When did the big bang theory of the universe form? big bang theory statement

Our body, food, home, planet and the universe are made up of tiny particles. What are these particles, and how do they arise in nature? How do they interact, combine into atoms, molecules, bodies, planets, stars, galaxies, and, finally, how do they disappear from existence? There are quite a few hypotheses for the formation of everything around us, from the smallest atom to the largest galaxies, but one stands out among them, which is perhaps the most basic. True, it raises more questions than well-founded answers. It's about the Big Bang theory.
First, some interesting facts related to this theory.
First. The Big Bang Theory was created by a priest.
Despite the fact that the Christian religion still adheres to such canons as the creation of everything in 7 days, the Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest who was also an astronomer. The priest's name was Georges Lemaitre. He was the first to raise the question of the origin of the observed large-scale structure of the universe.
He put forward the concept of the "Big Bang", the so-called "primitive atom", and the subsequent transformation of its fragments into stars and galaxies. In 1927, an article by J. Lemaitre "A homogeneous universe of constant mass and increasing radius, explaining the radial velocities of extragalactic nebulae" was published.
Interestingly, Einstein, who learned about this theory, said the following: "Your calculations are correct, but your knowledge of physics is terrible." Despite this, the priest continued to defend his theory, and already in 1933, Einstein gave in, publicly pointing out that the explanation of the Big Bang theory was one of the most convincing of all that he had ever heard.
Recently, Einstein's 1931 manuscript was found, in which he outlines an alternative theory to the Big Bang of the birth of the universe. This theory is almost identical to the one that Alfred Hoyle independently developed in the late 40s of the last century, not knowing about Einstein's work. Einstein in the theory of the Big Bang was not satisfied with the singular (single, single - ed.) state of matter before the explosion, so he thought about the infinitely expanding Universe. In it, matter appeared by itself in order to maintain its density, as the infinite expansion of the infinite Universe continued. Einstein believed that this process could be described using the general theory of relativity without any modifications, but in his notes he crossed out some of the calculations. The scientist found an error in his reasoning and left this theory, which would still not be confirmed by further observations.
Second. Science fiction writer Edgar Allan Poe proposed something similar in 1848. Of course, he was not a physicist, so he could not create a theory supported by calculations. Yes, at that time there was still no mathematical apparatus sufficient to create a system for calculating such a model. Instead, he created the artwork Eureka, which anticipates the discovery of "black holes" and explains Olbers' paradox. The full title of the work: "Eureka (experiment about the material and spiritual Universe)." The author himself considered this book "the greatest revelation that mankind has ever heard." (In science, Olbers' paradox is a simple argument that tells us that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the theory of the infinity of our Universe. Olbers' paradox has a second name - "dark paradox of the sky." It means that at absolutely any angle of view from Earth's line of sight will immediately end when it reaches the star, similar to how we find ourselves surrounded by a "wall" of distant trees in a very dense forest. Olbers' paradox is considered an indirect confirmation of the Big Bang model for a non-static universe). In addition, in "Eureka" E. Poe spoke about the "primitive particle", "absolutely unique, individual." The poem itself was criticized to the nines, and it was recognized as unsuccessful from an artistic point of view. However, scientists still do not understand how E. Poe was able to get ahead of science so much.
Third. The name of the theory was created by chance.
The author of the name, the English astronomer Sir Alfred Hoyle, was an opponent of this theory, he believed in the stability of the existence of the Universe and was the first to use the name of the Big Bang theory. Speaking on the radio in 1949, he criticized the theory, which did not have a short and capacious name. To "demean" the Big Bang theory, he coined the term. However, "Big Bang" is now the official and generally accepted name for the theory of the origin of the universe.
The Big Bang theory was developed by scientists A. Friedman and D. Gamow in the mid-60s of the last century, based on Einstein's general theory of relativity. According to their assumptions, once our Universe was an infinitesimal clot, superdense and hot to very high temperatures (up to billions of degrees). This unstable formation suddenly exploded. According to theoretical calculations, the formation of the Universe began 13.5 billion years ago in a very small volume of enormous density and temperature. As a result, the universe began to expand rapidly.
The explosion period in space science is called the cosmic singularity. At the moment of the explosion, the particles of matter scattered in different directions with tremendous speed. The next moment after the explosion, when the young Universe began to expand, was called the Big Bang.
Further, according to the theory, events unfolded as follows. The incandescent particles scattered in all directions had too high a temperature and could not combine into atoms. This process began much later, after a million years, when the newly formed Universe cooled to a temperature of about 40,000 C. The first chemical elements to form were hydrogen and helium. As the universe cooled, other chemical elements were formed, heavier ones. In support of this, supporters of the theory cite the characteristic fact that this process of formation of elements and atoms continues at the present time, in the depths of every star, including our sun. The temperature of the cores of stars is still very high. As the particles cooled, they formed clouds of gas and dust. Colliding, they stuck together, forming a single whole.
The main forces influencing this unification are the forces of gravity. It is thanks to the process of attracting small objects to larger ones that planets, stars and galaxies were formed. The expansion of the universe is happening now, because even now scientists say that the nearest galaxies are expanding and moving away from us.
Much later (5 billion years ago), again according to the theory of scientists, as a result of the compaction of clouds of dust and gas, our solar system was formed. The thickening of the nebula led to the formation of the Sun, smaller accumulations of dust and gas formed planets, including our Earth. A powerful gravitational field held these nascent planets, forcing them to revolve around the Sun, which constantly thickened, which means that powerful pressure arose inside the forming star, which eventually found a way out, being converted into thermal energy, and therefore into the sun's rays, which we can watch today.
With the cooling of the planet Earth, its rocks also melted, which after solidification formed the primary earth's crust.

