, to drown in something he doesn’t understand and will never understand: vis dark energy.

 

A weird and wonderful statuary presides over the rebirth of a new post-1998 cosmological constant. Almost never before have men acquiesced to so barbarous an appearance of destiny and force. The anonymous sculptors who re-erected this almighty apparition do not realize that they adhere to a tradition traced by anthropomorphized cruciform churches. But the ‘god’ is new: another ‘new spirit’ is exploited.

 

The point of this thread is to show that there exists a branch of physics in the low energy, low temperature range that describes the history of the universe from an infinite time in the past to an infinite time in the future. It is a theory within which the laws of physics never break down. It is a theory that makes no use of hypothetical particles (e.g., Higgs particles) or extra dimensions (like string theory or M-theory). It is a theory that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is not a steady state theory, it is founded on general relativity with the cosmological constant and follows from the laws of thermodynamics. The universe in non-expanding.

 

I hope no one take these attacks on modern cosmology personally. The aim is only to define an alternative, to present a more realistic version of nature, to say that there is a new cosmology emerging that relies solely on empirical evidence, on natural laws (thermodynamics) and on a united general relativistic-quantum mechanical front.

 

Again, the laws of physics remain intact at all times. Lamentably, this is not the case for big bang cosmology, inflationary models, grand unified stratagem, or superstring theory, where the laws of nature are continuously violated until a threshold is reached when all the laws break down entirely. Do I think there are problems prowling out there? Absolutely.

 

This is not the beginning of a major anti-cosmology movement; it is a continuation from an era before which our conception of the universe changed radically, from a point when the laws of physics with which we were familiar became of no use in explaining what had happened. Cold Creation is a continuation of a tradition of fundamental science; it is an attempt to elucidate the mysteries of matter creation and to show how the evolution of the universe was necessarily the outcome of the deepest laws that govern all of physical reality.

 

Coldcreation

[Little Bang]

I await your presentation as I am sure everyone else does.

[coldcreation]

I await your presentation as I am sure everyone else does.

 

 

Soon, very soon.

 

Warning: Coldcreation is not for those with aching necks, or for those who forgot their mittens, nor in all fairness, for those with short attention spans. The good news is that sunglasses will not be necessary, but keep them handy just in case; the big bang is a redoubtable adversary.

[spennithorne]

Dear Spennithorne,

 

The point of this thread is...

a theory that unites quantum mechanics and general relativity. The universe is non-expanding....

 

 

Thank you, A. M. (CC), for the reply. Much of what you say is true, in statements taken individually. Individual-item replies would sound like quibbling. It's the piecing together, and the claims you make for your theory (see the bit I quoted above) that I find astonishing. ;)

 

But then, string theory, M-theory, Higgs bosons, faster-than-lightspeed inflation of the early Universe, and dark energy, taken separately, are each astonishing; and worse yet, put all together to try to explain current observations, do in fact not really meet any test of theoretical elegance. Occam's razor, anyone? ;)

[coldcreation]

Thank you, A. M. (CC), for the reply. Much of what you say is true, in statements taken individually. Individual-item replies would sound like quibbling. It's the piecing together, and the claims you make for your theory (see the bit I quoted above) that I find astonishing.

 

But then, string theory, M-theory, Higgs bosons, faster-than-lightspeed inflation of the early Universe, and dark energy, taken separately, are each astonishing; and worse yet, put all together to try to explain current observations, do in fact not really meet any test of theoretical elegance...

 

Good points spennithorne. It is entertaining to contemplate what course cosmology and general relativity would have taken had Einstein not abolished the cosmological term, and sat back to await corroboration by observations. Einstein would have had to wait until 1998 (the supernovae Type IA survey results) for the official confirmation of his discovery.

 

And yet the new cosmological constant is perhaps more akin to a motor, but no astronomer, physicist or cosmologist knows what kind of fuel or energy this motor consumes, or even what the motor is.

 

The question remains: Does lambda drive the expansion to an ever-increasing accelerated frenzy? Or, is there produced some form of equilibrium between gravitating matter and empty space: as Einstein had suspected? In short, is the expansion accelerating, or is cosmology to be revamped from ground zero?

 

Time has come to put general relativity and the cosmological constant back into circulation, or revise the imperfect last lines of the standard stanza with yet another unconventional maneuver.

 

It would appear that nature has once again thrown us a curveball and cosmology struck-out with bases loaded.

 

Actually, it is no curveball, it’s a screwball.

 

A new Friedmann model is needed to explain the acceleration of expansion. So what should we call the unexpected newcomer? A fourth Friedmann sister? Absolutely not. She’s too different, poles apart, freaky even. She can’t even be adopted. It would be like adopting an inflatable doll: super-fat, super-repulsive and super-fake.

 

“This is a name without any meaning, which was only conferred upon it because it was thought appropriate that it should have a name, and because it appeared to have something to do with the constitution of the universe; but it must not be inferred that, since we have given it a name, we know what it means. We have, in fact, not the slightest inkling of what it means.” (de Sitter 1932)

 

"Since the universe is unique, there is no essential difference between considering lambda as a constant which is peculiar to a law of nature or as a constant of integration.” (Einstein, 1918).

 

Peculiar to a law of nature indeed it is..........................

 

ColdCreation

[coldcreation]

The Cold Creation concept is similar to Einstein’s: in that the universe is a dynamic, non-expanding, relativistic, with a very real mechanism responsible for stability of gravitationally bounded systems, i.e., that mechanism is responsible for the preclusion of collapse, or dispersion of gravitating bodies: both locally and globally.

