Albert Einstein and the cosmological constant

[David Levy]

If someone came along with a mathematical theory as robust as our current theory but more accurately agreed with the observations (taking error analysis into account) then we would start using the new theory.

 

What you have to bear in mind is that BBT and general relativity are incredibly accurate in the domains of applicability. So a simple first test as to whether a new theory is valid is whether it gives the same numerical predictions as them.

 

Interestingly this can be done for general relativity. Where Newtonian gravity works GR must produce the same result else we'd have known quickly that it was not going to work.

 

How robust is our current mathematical theory?

 

1. Is it based on Einstein general relativity equation?

 

2. Do we use the forbidden cosmology constant in order to prove the theory?

 

If the answer to the above is positive, then the answer had already been given by Einstein.

 

He had already said that this is a big mistake.

 

However, if we can prove our current mathematical theory by using Einstein general relativity equation, without the cosmology constant -

 

Then we can claim clearly that we have a robust mathematical theory.

 

[Strange]

1. Of course it is.

 

2. We use the cosmological constant to match the data. That is what science does.

 

"He had already said that this is a big mistake."

 

He didn't have the data we gave now.

 

"However, if we can prove our current mathematical theory by using Einstein general relativity equation, without the cosmology constant ..."

 

We can't. Because it doesn't match the data without it.

 

"then the answer had already been given by Einstein."

 

It is only crackpots who fetishize Einstein like this. Not scientists.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

In order to support those theories and hypothesis we had to go back to Einstein equation and add that forbidden Cosmological constant.[/size] [/size]

As no one can argue with Einstein - then no one can argue with our current theories.[/size]

!

Moderator Note

This sounds like you are pushing an agenda and it must stop. Discuss the science, but drop the pejorative descriptions and your interpretations of how science works or should work. That's off-topic.

[Klaynos]

People are human, the fact one of them once got something wrong shouldn't be terribly surprising and why science doesn't care who said what only how good the models are (how well they compare to measurements).

[David Levy]

It is stated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

"Albert Einstein added a positive cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the attractive effects of gravity on ordinary matter, which would otherwise cause a spatially finite universe to either collapse or expand forever."

 

But then he understood that it is a severe mistake and therefore, he had eliminated that cosmological constant from his equation.

I wonder if Einstein had proved his equation – with or without the cosmological constant.

If Einstein had confirmed its equation without the cosmological constant – then it is forbidden to add it back. We shouldn't do it under any circumstances.

If he didn't, then yes- we have full authority to update the equation as we like. Actually without a solid proof by Einstein – the sky is the limit.

We can add that cosmological constant or even make significant change in that equation.

Therefore, if Einstein didn't confirm his equation (without the cosmological constant), then I fully agree with your explanation:

People are human, the fact one of them once got something wrong shouldn't be terribly surprising and why science doesn't care who said what only how good the models are (how well they compare to measurements).

 

 

So, yes, I fully agree that even Einstein can make a mistake.

However, if he had a severe mistake in his equation, then could it be that other scientists might have a mistake? Could it be that there is an error also in the updated equation (with this constant)?

The main question is as follow:

By adding that constant we have confirmed the BBT, however –by confirming the BBT does it mean that it is a solid proof for the existence of the cosmological constant in the equation?

How can we prove the updated equation?

Therefore, without a real approval, there is always a possibility that the updated equation (with the cosmological constant) isn't valid by 100%.

 

In other words – we can change the equation, we can add the cosmology constant to get the fit of the BBT, but in this case we must find a way to confirm the updated equation.

 

On the other hand, if we think that Einstein made a severe mistake in his decision to eliminate the cosmology constant, if we decide to add it against his clear will, then why do we still call it Einstein equation?

How could it be that after setting a severe change in this equation we still call it under his name?

 

Edited May 7, 2017 by David Levy

[Strange]

But then he understood that it is a severe mistake and therefore, he had eliminated that cosmological constant from his equation.

I wonder if Einstein had proved his equation – with or without the cosmological constant.

 

 

What do you mean "proved his equation"?

 

Do you mean did he compare the predictions of the theory against observation?

 

If so, then the answer is yes. And when those observations showed that the universe was actually expanding, the cosmological constant was set to zero.

 

Now we have seen that the expansion is accelerating, the value has been adjusted again.

 

THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

 

 

 

 

If Einstein had confirmed its equation without the cosmological constant – then it is forbidden to add it back. We shouldn't do it under any circumstances.

 

This is a moronic statement and this is NOT how science works.