The gases ejected from the bowels of the Earth during cooling escaped into space, but due to the force of gravity of the Earth, the heavier ones formed the atmosphere, that is, the air that allows us to breathe. So, for almost 4.5 billion years, the conditions for the emergence of life on our planet were created.
According to current data, our universe is about 13.8 billion years old. The size of the observable part of the Universe is 13.7 billion light years. The average density of its constituent substance is 10-29 g / cm 3. Weight - more than 1050 tons.
However, not all scientists agreed with the Big Bang theory, not having received answers to many questions. First of all, how could there be a Big Bang contrary to the basic law of nature - the law of conservation of energy? And also with an unthinkable temperature, contrary to the laws of thermodynamics?
According to D. Talantsev, “the concept of the existence of complete chaos and the subsequent explosion contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, according to which all natural spontaneous processes tend to increase the entropy (that is, chaos, disorder) of the system.
Evolution as a spontaneous self-complication of natural systems is completely and absolutely unambiguously forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. This law tells us that out of chaos, order can never, under any circumstances, be established by itself. Spontaneous complication of any natural system is impossible. For example, the "primordial soup" could never, under any circumstances, not for any trillions and billions of years give rise to more highly organized protein bodies, which, in turn, could never, under any circumstances, "evolve" into such a highly organized structure. , As a person.
Thus, this "generally accepted" modern point of view on the origin of the Universe is absolutely wrong, as it contradicts one of the fundamental empirically established scientific laws - the second law of thermodynamics.
Nevertheless, the Big Bang theory, supported by many scientists (A. Penzias, R. Wilson, W. De Sitter, A. Eddington, K. Wirtz, and others), continues to dominate in scientific circles. In support of their theory, they cite the following facts. So in 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the so-called redshift, or, in other words, noticed that the light of distant galaxies is somewhat redder than expected, i.e. their radiation is shifted to the red side of the spectrum.
Even earlier, it was found that when a certain body moves away from us, then its radiation is shifted to the red side of the spectrum (redshift), and when it, on the contrary, approaches us, its radiation is shifted to the violet side of the spectrum (violet shift). Thus, the redshift discovered by Hubble testified in favor of the fact that galaxies are moving away from us and from each other at great speeds, i.e., surprisingly, the Universe is currently expanding, and equally in all directions. That is, the relative position of space objects does not change, but only the distances between them change. Just as the arrangement of points on the surface of a balloon does not change, but the distances between them change when it is inflated.
But if the Universe is expanding, then the question necessarily arises: what forces impart the initial speed to the receding galaxies and provide the necessary energy. Modern science suggests that the Big Bang was the starting point and cause of the current expansion of the Universe.
Another indirect confirmation of the Big Bang hypothesis is the cosmic microwave background radiation discovered in 1965 (from lat. relictum - remnant) of the Universe. This is radiation, the remnants of which reach us from that distant time, when there were no stars or planets yet, and the substance of the Universe was represented by a homogeneous plasma, which had a colossal temperature (about 4000 degrees), enclosed in a small area with a radius of 15 million light years.
Opponents of the theory point out that the authors in their studies only speculatively describe fractions of seconds when electrons, quarks, neutrons, and protons supposedly appeared in the Universe; then minutes - when nuclei of hydrogen, helium arose; millennia and billions of years - when atoms, bodies, stars, galaxies, planets, etc. arose, without explaining on the basis of what they give such conclusions. Not to mention the questions, why and how did all this happen? In the words of B. Russell: “Many concepts seem deep only because they are unclear and confused. And whenever the concept of the Big Bang leads to a dead end, one has to introduce into it, without proof, some new “amazing” entity, such as inexplicable cosmic inflation at the early stage of the Big Bang, during which, in a small fraction of a second, the Universe suddenly expanded inexplicably quickly by many orders of magnitude. and continues to expand to this day, and for some reason with acceleration.
There are a lot of questions to which I would like to have answers. Modern astronomers and physicists are working on the search for answers. What led to the formation of the currently observable Universe, to the beginning of the explosion? Why is space three dimensions and time one? How could stationary objects - stars and galaxies - appear in the rapidly expanding Universe? What happened before the Big Bang? Why does the Universe have a cellular structure of superclusters and clusters of galaxies? And why does it expand all the time in a completely different way than it should after the explosion? After all, it is not stars and even individual galaxies that scatter, but only clusters of galaxies. While stars and galaxies, on the contrary, are somehow connected with each other and form stable structures? Moreover, clusters of galaxies, in which direction you look, scatter at approximately the same speed? And not slowing down, but accelerating? And many, many other questions to which this theory does not provide answers.
