The Cosmological Constant: a New Law

[paultrr]

By strict definition, the cosmological constant, conventionally denoted Omega, is a parameter describing the energy density of the vacuum, and a potentially important contributor to the dynamical history of the universe. When we speak today of dark energy this vacuum component is what is being spoken about. The energy density in a cosmological constant is a property of spacetime itself, and under ordinary circumstances is the same everywhere. However, based upon observational evidence this does not seem to be the full case since observationally dark energy seems to dominate over large distances and has little effect in short distances. So some mechanism, yet properly understood, makes it so that it is not the same everywhere.

 

Cosmologists describe this expansion by defining a scale factor R(t), which specifies the relative distance of galaxies as a function of time. The behavior of the scale factor is governed by the curvature of space, which can be positive, negative, or zero, and the average energy density of the universe. There are actually three different omega values. One is the value for all matter of the normal type, another is for dark matter, and the third is the one we term the cosmological constant. Dark matter works just like regular matter and produces a gravitational field. It just cannot be viewed directly by any current means. Dark energy(the cosmological constant) works opposite of gravity because it is based upon pressure and causes things to expand. In General Relativity, any form of energy affects the gravitational field, so the vacuum energy becomes a crucial ingredient countering gravity itself and helps determine the actual shape of spacetime.

[paultrr]

In general its not that great of a mystery at all. What remains an unsolved mystery is why it appears by observational evidence to not be the same everywhere.

 

Einstein's infant reference historically was to Newton's aether. Newton's aether was an absolute background reference frame. In some aspects, if one studies Einstein a bit you will find that after the advent of quantum theory Einstein also used the words "Long live the aether". Quantum theory has a different sort of state from Newton when one thinks of an aether. There is no absolute background frame of reference. However, it also means that a vacuum is not really empty as some tend to think either. All of spacetime is filled with what we call virtual particles. Its these virtual particles that give spacetime or the vacuum not only an energy density, but actually are the source of the cosmological constant in the first place. That energy density in turn determines the actual shape of spacetime if one could remove all the normal/dark matter in it.

[coldcreation]

From Coldcreation:

 

Certainly things exist beyond our horizon. I respect the modern view of the universe but I disagree with it based on empirical evidence.

 

First: The closer our extrapolations take us to the point of origin, the further back in time we push the clocks, as time tends to zero, the further our theories are removed from the realm of physical description. And at t = 0 all the laws of physics break down.

 

This is just one reason I disagree with big bang type cosmologies.

 

What you have is the creation of a series of models based on particular assumptions, interpretations, and extrapolations within which contest remains impossible, for no proof or disproof can claim otherwise. Each addition or change imposed by flagrant fact to a theory (i.e., the deviation from Hubble’s law now interpreted as an acceleration of expansion, and little to no evolution in the look-back time as seen in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image) induces not a return to reason but paradoxically creates a deeper divide between theory and nature. The universal laws are only flexible to a certain threshold beyond which all conjecture passes over from the realm of physical science to the domain of speculation, of metaphysics.

 

To avoid this serious problem, now seemingly accepted by modern cosmology, changes need to be made. The drastic changes that are imposed are really no radical ideas. On the contrary. They are a return to reason.

 

Certainly extrapolation is needed if we are to ponder what is beyond our visible horizon. I doubt new physics is needed to explain anything. Physics out there is probably the same as physics here.

 

In looking at the Hubble Ultra deep field image it is clear the the zone or era called the dark ages (or redshift desert) where galaxies were thought to be forming after the big bang is not there. Either that period needs to be pushed back, leaving very little time for galaxies to mature, and little time for stars to produce metals, or our theory need to change. It seems the results of metallicity and complex structure at those great distances violates several fundamental assumptions held by the standard model (with or without inflation).

 

Thus, the gross deviation in redshift from the Hubble law, the lack of era where galaxies are supposed to form, constitute proof that the hierarchical evolution according to a hot big bang/cold dark matter, kooky energy universe is faulty, to say the least.

 

One thing can be said without jumping of the deep end (and here is a reasonable extrapolation) about what resides beyond our horizon: there are obviously galaxies with stars that have produced heavy elements. The next extrapolation is more risky. It has to do with the timescales necessary to produce the observed abundance not just of the light elements (through stellar processes) but also the abundance of heavy elements.

