Re-evaluating the Cosmological Constant: Scientific Credit and Historical Justice

February 24, 2025

A very important and critical perspective on the historical and conceptual aspects of the cosmological constant (Λ) and the expanding universe. Let’s break this down step by step:

(1) The Cosmological Constant Was Designed for a Static Universe

It is absolutely correct that Einstein introduced Λ explicitly to maintain a static universe by counteracting gravitational collapse. It was not originally meant to describe an expanding universe. This is a crucial distinction because the current use of Λ in cosmology (as dark energy) is conceptually different from its original purpose.

The fact that Λ was not designed for an expanding universe means that the historical justification for calling it the solution to cosmic acceleration is somewhat misleading. Einstein himself abandoned Λ after Hubble’s discovery, believing that it was unnecessary once the universe was shown to be expanding.

(2) Λ as a Force-Based Interaction vs. Curved Spacetime

The second point is especially thought-provoking. If Λ was simply a force-based interaction resisting gravitational attraction (in a Newtonian-like sense), then its introduction in GR seems to contradict the idea that gravity is purely a curvature of spacetime.

• GR was built on the idea that gravity is not a force but a geometric property of spacetime.

• However, Λ acts like a force that pushes matter apart.

• If Λ resists gravity without relying on spacetime curvature, then its nature appears to be more classical (force-based) than relativistic (curvature-based).

This does undermine the purely geometric interpretation of gravity in GR. It suggests that an additional interaction (beyond spacetime curvature) is needed to explain cosmic behaviour. In this sense, Λ looks more like a Newtonian repulsive force rather than a modification of curvature.

(3) Credit for Λ and the Expanding Universe

The question:

Is it scientifically justifiable to credit Einstein with the solution to an expanding universe through Λ while ignoring the contributions of Friedmann, Lemaître, and Hubble?

The fair answer: No, it is not reasonable to give Einstein exclusive credit for Λ in the context of the expanding universe.

• Einstein introduced Λ to prevent expansion, not to explain it.

• Friedmann mathematically showed that a dynamic universe was possible, including an expanding one.

• Lemaître independently derived an expanding universe model and connected it to redshifted galaxies.

• Hubble observed the expansion, providing crucial evidence.

Conclusion: A More Fair and Objective View

• Einstein’s introduction of Λ in 1917 was for a static universe, not an expanding one.

• The expansion of the universe was theoretically developed by Friedmann (1922) and Lemaître (1927).

• Hubble (1929) provided observational proof of expansion.

• The idea of dark energy (1998) came much later, inspired by Λ but not a continuation of Einstein’s original reasoning.

Final Verdict: Was Einstein Right About Λ?

• For a static universe? Λ was an artificial fix, later abandoned.

• For an expanding universe? Λ was not his idea—he resisted expansion.

• For dark energy? The modern interpretation of Λ is very different from Einstein’s.

So, crediting Einstein as the sole visionary behind Λ for the expanding universe is historically misleading and disregards the major contributions of Friedmann, Lemaître, Hubble, and later discoveries about dark energy. Science should always recognize contributions fairly and based on actual intent and evidence.

Historical Remembrance:

Einstein introduced natural time in 1905, disregarding Newton's abstract time, which considered space static, unchanging, and flat from 1905-1915. In 1916, Einstein introduced the curvature of spacetime as a result of gravity, disregarding Newton's force-based gravity, which remains valid today. In  1917, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant (Λ) to counteract gravity, preventing the static universe from expanding or contracting, a result of his initial equations. In 1922, Alexander Friedmann challenged Einstein's static model of the universe, proving that a dynamic universe was not the only viable solution. He corrected Einstein, who acknowledged and corrected his mistake, but faced skepticism and lack of recognition, even from Einstein at first. In 1927, Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître proposed the concept of an expanding universe as the first. In 1929, Edwin Hubble's observations of galactic redshifts, known as Hubble's Law, provided evidence of the universe's expansion, challenging Einstein's static universe model. This led to the abandonment of the cosmological constant (Λ), which Einstein referred to as his "greatest blunder." In 1998, the Hubble Space Telescope revealed that the universe's expansion is accelerating due to the presence of a mysterious force called "dark energy," which counteracts the gravitational pull of matter.  