One of the most prominent physicists of our time, Stephen Hawking, remarked: “While most scientists are too busy developing new theories that describe what the universe is, they have no time to ask themselves why it is. Philosophers, on the other hand, whose job it is to ask why, cannot keep up with the development of scientific theories. But if we do discover a complete theory, then in time its basic principles will become understandable to everyone, and not just to a few specialists. And then all of us, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, will be able to take part in the discussion about why it happened that we exist and the Universe exists. And if an answer to such a question is found, it will be a complete triumph of the human mind, for then we will understand the plan of God.
Here is what famous physicists said about the Divine origin of the Universe and everything that exists on Earth.
Isaac Newton (1643 -1727)- English physicist, mathematician, astronomer. The founder of the classical theory of physics: “The wonderful arrangement of the cosmos and the harmony in it can only be explained by the fact that the cosmos was created according to the plan of the Omniscient and Omnipotent Being. This is my first and last word."
Albert Einstein (1879 -1955)- the author of the special and general theory of relativity, introduced the concept of a photon, discovered the laws of the photoelectric effect, worked on the problems of cosmology and unified field theory. According to many prominent physicists, Einstein is the most significant figure in the history of physics. The 1921 Nobel Prize winner in physics said: “My religion consists in a feeling of modest admiration for the boundless intelligence, manifesting itself in the smallest details of that picture of the world, which we are only partially able to grasp and know with our mind. This deep emotional confidence in the highest logical harmony of the structure of the Universe is my idea of ​​God.
Arthur Compton (1892 -1962) American physicist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927: “For me, Faith begins with the knowledge that the Supreme Mind created the Universe and man. It is not difficult for me to believe this, because the fact that there is a plan, and therefore Reason, is irrefutable. The order in the universe, which unfolds before our eyes, itself testifies to the truth of the greatest and sublime statement: "In the beginning - God."
And here are the words of another scientist in the field of rocket physics, Dr. Wernher von Braun:"Such an organized, precisely balanced, majestic creation as the Universe can only be the embodiment of the Divine Plan."
A very common point of view is that the existence of God cannot be proved by rational-logical methods, that His existence can only be accepted on faith as an axiom. "Blessed is he who believes" - there is such an expression. If you want - believe, if you want - do not believe - this is a personal matter for everyone. As for science, it is most often considered that its business is to study our material world, to study it by rational-empirical methods, and since God is non-material, science has nothing to do with Him - let, so to speak, religion "engage" in Him. In fact, this is just wrong - it is science that provides us with the most convincing evidence of the existence of God - the Creator of the entire material world around us. As long as scientists try to explain any processes in nature only from materialistic positions, they will not be able to find solutions that are at least approximately similar to the truth.
In support of all that has been said, here are the words Creator from the book "Revelations to the people of the New Age".
"20. An attempt to study the cause of the Big Bang only demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the NATURE OF THE NON-MADE SPACE, or rather, the unwillingness of the people of science to look at this World as a World created in the likeness of the Divine Space! I must say that your Big Bang model or theory has nothing to do with the true nature of the origin of the Worlds!”
(Message of 05/14/10 "Perfection of the Spirit").
“25. If I tell you when and under what conditions the MATERIALIZATION of you and your Planet took place, then your entire theory of the Big Bang will not only fall apart, but will also turn out to be an empty attempt by a material person to explain the Divine origin of life not only on Earth, but also in the Universe!”
(Message of 09.10.10 "The Mystery of the Origin of Life").
"4. This natural process of SELF-improvement contains not only the Canon of fractal similarity, but also all the Canons of Eternity, because if there is no forward movement, then there is no Great Creative Mind, and then the law of random numbers (the idea of ​​accidents) comes into force, and the idea of ​​Great accidents called Theory The Big Bang, which rejects, and rejects forever, the presence of ORDER, the presence of the Higher Cosmic Mind and, moreover, rejects the Great HOPE of people to be perfect, and most importantly, rejects the very meaning of man as an objective reality!
(Message of 12/19/13 "Hope IS turning inward").