 

The Hoyle and Burbidge et al calculations show that 100 billion years is sufficient (I have that reference if anyone would like). That is without primordial creation in a big bang event.

 

I calculate 250 to 600 billion years. The difference with Hoyle estimate and the Cold Creation estimate is a major one. In Hoyle’s universe galaxies have always existed. Material creation is cyclical but steady.

 

More soon...

 

A.M. aka Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

From Coldcreation:

I'm not interest in advertizing my book.

It is not for sale. I think science should be for free.

I mentioned the book only to show that the few ideas posted where not based on whims, but on a six year endeavor.

 

A memorandum on terminology: Up until now, I have not evaded the expressions currently used in theoretical deliberation among cosmologists, science historians and artists. The precise meanings of key words in these discussions are both extremely solid in their implication and obvious enough. However, I only use them when they are particularly appropriate or where definitions are generally acknowledged.

 

Scientific writings laden with technical terms and over-complicated style have always been vigorously challenging to infiltration by the unqualified layperson. I am not lured in this direction, because I observe the development of a self-perpetuating assemblage of scientific technocrats as the very probable outcome of the conquest of such writings. Certainly, it is difficult to decipher then prove or disprove ones contentions without a comprehensive academic education. Nonetheless, both language and writing have evolved since the first prehistoric grunt and stick drawing in the sand: to limit the vocabulary to the simple, would be to limit the discussion of the complex.

 

A.M coldcreation

[coldcreation]

coldcreation, first, Welcome to Science Forums. Although I can't speak

for others here, I wish you well.

 

constructive criticism:

 

1) Take the time to correct spelling and typing errors it will

increase your credibility.

 

2) Speak as simply as possible and avoid using obscure references

("Einstein's enfant terrible"?). It will increase your audience.

 

3) Make your posts as short as possible focussing on one point

at a time. It will be easier to respond to and discuss.

 

 

 

OK JerryB, you got me. Sorry. I never re-read what I write to make sure there are no typo erros (or real spelling erros). So the credibitlity factor should be indepent.

 

I'm half french, that's why i slipped in the 'enfant terrible.' If you prefer 'blunder' (the word used for Einstein's term in every modern book I've ever read about cosmology) that's OK. ('Fudge factor' is in about half of them).

 

I hope it was clear that I was writing about Lambda, the cosmological constant , and not omega, the energy-density parameter.

 

Good point on short messages. I'll try starting later this afternoon. (I just sent a couple complex messages (sorry).

 

PS. Thanks for the constructive criticizm.

 

AM

[coldcreation]

I'll keep this as short as possible...

 

These are the main points to be made with regards to the cosmological constant:

 

(1) The universe may not be expanding. (2) There was no beginning to the universe, or big bang event. (3) Matter was created otherwise than in a fierce initial event. (4) Cosmic evolution is very different than previously thought. (5) Human consciousness, creativity and imagination are inextricably attached to the laws of nature, and can be rationalized in logical and consistent physical terms.

 

And I add that it is possible to construct the theory of everything based on current known physics. No new physics is required.

 

In short: see above (1) this was Einstein's original reason for introducing lambda. But he neglected on important feature of the constant. And so his lambda didn't actually solve the stability problem.

 

(2) This obviously follows from the first point, i.e., no expansion means everything including space and time were not jammed into a point at t = 0.

 

(3) Obviously too. Cryogenic creation? This is simple to explain with known physics. The timescale involved in this process dwarf the suspected age of the universe.

 

(4) 2, 3, and 4 follow from the first point.

 

(5) Consciousness can be explained other than with a quantum approach.

But to do so a fundamental law seems to be required. Indeed one very important one was missing from the literature.

 

That law is based on the idea that the cosmological constant is of fundamental, or universal importance. The law describes lambda, and consequently gravity. The conclusion is that space (the vacuum) cannot expand.

 

This being the most profound assumption of big bang cosmology, there remains only one option: to discard all expansion models.

 

I would love for someone to try and pock a hole in that conclusion. And in doing so, please explain which natural law (thermodynamic or otherwise) should be used to describe the 'physical' conditions of a region with extent temperature, density and energy near infinity.

 

Oh, don't forget to include too the explanation or law describing the 'physical' mechanism involved in the creation of space between galaxy clusters.

 

Please also explain where the epoch of galaxy formation lies, because it aint in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field plate.

 

I leave you with a good luck...

