A message about the big bang. Theories of the origin of the Universe

The Big Bang theory has become almost as widely accepted a cosmological model as the Earth's rotation around the Sun. According to the theory, about 14 billion years ago, spontaneous vibrations in absolute emptiness led to the emergence of the Universe. Something comparable in size to a subatomic particle expanded to unimaginable sizes in a fraction of a second. But there are many problems in this theory that physicists are struggling with, putting forward more and more new hypotheses.

What's wrong with the Big Bang Theory

From the theory it follows that all planets and stars were formed from dust scattered throughout space as a result of an explosion. But what preceded it is unclear: here our mathematical model of space-time stops working. The Universe arose from an initial singular state, to which modern physics cannot be applied. The theory also does not consider the causes of the singularity or the matter and energy for its occurrence. It is believed that the answer to the question of the existence and origin of the initial singularity will be provided by the theory of quantum gravity.

Most cosmological models predict that the complete Universe is much larger than the observable part - a spherical region with a diameter of approximately 90 billion light years. We see only that part of the Universe, the light from which managed to reach the Earth in 13.8 billion years. But telescopes are getting better, we are discovering more and more distant objects, and there is no reason to believe that this process will stop.

Since the Big Bang, the Universe has been expanding at an accelerating rate. The most difficult mystery of modern physics is the question of what causes acceleration. According to the working hypothesis, the Universe contains an invisible component called “dark energy.” The Big Bang theory does not explain whether the Universe will expand indefinitely, and if so, what will this lead to - its disappearance or something else.

Although Newtonian mechanics was supplanted by relativistic physics, it cannot be called erroneous. However, the perception of the world and the models for describing the Universe have completely changed. The Big Bang theory predicted a number of things that were not known before. Thus, if another theory comes to replace it, it should be similar and expand the understanding of the world.

We will focus on the most interesting theories describing alternative models of the Big Bang.

The Universe is like a mirage of a black hole

The Universe arose due to the collapse of a star in a four-dimensional Universe, according to scientists from the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics. The results of their study were published by Scientific American. Niayesh Afshordi, Robert Mann and Razi Pourhasan say that our three-dimensional Universe became a kind of “holographic mirage” when a four-dimensional star collapsed. Unlike the Big Bang theory, which posits that the universe arose from an extremely hot and dense space-time where the standard laws of physics do not apply, the new hypothesis of a four-dimensional universe explains both the origins and its rapid expansion.

According to the scenario formulated by Afshordi and his colleagues, our three-dimensional Universe is a kind of membrane that floats through an even larger universe that already exists in four dimensions. If this four-dimensional space had its own four-dimensional stars, they would also explode, just like the three-dimensional ones in our Universe. Inner layer would become a black hole, and the outer one would be thrown into space.

In our Universe, black holes are surrounded by a sphere called the event horizon. And if in three-dimensional space this boundary is two-dimensional (like a membrane), then in a four-dimensional universe the event horizon will be limited to a sphere that exists in three dimensions. Computer simulations of the collapse of a four-dimensional star have shown that its three-dimensional event horizon will gradually expand. This is exactly what we observe, calling the growth of the 3D membrane the expansion of the Universe, astrophysicists believe.

Big Freeze

An alternative to the Big Bang is the Big Freeze. A team of physicists from the University of Melbourne, led by James Kvatch, presented a model of the birth of the Universe, which is more reminiscent of the gradual process of freezing amorphous energy than its outburst and expansion in three directions space.

Formless energy, according to scientists, like water, cooled to crystallization, creating the usual three spatial and one temporal dimensions.

The Big Freeze theory challenges Albert Einstein's currently accepted assertion of the continuity and fluidity of space and time. It is possible that space has components - indivisible building blocks like tiny atoms or pixels in computer graphics. These blocks are so small that they cannot be observed, however, following the new theory, it is possible to detect defects that should refract the flow of other particles. Scientists have calculated such effects using mathematics, and now they will try to detect them experimentally.

Universe without beginning and end

Ahmed Farag Ali of Benha University in Egypt and Saurya Das of the University of Lethbridge in Canada have proposed a new solution to the singularity problem by abandoning the Big Bang. They introduced into the Friedman equation, which describes the expansion of the Universe and Big Bang, ideas of the famous physicist David Bohm. “It's amazing that small adjustments can potentially solve so many issues,” says Das.

The resulting model combined general relativity and quantum theory. It not only denies the singularity that preceded the Big Bang, but also does not admit that the Universe will eventually collapse back into its original state. According to the data obtained, the Universe has a finite size and an infinite lifetime. In physical terms, the model describes a Universe filled with a hypothetical quantum fluid, which consists of gravitons - particles that provide gravitational interaction.

The scientists also claim that their findings are consistent with recent measurements of the density of the Universe.

Endless chaotic inflation

The term “inflation” refers to the rapid expansion of the Universe, which occurred exponentially in the first moments after the Big Bang. The inflation theory itself does not disprove the Big Bang theory, but only interprets it differently. This theory solves several fundamental problems in physics.

According to the inflationary model, shortly after its birth, the Universe expanded exponentially for a very short time: its size doubled many times over. Scientists believe that in 10 to -36 seconds, the Universe increased in size by at least 10 to 30 to 50 times, and possibly more. At the end of the inflationary phase, the Universe was filled with superhot plasma of free quarks, gluons, leptons and high-energy quanta.

The concept implies what exists in the world many universes isolated from each other with different device

Physicists have come to the conclusion that the logic of the inflationary model does not contradict the idea of the constant multiple birth of new universes. Quantum fluctuations - the same as those that created our world - can arise in any quantity if the conditions are right for them. It is quite possible that our universe has emerged from the fluctuation zone that formed in the predecessor world. It can also be assumed that someday and somewhere in our Universe a fluctuation will form that will “blow out” a young Universe of a completely different kind. According to this model, daughter universes can bud off continuously. Moreover, it is not at all necessary that the same physical laws are established in new worlds. The concept implies that in the world there are many universes isolated from each other with different structures.

Cyclic theory

Paul Steinhardt, one of the physicists who laid the foundations of inflationary cosmology, decided to develop this theory further. The scientist, who heads the Center for Theoretical Physics at Princeton, together with Neil Turok from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, outlined an alternative theory in the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang ("The Infinite Universe: Beyond the Big Bang"). Their model is based on a generalization of quantum superstring theory known as M-theory. According to it, the physical world has 11 dimensions - ten spatial and one temporal. Spaces of lower dimensions, the so-called branes, “float” in it. (short for "membrane"). Our Universe is simply one of these branes.

The Steinhardt and Turok model states that the Big Bang occurred as a result of the collision of our brane with another brane - an unknown universe. In this scenario, collisions occur endlessly. According to the hypothesis of Steinhardt and Turok, another three-dimensional brane “floats” next to our brane, separated by a tiny distance. It is also expanding, flattening and emptying, but after a trillion years the branes will begin to move closer together and eventually collide. This will release a huge amount of energy, particles and radiation. This cataclysm will trigger another cycle of expansion and cooling of the Universe. From the model of Steinhardt and Turok it follows that these cycles have existed in the past and will certainly repeat in the future. The theory is silent about how these cycles began.

Universe
like a computer

Another hypothesis about the structure of the universe says that our entire world is nothing more than a matrix or a computer program. The idea that the Universe is a digital computer was first put forward by German engineer and computer pioneer Konrad Zuse in his book Calculating Space (“Computational space”). Among those who also considered the Universe as a giant computer are physicists Stephen Wolfram and Gerard 't Hooft.

Digital physics theorists propose that the universe is essentially information, and therefore computable. From these assumptions it follows that the Universe can be considered as the result of work computer program or digital computing device. This computer could be, for example, a giant cellular automaton or a universal Turing machine.

Indirect evidence virtual nature of the universe called the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics

According to the theory, every object and event in the physical world comes from asking questions and recording “yes” or “no” answers. That is, behind everything that surrounds us, there is a certain code, similar to the binary code of a computer program. And we are a kind of interface through which access to the data of the “universal Internet” appears. An indirect proof of the virtual nature of the Universe is called the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics: particles of matter can exist in an unstable form, and are “fixed” in a specific state only when they are observed.

Digital physicist John Archibald Wheeler wrote: “It would not be unreasonable to imagine that information resides in the core of physics as in the core of a computer. Everything is from the bit. In other words, everything that exists - every particle, every force field, even the space-time continuum itself - receives its function, its meaning and, ultimately, its very existence."

Astronomers use the term "Big Bang" in two interrelated meanings. On the one hand, this term refers to the event itself that marked the birth of the Universe about 15 billion years ago; on the other hand, the entire scenario of its development with subsequent expansion and cooling.

The concept of the Big Bang emerged with the discovery of Hubble's law in the 1920s. This law describes in a simple formula the observations that the visible Universe is expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other. It is not difficult, therefore, to mentally “rewind the film” and imagine that at the initial moment, billions of years ago, the Universe was in a super-dense state. This picture of the dynamics of the development of the Universe is confirmed by two important facts.

Cosmic microwave background

In 1964, American physicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered that the Universe is filled with electromagnetic radiation in the microwave frequency range. Subsequent measurements showed that this is characteristic classical black body radiation, characteristic of objects with a temperature of about -270 ° C (3 K), that is, only three degrees above absolute zero.

A simple analogy will help you interpret this result. Imagine that you are sitting by the fireplace and looking at the coals. While the fire is burning brightly, the coals appear yellow. As the flame dies out, the coals dim to orange color, then to dark red. When the fire is almost out, the coals stop emitting visible radiation, but if you put your hand near them, you will feel the heat, which means that the coals continue to emit energy, but in the infrared frequency range. The colder the object, the lower the frequencies it emits and longer length waves ( cm. Stefan-Boltzmann law). Essentially, Penzias and Wilson determined the temperature of the “cosmic embers” of the Universe after it cooled for 15 billion years: its background radiation turned out to be in the microwave radio frequency range.

Historically, this discovery predetermined the choice in favor of the cosmological theory of the Big Bang. Other models of the Universe (for example, the theory of a stationary Universe) make it possible to explain the fact of the expansion of the Universe, but not the presence of the cosmic microwave background.

Abundance of light elements

The Big Bang theory allows us to determine the temperature of the early Universe and the frequency of particle collisions in it. As a consequence, we can calculate the ratio of the number of different nuclei of light elements at the primary stage of the development of the Universe. By comparing these predictions with the actual observed ratios of light elements (adjusted for their production in stars), we find an impressive agreement between theory and observations. In my opinion, this is the best confirmation of the Big Bang hypothesis.

In addition to the two pieces of evidence above (microwave background and light element ratios), recent work ( cm. The inflationary stage of the expansion of the Universe) showed that the fusion of Big Bang cosmology and the modern theory of elementary particles resolves many fundamental questions about the structure of the Universe. Of course, problems remain: we cannot explain the very root cause of the universe; It is also not clear to us whether the current physical laws were in effect at the moment of its origin. But today there are more than enough convincing arguments in favor of the Big Bang theory.

