It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In physical cosmology, the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: Λ) was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging.[1] However, the discovery of cosmic acceleration in 1998 has renewed interest in a cosmological constant. Contents
Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.[1] However, soon after Einstein developed his static theory, observations by Edwin Hubble indicated that the universe appears to be expanding; this was consistent with a cosmological solution to the original general-relativity equations that had been found by the mathematician Friedmann. Einstein later referred to his failure to predict the expansion of the universe from theory, before it was proven by observation of the cosmological red shift, as the "biggest blunder" of his life.[3]
For what ever reason some things in science bother scientist, almost like it makes them question their faith in their own world view or something...
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by benrl
For what ever reason some things in science bother scientist, almost like it makes them question their faith in their own world view or something...
Quite correct. Change that tuning at all, and the universe as we know it simply wouldn't exist. It shakes their foundations because it infers a god, creator, or design. It's also beyond the scope of science.
Originally posted by Insearchofthetruth1987
how can it be a cosmological "constant"???
if it is NOT constant? it was proven by hubble to infact be speeding away from itself and NOT BE constant?
This came up in another thread, and I found an explanation for laymen, but like any explanation for laymen, it's not 100% accurate as it omits many details and qualifiers. With that caveat, here is some info for laymen:
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
OK, I will spend some time to read all the responses. Would be good o get a good laymans description down. I'm a layman
What might dark energy specifically be?
The leading candidate is the simplest one: “vacuum energy,” or the “cosmological constant.” Since we know that dark energy is pretty smooth and fairly persistent, the first guess is that it’s perfectly smooth and exactly persistent. That’s vacuum energy: a fixed amount of energy attached to every tiny region of space, unchanging from place to place or time to time. About one hundred-millionth of an erg per cubic centimeter, if you want to know the numbers.
Is vacuum energy really the same as the cosmological constant?
Yes. Don’t believe claims to the contrary. When Einstein first invented the idea, he didn’t think of it as “energy,” he thought of it as a modification of the way spacetime curvature interacted with energy. But it turns out to be precisely the same thing. (If someone doesn’t want to believe this, ask them how they would observationally distinguish the two.)
Doesn’t vacuum energy come from quantum fluctuations?
Not exactly. There are many different things that can contribute to the energy of empty space, and some of them are completely classical (nothing to do with quantum fluctuations). But in addition to whatever classical contribution the vacuum energy has, there are also quantum fluctuations on top of that. These fluctuations are very large, and that leads to the cosmological constant problem.
recent measurements by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and many other experiments seem to be converging on a positive cosmological constant, equal to roughly 7 × 10^-27 kilograms per cubic meter. This corresponds to a positive energy density of about 6 × 10^-10 joules per cubic meter.
this is false. I hope the above explanations have clarified the subject, but feel free to ask more questions if you have any.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Basically the Universe is moving at a constant rate.
You're welcome.
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
hey thanks that was a great reply and thanks for putting me straight. I'm still trying to get my head around it all , but it's starting to make a bit more sense. thanks for the links and info.