Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1992. 30:
499-542 Copyright © 1992 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved |
The cosmological constant is an idea whose time has come . . . . and gone . . . . and come . . . . and so on. The most recent cycle of interest derives from a mutually supportive combination of aggressive theoretical prejudice and new, suggestive, observations.
Theorists, in aggregate, strongly believe (on the basis of little or no observational evidence) that tot = 1. This belief is not only supported by the Copernican view that the present cosmological epoch should not be special, but is also the firm prediction of inflationary models (which also explain several, other otherwise, mystifying cosmological puzzles). Nucleosynthetic evidence against baryons providing more than tot = 0.1 does not sway this conviction, but only fuels equally fervent belief in non-baryonic dark matter.
However, the preponderance of evidence against any form of dynamical matter able to provide M > 0.2 or so is a definite embarrassment. Even the tentative evidence of large-scale velocity flows, which may allow M 1, cannot be warmly embraced by the many theorists who favor the Cold Dark Matter theory of structure formation in its canonical form: CDM with M = 1 and a constant bias factor does not provide sufficient power on large spatial scales.
Postulating an -dominated model seems to solve a lot of problems at once. The cosmological constant supplies the ``missing matter'' to make tot = 1. It modifies CDM to put more (perhaps sufficient) power on large scales, and it does so in a way compatible with anisotropy limits on the cosmic microwave background. Simultaneously, it cleans up that old embarrassment: the apparent discrepancy, for larger values of H0 in its observationally viable range, between the age of the universe and the age of globular clusters.
On the observational side, the new cycle of interest in was for a time supported by evidence of an excess of faint galaxies in B band number vs magnitude counts, and by the realization that previous number vs redshift evidence against a significant (Loh-Spillar) was flawed in its reliance on an overly simple model for galaxy evolution.
Unfortunately, this new evidence has been undermined by near-IR K band counts that show an opposite trend, and by new appreciation of the importance of selection effects.
Furthermore, while arguably convenient, a non-zero is not really necessary for solving the theorists' problems: M = 1 in the form of dynamical baryonic plus nonbaryonic dark matter (of unknown character!) is not ruled out, and is perhaps supported by large-scale streaming velocities. Closing the universe with in fact does not remove the need to postulate nonbaryonic matter, unless one is willing to have the universe be older than 30 Gyr and have a very low value for H0 (Figure 10). CDM theory can be fixed by abandoning the assumption (made originally as a matter of convenient simplification, not physical necessity) of a constant bias factor; indeed this may be forced on the theory by new numerical simulations, and by the COBE microwave anisotropy measurements.
In terms of ruling in a non-zero cosmological constant, the situation now is not too different than it has been in the past. A high value of H0 (> 80 km/s/Mpc, say), combined with no loss of confidence in a value 12-14 Gyr as a minimum age for some globular clusters, would effectively prove the existence of a significant term. Given such observational results, we would know of no convincing alternative hypotheses.
What is most different now from in the past, and what provides hope
for breaking the seemingly endless alternation between
-fashionability and
-rejection, is the existence
of a new set of
tests - gravitational lens statistics - that have the ability to rule
out a dominant
contribution. Both the raw
number of expected
lenses, and also the statistics of their redshifts, are highly
sensitive to as it approaches 1 along
the tot = 1 line
(Figure 9).
While there are formidable complications to be dealt with, there
is a good case that, along the
It will never be possible to rule out a sufficiently small
fractional value for , particularly since the
effects of are
smaller in the higher-redshift past than they are today.
The particle theorist who has no prejudice for
tot = 1 might want to
know current, observationally secure, bounds on
. For negative
, a
bound derives from the minimum age of the universe
(Figure 4).
Taking M < 1,
t0 >
10 Gyr, and H0 > 40 km/s/Mpc, one gets
H0t > 0.40,
>
-7, and > -2 x 10-29
g/cm3. For positive
, the best bound derives
from gravitational lens statistics
(Figure 9),
although a bound from
the simple existence of high-redshift objects would be not much less
stringent. Taking
M < 1, one gets
< 2; with
H0 < 100 km/s/Mpc, one
obtains < 4 x
10-29 g/cm3. If these bounds seem broad in cosmological
terms, astronomers can nevertheless take satisfaction in bounding
to
a fractional range of one part in 10120 of that allowed by
contemporary particle theory, thus making it the most precisely
measured constant in all of physics. That same precision convinces
most theoretical physicists that
must be precisely zero.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank many colleagues for responding to our requests for
information about their work. For helpful conversations and comments
on the manuscript, we thank Robert Brandenberger, Sidney Coleman,
George Field, Chris Kochanek, Ramesh Narayan, Jerry Ostriker, Ted
Pyne, Martin Rees, George Rybicki, and Helmut Zaglauer. This work was
supported in part by NSF
grant PHY-91-06678 and by NASA contracts
NAGW-931 and NAGW-2448. SMC acknowledges the support of an
NSF
predoctoral fellowship.