Einstein's non-zero cosmological constant could have been something very common, like EM fields. He wasn't claiming it caused "space expansion", or "space acceleration" to occur as a result of the introduction of that constant.
You have missed out on the irony.
Einstein made up a cosmological constant to rescue a static universe theory.
Why are Einstein’s actions acceptable but not than the introduction of dark matter and dark energy in LCDM?
Er, no. I disagree. That's a cosmology model. The big bang is one *possible* cosmology model that happens to *use* the standard (and non standard) model(s) of particle physics to try to "explain" nucleosynthesis. One might simply start with an infinite and eternal universe and never need to even bother to explain a bang or nucleosynthesis using particle physics. You're confusing astronomy and cosmology models with particle physics.
No it’s particle physics incorporated into BBT.
BBT is an evolutionary theory of the universe and since the early universe was composed of sub atomic particles, particle physics plays a very significant role.
The important issue that connects particle physics to BBT is the reaction rate of any particle physics process Γ must be greater than the Hubble expansion rate H.
Γ/H > 1
For example the half life of a free neutron is 10 minutes.
If the Hubble expansion rate is higher the cosmological time is greater in which case the bulk of neutrons have already decayed before the formation of deuteron (deuterium nuclei) with protons.
Then there is the time temperature dependence which is intimately tied in with Hubble expansion rate.
In the radiation era of the BB the temperature scales as T².
Depending on how the particle physics process temperature scales determines the temperature range when the process can occur in the universe.
For example the particle physics
electroweak interaction scales as T⁵.
Since Γ/H > 1
T⁵/T² = T³
Hence Γ > T³H is the condition for which the
electroweak interaction can occur in the universe.
Your example highlights the problems behind a static universe.
Since a static universe is infinitely old it cannot explain the existence of long lived radioisotopes such as ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U or even the proton which has a theoretical finite half life.
A static universe is also a thermodynamically isolated system where entropy cannot decrease.
It should have reached thermal equilibrium at maximum entropy and therefore be composed of nothing more than photons and perhaps black holes.
Neutrinos are found in the standard particle physics model. There are questions that remain about them, but they are part of the standard model.
Yes one can classify neutrinos in the SM, but it is neutrinos that show the SM is incomplete as neutrino oscillation cannot be explained by the SM.
Those are *cosmology* requirements however which don't necessarily apply to other cosmology models and therefore the standard particle physics model works fine to explain other cosmology models. There are of course *non standard* particle physics models too, like SUSY theory, but they're *non* standard models for a reason, without the same level of support (specifically lab support) and they are therefore less 'popular'.
As shown previously the static universe does not work with particle physics.
It cannot explain the current make up of the Universe.