See also:

Arno Allan Penzias, b. 1933
Robert Woodrow Wilson, b. 1936

Arno Allan Penzias (pictured right) and Robert Woodrow Wilson (pictured left) are American physicists who discovered cosmic microwave background radiation.

Penzias was born in Munich and emigrated to the United States with his parents in 1940. Wilson was born in Houston (USA). Both began working at Bell Laboratories in Holmdale, New Jersey in the early 1960s. In 1963, they were tasked with finding out the nature of noise in the radio range that interferes with radio communications. Noting a number of possible causes (including contamination of antennas by pigeon droppings), they concluded that the source of stable background noise is located outside our Galaxy. In other words, it was the cosmic radiation background predicted by theoretical astrophysicists including Robert Dick, Jim Peebles and George Gamov. For their discovery, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Show comments (148)

Collapse comments (148)

We are still expanding and cooling down. We are just expanding very slowly. And in billions of years. When gravity reaches its limit. The Universe will begin the reverse process of compression. Unfortunately, we won’t know how it will end.

Answer

There is no doubt.
There is no “Big Bang” and there never will be.
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2004/09/17-31.html - There was no big explosion!!!
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2001/11/14-54.html - Outside mathematical application.
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2006/04/08-05.html - About Islam, aliens, and more.
And in short it is like this. Redshift tells us that some time ago distant objects were smaller than they are now. The finiteness of the speed of light is simply the reason why we do not observe the change in the speed of light that has occurred in our country in the distance (in the past).
Information is late.
The subjective removal of distant objects from us is the reverse process of gravity (subjective, or, if you like, relative approximation) of objects lying inside some synchronized system.
Sincerely,
Sergey

Answer

There is no doubt, but how could it be otherwise? This fact, discovered by modern physicists only in the twentieth century, was attested in the Koran fourteen centuries ago:

“He [Allah] is the Establisher of the heavens and the earth” (Surah al-Anam: 101).

The Big Bang theory showed that at first all objects in the Universe were one, and then they were separated. This fact, established by the Big Bang theory, was again described fourteen centuries ago in the Quran, when people had a very limited understanding of the Universe:

“Did not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were united, and We separated them...” (Surah the Prophets, 30)

This means that all matter was created through the Big Bang from a single point, and, being divided, formed the Universe known to us. The expansion of the Universe is one of the most important evidence that the Universe was created from nothing. Although this fact was discovered by science only in the twentieth century, Allah informed us of the reality of this in the Qur'an sent to people one thousand four hundred years ago:

“It is We who established the Universe (by Our creative) power, and verily, It is We who constantly expand it” (Surah The Dispersers, 47).

The Big Bang is a clear indication that the Universe was created from nothing, created by the Creator, created by Allah.

Answer

But there is no expansion of the Universe, it is practically static, and on the contrary, the galaxies are getting closer together, otherwise there would not be so many colliding galaxies.

Answer

Why did you decide that light wastes some energy? (and not only light) what does it overcome? He flies in the same straight line as everything in the universe, in by and large, everything does not come off (as we try to tear ourselves away from the ground), but once thrown into space, it falls into nowhere. (I am an adherent of the theory that the universe is inflating, not expanding, which means, most likely, that there are other forces , forcing everything to fly at no cost - remember the second series of spy children, when they were already tired of flying, and they even rested while doing so. I’m exaggerating, but I mean something similar). ALTHOUGH I also used to believe that everything, something flies somewhere, overcomes something, which means it loses energy, but life experience has shown that by losing, we sometimes gain much more. Maybe this is a paradox in physics? By increasing entropy, we organize it, and increase it again, but at a different level?!
PS. It is advisable to provide a link to this page when answering soap, I haven’t been here for a long time, and had difficulty finding where to answer!

Answer

But I don’t understand one thing. I'm hoping for someone's clarification.
It is argued that the fate of the Universe depends on the density of interstellar gas. If the gas is dense enough, then the stars and galaxies will sooner or later stop moving away from each other and begin to move closer together.
But gas is also part of the Universe.
It arose in the flames of the Big Bang, like everything that exists.
How can stars experience friction when passing through gas that is moving in the same direction and at the same speed as themselves?
It turns out that the Universe is doomed to eternal expansion in any case?
If some unpredictable factor does not intervene in this process - for example, a person?

Answer

The universe began about 15 billion years ago as a hot blob of superdense matter, and since then it has been expanding and cooling.
I'm not an astronomer, not a scientist, and my logic is quite simple, so it's easier for me to understand.
There is a theory that black holes are the centers of galaxies.
however, I'm guessing based on the above that it's possible
black holes are also future universes. superdense matter - a black hole that can be of any size
Those who have read are asked to send their thoughts to [email protected]

Answer

Structure of Vacuum. My peasant logic: 1+1=2.

Many years ago, (20 billion years) all matter
(All elementary particles and all the quarks and their friends antiparticles and antiquarks,
all types of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muon, glionic, etc.
- everything was collected at a “singular point”.
What then surrounded the singular point?
EMPTINITY IS NOTHING.
Agree. But why do they talk about this in general phrases, without specifying
Not specifically. It surprises me why this EMPTINESS is NOTHING.
no one writes down with a physical formula?
After all, every schoolchild knows that EMPTINITY IS NOTHING.
written by the formula T=0K.
* * *
And, one day, there was a big explosion.
In what space did this explosion occur?
In what space did the matter of the big bang spread?
Not in T=OK? It is clear that only in the EMPTINITY is NOTHING T=OK.
* * *

Now they believe that the Universe, as an Absolute frame of reference, is located in
state T = 2.7 K (remnants of the relic radiation of the big bang).
But this relic study is expanding and will change and decrease in the future.
What temperature will it reach?
Not T=OK? Thus, if we go both in the past and in the present and in
in the future we cannot escape from the EMPTINESS - NOTHING.
* * *
Everyone knows what a singular point is.
But no one knows what EMPTINESS is - NOTHING, T=0K.
To understand this, you need to ask the question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have at T=OK?
Do they have volume?
No. This means their geometric shape is a flat circle C/D = 3.14
BUT what do these particles do?
Nothing. They are at rest: (h = 0)
So are these really dead particles? After all, everything in nature is in motion.
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand more clearly the EMPTINESS - NOTHING.
* * *
Does this EMPTINITY - NOTHING - have boundaries?
No. EMPTINITY - NOTHING is EMPTINESS - NOTHING.
It has no boundaries. EMPTINITY - NOTHING is infinite.
Let's write this down with the formula: T=0K= .
What time is it there? There is no time there.
It is inextricably merged with space.
Stop.
But such a space is described by Einstein in SRT.
In SRT, space also has a negative characteristic, and there, too, space is inextricably fused with time.
Only in SRT this EMPTINESS - NOTHING has a different name:
negative four-dimensional Minkowski space.
Then SRT describes the behavior of particles having a geometric
form - a circle in the EMPTINITY - NOTHING T=0K.
* * *
According to SRT, these particle circles can be in two states of motion:
1) These circle particles can fly straight at speed c=1.
In this type of movement, particle-circles are called Quantum of Light (Photon).
2) These circle particles can rotate around their diameter and then their shape and physical parameters change according to Lorentz transformations.
In this type of motion, the particle-circles are called Electrons.
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of particles-circles, because in the EMPTINITY there is NOTHING
no one influences her peace?
Quantum theory provides the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear motion of a particle-circle depends on the Planck spin (h=1)
2) The rotational motion of a particle-circle depends on the spin
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck (ħ = h / 2pi).
* * *
Strange particles surround the "singular point".
These circle particles can be in three states:
1) h = 0,
2) h = 1,
3) ħ = h / 2pi.
and make their own decisions about what action to take.
Only particles that have their own consciousness can act this way.
This consciousness cannot be frozen, it develops.
The development of this consciousness goes “from vague desire to clear thought.”

Answer

this clump has the size and lifetime of a quark modern ideas they say that the universe will live 10 in 100 years and a quark lives 10-23 seconds, so the life of their quark and our universe are equal and the mass of this quark is equal to the mass of the universe, so if they have such a quark, then what should their star be like and what energy does it have? we must look at everything by analogy, there is something where there are many such quarks and they break out and hit something. Ancient teaching says that the Almighty created and destroyed universes 950 times, like a blacksmith hits an anvil and sparks fly, and when he saw ours in which we live, he said that this is good, I ask the forum I respect to think about this

Answer

Dear scientists. I AM TERRIBLY TORROUNDED BY THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG. THEY SAY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING AT ALL. HOW TO UNDERSTAND NOTHING AND WHERE THIS NOTHING ENDED. I ASK YOU TO AT LEAST BRING ME CLOSER TO THE TRUTH (WHICH IS SOMEWHERE)

Answer

This world has certain properties. One of these properties is SUBJECTIVELY felt by a person as the passage of time. More precisely, this property is described in the language of mathematics - and this description does not completely coincide with a person’s everyday ideas about time. More precisely, it practically coincides in ordinary living conditions, but such conditions are possible when the difference becomes noticeable. In particular, the conditions of the Big Bang are precisely such that the everyday concept of time does not work in them.

That is, the question “what happened before the Big Bang?” is incorrect for the same reason as the question “what is north of the North Pole?”

Answer

Listen, you're a smart kid. I should make friends with you. I'm also interested in astronomy, and I'm also obsessed with the big bang. SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE THE BIG BANG. WHAT IS THIS NOTHING, AND WHERE ARE ITS BOUNDARIES.

Answer

Maybe there is a lot of obscenity in the name itself, hence all sorts of gossip? They called it very badly, “explosion,” so they understand it as an explosion, but probably not quite an ordinary explosion? Many, even very respected authors, begin to talk about this as an explosion simply in a peasant way, and this is not good. We should hold a scientific symposium and put forward a renaming, for example “Transsingular transition of matter”, then there may be less chatter around this obvious phenomenon;))

Answer

I'm interested in this...
1) “The Universe arose about 15 billion years ago in the form of a hot clump of superdense matter” - let’s say. Why is the geometry of our universe almost flat (Euclidean)? If matter is superdense, then at least the surface must be spherical.
2) The existence of the origin of time is equivalent to its heterogeneity. This is not confirmed as far as I know. Why?
3) If we assume a cyclical process - expansion - compression - formation of a black hole - explosion - ... I have a question about the black hole. (A little off topic, probably). Obviously, the matter in it is compressed to a point (singularity), and the compression forces - gravity - reach infinity => the speed of compression (of the surface) tends to the speed of light => in our space-time the formation of such an object is impossible... When will it explode?