« For me, life is too short to worry about things beyond my control and maybe even impossible. Here they ask: “What if the Earth is swallowed up by a black hole, or there is a distortion of space-time - is this a reason for excitement?” My answer is no, because we will only know about it when it reaches our ... our place in space-time. We get kicks when nature decides it's time: whether it's the speed of sound, the speed of light, the speed of electrical impulses, we will always be victims of a 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 that surrounds us has an age. For example, the age of the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years. Approximately the same number of years ago, the closest star to us, the Sun, also lit up. If this figure seems breathtaking 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 scientists' latest estimates, 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

The perception of the surrounding world by people has always been ambiguous. Someone still does not believe in the existence of a huge Universe around us, someone considers the Earth to be 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 talk in 1917, presenting to the general public the work of his life - the General Theory of Relativity. The genius of the 20th century connected space-time with the matter of space with the help of 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 a technical breakthrough, no one could refute Einstein's words, because his theory was too complicated 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 a generally accepted model of our world. However, she could live only a few years. After the physicists were able to recover from the scientific works of Einstein and began to sort them out on the shelves, in parallel with this, adjustments began to be made to the theory of relativity and the specific calculations of the German scientist.

In 1922, the Russian mathematician Alexander Fridman suddenly published an article in the journal Izvestiya Fiziki, in which he states that Einstein was wrong and our Universe is not stationary. Friedman explains that the statements of the German scientist regarding the invariance of the radius of curvature of space are delusions, in fact, the radius changes with respect to time. Accordingly, the universe must expand.

Moreover, here Friedman gave his assumptions about how exactly the Universe can 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 the mass and the third model - the expansion from the 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 the work of Friedman. In it, a German physicist tries to prove the correctness of his calculations. It turned out rather unconvincingly, and when the pain from the blow to self-esteem subsided a little, Einstein published another note in the journal Izvestiya Fiziki, in which he said:

« In a previous note, I criticized the above work. However, my criticism, as I saw from Fridman's letter communicated to me by Mr. Krutkov, was based on an error in 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 by understandable mathematical calculations and leave no questions. 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 the general theory of relativity, there was a chance to shed light on our past, and physicists did not fail to take advantage of this. One of the scientists who tried to present a model of our world was the astrophysicist Georges Lemaitre from Belgium. It is noteworthy that Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, but at the same time he was engaged in 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 some kind of superparticle, which was out of space and time before the start of fission, 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 the exploded superatom suited not only scientists, but also the clergy, who were very dissatisfied with modern scientific discoveries, for which they 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 Lemaitre himself, who devoted his life not only to science, but also to the service of 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 said they were positive about this theory. This theory was also relatively neutrally accepted by adherents of other religions, some of them even said that there were references to the Big Bang in their 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, mainly only heavy metals, in particular iron, could be formed. But, as it turned out, the Universe consists mainly of ultralight gases - hydrogen and helium. Something did not fit, so physicists continued to work on the theory of the origin of the world.

