Einstein's conversion from a static to an expanding universe

Feb 18, 2014
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein accepted the modern cosmological view that the universe is expanding long after his contemporaries, new study shows.

Until 1931, physicist Albert Einstein believed that the was static.. An urban legend attributes this change of perspective to when American astronomer Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his observations of redshift in the light emitted by far away nebulae—today known as galaxies. But the reality is more complex. The change in Einstein's viewpoint, in fact, resulted from a tortuous thought process. Now, in an article published in European Physical Journal H, Harry Nussbaumer from the Institute of Astronomy at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, explains how Einstein changed his mind following many encounters with some of the most influential astrophysicists of his generation.

In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse – an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.

He then fiercely resisted the view that the universe was expanding, despite his contemporaries' suggestions that this was the case. For example, in 1922, Russian physicist Alexander Friedman showed that Einstein's equations were viable for dynamical worlds. And, in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian astrophysicist from the Catholic University of Louvain, concluded that the universe was expanding by combining with astronomical observations. Yet, Einstein still refused to abandon his static universe.

However, in an April 1931 report to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Einstein finally adopted a model of an expanding universe. In 1932 he teamed up with the Dutch theoretical physicist and astronomer, Willem de Sitter, to propose an eternally expanding universe which became the generally accepted until the middle of the 1990s. To Einstein's relief these two models no longer needed the .

Explore further: Biology meets geometry: Describing geometry of common cellular structure

More information: H. Nussbaumer (2013)," Einstein's conversion from his static to an expanding universe," European Physical Journal H, DOI: 10.1140/epjh/e2013-40037-6

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Removing complexity layers from the universe's creation

Jul 26, 2013

Complicated statistical behaviour observed in complex systems such as early universe can often be understood if it is broken down into simpler ones. Two physicists, Petr Jizba (currently affiliated with the Czech Technical ...

Why Einstein was wrong about being wrong

Oct 14, 2011

If you want to get your mind around the research that won three astronomers the Nobel Prize in physics last week, it helps to think of the universe as a lump of dough - raisin-bread dough, to be precise - mixed, kneaded and ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Recommended for you

A new generation of storage—ring

9 hours ago

A bright synchrotron source that emits over a wide part of the electromagnetic spectrum from the infrared to hard X-rays is currently being built in Lund, Sweden. The MAX IV facility presents a range of technical ...

Universe may face a darker future

13 hours ago

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

High-intensity sound waves may aid regenerative medicine

Oct 30, 2014

Researchers at the University of Washington have developed a way to use sound to create cellular scaffolding for tissue engineering, a unique approach that could help overcome one of regenerative medicine's ...

Formula could shed light on global climate change

Oct 30, 2014

Wright State University researchers have discovered a formula that accurately predicts the rate at which soil develops from the surface to the underlying rock, a breakthrough that could answer questions about ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MrPressure
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arom
1 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2014
In 1917 Einstein applied his theory of general relativity in the universe, and suggested a model of a homogenous, static, spatially curved universe. However, this interpretation has one major problem: If gravitation was the only active force, his universe would collapse – an issue Einstein addressed by introducing the cosmological constant.
However, in an April 1931 report to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Einstein finally adopted a model of an expanding universe…. To Einstein's relief these two models no longer needed the cosmological constant.

This seems familiar to anyone who studied the conventional theory, but there is still one problem which has no explanation, i.e. what is the cause which made the universe to expand against the gravity? Maybe the cosmological constant could do the job …
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Osteta
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Anda
5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2014
I don't see the news anywhere...
Osteta
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2014
Here we find the "observable Universe" contradiction again. One member of the scientific community says it is 13.8gly radius, another claims it is 46gly radius.

The 46 is a calculaton based under the assumption that the observed objects have been accelerating at the same rate every since the 13.8gly time ago.

Calculation =/= observation.

Yet those who claim 46gly continue to misconstrue "Calculation" with "Observation".