Answer

The word “Emptiness” is absolutely incorrect for exact science, just like the word “Explosion”. Based on this statement, it should be noted that any physical phenomenon must have understandable qualities or properties such as volume. In context, it should be taken into account that all any processes occur within the boundaries of this volume, and the influence of these processes extends to certain limits outside.
So, - Explosion in the Void! Universe from an egg! Typical expressions for the sensation of the 19th century, which were shouted by street sellers of newspapers and magazines of that time.
In fact, the “Big Bang” theory (in a competent description) directly states that “the Universe began to expand about 15 billion years ago from a hot clump of superdense matter.” We are not talking about an explosion or emptiness at all. Just a hypothesis on this moment confirmed by analysis of the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background radiation. And let's say it's called "The Big Bang Theory". Just a phraseological balancing act, nothing more...
P.S. "Nature abhors a vacuum!"

Answer

I have a little confusion in my head, I ask for help, and so..... Let's say that our observable universe is 14.5 billion years old, if we take into account that, for example, the arithmetic average speed of separation (removal) of galaxies is say 2000 km/s, then for 14.5 billion years, they traveled a distance equal to this speed, how then do they observe galactic clusters that are at a distance of 13.5 billion LIGHT YEARS from us, a light year is equal to the distance that light travels in 1 year, the speed of which is approximately almost 300 thousand kilometers per second, but the expansion The universe, for example, is only 2000 kilometers per second, then how did they end up at such a distance at a speed of removal of approximately 1000 times less than the speed of light.
Logically, with a speed of 2000 kilometers per second, the most distant galaxy from the hypocenter of the explosion should be at a distance of 1000 times less (because the speed of removal is 1000 times less) and equal to 14.4 million light years.
Where did I not understand, thank you in advance

Answer

Two years have already passed since the article by G. Starkman and D. Schwartz, “Is the Universe Well Set Up?” was published in the journal “In the World of Science,” issue # 11 of 2005. It presents the results of experiments on the COBE and WMAP satellites, which clearly indicate that the Universe is infinite and there was no Big Bang. How much can we talk about him?

Answer

This singularity is nonsense. After all, no one can prove that physical parameters do not change with a change in gravity. It is also unprovable that they do not change over time. For example, the following statement cannot be refuted: “the half-life of the U-238 isotope seven thousand years ago was half as long.” We build all the complex mathematical and cosmological structures in real time and cannot look into the distant future or into the past (this is our whole problem). Therefore, our entire understanding of the universe is limited, in principle, at a very low level, well, for example, at the level of classical mechanics. The world is unknowable, and therefore has a divine origin. But no one knows where this God is and what he looks like.

Answer

One question has been “tormenting” me for a very long time.
What does "as it cools down" mean? A trivial example - a cooling kettle releases part of the heat (energy) into the external space.

The obvious (is it obvious?) answer is external space. And what is in it then.. uh.. emptiness????.........

Answer

about “analysis of the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background radiation” (from 04/12/2007 15:08 | Science-lover)
namely: we are talking about the spectral composition of the relict background.
Moreover, the maximum density (on the spectrum) corresponds to a temperature of several degrees K (~4, but I could be wrong). It is from here that we can find the time during which cooling occurred.
12.02.2009 13:28 | FcuK
Where does our Universe give off heat?
- look at what a search engine (yandex, google) returns for “heat death of the universe” (ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_death)
A kettle warms the environment (a room in a particular case). But this is an example of a non-closed system (gas or electricity comes from outside).
The question of the closedness of the universe was discussed earlier. And, as far as I remember, we came to the conclusion that the universe is not closed. But this - maybe. too complex “simplification”, so that search engines “rule”.
05/03/2008 00:53 | ko1111
Regarding changes in gravity: see "drift of constants"
In general, this is a theist’s view of the issues of the universe. But questions of faith are not studied by science (exact, for example physics), because based on - facts, and - reproducible results.
12.10.2007 14:45 | Phil
There are facts that are best explained by the Big Bang Theory. It’s just that another, sufficiently “smooth” theory does not exist yet.
The string section has big questions with the “practical side”.

Answer

Cosmological redshift and the "Pioneer anomaly" are one effect that represents the loss of kinetic energy over time, which is converted into vacuum fluctuation energy. You can easily verify this by doing simple calculations. The anomalous deceleration constant of spacecraft is a = (8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2, the Hubble constant is (74.2 +- 3.6) km/s per megaparsec. Light travels one megaparsec in 1E14 seconds. Multiplying the anomalous deceleration by this time, we obtain the Hubble constant:
(8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2 x 1E14 s = (87.4 +- 13.3) km/s
This suggests that all particles, including photons, are subject to anomalous deceleration, but since photons represent waves that always move at the speed of light, only the energy, which is purely kinetic for photons, decreases. A similar situation occurs when photons lose energy (turn red) in a gravitational field, while other particles that may be at rest are slowed down, losing speed. It follows that the cosmological redshift can be calculated using the anomalous deceleration constant, i.e. instead of two constants, one is enough. Abnormal braking: V=at, where a is the abnormal braking constant, t is time. Accordingly, the “red shift” of de Broglie waves: z=at/v, where v is the particle speed. Since the principle of wave-particle duality applies to all particles, the red shift of photon waves can be calculated using the same formula: Z=at/c, where c is the speed of the photon (light). For example, the same formula for a photon through the Hubble constant has the form: Z=Ht. (The formulas are approximate, i.e. for small changes.) In outer space, it is necessary to take into account the resistance that vacuum fluctuations can provide. The fact that they exist and can exert pressure has been confirmed experimentally - the Casimir effect. Moving objects “bump into” vacuum fluctuations. They make electrons in atomic orbits “shiver.” According to quantum physics, the physical vacuum is not a void and it constantly interacts with material matter - Lamb shift, Casimir effect, etc., the interaction represents a force, so it can affect motion.

More details at http://m622.narod.ru/gravity

Answer

The Doppler effect can also be explained by the rotation of an object. proponents of expansion like to use the example of a train approaching directly at the observer. If the observer wants to live, he will miss the train, for example, to his right. Effect D. will take place. What if the train passes at a safe distance from left to right past the observer? Effect D. will also take place. What if he walks in circles? By the way, this was the opinion in scientific circles. Quite proven. But somehow it did not coincide with the general opinion. But it is the Doppler effect that manifests itself. the basis of the big bang theory. But there is also the presence of radiation “from embers”. These coals got to me. There was an explosion! But which one? It somehow contradicts common sense that an explosion can be the beginning of creation. And how did all this happen - on the run? Try to create something on the run. But the end could be an explosion. Why doesn't it occur to theorists that they see this end? The end of the previous Universe. And already in a warm place, on coals, our Universe arose. By the way, it can and does expand, but not at the speed of an explosion. everything grows, everything moves, everything spins. By the way, the explosion at the end is easier to explain than the explosion at the beginning. Some arrogant smart guy, or even a group of smart guys, will play with matches and... I’m writing, apparently, not in vain. No one has looked at this site for a long time.

Answer

The Big Bang from the point of view of quantum ether dynamics.
The stage of compression of the Universe - but not yet collapse. The increasingly denser converging gravitational flows are partially balanced by counter diverging structural flows. But at a certain stage of compression, the converging flows completely stop the oncoming diverging flows, as if they are locked. The equilibrium is disturbed, but conservation laws apply. And at some stage of compression, the locked and increasingly increasing energy of the quantum environment is released. In this case, the diverging flows acquire a certain wave structure - matter is formed (possibly new). Remnants of old matter can serve as centers of fluctuations in the newborn universe.

Answer

If there was a Big Bang, then not one but infinitely many explosions at the same time, since the universe is infinite, the mass in it is infinite.
In addition, Big Bangs that create galaxies should regularly occur in infinity. The question is when will the next Big Bang happen?
What is the time interval between Big Bangs?

Answer

Fans of the big bang theory of the origin of the universe are still unable to answer two simple questions:
1.What do they mean by universe?
If this is a set of cosmic phenomena AVAILABLE for our observation, then this is not a universe at all, but rather a megagalaxy.
If this is also something that lies beyond our capabilities of contemplating space, then this theory is no longer valid.
2. If the universe arose from an explosion, then the location of this explosion must be known, that is, the center of the universe is the starting point of all coordinates.
The center of the universe has not been established, but supporters of the theory apparently lack the intelligence to compare these facts.

Answer

The universe is an infinite number of honeycombs. And the honeycombs are compressed to critical sizes and masses, and then an infinite number of
Big Explosions. And it all begins again, expansion in honeycombs, formation of galaxies in honeycombs, then their dissolution and compression to critical masses and
so endlessly. The dimensions of the cells (cubes) are approximately 100 megapixels.

Answer
- One does not contradict the other.
  I have nothing against your explanations of the structure of the universe.
  Only in your case, “Big Bang” should be written with a small letter, and it is no longer “big” at all.
  How do you think the cells interact with each other?
  
  Answer
  - Like all masses in the Universe due to gravitational forces. But since in honeycombs
    masses are the same, approximately 10 to 49 kg, then their interactions are balanced. Honeycombs are cubic cells in the center of which are located
    maximum masses - black holes that gradually collect all the mass
    cells reach critical mass and explode (come out of collapse) and
    everything went first.
    
    Answer
    
    A black hole, according to the theory of relativity, cannot “come out of collapse.” So you will have to give up something, either your own or Einstein’s theory)))
    I am for abandoning Einstein's.
    
    Answer

1. Tell me, are the laws of physics, for example, in the Andromeda Nebula the same as ours?
2. Let's make a mental experiment. Let's fill the L-shaped quartz tube with a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen in the required proportion (8:1). Let us illuminate it evenly with ultraviolet light and get an explosion. Now please indicate the POINT - the center of the explosion.

Answer

- 1. I think so too. Then what is the inconsistency of continuing beyond the existing instrumental boundaries?
  2. What I mean is that if it is impossible to indicate a point, the absence of an explosion does not follow.
  In addition, “bang”, literally, is not an explosion at all, but “boom!” Which can be not only from an explosion, but also from various other processes.
  
  Answer
  - 1. In the question and answer: “existing instrumental boundaries”, if I understand you correctly, these are the boundaries of the ever-expanding universe. This means that space that has not yet been reached by the “borders” is not yet a universe, otherwise the very concept of an “expanding” universe loses its meaning.
    That is, the phrase “continuation beyond the existing instrumental boundaries” (of the expanding universe) contains two mutually exclusive concepts.
    2. With space objects, in contrast to the L-shaped tube, everything is simpler:
    Besides the fact that they are all close to a spherical shape, they also have a center of mass that could completely travel beyond the center of the universe.
    
    Answer
    
    Instrumental boundaries...I think I understand you. They are limited by the sensitivity of the instruments of modern science.
    Then let’s imagine them like an inflatable balloon: with the development of science, it becomes wider and wider, but what grounds do we have not even to assert, but only to assume that the same picture is happening outside of it?
    