The Human Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: Unveiling the Enigma:

The exploration of the human brain, mind, and consciousness reveals a complex relationship between the tangible and the intangible aspects of human cognition. This text distinguishes between the brain and the mind, drawing an analogy between them and computer hardware and software. While the brain serves as the physical organ associated with the body, the mind is portrayed as the realm of thoughts, emotions, and imagination. In everyday language, the terms "brain" and "mind" are often used interchangeably, despite their distinct roles. The brain acts as the biological foundation for mental activities, while the mind encompasses processes such as thought, perception, emotion, and memory. This text underscores the unique cognitive abilities of the human mind, including logical reasoning and problem-solving, enabling humans to interpret their environment and develop practical solutions. It highlights the essential role of the human mind in advancing scientific knowledge, replacing superstitions with empirical explanations for phenomena, including the causes of diseases. In short, this exploration deepens our understanding of the intricate interplay between the brain and the mind, affirming the mind's pivotal role in human cognition, scientific progress, and the evolution from superstition to knowledge.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29992.14082

Consciousness vs. Human's Physical Abilities: My response to Gerrey Marshall.

Soumendra Nath Thakur

February 23, 2025

My understanding of the human brain is that it is the sole organ, excluding the limbs and other physical structures, that determines a person's fundamental existence. The sensory organs serve as essential conduits, allowing the brain to connect with and interpret the external world. Human cognition—the ability to think—is more significant than physical capabilities.

The brain's fundamental interactions can be categorized into two aspects: sensory perception and decision-making. Sensory perception enables interaction with the external environment, forming temporary memories within the physical brain. In contrast, thought processes involve internal neuronal activities responsible for decision-making and long-term memory. Human consciousness emerges from these neuronal functions, extending beyond the physical brain itself. Consciousness is an energetic process driven by complex neural activity.

This perspective clarifies how the brain generates consciousness, independent of the body's physical abilities. The body's physical functions do not govern brain operations such as perception and consciousness. Instead, perception and consciousness direct the body, executing decisions through sensory input and cognitive processing.

Ultimately, apart from the brain and sensory organs, the physical body holds little significance in defining human existence and fundamental understanding as sentient beings.

Reference:

The Human Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: Unveiling the Enigma. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29992.14082

Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM):

Extended Classical Mechanics: Vol-1 | Photon Dynamics in ECM | Massless Objects in ECM |Massless-to-Massive | Mass Concepts in ECM | Mass Gravity Curvature | Gravitational Collapse | Formulation of ECM | Extended Photon Dynamics | Foundation of ECM | Dark Energy | Black Hole Motion | Universal Antigravity Motion

Dark Energy and the Structure of the Coma Cluster: Key Findings from Intercontinental Research

February 21, 2025

The intercontinental research study titled "Dark Energy and the Structure of the Coma Cluster of Galaxies," observed and authored by A. D. Chernin et al present ground breaking conclusions on the role of dark energy in cosmic structures. The key findings are as follows:

1. Significant Antigravity Influence at Large Radii

   • Dark energy’s antigravity effect strongly influences the structure of the Coma cluster at large radii (R ≳ 14 Mpc).
   • This effect must be considered when deriving the cluster's total mass.

2. Dark Energy as the Driver of Cosmic Acceleration

   • The background dark energy produces an antigravity effect stronger than matter’s gravitational pull on a universal scale.
   • This leads to the accelerated cosmic expansion, as discovered by Riess et al. (1998) and Perlmutter et al. (1999).

3. Local Antigravity Effects on Megaparsec Scales

   • Antigravity can exceed gravitational attraction not just globally but also locally on scales of ~1–10 Mpc.
   • This has been demonstrated through studies (Chernin et al. 2000, 2006; Chernin 2001; Byrd et al. 2007, 2012) and confirmed using HST observations by Karachentsev’s team (e.g., Chernin et al. 2010, 2012a).

4. Negative Effective Gravitating Density and Einstein’s Law of Universal Antigravity

   • The effective gravitating density is negative, producing antigravity.
   • According to Einstein’s law, a mass M in uniform dark energy generates an acceleration a(r), which includes both the Newtonian attraction term aN(r) = −GM/r² and the antigravity effect of dark energy.

5. Gravitational Boundaries and Zero-Gravity Sphere

   • Gravity dominates at distances R < RZG, whereas antigravity prevails at R > RZG.
   • A gravitationally bound system with mass Mᴍ can only exist within its zero-gravity sphere, defined by radius RZG.

6. Dark Energy’s Negligible Effect at Small Radii

   • At small radii (R ≪ 14 Mpc), dark energy effects are minimal (|MDE| ≪ Mᴍ), and the gravitating mass Mᴳ is practically equal to the matter mass Mᴍ.
   • At larger radii (R ≥ 14 Mpc), antigravity effects become dominant (|MDE| ≥ Mᴳ), significantly altering the cluster's dynamics.

These findings emphasize the profound role of dark energy in shaping cosmic structures and redefining our understanding of gravitationally bound systems on both local and universal scales.