 

 

 

Could it be that there is an error also in the updated equation (with this constant)?

 

Of course.

 

That is why it is stupid to talk about "proving" things in science.

 

 

 

 

By adding that constant we have confirmed the BBT, however

 

No.No. No. No. NO.

 

The constant was added so that the equation matches what we observe. That's it.

 

 

 

–by confirming the BBT does it mean that it is a solid proof for the existence of the cosmological constant in the equation?

 

No. No. No. No. NO.

 

It is not a proof of anything.

 

It is just a matter of adjusting the model to match reality (as accurately as we can).

 

 

How can we prove the updated equation?

 

We can't "prove" it. You cannot prove anything in science.

 

However, the model will be continually tested by making more observations. The data from these may be used to adjust the value of the cosmological constant and other parameters.

 

 

Therefore, without a real approval, there is always a possibility that the updated equation (with the cosmological constant) isn't valid by 100%.

 

Of course. That is always true of all science.

 

Science is always subject to change when new data or evidence is obtained. That is how science progresses.

 

Only an idiot would say that we should never change our models.

 

 

 

In other words – we can change the equation, we can add the cosmology constant to get the fit of the BBT, but in this case we must find a way to confirm the updated equation.

 

The equation was updated based on evidence. Therefore it matches the current evidence.

 

Further observations will be used to check (and either confirm or change) the value of the cosmological constant and other parameters.

 

Because that is how steichen works.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if we think that Einstein made a severe mistake in his decision to eliminate the cosmology constant, if we decide to add it against his clear will, then why do we still call it Einstein equation?

How could it be that after setting a severe change in this equation we still call it under his name?

What does it matter what we call it? Most equations are not named after the people who actually invented them, anyway. Many (most? all?) theories are changed after the original version.

 

And why does changing the value of one parameter mean the name has to be changed?

Edited May 7, 2017 by Strange

[Delta1212]

 

 

What do you mean "proved his equation"?

 

Do you mean did he compare the predictions of the theory against observation?

 

If so, then the answer is yes. And when those observations showed that the universe was actually expanding, the cosmological constant was set to zero.

 

Now we have seen that the expansion is accelerating, the value has been adjusted again.

 

THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

 

 

 

This is a moronic statement and this is NOT how science works.

 

 

Of course.

 

That is why it is stupid to talk about "proving" things in science.

 

 

 

No.No. No. No. NO.

 

The constant was added so that the equation matches what we observe. That's it.

 

 

No. No. No. No. NO.

 

It is not a proof of anything.

 

It is just a matter of adjusting the model to match reality (as accurately as we can).

 

 

We can't "prove" it. You cannot prove anything in science.

 

However, the model will be continually tested by making more observations. The data from these may be used to adjust the value of the cosmological constant and other parameters.

 

 

Of course. That is always true of all science.

 

Science is always subject to change when new data or evidence is obtained. That is how science progresses.

 

Only an idiot would say that we should never change our models.

 

 

The equation was updated based on evidence. Therefore it matches the current evidence.

 

Further observations will be used to check (and either confirm or change) the value of the cosmological constant and other parameters.

 

Because that is how steichen works.

 

 

What does it matter what we call it? Most equations are not named after the people who actually invented them, anyway. Many (most? all?) theories are changed after the original version.

 

And why does changing the value of one parameter mean the name has to be changed?

Every time someone calculates pi out to an additional decimal place we should choose a new symbol to represent it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Every time someone calculates pi out to an additional decimal place we should choose a new symbol to represent it.

That would certainly help prove that it is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, and maybe Euler et al would finally forgive us. They've been a little ticked off for some time now.

[imatfaal]

...

Because that is how steichen works.

...

 

with respect this is how steichen worked

 

But great post otherwise and a strange Strange autocorrect.

[Strange]

 

with respect this is how steichen worked

But great post otherwise and a strange Strange autocorrect.

 

 

And I have run out of time to edit it!

Aaargh!

[imatfaal]

 

 

And I have run out of time to edit it!

Aaargh!

 

I don't know what the time limit is - but if I did I would have waited till it was up

[KipIngram]

 

with respect this is how steichen worked

 

But great post otherwise and a strange Strange autocorrect.

 

Holy cow - he reminds me amazingly of a friend of mine that's now living and working in Malaysia. Striking resemblance.

 

This has been a... vastly entertaining thread. I can't believe I got to age 54 without realizing that Einstein, was, in fact, a god. I'll have to hastily mend the error of my ways...

[David Levy]

Thanks Strange

 

Do appreciate your explanation.

