Cosmology Constant - The Biggest Mistake Of The Modern Science.

[davdan]

If I understand it correctly, till 1988 we had no clue about the acceleration expansion.

Therefore, by using the basic Einstein equation (without the cosmology constant), we have got a good Mathematical fit for the BBT.

However, once the acceleration expansion had been discovered, we couldn't fit it any more to basic Einstein equation.

Therefore, we were obliged to add the constant to Einstein equation in order to set a fit. 

Actually, Einstein had added this constant to prove totally different theory - Static universe theory: 

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

 

"Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: "

 

I assume that by using this cosmology constant Einstein had proved mathematically the Static Universe Theory. 

However, later on he understood that it was a severe mistake to add it to his equation. 

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

"Einstein later reputedly referred to his failure to accept the validation of his equations—when they had predicted the expansion of the universe in theory, before it was demonstrated in observation of the cosmological red shift—as the "biggest blunder" of his life."

So, if Einstein has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake, than it should be clear to all of us that it is a severe mistake to use it.

Therefore, the modern science shouldn't use it in order to adjust the new acceleration expansion discovery to the BBT. 

 

In one hand Einstein had used this forbidden cosmology constant to prove mathematically the Static Universe theory, while on the other hand the modern science are using the same constant to prove a totally different theory – the BBT. 

Therefore, if we can prove with the same constant two different theories, than technically, we might be able to prove any sort of theory.

Hence, I have full trust in Einstein that we shouldn't use this cosmology constant under any circumstances.

 

Conclusion:

 

Any real theory for our universe must be based on basic Einstein equation (without the cosmology constant). 

If we can fit the BBT to the new discovery of the acceleration expansion based on basic Einstein equation – than it is O.K.

If we can't fit it – than the BBT is irrelevant and we have to look for better theory!!!

 

In other words –

As the discovery of the expansion set the end to the Steady state theory, the discovery of the acceleration expansion should set the end to the BBT theory!!!

Edited May 21, 2017 by davdan

[sanctus]

Why do you see Einstein as the ultimate guru? He was a genius indeed, but any scientific theory is only valid till an experiment/observation contradicts it. At this stage we have to come up with a new theory which makes predictions not contradicted by experiments/observations. Or as I see it :"any theory is an approximation of reality and replacing theories are just a better approximation".

[exchemist]

 

If I understand it correctly, till 1988 we had no clue about the acceleration expansion.

Therefore, by using the basic Einstein equation (without the cosmology constant), we have got a good Mathematical fit for the BBT.

However, once the acceleration expansion had been discovered, we couldn't fit it any more to basic Einstein equation.

Therefore, we were obliged to add the constant to Einstein equation in order to set a fit. 

Actually, Einstein had added this constant to prove totally different theory - Static universe theory: 

 

 

"Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: "

 

I assume that by using this cosmology constant Einstein had proved mathematically the Static Universe Theory. 

However, later on he understood that it was a severe mistake to add it to his equation. 

 

So, if Einstein has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake, than it should be clear to all of us that it is a severe mistake to use it.

Therefore, the modern science shouldn't use it in order to adjust the new acceleration expansion discovery to the BBT. 

 

In one hand Einstein had used this forbidden cosmology constant to prove mathematically the Static Universe theory, while on the other hand the modern science are using the same constant to prove a totally different theory – the BBT. 

 

Strongly agree with Sanctus about Einstein and theories in general.

 

It looks as if you are using some rather odd concepts here. You speak about "proving" theories. But you don't prove a theory in science. A theory is a model which successfully matches observation, and enables further observations to be predicted successfully as well. "Proof" does not come in to it. 

 

Einstein was simply doing what anyone would try to do (though he was particularly brilliant at it), which is to make a mathematical model which fitted the observations available at the time and the prevailing thinking of the time. As later observations have come in it has become clear that the model needed adaptation - so it was adapted. There is no reason to follow Einstein's reasons for using or not using the cosmological constant if we have evidence on the topic that was not available to Einstein. Even Einstein cannot be expected to reason without data.  

