Skip to main content

Cosmological Constant Conundrum

I was browsing the online archives of physics papers today when I stumbled across an intriguing paper by Abraham Loeb of Harvard.

Loeb claims that a search for planets in dwarf galaxies could test, and possibly debunk, a common explanation for the puzzling measurement of the cosmological constant, which drives the accelerating expansion of the universe.

Einstein initially proposed the cosmological constant, as a part of his theory of general relativity, to explain why the universe appeared to be static. When Edwin Hubble showed that the universe is actually expanding, Einstein dropped the constant from his theory, calling it the greatest blunder of his career.

It turned out later that Einstein might have been on the right track for the wrong reasons. The universe is not simply expanding, but accelerating as well. As a result, physicists resurrected the constant and found that it must have a value around 0.7 to match our observations of the universe.

Although it is a tidy explanation of the universe's accelerating expansion, the observed value is problematic. Some promising theories predict that the constant should be thousands of times larger than it seems to be, while others require it to be exactly zero. None seem to predict the value we actually measure (although string theory may offer a mechanism that allows the constant to decrease as the universe goes through many Big Bang and Big Crunch cycles).

One popular, though controversial, explanation for the measured value stems from the idea our universe is only one of many in an enormous multiverse, and that the cosmological constant may take on different values in different universes. According to the anthropic argument, most values of the constant lead to sterile, lifeless universes, while only values near the one we see are conducive to life. We measure a small cosmological constant because we wouldn't be around to measure a larger one, regardless of how unlikely a small constant is among the nearly countless possible universes. It's a pat argument and difficult to argue with, considering the fact that we can't visit other universes to check it.

Loeb, however, thinks we can do the next best thing right here in our universe by looking for planets in nearby dwarf galaxies. The conditions in dwarf galaxies, when they formed in the early universe, were apparently similar to those that would exist in universes with cosmological constants thousands of times higher than ours. If we find plentiful planets in dwarf galaxies, some of which are likely to be conducive to life, then Loeb says that we can be 99.9% confident that anthropic calculations of the cosmological constant are meaningless.

Loeb points out at the end of his paper that there might be an added benefit to finding planets in old dwarf galaxies "If the anthropic argument turns out to be wrong," he writes, "and intelligent civilizations are common in nearby dwarf galaxies, then the older more advanced civilizations among them might broadcast an explanation for why the cosmological constant has its observed value."

*Personal opinion warning*

I think Loeb's paper could have profound implications for theories that predict multiple universes with random cosmological constant values. (String theory, for instance, suggests that there are as many as 10^500 possible universes - that's a ten with 500 zeroes after it - with all sorts of values for the fundamental constants).

According to multiverse theories, our universe is already unusual because the other constants (such as those controlling the strength of gravity, electromagnetic interactions, etc.) are finely tuned to support life. If life can exist in universes with high cosmological constants, then we can't use the anthropic argument to explain ours. How much more unlikely must it be, then, for us to have an unusual value for the cosmological constant? (I would say N/10^500, where N is the number of habitable universes with cosmological constant of about 0.7. I have no idea what N should be, though.)

I may be making an illogical leap here, but if it turns out that we can't make a case for an anthropically determined value for the cosmological constant, then any theory that says our constant is unlikely is equally unlikely to be true.


  1. The “Big Bang” and Vacuum / Nothing.

    Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
    (all elementary particles and all quarks and
    their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
    all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
    muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
    It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
    The answer is :
    But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
    common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
    I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
    the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
    is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
    by the formula T=0K.
    * * *
    Once there was a “Big Bang”.
    But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
    and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
    Not in T=0K?
    It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
    Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
    in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
    But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
    and its temperature will decrease.
    What temperature can this radiation reach?
    Not T=0K?
    Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
    we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.

    Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
    (the average density of all substance in the Universe is
    approximately p=10^-30 g/sm3)
    that cosmological constant must be zero.

    Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
    ===== ========
    About the theory of the “Big Bang” is written the thick (very thick) books.
    But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bang”.
    Anybody does not know it.
    I know.
    The action, when the God compresses all Universe
    into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
    And action, when the God opens his palm,
    we have named the "Big Bang".
    ============ ==============.
    Best wishes.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts

How 4,000 Physicists Gave a Vegas Casino its Worst Week Ever

What happens when several thousand distinguished physicists, researchers, and students descend on the nation’s gambling capital for a conference? The answer is "a bad week for the casino"—but you'd never guess why.

Ask a Physicist: Phone Flash Sharpie Shock!

Lexie and Xavier, from Orlando, FL want to know: "What's going on in this video ? Our science teacher claims that the pain comes from a small electrical shock, but we believe that this is due to the absorption of light. Please help us resolve this dispute!"

The Science of Ice Cream: Part One

Even though it's been a warm couple of months already, it's officially summer. A delicious, science-filled way to beat the heat? Making homemade ice cream. (We've since updated this article to include the science behind vegan ice cream. To learn more about ice cream science, check out The Science of Ice Cream, Redux ) Image Credit: St0rmz via Flickr Over at Physics@Home there's an easy recipe for homemade ice cream. But what kind of milk should you use to make ice cream? And do you really need to chill the ice cream base before making it? Why do ice cream recipes always call for salt on ice?