Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right

[1776Forever]

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
By Clara Moskowitz
SPACE.com Senior Writer
posted: 24 November 2010
01:16 pm ET

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark-energy-cosmological-constant-101124.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

What Einstein called his worst mistake, scientists are now depending on to help explain the universe.

In 1917, Albert Einstein inserted a term called the cosmological constant into his theory of general relativity to force the equations to predict a stationary universe in keeping with physicists' thinking at the time. When it became clear that the universe wasn't actually static, but was expanding instead, Einstein abandoned the constant, calling it the '"biggest blunder" of his life.

But lately scientists have revived Einstein's cosmological constant (denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda) to explain a mysterious force called dark energy that seems to be counteracting gravity — causing the universe to expand at an accelerating pace.

A new study confirms that the cosmological constant is the best fit for dark energy, and offers the most precise and accurate estimate yet of its value, researchers said. The finding comes from a measurement of the universe's geometry that suggests our universe is flat, rather than spherical or curved.

(more at link)

.................

Einstein Rocks!

[immoderate]

1. Yeah! Even when Einstein makes a mistake, it's brilliant!

I'm guessing that initial observations suggested a collapsing universe. Einstein supplied just the number to keep it stable. I'm not sure of the math, but is the cosmological constant therefore the difference between the classical model of expanding and the actual accelerated model that implies the dark energy? :crazy:

--imm

[Confusious]

16. Let me see if I can explain this. I get it mixed up sometimes

If the universe was going to collapse, expansion would be slower, because of more matter.
If the universe was static, there would be no expansion.
If the universe was going to expand forever, expansion would be faster, because of less matter.

Astronomers have found all the "visible" matter, but it doesn't work in the equations describing the speed of expansion, hence dark matter.

At some point in the expansion, the universe should stop, or slow to a crawl.

I sometimes think it's hopeful thinking.

[Xicano]

2. I think Einstein's biggest blunder was his refusal to accept Quantum Mechanics

In 1927 Albert Einstein flat out lost to Neils Bohr at the fifth Solvay International Conference on Electrons and Photons located in Brussels. Neils Bohr argued quantum mechanics and behind him were Werner Heisneberg, Max Born and Wolfgang Pauli and a couple of others. Albert Einstein argued against Neils Bohr and hated quantum mechanics and never accepted it. "God doesn't throw dice" he said and Einstein went to his grave not believing in quantum mechanics.

That was his biggest blunder in my opinion. It was at this 1927 conference where everything changed in atomic physics, the old guard was replaced by the new and Einstein failed to back the correct model of atomic physics. Never before or since had there been so many great names in physics together in one place. Backing the old model were names like Hendrik Lorentz, Madame Curie and Albert Einstein vs. the new guys with Neils Bohr.

Out of this historic conference Neils Bohr's quantum mechanics vision of the atom, called the Copenhagen Interpretation, has become the very heart of atomic physics. If you look at the photo you'll notice Albert Einstein doesn't look very happy, that's because he flat out lost.




Photo taken right after the end of the conference.

[RagAss]

4. Is Schrodinger holding his cat in this photo?

[Xicano]

5. Doesn't look like he's holding anything. But Wolfgang Pauli was smugly looking at Schrodinger.

During this photo Pauli was actually giving an in-your-face sorta look at Schrodinger. Schrodinger was part of the old guard at this conference.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. you had to be there....

or not

[RagAss]

11. LOL !

[Richard Steele]

13. He's neither holding it nor NOT holding it until the moment you look at the photo. nm

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. The big bang could be religion disguised as science... or so it

has been said.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bang.php

Georges Lemaître (like Aristotle) assumed there was no other explanation for the red shift he observed than the motion of the observed objects relative to Earth. But given the theory that the universe is expanding uniformly, the amount of red shifts would have to be uniformly and randomly distributed.

But they aren't.

The observed red shifts in the sky are quantized, falling into discreet intervals. This is not explained by the theory that the red shift is produced solely by relative velocity. Some other effect is at work. And that means that the assumption that the universe is expanding based solely on the red shift is invalidated. Some other effect IS at work that explains the observations, quite possibly one that triggers a quantized red shift over vast distances without respect to relative velocity.

Which means the universe is not expanding. Which means there was no moment of creation, no "Big Bang" with an epicycle-esque cosmology to explain why the greatest black hole of all didn't behave like a black hole. Which means that the background radiation mapped by COBE which didn't quite fit the Big Bang model is probably the remnant of the stellar explosion that created the heavy elements making up that computer you are reading this on.

But the lesson for our time of just how much our society remains dominated by religious superstitions is revealed by the fact that the quantized red-shift is NOT a new discovery. The first article regarding the observed data appeared in 1976, a quarter of a century ago. Since then, scientists as much in the service of superstition as were those scientists who "studied" epicycles have repeatedly tried to disprove the observations of Tifft and Cocke, only to confirm and re-confirm the truth, that there is a quantized red-shift, which casts doubt on the theory of an expanding universe and a "Big bang" creation.

Yet even though hard evidence exists to warrant a

[Confusious]

17. Another of your "electric universe" crackpots?

A first year astronomy course at a community college would explain a lot.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. The Flat Universe Society.

Founding member!

[Octafish]

7. Flatland.

Can I join the F.U.S.?

Aumm. It's got a nice ring to it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Without a fuss, you're F.U.S.

Welcome.

[bemildred]

9. A fudge factor is a fudge factor.

The cosmological constant is a fudge factor, and "dark energy/matter" is a fudge factor, and it's not at all odd that they are equivalent since they have a similar function as fudge factors, to make the universe expand at the right rate.

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. Here is the equation

where R and g pertain to the structure of spacetime, T pertains to matter and energy (thought of as affecting that structure), and G and c are conversion factors that arise from using traditional units of measurement.

When Λ is zero, this reduces to the original field equation of general relativity. When T is zero, the field equation describes empty space (the vacuum).

The cosmological constant has the same effect as an intrinsic energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure). In this context it is commonly defined with a proportionality factor of 8π: Λ = 8πρvac, where unit conventions of general relativity are used (otherwise factors of G and c would also appear). It is common to quote values of energy density directly, though still using the name "cosmological constant".

A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of empty space. (See dark energy and cosmic inflation for details.)
Omega Lambda



I have no clue on this but it does sound like ZEN at my age.

[rug]

14. This is what happens when schizophrenia strikes physicists.

[dimbear]

15. The idea that lambda may be zero has been considered many times.

Acceptance of that idea comes and goes. It will come and go again.

[Canuckistanian]

18. Wasn't it Hubble who legitimized the acceptance of the constant?

I may have my theories wrong, but I thought Hubble provided the preliminary observations for the universe's expansion.