He was none but Albert Einstein who chosen God a metaphor before made his famous comment ‘God doesn’t play dice with the universe.’ His self-reliance in the mathematical uniformity of a static universe inspired him to believe the universe cannot ruin itself by going under anomaly and randomness. An outright denier of religious or personal God preferred to see himself in a globe where a relation among things can be explainable throughout the Laws of Nature. He was prone to agree with this the geometry of the universe is overall fixed and galaxies have rationally stable if we consider energy density and its proportion in the universe with care. Einstein’s God so had no relation with religion or something like abstract ideas. It actually based on physical laws of Nature and aptly played its roles against the anomalies so the universe can explainable as static for physicists.
Image Source: Albert Einstein; Web Courtesy: Wallpapers.com
… Subir Sarkar’s study, however, bit comfortable in the sense that we are not living in the nonreciprocal expansion of the universe. Instead, the universe is yet enough consistent and constant to its acceleration. Einstein once battling over the matter and was desperate to prove that the geometry of the universe is quite soothing enough to explain it employing some natural laws.
… … …
God who Einstein wanted to be denoting then came out as ‘cosmological constant’ in his hypothesis. He introduced it in his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein then claimed if we want to understand the geometry of the universe we have to consider this mathematical sign of Greek capital letter lambda (Λ) a balance maker constant for the cosmos. He proclaimed thinking of cosmological constant only be able to keep the universe harmonious to its static expansion, despite the disturbing disorder and anomalous behavior of sub-atomic particles, which is weird but keep universe animated and visible for us.
Einstein’s constant heard similar to ‘fundamental’ something. Its resemblance to the philosopher’s God even cannot be compared with what theologians and philosophers have often inducted as a fundamental cause for the creation. Lambda (Λ) maybe the fundamental player to keep this giant universe in a limit but it cannot be comparable to what Leibniz meant as Monad in his God hypothesis. His preface about Monadology introduced an untainted cosmic ‘self’, which he rationalized as a fundamental reason for the creation. He apprised:
My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple substance. By calling it ‘simple’ I mean that it has no parts, though it can be a part of something composite.
Something that has no parts can’t be extended, can’t have a shape, and can’t be split up. So monads are the true atoms of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made.
… Within a monad there’s nothing to re-arrange, and there is no conceivable internal motion in it that could be started, steered, sped up, or slowed down, as can happen in a composite thing that has parts that can change in relation to one another.
Indeed, every monad must be qualitatively unlike every other… I take it for granted that every created thing can change, and thus that created monads can change. I hold in fact that every monad changes continually…That is because every natural change happens by degrees, gradually, meaning that something changes while something else stays the same. So although there are no parts in a simple substance, there must be a plurality of states and of relationships.
Thus God alone is the basic unitary thing, the original simple substance. All created or derivative monads are produced by him. They are generated by the continual flashes of silent lightning (so to speak) that God gives off from moment to moment—flashes that are limited in what they can give only by the essential limits on what the created things can take in. [See: G. W. Leibniz, The Principles of Philosophy known as Monadology, 1714]
Leibniz’s Monadology as representative of God played its pivotal role in making this world animated, transitory and changeable ever. However, his Monad is likewise the Indian Purna Brahman, who is the fundamental cause of the world but his causation cannot be knowable by cognizance. He Brahman per se is uncreated and remains untainted in any state of affairs. However, the world that exists within Brahman and when He exists as a subtle form in the bodied existence, He maintains his consistency without meddling any freedom that the bodied existence may deserve.
Image Source: Monad or the absolute; Web Courtesy: Wikipedia.org
… However, no dark energy might be there that could make the expansion anomalous and faster. Sarkar thinks the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) not made any deep impact presuming any presence of dark energy behind the acceleration or else not price-worthy to consider CMB a reason for the expansion,—what the 90s study tried to theorize by using the standard model of the universe.
… … …
Einstein’s hypothetical constant on contrary is not as explicit as Leibniz’s Monadology or the Indian concept of Godness tried to depict for the believers. He proposed it to defend the claim of quantum mechanics that claimed nothing is steady or certain in the giant universe when we consider the behavior of tiny particles in the sub-atomic level. That means the universe after Big bang is going out by randomness and we are living in a non-deterministic world. Nondeterministic means nothing can be said assuredly that how this universe was behaving in the remotest past or how it will behave in the near or far future! Supposed to say it should steady to its expansion by passing billion years after Big bang, the cosmic surface should static to its pace due to the gravitation affair, but the astronomical observance of stars and galaxies ensured it yet accelerated in the fastest rate.
