Reader Forums
Astronomy forums are FREE. If you wish to participate you must LOGIN | REGISTER.

Cosmology

The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant
Last post 01-06-2008 12:32 PM by Primordial. 7 replies.
Sort Posts:
Page 1 of 1 (8 items)
  • 04-19-2007 07:18 AM

    The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    Newton asserted ‘Hypothesis non fingo'. - ‘I make no hypothesis'. Yet, his entire, unarguably revolutionary Classical Mechanics was based on the hypothetical 'particle' that science has yet to assuredly accommodate. The ‘particle concept' that dominates physics and the vast majority of colloquial human thought: has never been proven beyond hypothetical, quasi-scientific retainers. ‘The (rarely) indicted ‘particle' Isn't found ‘wrong' here, but rather: resiliently incomplete; so as to aggressively exclude the incumbent role of the continuous field in the corporeal balance of material considerations. -  K. B. Robertson

       "In the laboratory of Michael Faraday (1791 - 1867), who made many important contributions to the knowledge of electricity and magnetism, there is an interesting entry in 1849. It reads:

    'Gravity. Surely this force must be capable of an experimental relation to electricity, magnetism, and other forces, so as to build it up with them in reciprocal action and equivalent effect. Consider for a moment how to go about touching this matter by facts and trial.'

    "But the numerous experiments this famous British physicist undertook to discover such a relation were fruitless, and he concluded this section of his diary with these words: 'Here end my trials for the present. The results are negative. They do not shake my strong feeling of the existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof that such a relation exists.' " - George Gamow, GRAVITY

    (How Odd Is It?)

    "It is very odd that the theory of gravity, originated by Newton and completed by Einstein, should stand now in majestic isolation, a Taj Mahal of Science, having little of anything to do with the rapid developments in other branches of physics. Einstein's concept of the gravitational field grew from his Special Theory of Relativity, and the Special Theory was based on the Theory of the Electromagnetic Field formulated in the last century by the British physicist, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-79). But in spite of many attempts, Einstein and those who have followed him have failed any (gravitational) contact with Maxwell's electrodynamics...  "Einstein's theory of gravitation was more or less contemporary with quantum theory, but in the forty-five years since they appeared, the two theories have had quite different rates of development. Proposed by Max Planck and carried forward by the work of Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Erwin Schroedinger, Werner Heisenberg, and others, quantum theory has made colossal progress and evolved into a broad discipline that explains in detail the inner structures of atoms and their nuclei." - Gamow, GRAVITY


    "On the other hand, Einstein's theory of gravity remains to this day essentially as it was when he formulated it half a century ago. While hundreds, even thousands, of scientists study the various branches of quantum theory and apply it in many, many fields of experimental research, only a few persist in devoting their time and passion to further development in the study of gravitation. Can it be that empty space is simpler than material bodies? Or did the genius of Einstein accomplish everything that could be done about gravity in our time and so deprive a generation of the hope of further progress?" - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 136.


            "There is no space empty of field."  - Einstein, *Contributiions to Science (*Ideas & Opinions)

    ("There is no 'empty space', only 'functional, metric space'." - K. B. Robertson, Apprentice to Albert - 'The Axe' - Einstein.)

    "Magnetism, gravity, and action at-a-distance have not lost an iota of their baffling mystery since Gilbert (before Newton 1642 - 1726)" - Arthur Koestler, THE SLEEPWALKERS.

    "Since the General Theory of Relativity implies the manifestation of physical reality as a continuous field, the concept of discontinuous particle cannot play a fundamental part, the ‘particle' can only appear as a limited region of space in which the field strength and/or density of energy is particularly high." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

    "The combination of the concept of continuous field with that of mass-points discontinuous from space appears inconsistent. A consistent (total) field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points in space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 345

    "It is very probable that there is a hidden relation between gravity on the one hand and the electromagnetic field and material particles on the other, but nobody is prepared today to say what kind of relation it is. And there is no way of foretelling how soon any further important progress will be made in this direction." - Excerpted from the Preface to GRAVITY, by George Gamow.