If you observed a train moving 100mph from your position, and then you calculate that it should be 100 miles away down the track after 1 hour, that is not an observation. For all you know, the train could have changed tracks and speed somewhere along the way after your actual observation, and before the next hour...

We cannot actually "observe" anything beyond about 14 to 15gly, because that is where the calculated light horizon should be under the assumption of expanding, accelerating space-time, if a horizon exists at all.
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2014
Here we find the "observable Universe" contradiction again. One member of the scientific community says it is 13.8gly radius, another claims it is 46gly radius.


You are mixing up "look back" time with the time when the object emitted it's light.

We cannot actually "observe" anything beyond about 14 to 15gly, because that is where the calculated light horizon should be under the assumption of expanding, accelerating space-time, if a horizon exists at all.


The light horizon (distance) is not the constraint limiting what we can see. Anything more than about 13.7 billion or so years old doesn't yet exist in our universe. Age is the constraint. Using only light we can not directly observe anything less than 380,000 or so years after the "big bang". The maths (FLWR metrics) are very robust, about 46 billion ly is a good and reasonable number for the size of the observable universe.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2014
The maths (FLWR metrics) are very robust, about 46 billion ly is a good and reasonable number for the size of the observable universe.


But you aren't actually observing that size. You are making a calculation based on observations and what you believe are present and past conditions, under the assumption that laws and rates have always been similar.

The assumption that the laws are the same is understandable to an extent, since if the true fundamental laws changed then we couldn't understand anything.

The assumption that rates, perhaps "non-fundamental" laws, whether or not we recognize them as such, and other characteristics of space have always been the same or similar is dangerous.

obviously things wee not always the same, since everyone agrees the universe had a beginning. If things were not the same at the beginning, then we have a basis to say that things have not necessarily been the same ever since.
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2014
The maths (FLWR metrics) are very robust, about 46 billion ly is a good and reasonable number for the size of the observable universe.


But you aren't actually observing that size. You are making a calculation based on observations and what you believe are present and past conditions, under the assumption that laws and rates have always been similar.

The assumption that the laws are the same is understandable to an extent, since if the true fundamental laws changed then we couldn't understand anything.

The assumption that rates, perhaps "non-fundamental" laws, whether or not we recognize them as such, and other characteristics of space have always been the same or similar is dangerous.

obviously things wee not always the same, since everyone agrees the universe had a beginning. If things were not the same at the beginning, then we have a basis to say that things have not necessarily been the same ever since.


Well to be sure I'm not smart enough to sort that out.
philw1776
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2014
Yes, science does assume that the universe's laws and constant are time invariant. But scientists being the good skeptics that they are, there has been and still is ongoing observational research to falsify that key assumption. As yet no confirmed evidence that anything has changed except that the rate of cosmological expansion began increasing a few billion (10 exponent 9) years ago. That whole accelerating expansion thingy, referred to as Dark Energy, other than its well documented occurrence is poorly understood at best.
Bonia
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2014
The maths (FLWR metrics) are very robust, about 46 billion ly is a good and reasonable number for the size of the observable universe.
The FLRW metric just indicates the steady-state universe. It's steady-state white hole geometry (inverted Schwarzschild solution).


Hey Zeph, where are your earlier comments? They disappeared into some black hole.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2014
The assumption that rates, perhaps "non-fundamental" laws, whether or not we recognize them as such, and other characteristics of space have always been the same or similar is dangerous.


If you follow enough astrophysical research you would know this suggestion has been well considered. The consequence of such a possibility would produce a set of observable effects which have been carefully looked for, and which have been found not to exist. In the frame of time following the hypothesized inflation event, the fundamental laws of cosmological evolution have been always shown to be comfortably consistent and predictable.
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2014
Here we find the "observable Universe" contradiction again. One member of the scientific community says it is 13.8gly radius, another claims it is 46gly radius.