    Answer
    - Well, we still haven’t hit the crystal sphere, there are chances to move on :) Even if physics changes beyond modern visibility, there will be no sharp boundary, we will sense something is wrong in advance, but so far there is no such thing. Then, if “over there” the stars emit not photons, but some kind of crap, then they would have already reached us and we would have observed them (we are not limited to 15 billion or how many years ago?)
      "all are close to a spherical shape, so they still have a center of mass that could completely travel beyond the center of the universe."
      And in _this_ configuration, if there is an explosion, it won’t be a Big one, just supernovae in small ways. The geometry of the BV is not at all like that, but let me not talk about what I myself cannot imagine. I’d rather say something else: the _absence_ of BV creates more big problems. Stars and galaxies evolve, and this process is irreversible. Hydrogen will not be reborn from heavy elements and will not fly apart into large interstellar clouds. And, if you look back, you don’t get a stationary picture either. Maybe BV isn't so bad after all?
      
      Answer
      - In your opinion, it turns out that only BW is capable of producing hydrogen from heavy elements? Isn’t a “supernova” capable?
        I am not against the “instrumental universe” (a very apt phrase), I am against the identification of the instrumental universe and the Universe.
        Scientists studying the Universe have one huge disadvantage.
        The fact is that inanimate and living matter are simply very different; they exist, as it were, in different worlds. Any living organism positions itself as the center of the Universe, but others understand that this is not so, that this is just an illusion of the individual.
        So: the perception of the material world by living organisms is an illusion.
        (I don’t insist that I’m right, but if you’re an intelligent person, then at least try to understand this idea)
        From this point of view, it is difficult to talk about the evolution of the Universe, because Time is also an illusion of living organisms. For the Universe, Time does not exist.
        All of the above contradicts the BV theory.
        
        Answer
        
        Worse. And BV is incapable. If you read the script, it talks about energy in the early stages. When its concentration (density) is high, let alone nuclei, no particles are stable (this is no longer from TBB, this is a fact experimentally verified at accelerators). Only when it decreased did particles first begin to appear, and then nuclei. In the currently observable [part of] the Universe, there are no mechanisms for such concentration of energy for _all_ (or the overwhelming majority) of matter. To restore something, you need to “burn” noticeably more, and Supernova explosions are afterburning, not restoration.
        And further. TBV (like any other physical theory) are not words, but formulas. And in the TBV formulas, the entire available space is involved, and not just the observed piece. If it were possible to limit ourselves to a part, rest assured, someone has already staked out such a branch (everyone wants the Nobel Prize).
        “Any living organism positions itself as the center of the Universe, but others understand that this is not so, that this is just an illusion of the individual.”
        Be careful when turning! :) One person came to the same conclusions that his coordinate system, no matter how lopsided it may be due to gravity, acceleration or rotation, is no worse than that of other individuals. And for others it is no worse than for him. Then he derived formulas for how to move from a crooked system to a skewed one...
        “So: the perception of the material world by living organisms is an illusion.”
        So: this is not physics. This is philosophy. And, _within_the_philosophy_, this is an absolutely _correct_ thought, because it cannot be refuted. And to get back to physics, do the following experiment (you can mentally): take a hammer and hit any of your fingers with decent force. And then try to convince yourself that everything that happened is a pure illusion, and, in fact, nothing hurts you. (In philosophy, this experience does not work, because not a single philosopher would ever pick up a hammer. And I don’t mind other people’s fingers.)
        It may be an illusion, but this illusion is not just any kind, it is built according to certain rules. For philosophers, let's say this: in the illusion of the Universe (after all, the Universe is also an illusion!) the illusion of the Big Bang occurred, described by illusory formulas. A bit long. It is better to put illusoryness out of brackets.
        
        Answer
        
        "And one more thing. TBV (like any other physical theory) is not words, but formulas."
        Like any THEORY, these are not formulas, but words, do not turn them upside down.
        "And the TBV formulas use all the available space"
        Who has it in cash? Do you want to start the whole conversation from the beginning about the difference, as you aptly put it, between the instrumental universe and the Universe?
        "One man came to the same conclusion that his coordinate system, no matter how lopsided it may be due to gravity, acceleration or rotation, is no worse than that of other individuals. And others have it no worse than his. Then he deduced formulas for how to move from a crooked system to a skewed one..."
        You understood my point correctly)))
        Similar formulas have already been derived: Poincaré's hypothesis about the multidimensionality (more than 3) of space, the theory of relativity, TBI...
        Experiments at accelerators are empty space; from the very beginning of the construction of the collider I was sure of this. Until devices capable of recording the speed of gravitational interaction are invented, one cannot expect any special discoveries from them.
        
        Answer
        
        "Like any THEORY, these are not formulas, but words"
        If you mean that equations are just a summary of verbal statements, then I agree. And if you consider them a free supplement to Wise Thoughts, then this is not physics, this is philosophy again. So we slide into criticism of the Pythagorean theorem: it is incorrect, because the picture shows not pants, but shorts! (For the advanced ones who will say that shorts are also pants, let us clarify: they are crooked, no decent person would wear them).
        "Who has cash?" We all have. Choose any reference point: you want the Earth, you want the Sun, a star on 2/3 of the other arm of the Galaxy, any. Select _any_ other point. From the TBB equations it will be possible to find the position of this other point relative to the position of the reference point at any point in time back, up to the limit of applicability of the theory.
        "Accelerator experiments are empty space"
        Well, yes, everything in the world is bullshit, except wild bees. Better yet, tell me how to cope with the problem of aging stars?
        
        Answer
        
        Do you understand the difference between theory and law?
        So theory is words, law is formulas.
        “All of us” taken together are not able to take as a reference point the space that lies beyond the tangibility of our instruments, nor can we calculate its location after N times.
        I don’t know about the aging of stars, but I think most of the answers to the questions will be given with the discovery of particles responsible for gravity.
        By the way, since you own “Wise Thoughts”, show me the role of dark (unmanifested to date) matter in the TBV formulas.))))
        
        Answer
        
        The speed of gravitational interaction was studied by N.A. Kozyrev, a professor at the Pulkovo Observatory in the 50s of the 20th century. And he showed that it spreads almost instantly and called it time streams!!!
        
        Answer
        
        I don’t know whether this will surprise you, or whether you knew in advance, but in the collection of works of N.A. Kozyrev (from the site you indicated) there is nothing about the speed of gravitational interaction. It is not in the 1st part “Theoretical Astrophysics”, nor in the 2nd “Observational Astronomy”, nor even in the 3rd “Causal Mechanics”. The term "time streams" also does not appear. Like this.
        
        Answer

Dear a_b Your “Stars, galaxies are evolving, and this process is irreversible. Hydrogen will not be born again from heavy elements, and will not scatter into large interstellar clouds” - is this a belief or a statement? If the second, then it is not true, if the first, then you can show and you will see the opposite, how hydrogen is formed again from heavy elements and scatters into large interstellar clouds.

Answer

According to Hubball's law, for a distance of 12 mpc the speed of galaxies will be 1,200 km/s, for 600 mpc - 60,000 km/s, therefore, if we assume that the distance is 40,000 mpc, then the speed of galaxies will be higher than the speed of light, and this is not unacceptable theory of relativity.
The idea of an expanding Universe gives an increase in the speed of expanding galaxies in proportion to their distance from the center of the explosion. But where is the center? If we recognize the center, then in an infinite space in a finite time, something flying must still occupy a finite local area, and then the question is what is beyond these limits

Answer

You would be right if things were as you imagine. They gave the galaxies a good kick, and now they fly away in all directions. The word "explosion" has misled you. Replace it with the word "process", this should help in understanding. Big Process. “Infinitely many” large (explosively...) _processes_ are one Big Process.
What does this process look like? Let's imagine for a second that we have marked the Universe at some intervals with [immobile] air molecules. So, the stars do not fly whistling through this air, no, in the immediate vicinity of _each_ star the air is practically motionless. But the distance between _each_ neighboring molecules gradually increases over time (the same for each pair). And this is not the expansion of gas into emptiness, for we filled _the entire_ Universe with gas. The very “base” to which our molecules are “nailed” will swell. Please note that there is no smell of any “explosion” here!
Let the speed of “swelling” between an adjacent pair of molecules be equal to V. Then after time t they will move apart by a distance V*t. And after one molecule it will move 2*V*t. Those. its escape velocity will be 2*V. And a molecule separated by N pieces will run away at a speed of N*V. That. the take-off speed increases linearly with distance.
But the most important thing is that the picture does not change if we take _any_ other molecule as a starting point, in _any_ direction. Well, where is the center here, and why is it needed?
"the theory of relativity cannot stand this"
This is wrong. The theory of relativity prohibits superluminal _interactions_. And so, wave the laser in the direction of the Moon at a speed of 90 degrees/sec, and a “bunny” will run across the Moon at superluminal speed (you can calculate at what speed). The expansion of the Universe, on the contrary, turns out to be one of the solutions to Einstein’s equations (at a certain value parameters).

Answer
- They perfectly described the process of expansion within the universe, but not the universe itself.
  "That's not true. The theory of relativity prohibits superluminal interactions." Gravitational interaction is orders of magnitude faster than light interaction....the theory of relativity is at rest.
  
  Answer
  - - We don't need an inside view.
      Describe how the boundaries of the universe behave!
      And is it impossible to calculate the center based on their behavior? after all, the explosion time was calculated in this way.
      The funny thing is that on the basis of the Doppler effect, which has exceptions, which cannot even be called a rule, a chain of dubious conclusions is built that lead to conclusions about the curvature of space. I wouldn’t be surprised if soon parallel worlds they will talk.
      
      Answer
      - I don’t see any contradiction. This is so obvious that I don’t know what else to clarify.
        You probably think the same)))
        Funny. You can't do without a third one.
        “If you play the movie backwards, then everyone will arrive at the “point” _at the same time_"
        There is no reason to assume. that matter unmanifested (by science) will behave in the same way.
        
        Answer
        
        An elderberry in the garden is a guy in Kyiv: this is not a contradiction, links in the logical chain are simply missing. There are no boundaries - ... - visible matter is expanding, not the Universe. What's behind the "..."?
        Let me explain if there are boundaries: there are boundaries - we determine the distances to them - we find the geometric center - we calculate the spread from it.
        "There is no reason to suppose that matter unmanifested (by science) will behave in the same way."
        About the unmanifested one - yes, nothing can be said. And “dark matter” manifested itself as gravity.
        PS
        At the same time, please tell us about exceptions to the Doppler effect.
        