     

    "According to General Relativity, the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is represented by a field." - Einstein, IDEAS & OPINIONS, p. 348

                                   ___________________

       THE 'UGLY HEAD' of the AGAIN and AGAIN BANISHED SINE QUA NON
     "Big Bang', 'SuperStrings', 'Dark matter', 'Quintessence' and 'New Age' etceteras,
            versus the 'out dated' 'ugly headed' Cosmological Constant, Lambda  /\
    (A repelling force, unlike any known other, in that it becomes greater with increased distance. Re: acceleration.)
    "It is well known to students of high school algebra that it is permissable to divide both sides of an equation by any quantity, provided that this quantity is not zero. However, in the course of his proof Einstein had divided both sides of one of his intermediate equations by a complicated expression, which in certain circumstances, could become zero (‘at the slightest provocation')...

    "In the case, however, when this expression becomes equal to zero, Einstein's proof does not hold, and (mathematician) Friedmann realized that this opened a whole new world of time-dependent universes; expanding, collapsing, and pulsating ones.


    "Thus Einstein's original gravity equation was correct, and changing it was a mistake. Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder he ever made in his life. But the ‘blunder', rejected by Einstein, and the cosmological constant denoted by the Greek letter /\, rears its ugly head again and again and again." - George Gamow, GRAVITY, p. 270

    Signature
    Kaiduorkhon, Aegis of the Great Continental Euroasian Green Grass Riverdragon. Magic Horse. The Last Man Standing. Namaste.
  • 04-19-2007 09:05 AM In reply to

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    I understand very little of this, however....

    If I understand Einstein's theory correctly (probably not), then what he said was that gravity is not a "force" as such, but a curvature of spacetime.  So I would ask why should there be a particle, (graviton) associated with it.  If it's not a true force, but a property of spacetime, then I would expect that it would have no particle association.

     

    Signature
    "No amount of belief makes
    something a fact." - James Randi
  • 04-19-2007 10:18 AM In reply to

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    Dear jsmoody:

    Thank you for your sincere response.

    The missive you are responding to couldn't agree with you more.

    ('...I would expect that it would have no particle association'.)

    Incidentally, the term 'force' (F) has never been identified, especially as it applies to gravity. 'Curvature of space-time' is a misnomer for the overall expansion of the physical as well as spatial universe. It is pandemically misunderstood as being a weakness - rather than a strength -in Einstein's work.

    (What particles? Electrons, neutrons and protons are charges of electricity which have no distinct boundaries making them discontinuous from the space their energy omnidirectionally radiates into <Re: Planck's constant h - photons, which exhibit the dual characteristic of particle and wave and therein resides the shizoid controversy in QuantumFieldTheory today...>)

       Enter 'Einstein was right after all - maybe', in google.

    This metamorphosis in physics began to begin, per se, in about 1998; been gaining on the big bangologists - who are desperately embracing Einstein's abandoned work - recently; while refusing to retire from their overtaken podiums. The cosmological constant and steady state theories have been removed from the waste basket and are now back on the slate. So far, no one is saying that Einstein's 'biggest blunder' was the abandonment of the cosmological constant, rather than his application of it. The chickens are coming home to roost.

    Again, thank you for your earnest reply.

     

     

    Signature
    Kaiduorkhon, Aegis of the Great Continental Euroasian Green Grass Riverdragon. Magic Horse. The Last Man Standing. Namaste.
  • 05-07-2007 06:24 PM In reply to

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    F = m * a.

    force, is IDENTIFIED, as mass times acceleration.

    there are other ways to derive force from equations that essentially are developed from force, such as WORK, and POWER.  they can be worked backwards.

    "physical" and "spatial" are redundant.  you omitted "spacetime".

    ive prepared and posted the field equations out here before as a jpg.  might search for that.

    yep i wonder about the spin-2 needs.  kaluza created the geometrical link to electromagnetism by adding another dimension.  string theory is based on this resulting metric being imbedded in a similar metric with yang-mills. 

    (hyperspace, michio kaku, p144 i think)

    Signature
    Welcome to the Kobayashi Maru
  • 06-13-2007 07:02 PM In reply to

    • fleep
    • Joined on 06-12-2007
    • Posts 8

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    Hi:

    I haven't seen any reference in this exchange about the fact that Einstein's Cosmological Constant was effectively verified in the announcement by the Supernova Legacy Team, (under the leadership of Ray Carlberg of Univ. of Toronto), that Negative Pressure had been discovered in 2005. Negative pressure is "dark energy".

    Search any of the terms or names above and you'll find it.