 

 

A.M. Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Yo, I don't want this to become a monologue, and I know all of you in the States are sleeping when I write these words from barcelona, Spain, but I would hope that the jist of the arguments presented, vocabulary aside (sorry this idea is not writen as an Idiots Guide to Cosmology for all you laymen out there who complain when someon write a word longer than 7 letters.

 

Seriously though, here is a statement that demands response, especially from the most devote big bangers I will now describe the big bang. Please tell me if I am wrong:

 

________________________________________________________________

 

Well that's it. Oh, if something escapes you, my definition is writen on the line above.

 

That's my point. There is nothing but a blank, no equation, no words to explain it, at least not within the context of physical science, which, correct me if I am mistaken, covers everything in the universe, including consciousness.

 

Here is a quote by a man who never accepted the idea of a singularity of the big bang or black hole types, but found then interesting to study as aberations of mathematical nature.

 

“Let every man judge by himself, by what he himself read, not by what others tell him.” (Albert Einstein, About Freedom, 1931)

 

It is time to wake up!!!

[coldcreation]

Hello infamous,

 

This seems like a more appropriate place to elaborate of what will follow. After all the quantum relativity of consciousness is the most speculative part of the Cold Creation theory. And the title of this thread is the subject of my next mail.

 

More soon

[infamous]

Hello infamous,

 

This seems like a more appropriate place to elaborate of what will follow. After all the quantum relativity of consciousness is the most speculative part of the Cold Creation theory. And the title of this thread is the subject of my next mail.

 

More soon

 

Hello coldc..., I would like to ask a question at this juncture if I may? How does quantum relativity of consciousness bear upon the physics of creation? And even more important, could you explain in brief what the two, quantum relativity and consciousness have to do with each other. I'll grant you that consciousness must someday be explained by quantum interactions but at present that goal seems, at least to me, a long way off.

[coldcreation]

Hello coldc..., I would like to ask a question at this juncture if I may? How does quantum relativity of consciousness bear upon the physics of creation? And even more important, could you explain in brief what the two, quantum relativity and consciousness have to do with each other. I'll grant you that consciousness must someday be explained by quantum interactions but at present that goal seems, at least to me, a long way off.

 

OK, but we're jumping ahead of ourselves. The idea is that the mechanism for the formation of consciousness is identical to (the same as) the one responsible for the existence of fields surrounding all heavenly bodies (no religious connotations intended).

 

There is a natural way to group different classes of phenomenon within the guidelines of the same physical law (that will be stated shortly). In passing, we mention that the concept of space as the foundation for all physical events, manifestations, happenings, phenomenon or transmission of information at a distance (via the field) is not metaphysical.

 

Some may debate or dispute whether the mechanism behind consciousness is similar to, or the same as, that of gravitating bodies, the geometrical fields and their relation to space. I should admit from the outset that a watertight case cannot be made at present for the external field of consciousness (we lack ultra-sensitive detectors). But we can at least offer circumstantial evidence that the manifestation and interaction of fields on intermediate scales (compatible with living beings) may be roughly identical to those of the macroscopic and microscopic world - founded on the concept of lambda as a fundamental constant of nature, and attached to a new law of nature.

 

Consciousness and the physics of creation are indeed related. Both are subjected to exactly the same physical laws. The difference is only related to complexity and process.

Consciousness is much more complex (and difficult to explain) than material creation (a simple process).

 

Quantum relativity and consciousness have to do with each other. There is no inconsistency between these terms and Einstein’s preceding effort to define the field as an extension of physical bodies. Certainly, the history of the entire universe is perceptibly marked by symmetry, polar opposites, where mass/energy and field are evenly balanced, equal, proportioned, stable, well-adjusted, symmetrical.

 

The same ubiquitous law that describes the natural mechanism inbuilt throughout space considerably governs states of consciousness or awareness: it is responsible for the field and is present in all sectors of the natural word.

 

I hope all this is not too superfluous. It definately require further elaboration...

[coldcreation]

a new thread will soon open.

 

stay tuned

[infamous]

a new thread will soon open.

 

stay tuned

 

I've got my rabbit ears on coldc...... and I'll be listening, BTW, have you decided on a title for this new thread. If you have, send me a private message, I'd like to be there for the grand opening.

[coldcreation]

I've got my rabbit ears on coldc...... and I'll be listening, BTW, have you decided on a title for this new thread. If you have, send me a private message, I'd like to be there for the grand opening.