 

It looks to me, as a non-expert in this field, that the cosmological constant serves as a "fudge factor" to get the model to fit what is observed, while science tries to get a handle on what it is that gives rise to it. That is a perfectly respectable procedure, as it isolates mathematically what we think we know from what we agree we don't yet know, which is the part to be investigated of course.

Edited May 22, 2017 by exchemist

[davdan]

Why do you see Einstein as the ultimate guru? He was a genius indeed, but any scientific theory is only valid till an experiment/observation contradicts it. At this stage we have to come up with a new theory which makes predictions not contradicted by experiments/observations. Or as I see it :"any theory is an approximation of reality and replacing theories are just a better approximation".

 

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

The Einstein field equations (EFE; also known as Einstein's equations) is the set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity that describes the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy.

 

The modern science is based on his equations.

So yes, Einstein is by definition the ultimate guru for modern science.

If he said that the cosmology constant is a severe mistake - than it must be a severe mistake.

We shouldn't use it to support any sort of theory. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by davdan

[davdan]

Einstein was simply doing what anyone would try to do (though he was particularly brilliant at it), which is to make a mathematical model which fitted the observations available at the time and the prevailing thinking of the time. 

 

 

Albert Einstein had proposed his cosmological model:

 

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

A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a universe does not have spatial curvature; that is to say that it is 'flat' or Euclidean. A static infinite universe was first proposed by Thomas Digges.^[1]

In contrast to this model, Albert Einstein proposed a temporally infinite but spatially finite model as his preferred cosmology in 1917, in his paper Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity.

 

 As later observations have come in it has become clear that the model needed adaptation - so it was adapted. There is no reason to follow Einstein's reasons for using or not using the cosmological constant if we have evidence on the topic that was not available to Einstein. Even Einstein cannot be expected to reason without data.  

 

Yes, I agree.

In any case, when you say - "later observation" I assume that you mean "Red Shift discovery":

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

"After the discovery of the redshift–distance relationship (deduced by the inverse correlation of galactic brightness to redshift) by Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble, the Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître interpreted the redshift as proof of universal expansion and thus a Big Bang,"

 

So, yes - based on Einstein model it was not expected to see that redshift discovery.

 

 

However:

 

Can you please explain what does it mean:

"temporally infinite but spatially finite model"

Edited May 22, 2017 by davdan

[exchemist]

Albert Einstein had proposed his cosmological model:

 

 

 

 

 

In any case, when you say - "later observation" I assume that you mean "Red Shift discovery":

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

"After the discovery of the redshift–distance relationship (deduced by the inverse correlation of galactic brightness to redshift) by Vesto Slipher and Edwin Hubble, the Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître interpreted the redshift as proof of universal expansion and thus a Big Bang,"

 

So, yes - based on Einstein model it was not expected to see that redshift discovery.

 

 

However:

 

Can you please explain what does it mean:

"temporally infinite but spatially finite model"

Well later observations included the red shift, but also surely other things such as cosmic background radiation and latter still the ideas of dark matter and "dark energy". All these things are continuing to modify our picture of cosmology and the maths has to be adapted. 

 

I am not sure what exactly he had in mind when speaking of a "temporally infinite but spatially finite universe" but I can imagine for example a spatially closed universe, in which if you go far enough in one direction you end up back where you started, but which has always existed and will always exist.  

[sanctus]

SO if you were born in the 18th century you would talk like this about Newton? If he said it was wrong then it is always wrong forever? Even when we detect time dilatation etc?

I mean common, he created GR yes, he thought based on available data the constant was an error, then we (not as smart, yes, but a much wider community of scientists) got new observations and so we modify GR accordingly.

Btw your post #4 and #5 are contradictory:
In #4 you say that:

If he said that the cosmology constant is a severe mistake - than it must be a severe mistake.

In number 5 you say:

 

So, yes - based on Einstein model it was not expected to see that redshift discovery.

Wait Einstein did not predict it, so observations must be wrong ;-) Good luck with defending that.