Anomaly happened because the behavior of the tiny particles in a solid matter is not certain or affixed as we think by using our scientific cognition. Thinking the world non-deterministic is problematic here for the man who sees himself confused and disturbed by the question that,—how the universe act so certain if we consider the limitless anomalies and uncertainty of sub-atomic particles is the only true picture for it? True, the geometry of sub-atomic particles acts weird when they interact. It also appreciable, the acceleration of the universe is expanding instead of slowing down itself after Big bang. Einstein, despite to know the facts introduced lambda as a cosmological constant for his relativity hypothesis; which he believes may explain the limit and consistency of the universe with eloquence. Physicists on those early days were whirling around the debate of a geometric universe. Does the universe is deterministic due to the influence of some certain laws of nature? Or else it is non-deterministic just because of the quantum level uncertainty that is happening often and again?
The debate has gone more complicated when Warner Heisenberg appeared with his Uncertainty Principle. He made the statement clear that nothing is certain when a tiny particle played its actor’s role at the micro-level to make the macro world visible for us. The macro where things are steadily certain to the interaction as Newton explained in his laws of motion. Even what Einstein briefed in his relativism based on the trajectory of ‘light’, to explain how Newton’s principles have changed according to the interaction between objects, it as well sounds rational in that context. However, the micro-level where tiny particles interact with each other to build atomic matters for the macro world, the behavior of these particles even then remain nondeterministic! This is bizarre in that sense.
One if experiment the behavior of a sub-atomic tiny particle he then sees the speed and position of it cannot be detectable at the same time when he measured it. The universe since has made of such particles, how it could be deterministic by nature? Einstein, for a long time, was trying to combat with the logic which intensified the confusion that there would be no laws of nature may remain that could thinkable to settle the speed and position of tiny particles at the same time, which may help to reduce the current expansion rate of the universe in a limit. No promising borderline against the uncertain principles of quantum mechanics has seen over in those days that can help him to settle down his lambda as scientifically ovenproof. That is, the geometry of the universe has a limit of expansion, and as well as it is obedient to maintain its steady pace due to the cosmological constant. This makes the reality picture equally weird and confusing for him and the time comes when he rejects it by calling the hypothesis his ‘biggest blunder ever’ to understand the geometry of the universe.
However, the core problem that bothered Einstein rejecting his idea of cosmological constant was lying behind the weird condition in the spaciotime geometry of the universe. The density of matter if varied within the cosmic space owing to the interactive movement of tiny particles then the size of the universe cannot be stable as he thinks. The gross matter within the space if not accountable by certainty then we cannot say the universe is static to its geometric axis and rotation. Therefore, he was prone to imagine something that plays an actor’s role to keep the universe steadily accelerating, which may prevent the chance of its abnormal expansion or such contraction that forced it back to the Big bang state again.
Image Source: the accelerated expansion of the universe due to dark energy; Web Courtesy: Wikipedia.org
… Anyway, we like it or not it is difficult to avoid the reality that the universe is dominated by ghostly foams. A massive volume of foams in the spaciotime referential dominate the whole universe. This large volume may be enough to push the galaxies moving far away from each other. Not a soothing picture for Albert Einstein or his hypothetical lambda, but astronomical observation for the last fifty years is reeling around the model that the universe is expanding infinitely!
… … …
What Einstein didn’t notice the density of matter is by nature inclined to interact with each other and gravitational leg-pulling then appeared crucial for the spatial geometry. Later works on Einstein’s field equation theory explained why his universe model is extremely unstable due to the matter density he mentioned in his theory and many debatable talks with cosmologists. Funny, but his dream of something constant may play an actor’s role that makes the universe stable and static in its fate didn’t work so far, and later it appeared to reverse. Cosmologists then use his cosmological constant assuming about the unknown source of energy that may play a hidden role for the anomalous expansion of the universe. They tagged Einstein’s biggest mistake to trace the source of unknowing Dark Energy, which they think is responsible for the current acceleration of the universe.