 

Einstein, more aware of the problems of instability than he would have been fond of, nevertheless realized that had he not introduced the cosmological constant in order to maintain a static world-view, his equations would have predicted the expanding universe—a concept that had been gaining momentum and would soon form the basis of centralized belief.

 

Without the cosmological constant, the universe was liberated, free to expand or contract unimpeded by the ad hoc gravity balancing 'cosmological force.' With the primeval fireball and the expanding universe, the growing blaze of ideas would be further fueled by the brightest physicists—it would even guide Einstein’s famous reported declaration that the introduction of the cosmological constant was, in his terms, ‘the greatest blunder of my life.’

 

In 1933, Lemaître, the grandpa of the big bang, advocated that lambda's value should be different from the zero value that Einstein had suggested, that it might be considered as a negative vacuum density or negative pressure, a repulsive force of the cosmos.

 

This ‘negative energy’ resurfaced years later not only as an integral part of the inflationary expansion stage (disguised as a “false vacuum”) but as a ubiquitous energy attached to the very fabric of space, destined to drive the expansion of the universe (in an accelerated frenzy) with the swiftness of a race in a dream.

 

I like Einstein's cosmological term better. It's less repulsive.

ColdCreation

[coldcreation]

I like Einstein's cosmological term better. It's less repulsive.

 

So here are a few implications (without going into detail), if the cosmological constant is real, i.e., if spacetime has properties that affect the evolution of the large-scale structures of the universe, as gravity is know to do.

 

1) The universe is stationary, non-expanding, evolving and general relativistic.

 

2) It appears hyperbolic from the restframe of any observer, and at any time, provided he/she/it lives in an epoch where things are visible in the universe. (This is supported by recent observational data of distant SN Type Ia)

 

3) There is no boundary condition. The continuum is infinite is all directions and at all times, both past and future.

 

4) Cosmic microwave background CMB thermal radiation is not a redshifted relic of a hot event some time (t = 0) in the past. It is simply the thermal radiation that baths the entire universe. Its temperature depends on epoch, time t.

 

5) The CMB is warming with time, not cooling as suspected by the majority of cosmologists.

 

6) There is no beginning to the universe.

 

7) There are no other universes, multiverse, or other dimensions.

 

8) The laws of nature remain intact at all times, in all places and under any condition (high temperature, low temperature, high density etc.)

 

9) Matter was created otherwise than in a canonical hot big bang type event.

 

10) Evolution of the large-scale structures is much slower than previously suspected (hundreds of billions of years).

 

There is substantial evidence to back these claims.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

ColdCreation

[coldcreation]

Lambda equals zero...

 

The value of lambda remains zero for all time. Because of the non-changing value of lambda it should be elevated to the status of fundamental constant of nature. There is no reason why a fundamental constant of nature should not have a zero value. There are many reasons why this one should.

 

Others, Einstein included had considered this value for lambda. The difference now is that there can be no other value, i.e., lambda cannot have negative values, nor can it have positive values, by definition.

 

In coming to this conclusion It became apparent that the definition of lambda was lacking. The elaboration of the physical explanation leads to a new law of nature that had been overlooked, one that essentially describes what is space, and most importantly of all, what is gravity. Indeed, the answers regarding lambda shed light on the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

 

Something has only just begun

 

Coldcreation

[EWright]

Lambda equals zero...

 

The value of lambda remains zero for all time. Because of the non-changing value of lambda it should be elevated to the status of fundamental constant of nature. There is no reason why a fundamental constant of nature should not have a zero value. There are many reasons why this one should.

 

Others, Einstein included had considered this value for lambda. The difference now is that there can be no other value, i.e., lambda cannot have negative values, nor can it have positive values, by definition.

 

In coming to this conclusion It became apparent that the definition of lambda was lacking. The elaboration of the physical explanation leads to a new law of nature that had been overlooked, one that essentially describes what is space, and most importantly of all, what is gravity. Indeed, the answers regarding lambda shed light on the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction.

 

Something has only just begun

 

Coldcreation

 

More than a month since you last posted here, with an explanation no one commented further on. So people, what do you think of his idea? CC, I'll bet you my Lambda is bigger than your Lambda :lol:

[coldcreation]

More than a month since you last posted here, with an explanation no one commented further on. So people, what do you think of his idea? CC, I'll bet you my Lambda is bigger than your Lambda :lol:

 

The questions regarding lambda date back to its origin in the GR equations. They are back again, like this thread, and are not going away. The dark energy claim is unscientific. There is no palpable solution to the cosmological constant problem in sight aside from the one presented here.

 

Due to the importance of the issue, and to the fundamental nature of the constant itself, a full layout as to how it fits into all branches of physics, generally, needs to be exposed. This is the purpose of returning lambda to the debate table. It is not going away.

 

There are numerous reasons why lambda can only equal zero. This does not mean that because it is zero that it does not exist, or that because it is zero can be eliminated from Einstein's equations.

 

Lambda is not big or small, it represents a kind of Minkowski spacetime manifold, upon which, or within which, all events and phenomenon transpire. We are all affected by it since space is ubiquitous. Any deviation from the zero value is simply called gravity, i.e., curved spacetime is a departure from Minkowski spacetime.

 

The new law of nature attached to lambda is an obvious one. It had been overlooked because space is thought of as nothing. Space is not nothing. Space has very specific qualities. Space is everywhere present. Objects and fields interact with each other inside space. Matter, field, spacetime are thus attached inextricably. There is more...

 

cc

[EWright]

There is more...

 

cc

 

Then spit it out... I thought your book was finished already. What's up with that?