# Einstein’s Universe

No "Biggest Blunder"

Citation
, XML
Authors

# Abstract

It may yet turn out that the universe is far more comprehensible than we dare hope.

The most natural extension of Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity derives a Universe that is spherical, “flat”, finite, static, and stable, since space does not expand or contract in this model.  To reconcile this with his field equations, Einstein had to introduce the cosmological constant, (a negative pressure component), in order to counterbalance the gravitational effects of matter, which would cause the universe to collapse without this “anti-gravity” effect.

In Einstein’s model, the cosmological constant appears as a kind of mass-energy, having negative pressure that is equal in magnitude to its positive energy density.  The equation for this is expressed in the following form:

This is Einstein’s “dark energy”, which is physically equivalent to vacuum energy.  If the energy density is positive, then the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe.

In Einstein’s static model, $G=0$ when gravitational pressure is absolutely offset by negative vacuum pressure.  He brought in the cosmological constant to counterbalance the runaway recollapse effect that occurs in this model because of the obvious fact that we do have matter, but in order to get $rho > 0$ from Einstein’s matter-less spacetime structure, you have to condense the matter density from the zero pressure metric, and in doing so the pressure of the vacuum necessarily becomes less than zero, P < 0, which quite obviously causes stable vacuum expansion.

Einstein didn’t introduce the counter-balancing cosmological constant with matter generation from the vacuum in mind, so he didn’t like it, because without this knowledge, he naturally concluded that it added an undesirable extra entity, so the logic that was used to reject the cosmological constant when it was discovered that the universe is expanding was sound in context with the knowledge of the time, but this is not the case given knowledge that the vacuum has real, massive, particle potential, as it is plainly evident from this that most natural way to create new matter in Einstein’s model, (”the most compatible with the spirit of general relativity”), also holds it flat and stable, (it is “self-gauging”, like Eddington observed), so any other conclusions that have been made since Einstein abandoned his finite universe without this knowledge are therefore subject to suspect review!

Einstein didn’t know about the real, massive, particle potential of the quantum vacuum, or it is very likely that he never would have conceded to “other solutions” of his equations, and so he would not have abandoned this finite “quasi-static” cosmological model, because there is no instability when matter generation from the negative energy states drives vacuum expansion, because this “anti-gravity” effect is obviously offset by the gravity of the newly created massive particle, and that makes all the difference in the world to the Dirac Equation, which can be reformulated in this vacuum as it was originally intended, to unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory, as Paul Dirac did with SR and QM.

This leads to a new cosmology that predicts that increasing tension between the expanding vacuum and ordinary matter is what eventually causes the forces to be compromised, aka., “big bangs”, so there is no need for a naked singularity, nor extra-ordinarily rapid inflation when a universe with certain volume “evolves” information inherently forward to a higher order of the same basic configuration.

Our Darwinian Universe