Dark energy as a term coined first in the 90s decayed of the last century. Astronomers Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess after finishing their observation of the redshift repulsion of 50 distant supernovas using advanced telescopes and powerful computer imaging datasets decided that the universe is accelerated faster than ever. It expanding by overcomes the strong gravitational barrier. They suspect some unknown and unseeable energy-stream played behind this anomalous behavior of supernovas. They then coined it as dark energy and explained how yonder stream pushes stars and galaxies going far away to each other. Physicists Christian Marinoni and Adeline Buzzi, for instance, consider the energy-stream a cosmological constant and claimed,—the predicted value of yonder like energy-stream remains close to minus one,—hypothetically needed to consider the universe a lambda or cosmological constant.
They also claimed Einstein’s gravity-based equation in general relativity is might be flawed. If we consider the immense dark energy as cosmological constant we must agree that this unseeable stream stretching out the universe by crossing gravitational tension. However, knowhow of this energy stream that why it exists or why act against gravitational tension is yet perplexing to the theorists who marked it the reason for an expanding universe!
Einstein, this way against his choice has appeared the promoter of such a model that he was not prone to accept. His views about the universe-geometry motivate him to draw the simplest outline that could be fitted with his filed equation theory, to prove why God cannot play dice with the life of the universe. However, quantum mechanics and on the other hand Hubble’s assurance about expanding universe compelled him to withdraw his belief to the globe that he thinks is explainable by nature’s laws. It was the beginning moment of the standard model theory which at later praised to understand the fact that the universe is not empty at all. Every bit of space in that giant cosmos filled with matter, dark matter, and the ghostly stream of dark energies. That means we are living in the universe which is not empty and as well as not deterministic so far. Rather it expanded to the infinite!
Image Source: A type Ia supernova; Web Courtesy: Wikipedia
… Funny, but his dream of something constant may play an actor’s role that makes the universe stable and static in its fate didn’t work so far, and later it appeared to reverse. Cosmologists then use his cosmological constant assuming about the unknown source of energy that may play a hidden role for the anomalous expansion of the universe. They tagged Einstein’s biggest mistake to trace the source of unknowing Dark Energy, which they think is responsible for the current acceleration of the universe.
… … …
This perception also leads the world’s leading physicists to participate in the controversial question that the universe is finite or not! Einstein’s cosmological constant in both contexts is crucial. Physicists who think the geometry of the universe must be finite in size if we consider the gravitational attraction among energy density a constant sign that holds on it in a limit, they cannot deny the astronomical crude references of ‘type Ia supernova’s redshift. It indicates the universe is yet reeling on its expansion after passing billion years after Bing bang. That means to define the edge of the universe through astronomical observation is difficult here. Maybe the geometry of this expanding universe is flat but propagating negative curvature, which makes it weird to define. Contrary, who thinks it is infinite due to the ghostly presence of immense dark energy behind the scene and that universe has no edge, he might face what Jean-Pierre Luminet tried to hypothesize in his theory of the finite universe, where he said:
…the tendency is to believe that the Universe is infinite, but in fact, the interesting point is that new geometries built in the XIX century-called non-Euclidian geometry-and also what we call topology-which is a branch of geometry that tries to understand the global shape of space-propose a coherent mathematical equivalent model of space which is finite without an edge. [See: Jean-Pierre Luminet, ‘The Universe is not infinite and it is shaped like a soccer ball’; Web Source: openmind.com]
The geometry of the universe Luminet and his companions recently construct that can be comparable with a soccer ball, that is ‘with a special shape, a strange shape which can create an optical illusion’ in the observer’s mind. A bit reminder of the phrase that a finite universe doesn’t mean it cannot unbounded in size. Finite here means the energy density within the space that makes galaxies and stars fixed, but no edge has seen over there due to the gravitational factor doesn’t mean it cannot be thinkable as spatially finite. Anyway, we like it or not it is difficult to avoid the reality that the universe is dominated by ghostly foams. A massive volume of foams in the spaciotime referential dominate the whole universe. This large volume may be enough to push the galaxies moving far away from each other. Not a soothing picture for Albert Einstein or his hypothetical lambda, but astronomical observation for the last fifty years is reeling around the model that the universe is expanding infinitely!