 

hello,

 

What's BTW? I must have been gone from the States for too long.

 

I have a couple of ideas for the name of the thread:

 

The Big Bang (1922-1998)

Kat ton daimona eaytoy,

‘He lived like he had a divine spirit within’ in ancient Greek

Son of A. A. Friedmann: raised, tutored and brought to fame by abbé G. Lemaître.

 

The Big Bang is Dead from hypothermia.

 

Or how about: Your charred hulk will not stand still eerily locked in the frozen space north of the North Pole.

 

No but seriously. Cold Creation does signify the death of the mythical primeval atom hypothesis.

 

To call it a myth is not to belittle its significance. Mythologies were indispensable to defining who we want to be, and especially, who we are. We caught a violent glimpse of cosmologist’s myth possibilities, just prior to its end. The 1998 Hubble telescope observations of SNe Ia gave them its final flicker, like a brilliant burst that the sun discharges before it sets for good.

 

Note that the birthday of the big bang indicated above is based on Friedmann’s 1922-23 “discovery” of the “creation of the world from nothing,” a model universe that “transforms itself into a point.” (1922 was also the year Mussolini took over Rome). In the ceremonial imaginary sense, the big bang became a social reality in the early 1930’s with the cosmogonic speculations of theologian-physicist Lemaître, the great grandfather of cosmology, and his widely accepted primeval atom hypothesis.

 

yo Coldcreation

[infamous]

hello,

 

What's BTW? I must have been gone from the States for too long.

 

I have a couple of ideas for the name of the thread:

 

The Big Bang (1922-1998)

Kat ton daimona eaytoy,

‘He lived like he had a divine spirit within’ in ancient Greek

Son of A. A. Friedmann: raised, tutored and brought to fame by abbé G. Lemaître.

 

The Big Bang is Dead from hypothermia.

 

 

yo Coldcreation

 

Hello Coldc......., BTW = By the way,

 

And I like, "The Big Bang Dies of Hypothermia" , so let's hear what caused this untimely, of was it timely?, death.

[coldcreation]

Hello Coldc......., BTW = By the way,

 

And I like, "The Big Bang Dies of Hypothermia" , so let's hear what caused this untimely, of was it timely?, death.

 

Hello infamous,

 

The big bang along with inflation died in 1998 at the age of 76. It was untimely but not necessarily a surprise.

 

Recall that the flat universe predicted by inflation meant a balance between the rate of expansion and the tendency of gravity to prevent expansion. This fine-tuning was not natural to say the least. The universe was supposed to expand at a constant rate (the data was to show a straight line when charted on a graph). At the every worst, there was to be detected a deceleration.

 

The apparent acceleration of expansion was detrimental to the big bang-inflation. It had never been predicted. It killed it. Inflation inevitably dies too, as it was a part of the story. Inflation had not replaced the big bang. It had simply espoused it. And so, goes down with it.

 

“All tragedies are finished by death, All comedies are ended by marriage” (Byron a la Estrofa 9, canto III, Don Juan)

 

Subsequent studies of the CMB fluctuations would not suffice to save the theory.

 

What good is Hubble’s law if it does not hold for 5 billion years of history. Hubble’s law is not a law.

 

Halston Arp’s numerous observations too crippled the expansion hypothesis to a point that put the entire redshift (as a Doppler effect) into question. Though Arp’s theory to replace the Doppler shift is untenable as well. In our numerous telephone conversations and emails it is clear that he is no relativist. The idea of curved space is non-operational for Arp. His theory is that young matter has higher redshift than older (closer) material.

 

Nevertheless, Arp’s long list of discordant redshift means that big bang cosmology is dead. His data shows that there are many connected objects with very different redshifts. In standard cosmology these object are a great distances from each other. The luminous bridges that Arp’s plates show is evidence of connections. So redshift cannot be a cosmological Doppler shift (certainly there are motions and intrinsic Doppler effects, toward both blue and red ends of the spectrum).

 

Hoyle’s work was discussed in another mail. His alternatives to the creation of light elements, and his alternative to the origin of the cosmic microwave background radiation was very important, because it showed that the three mighty pillars of big bang were made of sand: primordial creation, origin of CMB, and Doppler redshift.