        Answer
        
        Is expansion of space different from expansion in space?
        How can something that has no boundaries expand?
        Let's say "dark" instead of "unmanifested" - will the meaning change?
        I didn’t express myself correctly about exceptions in the Doppler effect,
        meant that some nebulae and galaxies are not moving away, but are approaching us (interestingly, by analogy with the effect of scattering at any point in the universe, these nebulae approach any point in the universe). I tried to find this site... alas, I found interesting news, which, however, has nothing to do with our conversation - http://grani.ru/Society/Science/m.52747.html
        
        Answer
        
        Sorry, I'll rearrange the questions a little.
        "How can something that has no boundaries expand?"
        What has boundaries can expand, right? Wonderful. Let's push the boundaries wider, nothing will change, will it? Well, the last step is to take them to infinity. There are no boundaries, the process remains.
        "Is expansion of space different from expansion in space?"
        Is different. Imagine two strings of beads, one beads on a string, the other on an elastic band. Expansion in space is the movement of beads along a rope; there are certain consequences of such a movement of the bead relative to the place on the rope where it is currently located. The expansion of space is the stretching of the elastic; each bead rests relative to its point on the elastic.
        “Let’s say “dark” instead of “unmanifested” - will the meaning change?
        Drastically. Unmanifest means not interacting in any way, which is equivalent to non-existence. “Dark” means not participating in other interactions _except_ gravitational; Very little is known about her, but not so much that _nothing_. It clumps with ordinary matter, and since it hasn’t separated yet, it’s the same in retrospect.
        "some nebulae and galaxies are not moving away, but are approaching us (interestingly, by analogy with the effect of scattering at any point in the universe, these nebulae are approaching any point in the universe)"
        Look up the Local Group of galaxies. Galaxies in the group participate in motion around the center of mass of the group, with fairly decent speeds, exceeding the speed of recession at such “small” distances. They do not approach any point in the Universe, but only those that lie in the direction of the velocity vector, and then only up to a certain distance (after all, their own speed relative to the selected point is constant, and the speed of retraction increases linearly with the distance to the point).
        
        Answer
        
        At the last step, when the boundaries of the universe are transferred to infinity (abandonment of boundaries), a qualitative transition occurs from the expansion of space to expansion in space.
        Dark matter does not clump with ordinary matter.
        About the Local Group of Galaxies - thank you, I’ll look for it at my leisure, here I admit that you are right.
        
        Answer
        
        “Expansion in space is the movement of beads along a rope; there are certain consequences of such movement of a bead relative to the place on the rope where it is currently located. Expansion of space is the stretching of an elastic band; each bead is at rest relative to its point on the elastic band.”
        Regarding rope, rubber band.... What plays the role of rope or rubber band in the Universe? If you remove them from your example (make them not real, but imaginary), then there will be no difference in the behavior of the beads.
        
        Answer

strelijrili:
"Gravitational interaction is orders of magnitude faster than light"
Boom:
"The inertia of the masses would not manifest itself instantly"

You could somehow come to an agreement among yourselves. “Orders of magnitude” and “instantly” are not the same thing at all. On a cosmic scale, the speed of light is a snail's, and the _nearest_ star is 4 years away. The Magellanic expedition circumnavigated the world in 3 years.
PS
It would be nice to have some calculations or a link to the calculations...

Answer

But it has been proven that the process began about 15 billion years ago. What happened
before and when will it end?
The theory of relativity prohibits superluminal interactions - and what
gravitational interactions? The inertia of the masses would not manifest itself instantly, but after many light years!!! Setting the speed limit
This is a brake on the development of science!

Answer

Greetings to all! interested in the mystery of the origin of Our WORLD "Universe".
To this question, the ancient Philosophers said that “The world-universe is structured like two snakes swallowing each other.”
And regarding this, the Big Bang theory is not entirely true.
I was also interested in “what actually happened, but it turned out to be and will be...”
After analyzing the data, I came to the following conclusion - PARADOX; Firstly - What is the Universe and what is the Big Bang??
and what do We mean by these concepts?
And the paradox is that; There was no Big Bang and there was a Big Bang and there is plenty of evidence for this...
Not long ago the media wrote and said that a year or two ago astronomers recorded a powerful flash-explosion
and this was supposed to be the birth of a galaxy, and what a galaxy is is a mini universe.
According to String theory, it was calculated that the shape of universes can be spherical, spiral or dumbbell-shaped and other shapes, which is what we see in the shape of galaxies
This results in a big bang and the birth of the universe.
Following this path further, our Milky Way galaxy is also a mini universe, and maybe we can remove this word “mini”
after all, depending on where you look from the Earth, the Earth can also be a mini universe,
and even continents, seas and individual areas...

Answer

Regarding how long the expansion of the Universe will continue and what comes next.
As I understand it, there are many other universes beyond our Universe. As each universe expands, it is increasingly “pressed” against other universes, as a result of which “compression points” are formed. These points subsequently become the points that then explode and give rise to New Universes. And so on endlessly.

Answer

Allow me, dear public, to take part in your community in discussing the pressing problems of the universe. I'm glad I came across this site and made sure that I'm not the only one stewing in my own juice on this topic. I am most impressed by a-b, strelijrili, Boom - as one of the classics said, “comrades, you are on the right path.” In my opinion, the hypothesis of the “Big Bang” and the expansion of the Universe (this cannot even be called a theory) is untenable and is confidently turning into a scientific religion of the 3rd millennium. The inconsistency of the expansion of the Universe and, as a consequence, “BV” is that the fact of the red shift in the spectra of observed galaxies is explained by the Doppler effect, the question arises on what basis? It turns out there is no reason, there is no evidence base. Conclusions from solving equations cannot be facts until they are confirmed by observations, i.e. turned into facts. The expansion hypothesis immediately runs into its paradox: observing distant galaxies, E. Hubble established the isotropy of the red shift, i.e. its independence from the direction of observation, interpreting the c.s. The Doppler effect results in galaxies moving away from the observer, so the observer is at a “singular” point, the point of the “Big Bang”. And since we, being on Earth in the Solar System of the Milky Way Galaxy and are ordinary participants in this process, could be at any other point in the Universe, it turns out that the singular point is located in the entire Universe. This is already beyond common sense. Is it really that difficult?
It is necessary to return to the nature of the fact of red shift and give a reasonable explanation of the physics of this phenomenon. And there may be options here.
I didn’t want to insert myself into the discussion, but... something struck a chord - someone picked up on philosophy, and so... here it is:
1. There is a Big Bang! Just like the small one. The BV sequences proposed today are extremely unfounded. Not from the side of mathematics, which is only a tool for studying Reality and “draws” only its Image. And has the right to generate only the Image, and not the Reality itself. Not from philosophy, which has been pushed into the closet of science. She was offended and now chuckles, watching from there how they are trying to give birth to something without her. Yes, only miscarriages happen - without a midwife. And I'll watch until I can stand it. Now - if you add up all the comments and mix them up - this is exactly what the BV theory turns out to be. And everything in it - even the speed of gravitational influence is already there. Well, but of course - there is a graviton, therefore...
2. Take into account the postulate - the cosmic microwave background radiation has nothing to do with the BW itself. It refers... to another explosion - that, citizens, is philosophy. And there is no need to argue - with philosophy. Still, the eldest - both in rank, and in experience, and in status.
3. You should never mistake what is apparent for the real. Although behind every Appearance, there is always a Ghost of the Real. In holography, too, at first there is a natural object, and in any movie - but of course. But on the screen there is only the Image. Look for the meaning of BV! If you get tired, then “paws” up and towards philosophy. She is not harmful and not vindictive - she will show him. Even tomorrow! But “paws” are a must - well, there must be compensation, at least moral. And then - you yourself. There is still a lot of stuff - enough for everyone - to rake through.
4. True, some things will have to be cleaned. OTO, for example. The “frock coat” was dusty, and moths had chewed it in places. Artifact? - Yes, no one is against it. But nothing more. Otherwise, the foundation of science has already begun to resemble a boutique - “flavors” - wholesale and retail, gluons from imported manufacturers, even orders for bosons - now, they say, they should receive them.
5. No, citizens - Nature is economical. And as a member of the parliament of a power that is not very friendly to us once said, “he does not luxury with unnecessary reasons.” And how many elementary “reasons” are there already? So - our “answer to Chamberlain” - philosophy notes that their number is innumerable and this is precisely where Nature saves. (Physicists, of course, cannot understand this, but can they remember?) Nature is not trade! There, of course, not a single boutique can cope with so many of them, even if it explodes.
Everything will repeat itself again from the beginning. As one of the commentators rightly noted, this is dialectics. And, as you know, it is part of philosophy... hm. (Please do not confuse it with mathematics - oh, this mathematics.

Answer

There was a Big Bang, but not in the form in which you imagine it. According to the M-theory, in which our world, which is represented as a brane to connect fundamental interactions, was turned inside out during the Big Bang. In order not to go into details, I will say that the BV was at every point in space simultaneously, and the process itself took place from within the microworld.

Answer

About the Big Bang (BB), in my opinion there was no BB at all, just particles of the beginning Proto Particles without mass and charge at the beginning scattered creating sub-space, there were two of them, a cross and a zero, to say there were a lot of them means to say nothing. And there was a center from where they were born, and from the center came waves of quantization. The particle itself is something, and a portion of them is already tangible. In the end, hydrogen and other elements appear. Matter and gravity appeared and movement appeared, space and time appeared, time directly for matter. And at each point of accumulation of elements there occurred its own Big, that is, Small Explosion, the birth of stars, galaxies, etc., etc. The crosses and zeros themselves exist in the form of a kind of filter of a lattice cell, matter moving through them, the biocell changes, getting old. The biocell, passing through the time filter, seems to count down 1.2.3.4.5. etc. and time counts X.0.X.0.X. or 0.1.0.1.0.1.as you wish. With a large compression of gravity, this is like waves of quantization for them and they are portioned, a shadow of mass appears. And time in such areas of space flows differently. It is confused and compressed. TIME is nothing more than movement in space saturated with proto-particles, i.e. sitting or standing in one place, you somehow move due to the rotation of the earth around the axes of the earth, the sun, the Galaxy, etc. It is a mistake to think that there is no time for a stone or meteorite because they do not change over time, they do not age, the stone lies to itself on the shore and the meteorite flies in black silence forever. After all, sooner or later the meteorite will hit something, but you pick up the stone and throw it into the water, or it will fall into the stone crusher, or the meteorite will not meet the stone either. So each particle has its own destiny, if you like. And in general, there will be no collapse of any kind, atheists will not wait. In the future, the universe will cool down. Hydrogen in the stars will burn out, Egyptian darkness will come, yes, but! Tic Tac Toe will not disappear anywhere because in our opinion they don’t exist anyway. Quantization will just begin again. The birth of a new Hydrogen. A new Universe, it looks like it will be even larger because the remnants of the previous Universe will also take over. I just thought about this yesterday, and posted more raw, chaotic fabrications.

Answer

How about this theory? Photographs of the universe and the brain are similar in many ways. What if the Universe is someone’s brain, on a small particle of which we live. Then the Big Bang is his origin or birth, the Expansion of the Universe is the growth of his body, when the growth stops, the expansion of the Universe will stop, and when he begins to grow old, the Universe will begin to shrink, when he dies, the Universe will return to the point from which it began.
In the same way, in our brain, on some neuron or its satellite, there may be the same life as on planet Earth.