    Thanks.

    fleep 

     

  • 01-04-2008 12:02 PM In reply to

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    SRT , GRT and  “ Minkowski space “. SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is  no gravity field , the space will be flat ( Pseudo- Euclid’s space), but usually this space is called “Minkowski space  (negative 4-D united space/time continuum).======.                           a) SRT is a right theory .But  " Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.b) Our planet Earth is home for us.We live and act in this planet. And " Minkowski space  " is home for SRT. All SRT particles live and act in this " 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .  But nobody knows what " Minkowski space " is. c) These two ideas are mixed together and  therefore the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.=========  ===========SRT has only one space - “Minkowski space “. But in 1915 Einstein put a “ MASS “ in the Minkowski space “ and it curved. In 1921 A. Freedman put “ TIME “ in theMinkowski space “ and it also curved.   And Einstein had to agree with Freedman’s idea. What is the reason of “Minkowski space “ change? ==========If mathematician makes a small mistake in the beginning of his calculations then after some operations it grows into a big one.And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton ) the abstract ideas were put into its fundament , then now we are surprised with its paradoxes……………and we can create  new and new theories for 1000 yearsbut the result will be the same - paradoxical.===========================..It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT, (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour). Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space. Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation, said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space" - said Kaluza in 1921. This theory was tested and found insufficient. "Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D  spaces will explain it". And they had done it. But the doubts still remain. "OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem. We must create more complex D spaces". And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects to solve this problem. Glory to these mathematicians !!!! But………. But there is one problem. To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter. It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter. And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily (it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).  The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way: "Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant. With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…" To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add: "with one more parameter the elephant will fly." The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.Where are our brains?===============.If I were a king, I would publish a law: every mathematician who takes part in the creation of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal "To the winner over common sense". Why? Because they have won us over using the absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.  ==============..Is the “ Minkowski space “abstract continuum, as everybody says?I think this space is a real one.  I think this space is Vacuum.Why?1.  Minkowski space “has no gravity field, but negative parameter.2. Only Vacuum space has negative parameter : T= - 273. 3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are joined together absolutely .4. And the second  SRT postulate tells about moving light quanta in Vacuum. 5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.====== ======The SRT is a real theory.The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.But  " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.There isn't any proof of its existence.And if we mix these two theories then we are surprised with its paradox. What does the man usually  do in such situation? It is clear, he must understand what “ 4-D  Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,  4-D  Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must supposethat the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D  Minkowski space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real interpretation to “ 4-D  Minkowski  space ". I only hope that a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence. ======     =========P.S.Sorry.I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".So I must  add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"…………..or to " the God "......................Then ...............The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only big band which destroyed  all “D- spaces” and therefore we see background radiation T=2,7K now."And religious man will say: " The God exists. He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things. For example. The action, when the God compresses all Universe into his palm,  we have named " a  singular point". And action, when  the God opens his palm, we have named the "Big Bang".I don’t know who is right.But I came to conclusion: " If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant , for example, an electron I will get ……a positron, ….…..quark,…baryon,…boson,…..meson,…muon,…..tau,.........D- spaces …. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."=======     ======
    http://www.socratus.com
    http://www.wbabin.net/
     
  • 01-04-2008 08:17 PM In reply to

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    It is not necessarily so that any mathmatically consistant reality must exist.  There must be some way to force it to become physically real, and ultimately there must be some observational evidence of its existance for it to be considered real.   That is to say, it must in at least some small way have an effect on the reality in which I live.

  • 01-06-2008 12:32 PM In reply to

    Re: The 'ugly head' of Einstein's Cosmological Constant

    RascalPuff ! It appears to me that gravity is a sort of parasitic effect, propagated through space-time via electromagnetic waves, or by changing the density of its relative (electromagnetic energy, mass) concentration in its host, so we need to concentrate on this, to relate its ficticious force to the other forces wheather they are ficticious or other wise. I know Mr. Einstein used linear acceleration in one of his thought experiments to relate the concept of a mass (as in our sun) to alter the path of light and connect the concept of gravity to acceleration, however this thought experiment would prove difficult in proving that light could form an orbit around a mass(at best a hyperbolic curve), however acceleration can also be in the form of angular acceleration, and angular acceleration can, its self also be a change in time/ time/space instead of a change in space/ space/ time.

Page 1 of 1 (8 items)
E-mail Address: Password:
Remember me?

Forgot your password » | Login help »

Not a member? Register » | Why join? »

My Profile

Copyright © 2009 Astronomy.com
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems