# Einstein’s Biggest Blunder, Explained

In 1915, Albert Einstein published a very

important equation – no, not that one – the one he published didn’t just relate mass

and energy, but mass, energy and gravity – this equation replaced the older “Newton’s

law of Gravitation,” which you may be familiar with, and it remains to this day our best

description of how gravity works. Just like how F=ma is a mathematical description

of how the acceleration of an object depends on the forces applied to it, the Einstein

Equation of general relativity relates the motion of mass and energy (the “T” on

the right) to the curvature of spacetime (the “R’s” on the left). And Einstein didn’t just pull this equation

out of thin air – it was the natural consequence of a long and careful consideration of key

principles of physics combined with the advanced mathematics of curved surfaces, and of course,

agreement with the experimental observations of the day. The equation, however, is deceptively simple. This one single line is in fact an incredibly

fancy shorthand for what’s actually a system of ten second order partial differential equations

relating mass and energy to the curvature of spacetime, AND the the curvature R’s

themselves are a shorthand for more, um, complex, expressions. But the point is this: after figuring out

that these equations matched up with Newton’s law of gravitation for weak gravitational

fields and speeds much slower than light speed, AND after showing that the equations correctly

predicted a previously “unexplained-by-Newton’s-law” anomaly in the orbit of Mercury, Einstein

tried to figure out what the equations had to say about the universe as a whole. Of course, all the matter and energy in the

universe is too complicated to put into the equations and have any hope of solving them,

but if you zoom out enough, you can approximate the universe as having a roughly constant

density everywhere, and in every direction. And Einstein was able to solve the equations

for a very simplified universe with constant density everywhere – the ten complicated equations

reduced to just two simple ones: this one says the curvature of space in the universe

is proportional to the density, so more stuff in the universe means more curvature of space;

and this one says that the density has to be zero. Which would mean there can’t be anything

in the universe… Needless to say, this was a problem. And it turns out that there are two solutions

to the problem – the one Einstein took, and the one he didn’t. Einstein’s solution was this: he knew (since

he had dived deep into the math) that it was possible to slightly change his equations;

you can add a single very simple term without violating any key principles of physics. There wasn’t much other motivation for adding

this term, but it doesn’t change anything about how well the equations match up with

Newton’s law when gravity is weak, or how well they predict the orbit of Mercury, or

whatever , so maybe it was ok? AND, crucially for Einstein, the new term

changes the equation for the density of the universe: instead of saying “density equals

zero,” it now says “density is proportional to the new term”. So if the new term was non-zero, that meant

the universe could have stuff in it! Voila – solution number one – Einstein’s

solution. The other solution to how the universe can

have stuff in it was this: don’t assume (as Einstein had) that the universe is static

and unchanging. The general understanding at the time was

that the universe didn’t expand or contract, and Einstein had also made a small but unfortunate

technical error in his calculations which appeared to prohibit the possibility of a

changing universe, so it’s not surprising that Einstein didn’t see this solution. But it was there: if you don’t make the

mathematical assumption that the universe is static, and you don’t make the technical

error Einstein did, you can find a different valid solution to Einstein’s equations. Which physicist Alexander Friedmann did. Actually he used the version of the equations

with the new term, knowing he could always set that term to zero if it wasn’t real. But the key part is he didn’t assume the

universe was static. Friedmann found that the ten equations again

reduced to two: the first equation now describes how the change in density of the universe

relates to its change in size: specifically, it says that if the universe gets bigger,

then it gets less dense, which makes sense – stuff’s literally spreading out. The second equation says that the deceleration

of the universe is proportional to its density minus Einstein’s constant; that is, the

stuff in the universe attracts itself gravitationally so the universe would have a tendency to pull

inwards on itself, slowing any expansion and possibly even contracting. Unless Einstein’s constant were real and

had a value big enough to balance or overpower the gravitational attraction . So that’s the

solution Einstein didn’t see. Later, once astronomers took sufficiently

detailed measurements, it turned out that the universe WAS indeed expanding: distant

galaxies are moving away from us, and from each other – the universe is not static. And the measurements indicated that the universe

was expanding at a constant rate, at least within experimental error bars. So Einstein’s equations didn’t appear

to have any need for the extra term he had added. Einstein was reported by physicist George

Gamow to have called it “his biggest blunder” – and while there’s no known documentation

that he ever actually said or wrote those words specifically, there’s plenty of record

of him expressing disdain in other ways: “away with the cosmological term,” “I always

had a bad conscience,” “I found it very ugly,” “such a constant appears…unjustified.” And, during Einstein’s lifetime, that was

certainly true – the term did appear unjustified. However, remember how Friedmann’s equations

predicted that the universe should be attracting itself gravitationally and so the expansion

should be slowing down, unless Einstein’s constant is real? Well, in 1998 , decades after Einstein’s

death, astronomers made the surprising discovery that the universe’s rate of expansion isn’t

constant, and it ISN’T slowing down – it’s getting faster. And so in a great, ironic twist, Einstein’s

constant does ultimately have a role in describing the universe… though it turns out to be

a very different universe from what he had imagined. If you don’t want to make silly math mistakes

like Einstein, then you should probably head to Brilliant.org, this video’s sponsor,

to sharpen and hone your math and science skills. In fact, Brilliant has a whole interactive

course on cosmology and within it, a quiz specifically titled “The fate of the Universe”

that was tailor-made for giving you a deeper understanding than you can possibly gain from

simply watching a video like this one. Brilliant also has fun daily challenges, which

are bite-sized math and science-puzzles – like this one about what happens to a thermometer

if you put it in space, and then rotate it. Does it still read the same temperature? Or hotter or colder? Brilliant is offering 20% off of a premium

subscription to the first 200 MinutePhysics viewers to go to brilliant.org/minutephysics

– that lets Brilliant know you came from here, and gets you full access to all of Brilliant’s

courses, puzzles, and daily challenges. Again, that’s brilliant.org/minutephysics

so that you don’t mess up like Einstein.

Video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RApKeMGDnE