Re: Question for Cosmologists

You guys seem to have a good handle on this. Please help uncloud my thinking
because I don't seem to get it.

For the cosmological constant w0 is -1 and w' is 0. What is being proposed
is w0 = -1.3 and w' = 1.55. Maybe I am making a sign error here but it seems
that inflation decreases as you go back in time. Don't you need the highest
inflation at highest z for fine-tuning to be solved? I grant George's point
about extrapolating from z = 6.3. Details can be found
here<http://http://www.phys.lsu.edu/GRBHD/>.

Confusedly Yours,
Rich

On 1/13/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> 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 12:23:22 2006