Initially, the term "Big Bang" did not exist. Lemaitre and other physicists offered only the boring name "dynamical evolutionary model", which caused students to yawn. Only in 1949, at one of his lectures, did the British astronomer and cosmologist Freud Hoyle say:

“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 ​​the Big Bang seems to me completely unsatisfactory”.

Since then, this 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 Big Bang Theorists set out to find their source. For many years they were not able to achieve much success, until in 1948 the brilliant scientist Georgy Gamov from Leningrad was finally able to identify this source. Gamow was one of Friedman's students, so he gladly took up the development of the theory of his teacher.

Gamow tried to imagine the life of the Universe in the opposite direction, and rewound time until the moment when it had just begun to expand. By that time, as is known, 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, helium thermonuclear fusion began, which Ralph Asher Alfer, a mathematician from Odessa, was able to calculate for Gamow. According to Alfer's calculations, already 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 and accept this model as the main one in cosmology. With his research, Gamow not only opened up new ways of studying the Universe, but also resurrected Lemaitre'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 the Chemical Elements. As fellow assistants, he indicated not only Ralph Asher Alfer, but also Hans Bethe, an American astrophysicist and future Nobel Prize winner. On the cover of the book it turned out: Alfer, Bethe, Gamow. Doesn't it remind you of anything?

However, despite the fact that Lemaitre'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 the modern world. Most physicists are rather cool about the statements of such people, but this does not bother them at all.

To shame Gamow and his justification of the Big Bang Theory, Hoyle, together with 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 that offer alternative reasons for the expansion of the Universe.

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

The inconsistency of Hoyle's theory is that he was never able to explain where the very substance comes from, which continues to create galaxies in which there are hundreds of billions of stars. 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 managed to do this, and after a couple of decades this proposal lost its relevance.

Questions without answers

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

Until the middle of the 20th century, the theory of the expanding universe was never confirmed experimentally, therefore it was not widely used in educational institutions. Everything changed in 1964, when two American astrophysicists - Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson - did not decide to study the radio signals of the starry sky.

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 kind of 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 pursued them. Angry 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 the relic radiation, which is an echo of that same Big Bang.

Our universe cools much more slowly than a cup of hot tea, and the CMB indicates 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 out, and the Big Bang Theory was finally adopted.

In his writings, Georgy Gamow suggested that it would be possible to detect photons in space that have existed since the Big Bang, only more advanced technical equipment is needed. Relic radiation confirmed all his assumptions about the existence of the universe. Also, with its help, it was possible to establish that the age of our Universe is approximately 14 billion years.

As always, with the practical proof of any theory, many alternative opinions immediately arise. Some physicists scoffed at the discovery of the CMB as evidence of the Big Bang. Despite the fact that Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for their historic discovery, many disagreed with their research.

The main arguments in favor of the inconsistency of the expansion of the Universe were discrepancies and logical errors. For example, the explosion uniformly 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 some 4 billion years. Unfortunately, humanity is still too young to answer this and other questions.

Theory of equilibrium

In our time, physicists offer various models for the existence of the universe. Many of them do not withstand even simple criticism, while others receive the right to life.

At the end of the 20th century, an astrophysicist from America, Edward Tryon, together with his colleague from Australia, Warren Kerry, proposed a fundamentally new model of the Universe, and they did it 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 became known as the principle of the Zero Universe. Within this universe, new matter emerges at singular points between galaxies, where the attraction and repulsion of matter is balanced.

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

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

It so happened that the space in the Universe, empty in theory, is nevertheless filled with a certain special field, which drives the Einstein model. 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.

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

The science that studies the Universe as a whole and the Metagalaxy as part of the Universe is called cosmology. Georgy Gamow, an American theoretical physicist, suggests that our Universe, i.e. The metagalaxy was born in a hot state with a temperature of about 10 32 K. This model Gamow called Big Bang Cosmology.

Gamow worked on this model for 10 years. In 1948 he published the theory " big bang". According to the theory "Big bang" our universe is expanding. Expansion started 15 billion years ago from the initial very hot state. According to this theory, at the initial moment the matter of the Universe was in a state of physical vacuum. The physical vacuum was in an unstable, excited state, as it had great energy: w= , where g/cm 3 is the vacuum matter density, and With is the speed of light. The energy creates tremendous pressure. At the point in time 10 43 p., due to the enormous pressure, inflation of the vacuum begins, i.e. the vacuum starts to lose energy. From the moment 10 ─43 s. up to 10 ─35 s the vacuum matter expands exponentially and its size increases by 10 50 times. In the time interval from 10 ─35 s to 10 ─32 s, phase transition, i.e. "Big Bang", during which the vacuum state of matter through tunnel effect turns into a hot dense universe with a temperature 10 32 K, with matter in the form electromagnetic waves(radio waves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays).

