First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Then why did he call the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

Ellen

He added his "cosmological constant" in order to have a steady-state universe. Hubble's observations proved beyond doubt that the universe is expanding. Had Einstein left his equations alone he (or others) would have predicted on the basis of theory that the universe is either expanding or contracting. He would have scooped Hubble just by theoretical means.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know why he added the cosmological constant, Bob.

Eva stated - see above - that Einstein "stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed."

If indeed Einstein had believed to the end that the universe was fixed, why would he have called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

I.e., Eva is reporting incorrectly. Possibly what she's thinking of is Einstein's persisting dislike of quantum mechanics.

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Then why did he call the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

Ellen

He added his "cosmological constant" in order to have a steady-state universe. Hubble's observations proved beyond doubt that the universe is expanding. Had Einstein left his equations alone he (or others) would have predicted on the basis of theory that the universe is either expanding or contracting. He would have scooped Hubble just by theoretical means.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I know why he added the cosmological constant, Bob.

Eva stated - see above - that Einstein "stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed."

If indeed Einstein had believed to the end that the universe was fixed, why would he have called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

I.e., Eva is reporting incorrectly. Possibly what she's thinking of is Einstein's persisting dislike of quantum mechanics.

Ellen

The equation for General Relativity gives infinite time (Friedmman), yet finite space (Ricci). In this sense, if one were to say that Einstein 'believed' in his own equation, he likewise believed the universe was 'fixed'. Stubbornly enough.

Here it must be noted that the first real Big Bang model of Lemaitre did not allow for an expansionary universe as such

The Cosmo constant was a blunder because the coefficient doesn't work. Rather, it's allows for instability. Because at any 'time' along the spacetime manifold gravity would take hold, the system would collapse.

In other words, a gravatational collapse need only happen once, and that's that. Again, this is inherent in the equation itself. CC failed to solve the problem inherent in GR.

Then came the Hubble discovery. In terms of 1930-ish science, GR could accommodate the fact that galaxies were moving away, as long as they did not expand the dimensions of the universe itself. That would come around 1990, or so and, again, require a revision of GR in terms of Wyl geometrics.

So Einsteins second 'blunder' was the proposal of a CC, as such. Accepting Hubble, it wasn't necessary; acceleration itself was overcoming gravity well enough as it was.

Einstein did not dislike QM, as he was an original founder. He simply did not accept the Copenhagen solution for wave/particle dissimilarity of equations: accept both, on different days. Nor was he inclined to accept probabalism. as a final solution.

Therefore, most of the talk of wave/particle 'duality' and Heisenberg 'uncertainty' comes from his side of the debate with Bohr, per all those letters.

This, of course, did not impede him from working with Bose on an integrative path for special relativity into the particle world by means of said 'Heisenberg', probability-laden as it was.

Lastly, whenever you decide to be polite, i'll be happy to explain the math of physics for you. Otherwise, there's always google.

## Recommended Posts

## Top Posters In This Topic

15

2

13

18

## Popular Days

Mar 9

10

Feb 28

8

Mar 12

7

Mar 10

7

## Top Posters In This Topic

Michael Stuart Kelly15 postsmerjet2 postsBaalChatzaf13 postseva matthews18 posts## Popular Days

Mar 9 2014

10 posts

Feb 28 2014

8 posts

Mar 12 2014

7 posts

Mar 10 2014

7 posts

## Ellen Stuttle

I know why he added the cosmological constant, Bob.

Eva stated - see above - that Einstein "

stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed."If indeed Einstein had believed to the end that the universe was fixed, why would he have called the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

I.e., Eva is reporting incorrectly. Possibly what she's thinking of is Einstein's persisting dislike of quantum mechanics.

Ellen

## Link to comment

## Share on other sites

## eva matthews

The equation for General Relativity gives infinite time (Friedmman), yet finite space (Ricci). In this sense, if one were to say that Einstein 'believed' in his own equation, he likewise believed the universe was 'fixed'. Stubbornly enough.

Here it must be noted that the first real Big Bang model of Lemaitre did not allow for an expansionary universe as such

The Cosmo constant was a blunder because the coefficient doesn't work. Rather, it's allows for instability. Because at any 'time' along the spacetime manifold gravity would take hold, the system would collapse.

In other words, a gravatational collapse need only happen once, and that's that. Again, this is inherent in the equation itself. CC failed to solve the problem inherent in GR.

Then came the Hubble discovery. In terms of 1930-ish science, GR could accommodate the fact that galaxies were moving away, as long as they did not expand the dimensions of the universe itself. That would come around 1990, or so and, again, require a revision of GR in terms of Wyl geometrics.

So Einsteins second 'blunder' was the proposal of a CC, as such. Accepting Hubble, it wasn't necessary; acceleration itself was overcoming gravity well enough as it was.

Einstein did not dislike QM, as he was an original founder. He simply did not accept the Copenhagen solution for wave/particle dissimilarity of equations: accept both, on different days. Nor was he inclined to accept probabalism. as a final solution.

Therefore, most of the talk of wave/particle 'duality' and Heisenberg 'uncertainty' comes from his side of the debate with Bohr, per all those letters.

This, of course, did not impede him from working with Bose on an integrative path for special relativity into the particle world by means of said 'Heisenberg', probability-laden as it was.

Lastly, whenever you decide to be polite, i'll be happy to explain the math of physics for you. Otherwise, there's always google.

EM

## Link to comment

## Share on other sites

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now