The Hubble sphere is co-moving with C, the speed of light. It's radius is 13+ billion light years. That is the NOT the current range of observable objects, however, due to cosmological expansion and when the light was emitted. That radius is now about 46 billion light years. This is the current estimated actual distance to those objects. Most phenomena which are beyond that AND receding at superluminal velocity will never be observed. Some unobservable phenomena beyond this radius are below superluminal recession velocity and will eventually pass into the observable range. The objects beyond that will remain forever unobservable.

"Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe"
arXiv:astro-ph/0310808v2 13 Nov 2003
Bonia
Feb 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2014
Hey Zeph, where are your earlier comments? They disappeared into some black hole.
IMO the presentation of alternative science makes some people even more upset, than spreading of capitalism in the North Korea. It illustrates the religious status of contemporary science too. BTW It's funny, when I'm recognized just after single one post.


Economics and political systems aren't my area of expertise, so I'll take your word for it that the analogy means something profound.

Why do you think it's funny? I would think it would be funny if someone didn't recognize ya after a post or two, three at the most. That's not a criticism, it only means you are unique.
TimLong2001
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2014
When photons are represented as rotating binary dipoles (+/-) with their concomitant massive charges (though infinitisimal), big bang expansion is precluded due to the decay associated with massive photons, resulting in a red shift which, however, is not a Doppler shift. This view eliminates the necessity of proposing dark energy, dark matter and the 13.7 billion year limit on the age of the universe.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2014
Is this some kind of sick joke:
"To Einstein's relief these two models no longer needed the cosmological constant."

The 'Lambda' in 'Lambda CDM', the current Big Bang Model, is the cosmological constant which is essential for this model. Rather than being eliminated, it has been brought front and centre.

The model of the mid 90s, which the article say is the one that has become excepted, was overthrown by 'Lambda CDM' after the ripples in the background radiation as discovered by COBE were several magnitudes smaller than anticipated by previous models.

Georges Lemaître's model, for instance, is accepted by nobody (the 'Primeval Atom') and the idea of the evolution of the universe from a single concentrated mass was described in detail in the 1844 book 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' (Robert Chambers) and in the 1848 book 'Eureka' by Edgar Allen Poe, both models more insightful than the pseudoreligious rubbish of Lemaître.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2014
it only means you are unique

I would have chosen the word "special".
Rimino
Feb 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skepticus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2014
The Universe will never be correctly described within methods which are constrained by the speed of light. Scientists describe it from the photons that started out 13+ billions of years ago. For all I know, the Universe could have ended 13+ billions years + 1 day ago, and the last photons are the next thing i would ever see tomorrow.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2014
According to the current cosmology, there are uncountable objects that are currently beyond the light horizon, so statistically speaking, the chance approaches unity that some must surely be 1 light-year further again from the 13.8 bln ly galaxies detected a few years ago and so on? So why we hadn't see galaxies that are 14 bln ly last year, and ones that are 15 bln ly this year?
philw1776
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2014
We DO see roughly objects that are 1 LY further away each year. I'll get back to this. We have already detected the oldest signal detectable, the cosmic black body microwave radiation from the Big Bang. Each year the same galaxies we saw last year, receding at near light speed, approach ~1 LY further away and we still see them although measurement accuracy is >>>>>>> 1 LY! :)

There is understandable confusion with astronomy reports of detecting the "oldest" galaxies in the act of formation but what's really happening here is that every day big light bucket scopes are taking better pictures of fainter (earlier) objects so that we are now detecting galaxies formed a few hundred million years after the Big Bang energy > matter event. They were just too faint for less sensitive instruments to detect previously.

Meanwhile every second the universe is expanding and objects receding.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2014
Light is standing perfectly still. Matter is what's moving through it.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2014
Light is standing perfectly still. Matter is what's moving through it.