Answer

Sometimes de Broglie waves are interpreted as probability waves, but probability is purely mathematical concept and has nothing to do with diffraction and interference. Now that it has become generally accepted that vacuum is one of the forms of matter that represents the state of the quantum field with the lowest energy, there is no need for such idealistic interpretations. Only real waves in a medium can create diffraction and interference, which also applies to de Broglie waves. At the same time, there are no waves without energy, since any waves are propagating oscillations that represent the pumping of one type of energy into another in the medium itself and vice versa. With such a physical process, there is always a loss of wave energy (energy dissipation), which turns into internal energy environment. The propagation of waves in a physical vacuum is no exception, since vacuum is not a void; in it, as in any medium, “thermal” fluctuations occur, which are called zero-point oscillations electromagnetic field. De Broglie waves (kinetic energy waves), just like any waves, lose energy over time, which turns into the internal energy of the vacuum (the energy of vacuum fluctuations), which is observed as the braking of bodies - the “Pioneer anomaly” effect.
A unique formula for the dissipation (loss) of kinetic energy during one period of oscillation of the de Broglie wave is derived for all bodies and particles, including photons: W=Hhс/v, where H is the Hubble constant 2.4E-18 1/s, h is the Planck constant, c - speed of light, v - particle speed. For example, if a particle (body) weighing 1 gram (m = 0.001 kg) flies at a speed of 10000 m/s for 100 years (t = 3155760000 sec), then the de Broglie wave will make 4.76E47 oscillations (tmv^2/h) , accordingly, the dissipation of kinetic energy will be tmv^2/h x hH(s/v) = Hсvtm = 22.7 J. In this case, the speed will decrease to 9997.7 m/s, and the “red shift” of the de Broglie wave will be Z = (10000 m/s - 9997.7 m/s) / 10000 m/s = 0.00023. Photons are calculated in a similar way, but you just need to remember that the loss of energy does not lead to a change in speed. The formula can be considered accurate, since only one oscillation period is calculated. Now, using the Hubble constant, using a single formula, it is possible to calculate not only the reddening of photons, but also the deceleration of spacecraft - the “Pioneer anomaly” effect. In this case, the calculations completely coincide with the experimental data.
And everything changes!!! The expansion of galaxies is slowing down with an acceleration of 8.9212 per 10"-14 m/sec"2. Moreover, the “inflationary stage” turns into a “period of abnormal slowdown”!!!
And the 13-billion-year-old objects at the time of the observed events were 13 billion light years from the current location of the Earth.
So, taking into account the progressive deceleration and remoteness of the observed objects, the BV occurred 50 billion years ago, but only 14 billion years ago the formation of stars and galaxies began.

Answer

But there is no expansion of the Universe, it is practically static, and on the contrary, the galaxies are moving closer together, otherwise so many closely located or already colliding galaxies would not have been observed.
Unfortunately, Hubble made a premature conclusion about the recession of galaxies. There is no scattering, red shift does not indicate the removal of objects, but a change in their properties during the time the light from them reaches us through such vast distances. Those. We do not see the real picture due to the finite speed of light.
Personally, I believe that the Universe is infinite and eternal.

Answer

In a big bang all the elements would be formed periodic table Dm.Mnd. The conditions were more than suitable, both pressure and temperature, but for some reason this did not happen. But something completely opposite happened - the entire universe was filled only with hydrogen atoms that had not been subjected to any (absolutely any) influences. Only then did this primary matter interact and fill the universe with light, heat and heavier elements. This means that either the explosion was cold and without pressure, or... what is called the boundary (membrane) of the big bang is a white hole that still generates cold hydrogen inside itself during expansion. And during expansion, it is precisely the cooling process that occurs, as far as I remember. This, by the way, explains the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Answer

There is one main problem with this theory: no one can explain why it exploded? After all, according to the theory of relativity, time does not exist at the singularity point. If time does not exist, then no changes can occur. According to the theory of relativity, any singularity point is ABSOLUTELY static. However, if we abandon the convenient mathematical method of connecting space and time into a single continuum and return to a real understanding of time, then everything falls into place. Then the theory “does not interfere” with real processes occurring at the point of singularity.
The Big Bang and the accelerating removal of galaxies are the result of the interaction of energy (most of which is still in the form of mass) and vacuum in space. Energy and vacuum simply penetrate each other (mix). Time is simply the number of periods of change in the reference cyclic system, relative to which the time between the states of the measured system is measured and is in no way connected with space. Because The dimensions of space are quite large and the vacuum initially occupied almost all of the space, and the energy of its microscopic part - the process of mixing or interpenetration of energy and vacuum occurs with acceleration. Energy gradually turns from a rather dense state (type) - mass into much less dense types - electromagnetic and kinetic, which mix more evenly with the vacuum in space. Any closed system (which is the Universe, since the law of conservation of energy is observed in it) always strives to move to a static, balanced state of its constituent components. For the Universe, this is a state when all the energy will be uniformly “mixed” with the vacuum throughout space. By the way, the space of the Universe is finite and closed. Infinity was invented by mathematicians, which they themselves constantly struggle with. IN real life there are big ones, very big ones, giant ones, etc. quantities. However, by changing the scale of their measurement (the standard against which the measurement is performed) you can always get a very specific number.

Answer

Write a comment

According to this theory, the Universe appeared in the form of a hot clump of superdense matter, after which it began to expand and cool. At the very first stage of evolution, the Universe was in a superdense state and was a -gluon plasma. If protons and neutrons collided and formed heavier nuclei, their lifetime was negligible. The next time they collided with any fast particle, they immediately disintegrated into elementary components.

About 1 billion years ago, the formation of galaxies began, at which point the Universe began to vaguely resemble what we can see now. 300 thousand years after the Big Bang, it cooled so much that electrons began to be firmly held by nuclei, resulting in stable atoms that did not decay immediately after colliding with another nucleus.

Particle formation

The formation of particles began as a result of the expansion of the Universe. Its further cooling led to the formation of helium nuclei, which occurred as a result of primary nucleosynthesis. From the moment of the Big Bang, about three minutes had to pass before the Universe cooled down, and the collision energy decreased so much that the particles began to form stable nuclei. In the first three minutes, the Universe was a hot sea of elementary particles.

The primary formation of nuclei did not last long; after the first three minutes, the particles moved away from each other so that collisions between them became extremely rare. During this short period of primary nucleosynthesis, deuterium appeared, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, the nucleus of which contains one proton and one. Simultaneously with deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and a small amount of lithium-7 were formed. Increasingly heavier elements appeared during the formation of stars.

After the birth of the Universe

Approximately one hundred thousandth of a second after the beginning of the Universe, quarks combined into elementary particles. From that moment on, the Universe became a cooling sea of elementary particles. Following this, a process began that is called the great unification of fundamental forces. At that time, there were energies in the Universe corresponding to the maximum energies that can be obtained in modern accelerators. Then a spasmodic inflationary expansion began, and at the same time the antiparticles disappeared.

The Big Bang theory is now considered as certain as the Copernican system. However, until the second half of the 1960s, it did not enjoy universal recognition, and not only because many scientists initially denied the very idea of the expansion of the Universe. It’s just that this model had a serious competitor.

In 11 years, cosmology as a science will be able to celebrate its centenary. In 1917, Albert Einstein realized that the equations of general relativity made it possible to calculate physically reasonable models of the universe. Classical mechanics and the theory of gravity do not provide such a possibility: Newton tried to build a general picture of the Universe, but in all scenarios it inevitably collapsed under the influence of gravity.

Einstein absolutely did not believe in the beginning and end of the universe and therefore came up with an eternally existing static Universe. To do this, he needed to introduce a special component into his equations, which created “anti-gravity” and thereby formally ensured the stability of the world order. Einstein considered this addition (the so-called cosmological term) inelegant, ugly, but still necessary (the author of General Relativity did not trust his aesthetic instinct in vain - it was later proven that the static model is unstable and therefore physically meaningless).

Einstein's model quickly had competitors - the model of a world without matter by Willem de Sitter (1917), closed and open non-stationary models of Alexander Friedman (1922 and 1924). But these beautiful constructions for the time being remained purely mathematical exercises. In order to talk about the Universe as a whole not speculatively, one must at least know that there are worlds located outside the star cluster in which the Solar system and we are located along with it. And cosmology received the opportunity to seek support in astronomical observations only after Edwin Hubble published his work “Extragalactic Nebulae” in 1926, where galaxies were first described as independent star systems not part of the Milky Way.

The creation of the Universe did not take six days - the bulk of the work was completed much earlier. Here is his approximate chronology.

0. Big Bang.

Planck era: 10-43 s. Planck moment. Gravitational interaction is separated. The size of the Universe at this moment is 10-35 m (the so-called Planck length). 10-37 s. Inflationary expansion of the Universe.

The era of great unification: 10-35 pp. Separation of strong and electroweak interactions. 10-12 s. Branch weak interaction and the final separation of interactions.

Hadron era: 10-6 s. Annihilation of proton-antiproton pairs. Quarks and antiquarks cease to exist as free particles.

Lepton era: 1 s. Hydrogen nuclei are formed. Nuclear fusion of helium begins.

Era of Nucleosynthesis: 3 minutes. The universe is made up of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, as well as trace amounts of heavy elements.

Radiation era: 1 week. By this time the radiation is thermalized.

The era of matter: 10 thousand years. Matter begins to dominate the Universe. 380 thousand years. Hydrogen nuclei and electrons recombine, the Universe becomes transparent to radiation.

Stellar era: 1 billion years. Formation of the first galaxies. 1 billion years. Formation of the first stars. 9 billion years. Formation of the Solar System. 13.5 billion years. This moment

Retreat of galaxies

This chance was quickly realized. The Belgian Georges Henri Lemaître, who studied astrophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, heard rumors that Hubble was close to a revolutionary discovery - proof of the recession of galaxies. In 1927, having returned to his homeland, Lemaitre published (and in subsequent years refined and developed) a model of the Universe formed as a result of an explosion of superdense matter expanding in accordance with the equations of general relativity. He mathematically proved that their radial speed should be proportional to their distance from the Solar System. A year later, Princeton mathematician Howard Robertson independently came to the same conclusion.

And in 1929, Hubble obtained the same dependence experimentally by processing data on the distance of twenty-four galaxies and the redshift of the light coming from them. Five years later, Hubble and his observing assistant Milton Humason provided further evidence of this conclusion by monitoring very faint galaxies that lie on the extreme periphery of observable space. The predictions of Lemaître and Robertson were completely justified, and the cosmology of the nonstationary Universe seemed to have won a decisive victory.

Unrecognized model

But still, astronomers were in no hurry to shout hurray. Lemaitre's model made it possible to estimate the duration of the existence of the Universe - for this it was only necessary to find out the numerical value of the constant included in the Hubble equation. Attempts to determine this constant led to the conclusion that our world arose only about two billion years ago. However, geologists argued that the Earth was much older, and astronomers had no doubt that space was full of stars of a more respectable age. Astrophysicists also had their own reasons for mistrust: the percentage composition of the distribution of chemical elements in the Universe based on the Lemetre model (this work was first done by Chandrasekhar in 1942) clearly contradicted reality.

