Re: Question for Cosmologists

1) I don't think many cosmologists will be surprised if it turns out that
Einstein's form of "dark energy" (which of course isn't what he called it)
is only a limited approximation.

2) It's unlikely that present observations on dark energy can be
extrapolated in any reliable way back to the first fractions of a second
wiith which inflation (in the original sense of the term) was significant.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pim van Meurs" <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
To: "Rich Blinne" <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Question for Cosmologists

> Rich Blinne wrote:
>
>> Note the following story in New Scientist
>> <http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8566&feedId=online-news_rss20>:
>>
>> Dark energy – the mysterious force that drives the acceleration of the
>> universe – changes over time, controversial new calculations suggest. If
>> true, the work rules out Einstein's notion of a "cosmological constant"
>> and suggests dark energy, which now repels space, once drew it together.
>> [emphasis mine]
>>
>> My question for the cosmologists on this group is as follows: Does this
>> not imply that inflation is incorrect and by extension so is the
>> multiverse explanation of fine-tuning?
>
> The study shows that Einstein's cosmological constant has been disproven
> with 97% probability if independent methods support this finding. Which
> means that the acceleration in the young universe was less than expected.
>
> The quickening of the universe's expansion is affected by dark matter, and
> the study suggests that dark matter has changed over time, conflicting
> with a constant cosmological constant.
> I do not believe the inflationary theory depends on this, and inflationary
> theory has been verified by the cosmic background radiation.
>
> But the study has its issues
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/science/12cosmos.html
>
> Moreover, he said, if Dr. Schaefer's analysis is valid, his results agree
> with Einstein's constant, within the measurements' uncertainties.
>
> "It's not a meaningful discrepancy," Dr. Lamb said, adding that a
> statement like Dr. Schaefer's required stronger evidence. "The bottom line
> is the result doesn't show Einstein was right. And it doesn't show he was
> wrong."
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 13 08:14:05 2006