- #71
twofish-quant
- 6,821
- 20
marcus said:Before that, many treatments of this did not take account of the possibility of a positive cosmological constant, or dark energy.
I'd make a stronger statement and say that the standard model of cosmology in 1997 asserted that the cosmological constant was zero. If you were to ask a cosmologist in 1997, the standard statement was that the cosmological constant was "Einstein's biggest mistake." Standard models do change, and the fact that you can have most people within a year say to themselves "well it looks like we were wrong" shows that physicists are less closed minded than they are given credit for,
What was generally realized in 1998 was that spatial closure does not necessarily imply destined to crunch.
This was known in the 1930's, but since the standard model circa-1997 assumed that the cosmological constant was zero, this was considered irrelevant. Then you get hit by data that pretty clearly says that if you say that the constant is zero then you have to assume something even weirder to explain the data.
Also one reason people assume dark energy is that it makes the math easier than the alteratives. You take all of your previous equations, just add one term and you run with it.
This also explains one aspect of the Wiltshire papers which is that they are trying to hit a moving target. One problem with trying to explain things with GR inhomgenities is that the math is really, really painful so by the time you explain weird result one, you get a dozen new weird results. One thing that Wiltshire is trying to do is to come up with a mathematically simple way of thinking about GR, so that you can rapidly put in new physics.