 

What do you mean "proved his equation"?

Do you mean did he compare the predictions of the theory against observation?

If so, then the answer is yes. And when those observations showed that the universe was actually expanding, the cosmological constant was set to zero.

Now we have seen that the expansion is accelerating, the value has been adjusted again.

THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

 

So, the accelerating expansion was a critical discovery of our Universe.

Based on this discovery we have decided to change Einstein equation by adding the cosmology constant.

Let's start by looking at the history:

Based on the first expansion discovery (somewhere at 1950?), our scientists had developed the BBT theory (let's call it old BBT as it wasn't expected to see any sort of accelerating expansion in our Universe).

Till the accelerating expansion discovery in 1998, the old BBT was a perfect fit between our observations and the basic Einstein equation (without the cosmology constant)

 

However, this accelerating expansion set a violation between the old BBT and the basic Einstein Equation.

 

So, our scientists had to find a solution.

 

They could say – "Huston, we have a problem".

They could say – We have a problem with the old BBT theory. As we didn't expect to see that phenomenon we must look for better Theory which can give a clear explanation for what we see.

 

So, how could they solve the problem?

 

First we have to understand the key elements for any problem/solution:

 

A. Observation – Represents the discoveries and evidences. We can't change it.

B. Equation/law – represents the knowledge in mathematics Physics which had been developed by key scientists during the centuries. (I had the impression that we also shouldn't change it in order to meet any sort of theory). Actually, long time ago, Einstein by himself had decided to add the cosmological constant to his relativity equation in order to protect some sort of theory which he believed in. But later on, he was brave enough to say that it was his biggest mistake.

C. Theory – this must be flexible. It must be the bridge between the observations to the equation.

 

Hence

 

I would expect that the science community will set the old BBT on the table and try to verify different theories in order to find the perfect match between the new observation/discovery and the basic equations.

 

However, that was not the case. As instead of open the mind for alternative Theory, we have opened our mind for alternative equation.

 

No.No. No. No. NO.

The constant was added so that the equation matches what we observe. That's it.

 

Sorry - It seems to me that the Constant was added so the equation matches between the BBT and the observation.

So, we did exactly the same mistake as Einstein.

It was so important for us to protect the BBT that we have agreed to call back that cosmological constant (which Einstein said that it was his biggest mistake) in order to close the gap between the observation and the old BBT theory.

Hence, a new section of acceleration expansion had been added to the old BBT – and now we can rest with this new updated BBT till the next discovery.

Did I miss something?

Is this how science works?

[Strange]

Based on the first expansion discovery (somewhere at 1950?)

 

 

1927

 

 

First we have to understand the key elements for any problem/solution:

 

A. Observation – Represents the discoveries and evidences. We can't change it.

B. Equation/law – represents the knowledge in mathematics Physics which had been developed by key scientists during the centuries. (I had the impression that we also shouldn't change it in order to meet any sort of theory). Actually, long time ago, Einstein by himself had decided to add the cosmological constant to his relativity equation in order to protect some sort of theory which he believed in. But later on, he was brave enough to say that it was his biggest mistake.

C. Theory – this must be flexible. It must be the bridge between the observations to the equation.

 

B and C are the same thing.

 

 

 

I would expect that the science community will set the old BBT on the table and try to verify different theories in order to find the perfect match between the new observation/discovery and the basic equations.

 

And that is what happened. And is still happening.

 

The cosmological constant represents something called "dark energy". We don't know what this is so many different ideas (hypotheses) are being tried out. These are different possible explanations some of which may lead to different theories (either variations of the big bang model or even drastic changes to it). People are still checking the original observations and seeing of the data still holds up when we look at more and more galaxies in case the observations are in error (so far, this has just confirmed the acceleration.

 

 

However, that was not the case. As instead of open the mind for alternative Theory, we have opened our mind for alternative equation.

 

Huh? That makes no sense.

 

 

Sorry - It seems to me that the Constant was added so the equation matches between the BBT and the observation.

 

That is what I said: the constant was added so that the results of the equation (i.e. the predictions of the big bang theory) match the observations.

 

 

 

It was so important for us to protect the BBT that we have agreed to call back that cosmological constant (which Einstein said that it was his biggest mistake) in order to close the gap between the observation and the old BBT theory.

 

There is nothing being "protected".

 

We just need to make the equation fit the observations.

 

 

 

Did I miss something?

 

Yes, I think you forgot to try and understand what you read. You filter everything through your prejudices and preconceptions, instead of actually reading it.

