arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 1310.1033

George Gamow and Albert Einstein: Did Einstein say the cosmological constant was the "biggest blunder" he ever made in his life?

Abstract

In 1956/1970 Gamow wrote that much later, when he 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 cosmological constant rears its ugly head again and again and again. Apparently, Einstein himself has never used the apercu "biggest blunder"; nevertheless a vast literature grew up around this notion and associated it with Einstein. The present work is prompted by questions put by Mario Livio in his latest book "Brilliant Blunders" as to the phrase "biggest blunder": Did Einstein actually say, "biggest blunder"? I show that in 1947 Einstein wrote Lemaitre that he found it "very ugly" that the field law of gravitation should be composed of two logically independent terms. Earlier, in 1922 Einstein wrote Max Born that he committed "a monumental blunder some time ago". In 1965 Born commented: "Here Einstein admits that the considerations which led him to the positive-ray experiments were wrong: 'a monumental [capital] blunder'". It is likely that when Einstein met Gamow he formulated his views in his native German, and perhaps he told Gamow that suggesting his cosmological constant was a "blunder". I suggest that, Einstein perhaps told Gamow that the cosmological constant was a "capital blunder" or a "monumental blunder", and Gamow could have embellished Einstein's words to become the famous apercu "biggest blunder".

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Galina Weinstein. 2013-10-03. George Gamow and Albert Einstein: Did Einstein say the cosmological constant was the "biggest blunder" he ever made in his life?. https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1033

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Is Black Hole Evaporation Prediction Friendly?

Manchak and Weatherall (2018) formulate the black hole information paradox as a failure of predictability in black hole evaporation spacetimes, diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I offer a strategy for resolving this paradox. I argue that failures of predictability in black hole evaporation are not well diagnosed by non-global hyperbolicity. I then consider two weakenings of global hyperbolicity: prediction and retrodiction friendliness, the failure of which could ground a new paradox. However, deidealized black hole evaporation models can be prediction and retrodiction friendly. Therefore, the information paradox cannot be based upon failures of global hyperbolicity, nor either retrodiction or prediction unfriendliness.

physics.hist-ph

The Crab Nebula progenitor: recovering the 1054 AD supernova event as galactic Gamma-ray burst

In 1054 AD a daytime star appeared in the constellation of Taurus, for three weeks, and it was reported in various sources from Europe to China/Japan: it was one of the few documented galactic supernovae of the last two millenia. This paradigm has been established about sixty years ago, as the comprehension of the physics of supernovae progressed with enough observational data. The Gamma-ray bursts were discovered in the same period, but only in the past few years have their observations become daily and their distances have been fully understood as cosmological. After the explosion, the exponential decay of the luminosity in gamma-rays and X-rays has been followed with telescopes onboard dedicated satellites. Also the exponential decay of the afterglow's optical and radio frequencies have been observed with the largest optical and radio telescopes. Within the binary-driven hypernova framework, successful in explaining all the observed phases of the Gamma-ray bursts, the universal exponential decay can be extended to 1000 years after the burst, to account for the present values of Gamma and X-rays as well as optical and radio frequencies of the Crab Nebula. Both the daytime visibility of the burst, and the simultaneous radiation plagues appeared in Constantinople and Cairo is a strong evidence of the presence of Gamma-rays in the lower atmosphere, coming from the same source originating the Crab nebula. The association to the daytime visibility of that star and the following plague meets exactly the etymology of the word dis-aster, bad star.

physics.hist-ph