Thus, our universe was born in the form of a fireball, which was called "Ilem"(Greek ylem - primary matter). Ilem was a neutral gas of electromagnetic waves and elementary particles.

Due to fast extensions, matter of the universe cools down and the appearance of particles from radiation begins. In the beginning, the number of particles and antiparticles was equal. Then comes spontaneous violation symmetry, this leads to the predominance of particles over antiparticles. In the first seconds after the explosion are born hadrons(baryons and mesons). After the expiration of approximately 1000 s after the explosion, the temperature becomes approximately 10 10 K and the equality of the concentration of protons and neutrons is violated for the reason that the lifetime of protons is equal to 10 31 years old, and the neutron lifetime is about 800 s. Neutrons decay and ratios are established: 77% of protons and 22% of neutrons. In the time interval from 1000 s to 10000 s, light hydrogen and helium atoms are formed. Almost all neutrons go to the formation of a helium nucleus, and the following relation is established: 77% hydrogen and 22% helium.

Scientists divide the time interval of the formation of the Universe into four "eras" in accordance with the prevailing form of the existence of matter.

1. The era of hadrons lasts 0.0001 seconds. The hadron era is the era of heavy particles. The particle density is equal to ρ>10 14 g/cm 3 , and the temperature T>10 12 K. At the end of the era there is a sudden violation of symmetry, equality of particles and antiparticles. The reason for the symmetry breaking is considered to be non-conservation of the baryon charge. As a result, for every million (10 6) antiparticles, there are a million plus one (10 6 +1) particles.

2. The era of leptons. Era duration from 0.0001 s to 10 s, temperature from 10 10 K to 10 12 K, density from 10 4 to 10 14 g/cm 3 . In this era, the main role is played by light particles involved in reactions between protons and neutrons. There are mutual transformations of protons into neutrons and vice versa. Gradually accumulate mu-mesons, electrons, neutrinos and their antiparticles. At the end of the lepton era, annihilation of particles and antiparticles. Thus, in the Universe antiparticles disappear, particles and radiations remain. The universe becomes transparent to electron neutrinos. These neutrinos have survived to our time.

3. The era of radiation. Its duration is 70 million years, the temperature decreases from 10 10 K to 3000 K, and the density from 10 4 to 10 -21 g/cm 3 . By the beginning of the era of radiation, the number of protons and neutrons is approximately equal. As the temperature decreases, the amount more protons due to neutron decay. At the end of an era, conditions arise for the formation of primary atoms, as a result of which a new era begins - the era of matter.

4. The Age of Substance. This era came 70 million years after the "Big Bang" with a temperature of about 3000K and a density of about 10 4 g/cm 3 . At the beginning of the era, the density of radiation and the density of matter (particles) were equal - about 10 −26 g/cm 3 , they were in thermal equilibrium. At equilibrium evolutionary process does not occur, i.e. matter cannot become more complex. However, as the Universe expands, the cooling of matter and the cooling of radiation occur according to different laws. The temperature of matter decreases inversely with the square of the size of the universe: T substance ~1/R 2. The temperature of radiation decreases inversely with the size of the universe: T radiation ~1/R. Hence, matter cools down much faster. The universe is moving from an equilibrium state to a non-equilibrium state. Forces gravity creates instability, and turbulent motion creates shock waves. All this leads to the fragmentation of the matter of the Universe. Small and large gas clouds are formed, consisting of radiation, elementary particles, hydrogen and helium atoms. In the time interval from 3 hours to 3 million years, stars form from small clouds, and entire galaxies form from large clouds.

The mechanism of the emergence of stars American scientist Trumpler (1930) first explained By the fact that the gas and dust cloud is compressed and heated, the pressure and temperature inside increase, slowing down the compression. Starts at 20 million degrees nuclear reaction, an explosion occurs, and a new star is born. Our Sun made this journey in about 1 million years, about 5 billion years ago.

The Big Bang belongs to the category of theories that try to fully trace the history of the birth of the Universe, to determine the initial, current and final processes in its life.