 

Note too that the resurrection of some form of cosmological constant or quintessence does not save the standard model. Why? Because if lambda really does exist than there is no guarantee that it does not exactly counter-balance gravity (curvature), and that Einstein’s reason for introducing lambda into the field equations was correct (i.e., to prevent the universe from collapsing or expanding, to keep the universe stable).

 

“If the cosmological term exists then away with expansion” Einstein might have said if he were alive today.

 

Practically the only man in the world that could have in the early thirties wreaked serious havoc in the growing expansionist camp was Einstein himself; using his general conception of curved spacetime as an replacement for the Doppler interpretation to explain the global redshift (that was another foretaste of the future), and the cosmological constant as an innate pivotal feature of the observed cosmic stability.

 

Cold Creation theory shows that this is exactly what happens in the real world: without artificial fine tuning. All rests upon physical nature of the constant: something that has eluded precise definition since its outset. Arthur Eddington had come very close to defining lambda, as had Einstein, de Sitter, along with Herman Weyl.

 

Willem de Sitter was able to demonstrate that the geometrical attribute of pure space (a completely empty universe, where both density and pressure are equal to zero) is a hypersphere—time is no longer independent of space, but depends on distance. The time and space that separates two points is curved, corresponding to a hyperbolic spacetime description. This may have pushed the fudge factor to far, but it was revelatory: that lambda was potentially important, that was not likely to disappear for good, that as far as its relation to gravity it was inseparable.

 

What was previously ascribed to a time variation in an expanding frame is now ascribed to a spatial variation in properties of a static universe, as we observe the past light cone (in the look-back time). Weyl had considered this possibility in 1921, when he still sought a middle ground between the Einstein and de Sitter models. But still something was amiss.

 

Ultimately Cold Creation deals the biggest blow to the big bang. Because it provides solutions that are viable across the board: for the redshift-distance-absolute magnitude relation, the CMB origin and it spatiotemporal evolution, material creation, galaxy formation, dynamics, and evolution of the large-scale structures.

 

Expansion is not real, and the big bang is dead.

 

These are obvious signs that modern cosmology’s golden age has terminated not with a bang (the way it started) but with a string of whimpers. With respect to the big bang, Einstein had unwittingly designed its cage, Hoyle built its megalithic sépulture, Arp destroyed the beast, the 1998 supernovae observations buried it, and Cold Creation is chiseling its epitaph, engraving its eulogy and putting the finishing touches on its homily.

 

Something has only just begun

 

a.m. coldcreation

[infamous]

Hello infamous,

 

The big bang along with inflation died in 1998 at the age of 76. It was untimely but not necessarily a surprise.

 

 

I'm with you so far clodc..., but I must admit that my knowledge regarding these points of interest is somewhat lacking. Firstly however, I have been sceptical of red shift interpretation from the outset. Just too many observational contradictions.

 

This brings up a thought that intrigued my imagination a few years back. I was musing over the concept of inflation and expansion when the thought suddenly came to me, maybe expansion is an illusion. Could it be that matter itself is shrinking causing the preception of the space between particles to expand. In the midst of my daydreaming, I at once, figureativly speaking, shook myself back into reality and dismissed this imagination as just that, an imagination.

 

However, just recently I was surfing the internet looking for something new to sink my teeth into when I came upon an article describing this very phenomenom. Sounds a bit fantastic but I'm always willing to look at things from a different perspective. If you are familiar with this view, what is your take on the subject. I don't have the link available right now but if it is of interest to you, I can find it again and list it for you in our next conversation.

[coldcreation]

I'm with you so far clodc..., but I must admit that my knowledge regarding these points of interest is somewhat lacking. Firstly however, I have been sceptical of red shift interpretation from the outset. Just too many observational contradictions.

 

I was musing over the concept of inflation and expansion when the thought suddenly came to me, maybe expansion is an illusion.

 

Could it be that matter itself is shrinking causing the preception of the space between particles to expand. In the midst of my daydreaming, I at once..shook myself back into reality and dismissed this imagination as just that, an imagination...I came upon an article describing this very phenomenom. Sounds a bit fantastic...

 

Hubble himself had always remained suspicious of the Doppler interpretation well into the 1950s.

Expansion is an illusion: I agree, but doubtful to is it that matter is shrinking or expanding, or that there exists more dimensions than are observable. Daydreaming is fine but one must separate what is imagination and what is real in science.