B Einstein's Cosmological Constant: Push or Pull?

Cycklops
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Was watching some documentaries and got confused about something.

People say that Einstein unintentionally predicted that the universe was expanding, and that he inserted the cosmological constant to represent a force pulling it back in. But other sources seem to imply that the universe was supposed to be collapsing under gravity, and he inserted the cosmological constant to represent a force pushing it out (which is what it seems to represent today).

So which is it? The idea of the cosmological constant being a force pushing against gravity makes the most sense, but that seems to contradict the normal claim that Einstein was the first to find that the universe should be expanding.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cycklops said:
People say that Einstein unintentionally predicted that the universe was expanding, and that he inserted the cosmological constant to represent a force pulling it back in.
What people? Please provide references.

The prediction of GR was that the universe could not be static, which was the reason for introducing the cosmological constant. Had it not been introduced, then a direct consequence would be that the universe either expands or contracts (or is just in the transition between the two).
 
Orodruin said:
What people? Please provide references.
One example is this interview with Ed Copeland...

At 0:10, he says "Einstein was really quite resistant to the idea that the universe is expanding, and he worked very hard to stop it."
He then refers to the universe "evolving" instead, but at 10:40 he says "for this to work, for him to stop the universe from expanding..."


The prediction of GR was that the universe could not be static, which was the reason for introducing the cosmological constant. Had it not been introduced, then a direct consequence would be that the universe either expands or contracts (or is just in the transition between the two).
That makes some sense, which would imply then that people are just giving Einstein credit for predicting that the universe would be evolving, and some people use the term "expand" when in actuality the cosmological constant was either something that stopped contraction or something that could stop either one depending on how you define it?
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top