… … …
Image Source: distant galaxies: Hubble Ultra-Deep Field; Web Courtesy: NASA
… Einstein, for a long time, was trying to combat with the logic which intensified the confusion that there would be no laws of nature may remain that could thinkable to settle the speed and position of tiny particles at the same time, which may help to reduce the current expansion rate of the universe in a limit. No promising borderline against the uncertain principles of quantum mechanics has seen over in those days that can help him to settle down his lambda as scientifically ovenproof.
… … …
The picture depicted by the standard model theorists now facing challenges from the last two decades. Some remarkable papers have already published in the last few years. The most controversial one is published in Nature scientific journal in 2015. Subir Sarkar, professor of physics at Oxford University and his colleagues have skeptical to consider dark energy a reason for the anomalous acceleration of the universe. They nailed 90s ground-breaking and lately well-established study about the presence of dark energy in the cosmic surface. Subir and his colleagues placed a reverse theory to deny that mind-startling study on dark energy. Subir thinks theorists’ hype about dark energy is a fluke, the fact is such kind of anti-gravity ghost maybe not exist in anywhere of the giant universe. He sounds confident when said:
Just as not all trees are alike, not all supernovae are alike—even the so-called standard candles (*type one supernova). In fact, their absolute brightness varies by about a factor of ten.
In 2015, following the publication of the supernovae data, my colleagues and I performed an independent analysis using industry-standard statistical tools. We found that the evidence for cosmic acceleration had a statistical significance of only three standard deviations, or three sigmas, away from zero…The sigma of a result tells you how unlikely it is to be a fluke. For astronomers, a three-sigma result may be interesting, but for a particle physicist like me, it’s not worth getting out of bed for. I’ve seen many three-sigma results come and go…Just two years ago, a much more significant four-sigma result at the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle-physics experiment, turned out to be nothing but a fluke. You should not get too excited until you have at least a five-sigma result—certainly when it concerns fundamental physics.
The trouble is that people think our standard model of cosmology is simple and it fits the data. The Ancient Greeks thought the same about Aristotle’s model of the universe, in which the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth. But we need to be open to different possibilities. Let’s just hope that it doesn’t take as long to replace our standard model as it did Aristotle’s—2,000 years. [See: Dark energy is the biggest mystery in cosmology, but it may not exist at all: Interview of Subir Sarkar; Web Source: Horizon magazine]
The widely expected theory of expanding universe, for which three astronomers win Nobel Prize in 2005, was constructed by using the observance of ‘Type Ia supernova’ (the thermonuclear expanded radiation of a dying star) through Hubble telescope. The cosmologists and physicists yet not able to detect dark energy through telescopic observance or hadrons collider; despite this inability, the model was accepted by scientists since after its appearance in the science community due to its well-constructed hypothesis and statistical dataset.
Professor Subir Sarkar and his team have cast on their doubt to the widely expected theory where they selected ‘740 Type Ia supernovae’ to observe what is going behind the cask. They claimed 740 type Ia supernova is capable to provide relatively a large dataset than the previously observed Ia supernovas. The statistical analysis of yonder observance found a surprising ratio that indicates the universe yet maintains the constant rate of expansion if anybody considers the previous statistical dataset of the accelerating universe. Sarkar and his team use ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) and Milne Model by following Gaussian (Normal Distribution) principle. It helps them to compare the current state of acceleration they have found in their study with the previous findings. Sarkar mentioned in his paper:
…we compare the measured distance modulus, “with its expected value in two models: ‘ΛCDM’ is the best fit (Table 1) accelerating universe, while ‘Milne’ is a universe expanding with constant velocity.” [See: Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae by Subir Sarkar; Web Source: Nature scientific journal]
Using ΛCDM and Milne provide a useful clue to Sarkar and his colleague to defend the ‘3 sigma’ based trend a fluke to understand the accelerated expansion of the universe. They said this measurement is far remote to the ‘5 sigma’, which is required to prove the fastest expansion of the universe. Instead, this new study claimed the expansion of the universe happened at a quite constant rate despite the presence of dark matter in the background. However, no dark energy might be there that could make the expansion anomalous and faster. Sarkar thinks the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) not made any deep impact presuming any presence of dark energy behind the acceleration or else not price-worthy to consider CMB a reason for the expansion,—what the 90s study tried to theorize by using the standard model of the universe. Subir Sarkar and his colleague’s study hammered four pivotal points, that is:
I. The universe is not accelerated at a rapid pace as cosmologists have usually familiar because of the impact 90s study has made in their minds.
