A positive cosmological constant
 From: "Anon E. Mouse" <agallist@xxxxxxxxx>
 Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 12:33:52 0700 (PDT)
I recently conducted research of issues relating to the cosmological
constant in the LambdaDMD model or the EFE. I expected to find that
there were significant issues with the manner in which Lambda altered
the predictions and solutions of the EFE and I found that to my eyes,
this is not the case.
The best general reference I found is from Wikipedia,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Based on my own analysis I assumed lambda must have a positive value
slightly less than unit in order to explain the observed Hubble flow.
Wiki cites Riess, A. et al. (September 1998). and Perlmutter, S. et
al. (June 1999). and Baker, Joanne C.; et al. (1999). finding a value
of lambda of approximately 0.7
The wiki article goes on to describe the following effects of this
value of lambda when applied to the standard CMD model.
Describing these as surprising or problems.
First, a finite entropy of the observable universe.
Yes, if entropy is used to describe either unobserved heat or
information, either, the quantity in the observable universe should be
finite, as predicted.
This issue is related to vanishing entropy in a black hole.
Yes, since light does not escape black holes information vanishes
beyond the Swwrtzschild radius. The heat or information about the
heat, either, are unobservable  but, this is not the same thing as
gone, vanished, or missing.
The next problem are discontinuities. predicted by the lambda CMB
standard model. Well, such discontinuities are presently observed as
"clusters" of nonradiant space. Large scale voids, is a possibly
better term I have seen used in the literature.
Quoting now,
"Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure of the
cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to
attractive, with lookback towards the early Universe."
Yes, a small portion of the early universe with low velocity and high
mass/energy density almost certainly was gravitationally bound and
collapsed long long ago. The rest escaped through hyperinflation",
although, hyperinflation can be seen as simply an extreme case of the
generalized Hubble flow we presently observe and as characterized by
subunit positive Lambda.
Quoting again,
"Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for
any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the
cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for
the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a
key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical
observations.particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and
the cosmological constant.[12"
Yes, an observationally bound universe has been a standard prediction
of relativity with or w/o expansion since the origins of Freidmann
equation. and similar.
Quoting again, requoting actually,
"particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the
cosmological constant."
Yes, the EFE with a subunit positive value of lambda for our locally
observed universe does predict that a portion of the mass energy of
our apparent origins has been left behind, and we no long see or feel
it.
This is why I am puzzled by the final sentence of this portion of the
article which says,
"All of these findings should be considered major shortcomings of the
standard model, but only when the cosmological constant term is
included."
???? No, did the author mean to say, but only when the cosmological
constant term is NOT included???
At least, these are the results of my personal researches. I had
thought there was a difficulty with role of lambda as given by
Einstein (1917) or derived by Schrodinger, (1947) because to me
solving for A and integrating clearly should and I find do produce
these predictions, all of which are in accord with current
observations.
I have also found that I have a relative who was in charge of the Navy
leap second program during the some of the years (19561973) when the
time T the orbital period of the earth, was the standard for the
standard second.
The year was adopted because it was believed it would be more stable
than the day. This was not the case. The year gained about a second a
year and the day gains about 2 a century. This ridiculously small bit
of unverifiable data is the only planetary orbital period data I have
found to date.
None the less, It, along with the Moon orbital radius data which is
laser interferometry indicate there may be local planetary orbital
evidence for an expanding metric tensor in accord with a positive
lambda less than unit and approximately equal to 0.7
On a more reasonable cosmological time scale, the galaxy rotational
curve problem is very likely explained by EFE if it includes 0.7
lambda. Here there may be actual computational or predictive problems
in that Eons of time are represented. Recursive integrations of the
metric tensor must be balanced by recursive integrations of the stress
energy tensor. The successive decrease in stress energy (gravitation,
loosely speaking) should account for the observation that old galaxies
which should be gravitationally bound are actually not bound because
spacetime is presently under more stress than in past. G the
gravitational constant is expected to have been lower in past than at
present. The metric tensor would also have been lower, but apparently
proportionally less so. old galaxies which seem like they should be
bound based on kinetics alone (the metric) are actually unbound
because the star velocity and displacement have been increasing as a
result of Hubble flow as applied to past and present dilation of space
time resulting from the energy a big bang origin. (This final is
empirical for me, but more rigorous for experts in the field, citing
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/grqc/0201097 )
Sincerely,
AAG
Sincerely,
AAG
.
 FollowUps:
 Re: A positive cosmological constant
 From: Anon E. Mouse
 Re: A positive cosmological constant
 From: Jonathan Thornburg [remove animal to reply]
 Re: A positive cosmological constant
 Prev by Date: Re: Matrix rep of Lorentz transformation in Dirac spinor space
 Next by Date: Re: Matrix rep of Lorentz transformation in Dirac spinor space
 Previous by thread: Re: Matrix rep of Lorentz transformation in Dirac spinor space
 Next by thread: Re: A positive cosmological constant
 Index(es):
Relevant Pages