Interesting. Please let us know if that still seems to be the case after the 'shrooms wear off.
TechnoCreed
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2014
Sorry Whydening Gyre but Protoplasmix had me laugh so hard, I had to give him a 5 and I would have given extra points if I could. :-D
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
Sorry Whydening Gyre but Protoplasmix had me laugh so hard, I had to give him a 5 and I would have given extra points if I could. :-D

NP, Techno. I thought it was pretty funny, too.
Just wish it WAS shrooms. At least, THAT would explain what's happening in my brain lately....
Good one, Proto.
Think I was prob'ly insta-responding to Philw's comment.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
@Why, am glad you didn't take that the wrong way. Einstein imagined the same thing in the inertial frame of a photon and the exercise served him well. I think imagination is what sets humans apart from animals—no animal has ever moved, swam, climbed or flown beyond the habitats that sustain it, but humans have ventured to other worlds because, in the literature of their science fiction, they imagined that they could.
Returners
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
We have already detected the oldest signal detectable, the cosmic black body microwave radiation from the Big Bang.


That's unprovable.

For all you know, there could be something twice as old or ten times, and you just haven't seen it yet, or it could be so old that all "information" of it's existence has already passed beyond our view, which is a different matter but quite beside the point.

Your position is circular:

1, Observe mysterious radiation.

2, Theorize that it is CMBR left over from a hypothetical BB event.

3, Claim the existence of the radiation called CMBR proves the BB actually happened.

4, Claim nothing could have predated the BB, therefore nothing observable is older than the CMBR. (return to point 2).
Q-Star
5 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2014
Your position is circular:

1, Observe mysterious radiation.

2, Theorize that it is CMBR left over from a hypothetical BB event.

3, Claim the existence of the radiation called CMBR proves the BB actually happened.

4, Claim nothing could have predated the BB, therefore nothing observable is older than the CMBR. (return to point 2).


You are misrepresenting his/mainstream reasoning. To state it properly it should go,

1) Observe the universe expanding.
2) Acquire measurements of the expansion rate.
3) Fit the observations to the GR solutions.
4) Predict primordial conditions.
5) Observe evolution on cosmic scales. (Confirms predictions of 1, 2, 3, 4)
6) PREDICT THE CMB FROM 3, 4, 5.
7) Find CMB (Confirms 6)
8) Measure CMB. (Confirms 3, 4, 5, 6) Use to predict structure of present universe.
9) Measure & Observe. (Confirms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8.)

That is the reasoning used to defend the Lambda CDM model. (With much science/observations left out for brevity.)
Bonia
Feb 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014
Today we (I) already understand, which principle it is.


Let me guess,,,, does it have something to due with Oliver Lodge and 19th century world views?

Zeph, how many times are ya going to try this "Hubble disagreed with,,,,, " routine? Ya know that ya are misrepresenting Hubble on this subject, it's only been explained to ya with source material about a dozen times now, by half a dozen different people, on this forum alone.
Bonia
Feb 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2014
Short version -
monopole evolves to dipole, creates field - Bang... here we are.... what's next? Bring it on...
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
Massive, equal but opposite charges, forming photons account for red shift without any expansion. Einstein and Hubble were both "convinced" in their old age to go along with the simplistic interpretation of red shift promoted by Georges Lemaitre, and see the coercive method used by Humason limiting access to the Mount Wilson Observatory by those against BB theory at http://www.photon...ang.html
Maggnus
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
Jeepers Zeph, when are you going to get it through your head that you are unable to make such comments here because we have already seen through your pretend science?

Oh, and I see Q-Star has already noted the same thing!

Seriously Zephyr, you are just going to get yourself banned again.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
Jeepers Zeph, when are you going to get it through your head that you are unable to make such comments here because we have already seen through your pretend science?

Oh, and I see Q-Star has already noted the same thing!

Seriously Zephyr, you are just going to get yourself banned again.

@Maggnus
sorry for the 1star Maggnus...
dog hit my arm when I tried to vote
tried to give you a five
I think his nestle/osteta has been banned
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2014
I think his nestle/osteta has been banned


Just like the two dozen twin sets going back to 2006. They should set up a physorg betting pool to see who can get closest to the correct number for the twin pair who made the most posts before being "retired" after the original Zyphir. My bet would be on the ValeriaT/Yashi17.