 

You are so convinced that modern science has got everything wrong that you distort and twist everything you read to convince yourself that there is something rotten in science. It is very tiresome.

[David Levy]

1927

 

 

Thanks

 

 

We just need to make the equation fit the observations.

 

I'm not sure that we can call the accelerating expansion as observation.

I have tried to understand the real meaning of the accelerating expansion of the universe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

 

The expansion of the universe has been accelerating since the universe entered its dark-energy-dominated era, at redshift z ≈ 0.4(roughly 5 billion years ago)

 

The first evidence for acceleration came from the observation of Type Ia supernovae, which are exploding white dwarfs that have exceeded their stability limit.

For supernovae at redshift less than around 0.1, or light travel time less than 10 percent of the age of the universe, this gives a nearly linear distance–redshift relation due to Hubble's law. At larger distances, since the expansion rate of the universe has changed over time, the distance-redshift relation deviates from linearity, and this deviation depends on how the expansion rate has changed over time. The full calculation requires integration of the Friedmann equation, but a simple derivation can be given as follows: the redshift z directly gives the cosmic scale factor at the time the supernova exploded.

So a supernova with a measured redshift z = 0.5 implies the universe was 1/1 + 0.5 = 2/3 of its present size when the supernova exploded. In an accelerating universe, the universe was expanding more slowly in the past than it is today, which means it took a longer time to expand from two thirds its present size to its present size compared to a non-accelerating universe."

Hence, our simple pure observation is – Redshift.

 

We do not observe directly the accelerating expansion value.

 

However, based on the BBT theory, that value of observed redshift represents accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

That is quite clear as the BBT theory represents a young age Universe - only 13.8 BY. Therefore, in order to accomplish that kind of redshift in that limited time frame – an accelerating expansion is needed.

 

I would assume that if for example the age of the Universe would be considered as Infinity the outcome of the same redshift observation might be totally different.

 

In other words:

 

We do not measure directly the accelerating expansion value. We only measure the Redshift. The accelerating expansion is a direct outcome of the BBT theory impact on our observation. If we have used different Theory, we could get different outcome from the same observation.

 

Therefore – It is a severe mistake that we call the accelerating expansion as observation.

 

IT IS NOT AN OBSERVATION. It is a simple outcome of how we see the redshift observation through the BBT eyes.

 

If we call the accelerating expansion – Observation, we mislead ourself.

 

Its time to set a clear distinguish between what we see and what we think as an outcome of our observation.

 

There could be a significant gap between the two.

 

 

 

B and C are the same thing.

 

 

There is also a gap between Theory and equation.

 

BBT is theory. Steady state is Theory. Once upon a time our theory was that the Earth is the center of the Universe. So what? Every era might come with deferent theory.

 

Those theories aren't written on a stone. There are valid as long as we didn't find better replacement. Theories could be valid for a limited time frame.

However, equations and laws are much more solid than any temporary theories.

1+1 = 2 equation is solid. Newton law is solid. I do believe that the basic Einstein equation is much more solid than any sort of theory (including the BBT).

 

Huh? That makes no sense.

That is what I said: the constant was added so that the results of the equation (i.e. the predictions of the big bang theory) match the observations.

 

 

 

As I have stated; we shouldn't change our equations for any sort of temporary theory including the BBT.

 

In the past we killed the state theory as it didn't expected the expansion.

 

Now we should reconsider the BBT theory as it didn't expected to find accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

[Strange]

I'm not sure that we can call the accelerating expansion as observation.

 

 

We have had countless threads on your inability to understand the nature of evidence and the way science works. Don't drag this one into the same sewer of ignorance.

 

Go ahead, keep telling yourself that science is all wrong and only you know The Truth. Just stop posting your idiotic ideas here.

 

I am not going to answer any more of your ridiculous, ignorant and, quite frankly, increasingly deranged questions.

[swansont]

 

As I have stated; we shouldn't change our equations for any sort of temporary theory including the BBT.[/size]

 

 

In the past we killed the state theory as it didn't expected the expansion.[/size]

 

 

Now we should reconsider the BBT theory as it didn't expected to find accelerating expansion of the universe.[/size]

 

!

Moderator Note

 

And I have stated that discussion about your dissatisfaction about how science works or should work is off-topic.

 

Your questions raised in the OP have been addressed, so this is now closed.

 

If you want to discuss the process of science, you are free to open a new thread, but if you display the same obstinance in the face of information as you normally do, I suspect it shan't remain open very long.