II. The existence of dark energy is maybe a wrong hypothesis. Dark energy is perhaps not present to fill the empty space and as well as to accelerate the universe at a rapid pace.
III. CMB is not a dependable indication to infer the presence of dark energy in the cosmic background.
IV. The universe is quite consistent (like Einstein’s God) and accelerated with a constant rate of expansion. So we can think it pretty static to its stature.
Anyway, the study that Sarkar and his colleague have done not accepted yet by the majority of scientists. Critics have already pointed some loopholes in the theory. Tamara Davis, for instance, mentioned in his blog:
… The new analysis, published in Scientific Reports, barely changes the original result but puts a different (and in my opinion misleading) spin on it…We recognize the importance of improved statistical analysis because we’re soon going to have about 3,000 supernovae with which to measure the acceleration far more precisely than the original discoveries, which only had 52 supernovae between them. The sample that this new paper re-analyses contain 740 supernovae. One final note about the conclusions in the paper. The authors suggest that a non-accelerating universe is worth considering.
That’s fine. But you and I, the Earth, the Milky Way, and all the other galaxies should gravitationally attract each other. So a universe that just expands at a constant rate is actually just as strange as one that accelerates. You still have to explain why the expansion doesn’t slow down due to the gravity of everything it contains. So even if the non-acceleration claim made in this paper is true, the explanation still requires new physics and the search for the “dark energy” that explains it is just as important. [See: Tamara Davis, Relax, the expansion of the universe is still accelerating; Web Source: the conversation.com]
Image Source: Conceptual Image Lab/Science Photo Library: NASA
… thinking the world non-deterministic is problematic here for the man who sees himself confused and disturbed by the question that,—how the universe act so certain if we consider the limitless anomalies and uncertainty of sub-atomic particles is the only true picture for it? True, the geometry of sub-atomic particles acts weird when they interact.
… … …
Edwin Cartlidge commented:
According to Riess, however, the supernovae data used by Sarkar’s group are out of date. He says that he and some colleagues, including D’Arcy Kenworthy of Johns Hopkins University, plugged data from a sample of about 1300 supernovae with lower systematic uncertainties into the model used in the latest work. The results, he says, were unambiguous, with the existence of a dipole rejected at more than 4σ and cosmic acceleration confirmed at over 6σ.
More importantly, says Riess, the objections against Sarkar and colleagues’ original statistical analysis still stand, as do the criticisms of neglecting other data. “The evidence for cosmic acceleration and dark energy are much broader than only the supernovae Ia sample, and any scientific case against cosmic acceleration needs to take those into account,” he says. [See: Edwin Cartlidge, Dark energy debate reignited by controversial analysis of supernovae data; Web Source: physics world.com]
Subir Sarkar’s study, however, bit comfortable in the sense that we are not living in the nonreciprocal expansion of the universe. Instead, the universe is yet enough consistent and constant to its acceleration. Einstein once battling over the matter and was desperate to prove that the geometry of the universe is quite soothing enough to explain it employing some natural laws.
… … …
Image Source: Imaging Earth the center of the sphere by Dillon Berger; Web Courtesy: quanta magazine;
… An outright denier of religious or personal God preferred to see himself in a globe where a relation among things can be explainable throughout the Laws of Nature. He was prone to agree with this the geometry of the universe is overall fixed and galaxies have rationally stable if we consider energy density and its proportion in the universe with care.
… … …
Image Source: Professor Subir Sarkar, physics.ox.ac.uk
Abstract of the new study:
“The ‘standard’ model of cosmology is founded on the basis that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating at present — as was inferred originally from the Hubble diagram of Type Ia supernovae. There exists now a much bigger database of supernovae so we can perform rigorous statistical tests to check whether these ‘standardisable candles’ indeed indicate cosmic acceleration. Taking account of the empirical procedure by which corrections are made to their absolute magnitudes to allow for the varying shape of the light curve and extinction by dust, we find, rather surprisingly, that the data are still quite consistent with a constant rate of expansion.” [See: J. T. Nielsen; A. Guffanti; and S. Sarkar: Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae]
… … …
Sohochari 