It would be a great fund raising activity for a charity.

I wonder why none of the internet science forums have never set up a "Zephyr Trivia Page" in the "just for fun & games" sections of their boards. They all have experienced him several times over the years.
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
The maths (FLWR metrics) are very robust, about 46 billion ly is a good and reasonable number for the size of the observable universe.


But you aren't actually observing that size. You are making a calculation based on observations and what you believe are present and past conditions, under the assumption that laws and rates have always been similar.


No, it is well known that the rate of expansion has been changing but that history of rate change is still observable over shorter distances in more recent times. The assumption that is made is that the Hubble Law has always been valid and therefore whatever rate we measure locally at any epoch was also applicable in the region beyond observation.

The Hubble Law derives from the Cosmological Principle and that in turn has been tested by several studies which confirm that what we see is homogeneous and isotropic over large scales.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
The FLRW metric just indicates the steady-state universe. It's steady-state white hole geometry (inverted Schwarzschild solution).


Wrong, in FLRW, the matter density falls as the cube of the scale factor, for steady-state, it has to remain constant requiring the generation of new matter out of nothing (but no anti-matter).
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
IMO the presentation of alternative science makes some people even more upset, ..


ROFLMAO, if you mean in this forum, there is no "presentation of alternative science", there are are few people explaining real science and a horde of clueless morons talking utter BS. Take this for example:

The visible universe of expanding to a thickening of accelerating a particular direction in a particular direction! In the end, now accelerating the movement is directed extremely dense and massive to where the thing will explode / expanding all the time! Of that object protruding from the center of the case will have extreme pressure where it is once again pressed extremely dense matter!


If you think there is any science in that or the nonsense spouted by "Tuxford" or "CantDrive", you don't know what the word means. Examples of genuine "alternative science" would be TeVeS, LQG or string theory.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2014
When photons are represented as rotating binary dipoles (+/-) ...


.. whatever handwaving ideas you had are immediately falsified by the fact that a photon has no dipole moment.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2014
Is this some kind of sick joke:
"To Einstein's relief these two models no longer needed the cosmological constant."

The 'Lambda' in 'Lambda CDM', the current Big Bang Model, is the cosmological constant which is essential for this model. Rather than being eliminated, it has been brought front and centre.


True but that was long after his death.
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
Light is standing perfectly still. Matter is what's moving through it.


1) Stand with your arms oustretched and a torch in each.

2) Switch them on to illumintae both ears.

3) Which way is your head moving?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
Today we (I) already understand, which principle it is.


Let me guess,,,, does it have something to due with Oliver Lodge and 19th century world views?


He thinks it's Compon scattering, something Zwicky ruled out in his original paper. While I can understand he couldn't understand the subtle evidence that had ruled Tired Light regardless of the mechanism by the 1970's, he should be able to understand why Goldhaber's measurement of supernova light curve time stretching kills it stone dead. I'd like to think he was in denial but I'm pretty sure he is just trolling at that point, it's been explained to him too many times.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
The 'Lambda' in 'Lambda CDM', the current Big Bang Model, is the cosmological constant which is essential for this model


The Lambda in 'Lambda CDM' is not equivalent with Einstein's cosmological constant.


Current measurements suggest it is constant in which case it is precisely that constant. If it varies with time (as in "quintessence") then that constant would become a function of time but still appear in the same equation.

The purpose of Einstein's cosmological constant was to make the expanding universe model steady state.


That was his intent but of course it doesn't work, it is a point of unstable equilibrium.

The Lambda constant in 'Lambda CDM' cosmology makes the expanding universe expanding with accelerated rate.


That's why he admitted it had been his "biggest blunder", his constant caused the expansion to accelerate if the density was too low (as it does).

This is just another layer of confusion ..


True, I'll add it to your list.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.