[davdan]

Well later observations included the red shift, but also surely other things such as cosmic background radiation and latter still the ideas of dark matter and "dark energy". All these things are continuing to modify our picture of cosmology and the maths has to be adapted. 

 

That is correct

 

 

However, the main issue is that we look at all of those observations through the BBT Eyes.

 

Therefore, we get those kinds of ideas.

 

 

First I would like to highlight that the science must use the correct words to describe the reality. 

For example - Let's look at the Acceleration expansion. 

What is the real source for this idea?

 

 

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

 

"Evidence for acceleration[edit]

To learn about the rate of expansion of the universe we look at the magnitude-redshift relationship of astronomical objects using standard candles, or their distance-redshift relationship using standard rulers. We can also look at the growth of large-scale structure, and find that the observed values of the cosmological parameters are best described by models which include an accelerating expansion.

 

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."

 

In other words - 

 

We have measured the redshift. So, the redshift is our observation.

Based on that redshift and our understanding of the BBT, we have got into a conclusion that there is acceleration expansion.

 

 Somehow, the modern science is called the acceleration expansion as "observation" and that is an error. 

They can't mix up between observation and conclusions.

 

In any case, based on the BBT eyes (or filter), as the universe age is limited to less than 14 Billion years, the discovery of that redshift drive us in conclusion that there must be an acceleration expansion.

 

However, if we go back to Einstein cosmology model, than the age of the Universe is Infinite and also its size. It also has no curvature. 

 

Therefore, it is quite clear that for an infinite age/size universe it's quite normal to see that kind of redshift without any requirement for acceleration expansion..

 

Don't forget that Einstein had stated clearly that there is no expansion at all in space.

 

So, based on one theory (BBT) we have got a conclusion that the meaning of that REDshift is acceleration expansion, while based on Einstein static Universe - there is no expansion at all.

 

[davdan]

Wait Einstein did not predict it, so observations must be wrong ;-) Good luck with defending that.

 

 

Yes, I agree with you.

 

However, In the same token:

 

The BBT didn't predict the acceleration expansion, so does it mean that the BBT must be wrong?

 

In any case, Einstein didn't predict the redshift as he had no clue about our current discoveries.

 

There is good chance that if he was living today, he could explain how it could be that its model fits perfectly to all of our observations (observations – not conclusions)

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by davdan

[exchemist]

 

That is correct

 

 

However, the main issue is that we look at all of those observations through the BBT Eyes.

 

Therefore, we get those kinds of ideas.

 

 

First I would like to highlight that the science must use the correct words to describe the reality. 

For example - Let's look at the Acceleration expansion. 

What is the real source for this idea?

 

 

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

 

"Evidence for acceleration[edit]

To learn about the rate of expansion of the universe we look at the magnitude-redshift relationship of astronomical objects using standard candles, or their distance-redshift relationship using standard rulers. We can also look at the growth of large-scale structure, and find that the observed values of the cosmological parameters are best described by models which include an accelerating expansion.

 

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."

 

In other words - 

 

We have measured the redshift. So, the redshift is our observation.

Based on that redshift and our understanding of the BBT, we have got into a conclusion that there is acceleration expansion.

 

 Somehow, the modern science is called the acceleration expansion as "observation" and that is an error. 

They can't mix up between observation and conclusions.

 

I'm not any kind of expert on this, but I don't follow you here. 

 

Firstly, the red shift is consistent with an expanding universe, is it not? And is it not also simplest explanation of it, i.e. the only explanation that requires no further hypotheses* to account for the observation?

 

If that is right, then Ockham's Razor says we should only go for a more complex explanation when the evidence requires it.  

 

What evidence do you have in mind that in your view is not consistent with an expanding-universe explanation of the red shift?

 

Also bear in mind that, whatever Einstein may have said, he could not take account of observations made since his death!

 

*such as the well-known "tired light" hypothesis, or the idea that some us had at school that Planck's Constant might have changed with time. Both these involve additional hypotheses, for which there is no evidence. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by exchemist

[A-wal]

*such as the well-known "tired light" hypothesis, or the idea that some us had at school that Planck's Constant might have changed with time. Both these involve additional hypotheses, for which there is no evidence. 