The skepticism of specialists was also explained by philosophical reasons. The astronomical community has just gotten used to the idea that an endless world populated by many galaxies has opened up before it. It seemed natural that in its fundamentals it does not change and exists forever. And now scientists were asked to admit that the Cosmos is finite not only in space, but also in time (moreover, this idea suggested divine creation). Therefore, Lemetrov's theory remained out of work for a long time. However, an even worse fate befell the model of an eternally oscillating Universe, proposed in 1934 by Richard Tolman. It did not receive serious recognition at all, and in the late 1960s it was rejected as mathematically incorrect.

Stocks of the "bloat world" did not rise much after George Gamow and his graduate student Ralph Alpher built a new, more realistic version of this model in early 1948. Lemaître's universe was born from the explosion of a hypothetical "primary atom", which clearly went beyond the ideas of physicists about the nature of the microcosm.

Gamow's theory for a long time was called quite academically - “dynamic evolving model”. And the phrase “Big Bang,” oddly enough, was not coined by the author of this theory or even its supporter. In 1949, BBC science producer Peter Laslett invited Fred Hoyle to prepare a series of five lectures. Hoyle shone in front of the microphone and instantly gained a huge following among radio listeners. In his last speech, he talked about cosmology, talked about his model, and in the end decided to settle scores with his competitors. Their theory, Hoyle said, "is based on the assumption that the universe came into existence in a single powerful explosion and therefore exists only for a finite time... This Big Bang idea seems to me completely unsatisfactory." This is how this expression first appeared. It can also be translated into Russian as “Big Cotton,” which probably more accurately corresponds to the derogatory meaning that Hoyle put into it. A year later, his lectures were published, and the new term went around the world

George Gamow and Ralph Alpher proposed that the Universe, shortly after its birth, consisted of the well-known particles - electrons, photons, protons and neutrons. In their model, this mixture was heated to high temperatures and tightly packed into a tiny (compared to today's) volume. Gamow and Alfer showed that thermonuclear fusion occurs in this super-hot soup, resulting in the formation of the main isotope of helium, helium-4. They even calculated that after just a few minutes, matter goes into an equilibrium state, in which for every helium nucleus there are about a dozen hydrogen nuclei.

This proportion was quite consistent with astronomical data on the distribution of light elements in the Universe. These findings were soon confirmed by Enrico Fermi and Anthony Turkiewicz. They also established that thermonuclear fusion processes must produce some light isotope helium-3 and heavy isotopes of hydrogen - deuterium and tritium. Their estimates of the concentrations of these three isotopes in outer space also coincided with the observations of astronomers.

Problem theory

But practicing astronomers continued to doubt. Firstly, there remained the problem of the age of the Universe, which Gamow’s theory could not solve. It was possible to increase the duration of the world's existence only by proving that galaxies fly away much more slowly than is commonly believed (eventually this happened, and to a large extent with the help of observations made at the Palomar Observatory, but already in the 1960s).

Secondly, Gam's theory stalled on nucleosynthesis. Having explained the emergence of helium, deuterium and tritium, she was unable to advance to heavier nuclei. The helium-4 nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. Everything would be fine if it could attach a proton and turn into a lithium nucleus. However, nuclei of three protons and two neutrons or two protons and three neutrons (lithium-5 and helium-5) are extremely unstable and decay instantly. Therefore, only stable lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons) exists in nature. For its formation by direct fusion, it is necessary that both a proton and a neutron simultaneously merge with a helium nucleus, and the probability of this event is extremely low. True, under conditions of high matter density in the first minutes of the existence of the Universe, such reactions still occasionally occur, which explains the very low concentration of the oldest lithium atoms.

Nature prepared another unpleasant surprise for Gamow. The path to heavy elements could also lie through the fusion of two helium nuclei, but this combination is also unviable. There was no way to explain the origin of elements heavier than lithium, and in the late 1940s this obstacle seemed insurmountable (we now know that they are born only in stable and exploding stars and in cosmic rays, but Gamow did not know this).

However, the model of the “hot” birth of the Universe still had one more card in reserve, which over time became a trump card. In 1948, Alpher and another of Gamow's assistants, Robert Herman, came to the conclusion that space was permeated by microwave radiation that arose 300 thousand years after the primary cataclysm. However, radio astronomers showed no interest in this forecast, and it remained on paper.

The emergence of a competitor

Gamow and Alpher invented their “hot” model in the US capital, where Gamow taught at George Washington University since 1934. Many of their productive ideas arose over moderate drinks at the Little Vienna bar on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. And if this path to the construction of a cosmological theory seems exotic to some, what can be said about the alternative that was born under the influence of a horror film?

Fred Hoyle: The Universe is expanding forever! Matter is born spontaneously in emptiness at such a speed that the average density of the Universe remains constant

In good old England, at the University of Cambridge, three remarkable scientists settled after the war - Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold. Before that, they worked in the radar laboratory of the British Navy, where they became friends. Hoyle, an Englishman from Yorkshire, was not yet 30 at the time of Germany’s surrender, and his friends, natives of Vienna, were 25. Hoyle and his friends in their “radar era” devoted themselves to conversations about the problems of the universe and cosmology. All three disliked Lemaitre's model, but they took Hubble's law seriously, and therefore rejected the concept of a static Universe. After the war they gathered at Bondi's and discussed the same problems. The inspiration came after watching the horror movie “Dead in the Night”. Its main character, Walter Craig, found himself in a closed loop of events, which at the end of the film returned him to the same situation with which it all began. A film with such a plot can last forever (like a poem about a priest and his dog). It was then that Gold realized that the Universe could turn out to be an analogue of this plot - simultaneously changing and unchanging!

Friends thought the idea was crazy, but then decided that there was something in it. Together they turned the hypothesis into a coherent theory. Bondi and Gold gave a general presentation of it, and Hoyle, in a separate publication, “A New Model of the Expanding Universe,” gave mathematical calculations. He took the general relativity equations as a basis, but supplemented them with a hypothetical “Creation field” (C-field), which has negative pressure. Something of this kind appeared 30 years later in inflationary cosmological theories, which Hoyle emphasized with considerable pleasure.

Steady State Cosmology

The new model entered the history of science as Steady State Cosmology. She proclaimed complete equality not only of all points of space (this was the case with Einstein), but also of all moments of time: the Universe is expanding, but has no beginning, since it always remains similar to itself. Gold called this statement the perfect cosmological principle. The geometry of space in this model remains flat, just like Newton's. Galaxies scatter, but in space “out of nothing” (more precisely, from the field of creation) new matter appears, and with such intensity that the average density of matter remains unchanged. In accordance with the then-known value of the Hubble constant, Hoyle calculated that only one particle is born in every cubic meter of space over the course of 300 thousand years. The question immediately disappeared as to why the instruments do not register these processes - they are too slow by human standards. The new cosmology did not experience any difficulties associated with the age of the Universe; this problem simply did not exist for it.

To confirm his model, Hoyle proposed using data on the spatial distribution of young galaxies. If the C-field uniformly creates matter everywhere, then the average density of such galaxies should be approximately the same. On the contrary, the model of the cataclysmic birth of the Universe predicts that at the far edge of observable space this density is maximum - from there the light of star clusters that have not yet had time to grow old comes to us. Hoyle's criterion was completely reasonable, but at that time it was not possible to test it due to the lack of sufficiently powerful telescopes.

Triumph and defeat

For more than 15 years, rival theories fought almost as equals. True, in 1955, the English radio astronomer and future Nobel laureate Martin Ryle discovered that the density of weak radio sources on the cosmic periphery is greater than near our galaxy. He stated that these results are inconsistent with Steady State Cosmology. However, a few years later his colleagues concluded that Ryle had exaggerated the differences in densities, so the question remained open.

But in his twentieth year, Hoyle's cosmology began to quickly fade. By this time, astronomers had proven that the Hubble constant was an order of magnitude smaller than previous estimates, which made it possible to raise the estimated age of the Universe to 10-20 billion years (the modern estimate is 13.7 billion years ± 200 million). And in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected the radiation predicted by Alpher and Herman and thereby immediately attracted a great many supporters to the Big Bang theory.

For forty years now, this theory has been considered the standard and generally accepted cosmological model. She also has competitors different ages, but no one takes Hoyle’s theory seriously anymore. Even the discovery (in 1999) of accelerating the expansion of galaxies, the possibility of which both Hoyle and Bondi and Gold wrote about, did not help her. Her time is irrevocably gone.

News announcements

« For me, life is too short to worry about things beyond my control and maybe even impossible. So they ask: “What if the Earth is swallowed up black hole, or there will be a distortion of space-time - this is a reason for concern? My answer is no, because we will only know about it when it reaches our... our place in space-time. We get jolts when nature decides the time is right: be it the speed of sound, the speed of light, the speed of electrical impulses - we will always be victims of the time delay between the information around us and our ability to receive it»

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Time is an amazing thing. It gives us the past, present and future. Because of time, everything around us has an age. For example, the age of the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. About the same number of years ago, the closest star to us, the Sun, also caught fire. If this figure seems mind-blowing to you, do not forget that long before the formation of our native Solar system, the galaxy in which we live, the Milky Way, appeared. According to the latest estimates by scientists, the age of the Milky Way is 13.6 billion years. But we know for sure that galaxies also have a past, and space is simply huge, so we need to look even further. And this reflection inevitably leads us to the moment when it all began - the Big Bang.

Einstein and the Universe

People's perception of the world around them has always been ambiguous. Some people still don’t believe in the existence of a huge Universe around us, others believe the Earth is flat. Before the scientific breakthrough in the 20th century, there were only a couple of versions of the origin of the world. Adherents of religious views believed in divine intervention and the creation of a higher mind; those who disagreed were sometimes burned. There was another side that believed that the world around us, as well as the Universe, is infinite.

For many people, everything changed when Albert Einstein gave a speech in 1917, presenting his life's work - the General Theory of Relativity - to the general public. The genius of the 20th century connected space-time with the matter of space using the equations he derived. As a result, it turned out that the Universe is finite, unchanged in size and has the shape of a regular cylinder.

At the dawn of the technical breakthrough, no one could refute Einstein’s words, since his theory was too complex even for the greatest minds of the early 20th century. Since there were no other options, the model of a cylindrical stationary Universe was accepted by the scientific community as the generally accepted model of our world. However, she was able to live only a few years. After physicists were able to recover from Einstein’s scientific works and began to take them apart, in parallel with this, adjustments began to be made to the theory of relativity and specific calculations of the German scientist.

In 1922, the journal Izvestia Physics suddenly published an article by Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman, in which he stated that Einstein was mistaken and our Universe is not stationary. Friedman explains that the German scientist’s statements regarding the invariability of the radius of curvature of space are misconceptions; in fact, the radius changes with respect to time. Accordingly, the Universe must expand.

Moreover, here Friedman gave his assumptions regarding exactly how the Universe could expand. There were three models in total: a pulsating Universe (the assumption that the Universe expands and contracts with a certain periodicity in time); the expanding Universe from mass and the third model – expansion from a point. Since at that time there were no other models, with the exception of divine intervention, physicists quickly took note of all three Friedman models and began to develop them in their own direction.

