In a message dated 2/15/01 4:12:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM writes:
<< On the other hand, the idea that the current observation that is
"explained" by the ad hoc assumption of a non-zero cosmological
constant (and no matter what it's status today is, when Einstein
added it to his field equations, it was an ad hoc tag-on to explain
the fact (as yet undiscovered) that his theory predicted an expanding
universe. That's why, when Hubble did discover that the universe was
expanding Einstein said that the CC was the biggest mistake he ever
made, or words to that effect.>.
Hugh I believe the cosmological constant is derived as a constant of
integration and the real question is, why should it be zero? Perhaps the
assumption that it is zero is the ad hoc assumption. It is also my opinion
that based on data from type 1a supernova it is very likely that CC is not
zero.
Also Quantum theory has related part of CC to the scalar field
of the Higgs particle.
Aq=-pi*G*Ms/(2*(c^4)*gw)^.5 where Ms is the mass of the hypothetical Higgs
boson and gw is the weak field coupling constant. While the Higgs particle
has not definitely been observed (It may have been seen at LEP with a mass of
114GEV but the results are far too preliminary to be sure.) there is good
reason to expect to observe it soon.
Leigh is right. If you give me an anomalous event, and a current
theory that doesn't predict that event, then it is quite likely that
I can "add some new phsyics" like the CC and "explain" the anomaly.
Don't your remember, in undergraduate labs, it was called the "Jesus
factor," or the "fudge factor," or "Britton's constant," or something
like that, and its purpose was to bring the theoretical predictions
you had mad before doing the lab into line with your results (or vice
versa). It's only when the new theory starts predicting things that
haven't been seen before that we have to start taking it seriously.
And, of course, it must be able to account for everything that the
theory it purports to replace could explain, as well. The barrier for
new theories is quite high, and not without justification.>>
I agree that Leigh criticism was quite correct in that you can't use the
problem you are trying to eliminate as experimental proof. That would be
circular reasoning.
However I believe there is other experimental data available which provides
some support for inflation. According to the inflationary theory a plot of
the square of temperature differences as a function of separation angles
should take a particular shape when graphed with the separation angles on one
axis and the square of temperature differences at those angles on the other
axis. (The actual magnitude of these values cannot be predicted.) When these
values were measured by COBE and plotted it produced good agreement with
inflationary theory predictions. MAP, NASA's next effort to plot these values
should provide even more accurate data which will be a more stringent test of
Inflation.