A recently discovered manuscript draft hand written by Einstein in 1931 shows that he was seriously considering the notion of the continuous creation of matter in space and was not actually convinced of a big bang origin for the universe. The manuscript has been translated and discussed in a paper by (Raifeartaigh, et al., 2014) which is posted here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0132. Although Einstein originally believed in a stationary universe, after Hubble announced his galaxy redshift-distance findings in 1929, Einstein instead adopted a Doppler shift interpretation of the redshifts. Thereafter he revised his earlier stationary universe conception to adopt the notion of an expanding universe. This was his only mistake, for as was later shown (LaViolette, 1986; LaViolette, 2013), cosmological test data indicates that the cosmological redshift is preferably interpreted as a tired-light, energy loss effect, rather than as a Doppler shift effect. The tired-light interpretation allows one to retain the concept of a stationary universe. It is an effect predicted by the physics of subquantum kinetics which adopts a stationary universe cosmology.
According to this manuscript, Einstein speculated about the idea of continuous matter creation as being necessary to keep the matter density of the universe constant through the course of its expansion. Thus Einstein presaged the steady state theory proposed 17 years later by Fred Hoyle and which was disproven shortly afterward by its failure to fit cosmological test data. It was not the notion of continuous matter creation that was the problem, but rather the notion of continuous matter creation in a continuously expanding space. As has been shown, the subquantum kinetics cosmology, which predicts a non expanding universe with continuous matter creation and tired-light red shifting, makes an excellent fit to cosmological data. So Einstein was in agreement with subquantum kinetics with his initial idea of a cosmologically static universe and also with his later idea of continuous matter creation in space. His only mistake was his adoption of the Doppler shift interpretation, an interpretation that Hubble himself had doubted. Hubble is known to have quietly favored Zwicky’s tired-light concept.
March 2, 2014