Lie!

Red-shift hypothesis 1: The galaxies are moving away.

Red-shift hypothesis 2: The light is being stretched along the way.

Hypothesis 2 makes a definite prediction that red-shift is proportional to distance and it is. It needs no further hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 needs the further hypotheses to explain the data.

[exchemist]

Lie!

Red-shift hypothesis 1: The galaxies are moving away.

Red-shift hypothesis 2: The light is being stretched along the way.

Hypothesis 2 makes a definite prediction that red-shift is proportional to distance and it is. It needs no further hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 needs the further hypotheses to explain the data.

But light "stretching" is just the cosmological expansion of the universe, which is equivalent, surely?  

 

(And you need to consult a dictionary about the meaning of "lie". A lie is a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive. I may easily be mistaken in some of what I say on this topic, but if you accuse me of deliberate untruths you deserve to have your teeth knocked down your throat. :)  ) 

Edited May 22, 2017 by exchemist

[A-wal]

But light "stretching" requires some unknown feature of physics, at variance with the evidence we have about the behaviour of light.  That is an extra hypothesis, which would require some independent evidence to make it credible. Is there any?

And the big bang, inflation and dark energy don't require some unknown features of physics? :mad:

[mrg]

> You deserve to have your teeth knocked down your throat.

 

EXC, AWOL is a pest -- but one must have patience with badly-behaved children.

[davdan]

Firstly, the red shift is consistent with an expanding universe, is it not? And is it not also simplest explanation of it, i.e. the only explanation that requires no further hypotheses* to account for the observation?

If that is right, then Ockham's Razor says we should only go for a more complex explanation when the evidence requires it.  

What evidence do you have in mind that in your view is not consistent with an expanding-universe explanation of the red shift?

 

Well, there is a very simple explanation for the red shift.

I'm quite sure that Ockham's Razor will be quite happy that there is a simple explanation instead of a complex one. 

So, let's start with Einstein cosmology model. 

The Universe is infinite in its age and infinite in its size. (Or almost infinite)

Its density is quite stable over time.

 

In order to achieve it there must be a source for new mass creation.

The SMBH is the main source for new mass creation in the Universe. 

So, let's assume that billion over billion over.... billion years ago (close to the infinite) a Big Bang had created the first SMBH in the Universe.

This SMBH creates new mass and set the first spiral galaxy in the whole Universe.

However, this first spiral galaxy creates also baby spiral galaxy. Not just one, but many others, while all of them are moving away from this first mother galaxy (let's assume that they all moves away at a velocity -V).

Over time, as those baby galaxies become more mature they also creates new baby galaxies which are moving away randomly in all directions at a speed -V.

 

Now, let's assume that all baby galaxies are moving in just one direction.

Hence, we can see it as a rocket over rocket over...rocket. 

 

If we stand on the first galaxy we should see a chain of new generation galaxies. The first generation galaxy is moving at speed V, the other one at 2V than 3V and so on. 

Just as an example - 

Andromeda Galaxy is the mother of Triangulum Galaxy, while this galaxy is moving away from Andromeda.

The Milky way is the mother of all the dwarf galaxies around it, while those galaxies are moving away from the Milky way.

 

By verifying the relative speed between Triangulum Galaxy and Andromeda we can easily extract how many generation of galaxies is needed to get a speed of light between the first one and the last one.

 

So simple and clear.

No expansion and no acceleration expansion.

Just simple Einstein' static Universe.

Edited May 22, 2017 by davdan

[A-wal]

> You deserve to have your teeth knocked down your throat.

You're more than welcome to try.

 

EXC, AWOL is a pest -- but one must have patience with badly-behaved children.

A pest because I dare to point out how a model that's held up as a realistic interpretation of the data is in fact contradicted by so many observations that it's become a shining example of how science simply refuses to backtrack when it's proven wrong?

[mrg]

> ... which are moving away randomly in all directions ...

 

Clarify please?   As observed, on more than the mere average, galaxies are all moving away from each other, meaning space is expanding.