The work of the Russian mathematician slightly stung Einstein, and in the same year he published an article in which he expressed his comments on Friedmann’s work. In it, a German physicist tries to prove the correctness of his calculations. This turned out to be rather unconvincing, and when the pain from the blow to self-esteem subsided a little, Einstein published another note in the journal Izvestia Physics, in which he said:

« In a previous post I criticized the above work. However, my criticism, as I was convinced from Friedman's letter, communicated to me by Mr. Krutkov, was based on an error in the calculations. I think Friedman's results are correct and shed new light».

Scientists had to admit that all three Friedman models of the appearance and existence of our Universe are absolutely logical and have the right to life. All three are explained with clear mathematical calculations and leave no questions asked. Except for one thing: why would the Universe begin to expand?

The theory that changed the world

The statements of Einstein and Friedman led the scientific community to seriously question the origin of the Universe. Thanks to general theory relativity had a chance to shed light on our past, and physicists did not fail to take advantage of it. One of the scientists who tried to present a model of our world was astrophysicist Georges Lemaitre from Belgium. It is noteworthy that Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, but at the same time he studied mathematics and physics, which is real nonsense for our time.

Georges Lemaitre became interested in Einstein's equations, and with their help he was able to calculate that our Universe appeared as a result of the decay of a certain superparticle, which was outside of space and time before the fission began, which can actually be considered an explosion. At the same time, physicists note that Lemaitre was the first to shed light on the birth of the Universe.

The theory of an exploded superatom suited not only scientists, but also the clergy, who were very dissatisfied with modern scientific discoveries, under which we had to come up with new interpretations of the Bible. The Big Bang did not come into significant conflict with religion; perhaps this was influenced by the upbringing of Lemaître himself, who devoted his life not only to science, but also to serving God.

On November 22, 1951, Pope Pius XII made a statement that the Big Bang Theory does not conflict with the Bible and Catholic dogma about the origin of the world. Orthodox clergy also stated that they view this theory positively. This theory was also relatively neutrally received by adherents of other religions, some of them even said that there were references to the Big Bang in their sacred scriptures.

However, despite the fact that the Big Bang Theory is currently the generally accepted cosmological model, it has led many scientists into a dead end. On the one hand, the explosion of a superparticle fit perfectly into the logic of modern physics, but on the other hand, as a result of such an explosion, basically only heavy metals, in particular iron. But, as it turned out, the Universe consists mainly of ultra-light gases - hydrogen and helium. Something didn’t add up, so physicists continued to work on the theory of the origin of the world.

Initially, the term “Big Bang” did not exist. Lemaître and other physicists offered only the boring name “dynamical evolutionary model,” which caused yawns among students. Only in 1949, at one of his lectures, the British astronomer and cosmologist Freud Hoyle said:

“This theory is based on the assumption that the Universe arose in the process of a single powerful explosion and therefore exists only for a finite time... This idea of a Big Bang seems to me completely unsatisfactory.”.

Since then, the term has become widely used in scientific circles and the general public's understanding of the structure of the Universe.

Where did hydrogen and helium come from?

The presence of light elements has baffled physicists, and many adherents of the Big Bang Theory set out to find their source. For many years they were not able to achieve much success, until in 1948 the brilliant scientist Georgiy Gamow from Leningrad was finally able to establish this source. Gamow was one of Friedman's students, so he gladly took on the development of his teacher's theory.

Gamow tried to imagine the life of the Universe in the opposite direction, and rewinded time to the moment when it just began to expand. By that time, as we know, humanity had already discovered the principles of thermonuclear fusion, so the Friedmann-Lemaitre theory gained the right to life. When the Universe was very small, it was very hot, according to the laws of physics.

According to Gamow, just a second after the Big Bang, the space of the new Universe was filled with elementary particles that began to interact with each other. As a result of this, thermonuclear fusion of helium began, which the Odessa mathematician Ralph Asher Alfer was able to calculate for Gamow. According to Alfer's calculations, just five minutes after the Big Bang the Universe was filled with helium so much that even staunch opponents of the Big Bang Theory will have to come to terms with and accept this model as the main one in cosmology. With his research, Gamow not only opened up new ways to study the Universe, but also resurrected Lemaître's theory.

Despite the stereotypes about scientists, they cannot be denied romanticism. Gamow published his research on the theory of the Superhot Universe at the time of the Big Bang in 1948 in his work “The Origin of Chemical Elements.” As fellow assistants, he indicated not only Ralph Asher Alpher, but also Hans Bethe, an American astrophysicist and future Nobel Prize laureate. On the cover of the book it turned out: Alpher, Bethe, Gamow. Doesn't remind you of anything?

However, despite the fact that Lemaître’s works received a second life, physicists still could not answer the most exciting question: what happened before the Big Bang?

Attempts to resurrect Einstein's stationary Universe

Not all scientists agreed with the Friedmann-Lemaitre theory, but despite this, they had to teach the generally accepted cosmological model at universities. For example, astronomer Fred Hoyle, who himself coined the term “Big Bang,” actually believed that there was no explosion, and devoted his life to trying to prove it.
Hoyle has become one of those scientists who in our time offer an alternative view of modern world. Most physicists are rather cool about the statements of such people, but this does not bother them at all.

To put Gamow and his rationale for the Big Bang Theory to shame, Hoyle and like-minded people decided to develop their own model of the origin of the Universe. As a basis, they took Einstein's proposals that the Universe is stationary, and made some adjustments suggesting alternative reasons for the expansion of the Universe.

If adherents of the Lemaitre-Friedmann theory believed that the Universe arose from one single superdense point with an infinitesimal radius, then Hoyle suggested that matter is constantly being formed from points that are located between galaxies moving away from each other. In the first case, the entire Universe, with its infinite number of stars and galaxies, was formed from one particle. In another case, one point provides enough substance to produce just one galaxy.

The failure of Hoyle's theory is that he was never able to explain where the very substance that continues to create galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars comes from. In fact, Fred Hoyle suggested that everyone believe that the structure of the universe appears out of nowhere. Despite the fact that many physicists tried to find a solution to Hoyle's theory, no one succeeded in doing this, and after a couple of decades this proposal lost its relevance.

Unanswered Questions

In fact, the Big Bang Theory does not give us answers to many questions either. For example, the mind of an ordinary person cannot comprehend the fact that all the matter around us was once compressed into one singularity point, which is much smaller in size than an atom. And how did it happen that this superparticle heated up to such an extent that an explosion reaction started.

Until the mid-20th century, the theory of the expanding Universe was never confirmed experimentally, and therefore was not widespread in educational institutions. Everything changed in 1964, when two American astrophysicists - Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson - decided to study radio signals from the starry sky.

While scanning the radiation of celestial bodies, namely Cassiopeia A (one of the most powerful sources of radio emission in the starry sky), scientists noticed some extraneous noise that constantly interfered with recording accurate radiation data. Wherever they pointed their antenna, no matter what time of day they began their research, this characteristic and constant noise always followed them. Angered to a certain extent, Penzias and Wilson decided to study the source of this noise and unexpectedly made a discovery that changed the world. They discovered relict radiation, which is an echo of that same Big Bang.

Our Universe is cooling much more slowly than a cup of hot tea, and the CMB suggests that the matter around us was once very hot, and is now cooling as the Universe expands. Thus, all theories related to the cold Universe were left behind, and the Big Bang Theory was finally adopted.

In his writings, Georgy Gamow assumed that in space it would be possible to detect photons that have existed since the Big Bang; all that is needed is more advanced technical equipment. The relict radiation confirmed all his assumptions regarding the existence of the Universe. It was also possible to establish that the age of our Universe is approximately 14 billion years.

As always, with the practical proof of a theory, many alternative opinions immediately arise. Some physicists ridiculed the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation as evidence of the Big Bang. Even though Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for their historic discovery, there were many who disagreed with their research.

The main arguments in favor of the failure of the expansion of the Universe were inconsistencies and logical errors. For example, the explosion equally accelerated all the galaxies in space, but instead of moving away from us, the Andromeda Galaxy is slowly but surely approaching the Milky Way. Scientists suggest that these two galaxies will collide with each other in just 4 billion years. Unfortunately, humanity is still too young to answer this and other questions.

Equilibrium theory

Nowadays physicists suggest various models existence of the Universe. Many of them cannot stand even simple criticism, while others receive the right to life.

At the end of the 20th century, American astrophysicist Edward Tryon, together with his Australian colleague Warren Kerry, proposed a fundamentally new model of the Universe, and did so independently of each other. Scientists based their research on the assumption that everything in the Universe is balanced. Mass destroys energy and vice versa. This principle began to be called the principle of the Zero Universe. Within this Universe, new matter arises at singularity points between galaxies, where the attraction and repulsion of matter are balanced.

The theory of the Zero Universe was not torn to smithereens because after some time scientists were able to discover the existence of dark matter - a mysterious substance of which almost 27% of our Universe consists. Another 68.3% of the Universe is made up of the more mysterious and mysterious dark energy.

It is the gravitational effects of dark energy that are credited with accelerating the expansion of the Universe. By the way, the presence of dark energy in space was predicted by Einstein himself, who saw that something in his equations did not converge; the Universe could not be made stationary. Therefore, he introduced the cosmological constant into the equations - the Lambda term, for which he then repeatedly blamed himself and hated himself.

It so happened that the theoretically empty space in the Universe is nevertheless filled with some special field, which puts Einstein’s model into action. In a sober mind and according to the logic of those times, the existence of such a field was simply impossible, but in fact the German physicist simply did not know how to describe dark energy.

***
We may never know how and from what our Universe arose. It will be even more difficult to establish what happened before its existence. People tend to fear what they cannot explain, so it is possible that until the end of time, humanity will also believe in divine influence in the creation of the world around us.

A message about the big bang. Theories of the origin of the Universe

What's wrong with the Big Bang Theory

The Universe is like a mirage of a black hole

Big Freeze

Universe without beginning and end

Endless chaotic inflation

Cyclic theory

Universe
like a computer

Cosmic microwave background

Abundance of light elements

Particle formation

After the birth of the Universe

Einstein and the Universe

The theory that changed the world

Where did hydrogen and helium come from?

Attempts to resurrect Einstein's stationary Universe

Unanswered Questions

Equilibrium theory

Latest

You need to know this

A message about the big bang. Theories of the origin of the Universe

What's wrong with the Big Bang Theory

The Universe is like a mirage of a black hole

Big Freeze

Universe without beginning and end

Endless chaotic inflation

Cyclic theory

Universe like a computer

Cosmic microwave background

Abundance of light elements

Particle formation

After the birth of the Universe

Einstein and the Universe

The theory that changed the world

Where did hydrogen and helium come from?

Attempts to resurrect Einstein's stationary Universe

Unanswered Questions

Equilibrium theory

Latest

You need to know this

Universe
like a computer