Was there something before the universe appeared? This cornerstone, almost metaphysical question is being asked by scientists to this day. The emergence and evolution of the universe has always been and remains the subject of heated debate, incredible hypotheses and mutually exclusive theories. The main versions of the origin of everything that surrounds us, according to the church interpretation, were supposed to be divine intervention, and the scientific world supported Aristotle's hypothesis about the static nature of the universe. The latter model was adhered to by Newton, who defended the infinity and constancy of the Universe, and by Kant, who developed this theory in his writings. In 1929, the American astronomer and cosmologist Edwin Hubble radically changed the way scientists view the world.

He not only discovered the presence of numerous galaxies, but also the expansion of the Universe - a continuous isotropic increase in the size of outer space, which began at the moment of the Big Bang.

To whom do we owe the discovery of the Big Bang?

Albert Einstein's work on the theory of relativity and his gravitational equations allowed de Sitter to create a cosmological model of the universe. Further research was tied to this model. In 1923, Weyl suggested that matter placed in outer space must expand. The work of the outstanding mathematician and physicist A. A. Fridman is of great importance in the development of this theory. Back in 1922, he allowed the expansion of the Universe and made reasonable conclusions that the beginning of all matter was in one infinitely dense point, and the development of everything was given by the Big Bang. In 1929, Hubble published his papers explaining the subordination of radial velocity to distance, later this work became known as "Hubble's law."

G. A. Gamov, relying on Friedman's theory of the Big Bang, developed the idea of ​​a high temperature of the initial substance. He also suggested the presence of cosmic radiation, which did not disappear with the expansion and cooling of the world. The scientist made preliminary calculations of the possible temperature of the residual radiation. The value he assumed was in the range of 1-10 K. By 1950, Gamow made more accurate calculations and announced the result at 3 K. In 1964, radio astronomers from America, improving the antenna by eliminating all possible signals, determined the parameters of cosmic radiation. Its temperature turned out to be 3 K. This information became the most important confirmation of Gamow's work and the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation. Subsequent measurements of the cosmic background, carried out in outer space, finally proved the correctness of the scientist's calculations. You can get acquainted with the relict radiation map at.

Modern ideas about the Big Bang theory: how did it happen?

The theory of the Big Bang has become one of the models that comprehensively explain the emergence and development of the Universe known to us. According to the version widely accepted today, there was originally a cosmological singularity - a state of infinite density and temperature. Physicists developed a theoretical justification for the birth of the Universe from a point that had an extraordinary degree of density and temperature. After the emergence of the Big Bang, the space and matter of the Cosmos began an ongoing process of expansion and stable cooling. According to recent studies, the beginning of the universe was laid at least 13.7 billion years ago.

Starting periods in the formation of the Universe

The first moment, the reconstruction of which is allowed by physical theories, is the Planck epoch, the formation of which became possible 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature of matter reached 10*32 K, and its density was 10*93 g/cm3. During this period, gravity gained independence, separating from the fundamental interactions. The incessant expansion and decrease in temperature caused a phase transition of elementary particles.

The next period, characterized by exponential expansion of the Universe, came in another 10-35 seconds. It was called "Cosmic inflation". There was an abrupt expansion, many times greater than usual. This period gave an answer to the question, why is the temperature at different points of the Universe the same? After the Big Bang, the matter did not immediately spread through the Universe, for another 10-35 seconds it was quite compact and thermal equilibrium was established in it, which was not disturbed during inflationary expansion. The period provided the base material, quark-gluon plasma, which was used to form protons and neutrons. This process took place after a further decrease in temperature, it is called "baryogenesis". The origin of matter was accompanied by the simultaneous appearance of antimatter. Two antagonistic substances annihilated, becoming radiation, but the number of ordinary particles prevailed, which allowed the universe to arise.

The next phase transition, which occurred after the decrease in temperature, led to the emergence of elementary particles known to us. The era of "nucleosynthesis" that followed this was marked by the union of protons into light isotopes. The first formed nuclei had a short lifespan, they decayed during inevitable collisions with other particles. More stable elements arose already after three minutes after the creation of the world.

The next significant milestone was the dominance of gravity over other available forces. After 380 thousand years from the time of the Big Bang, the hydrogen atom appeared. The increase in the influence of gravity served as the end of the initial period of the formation of the Universe and gave rise to the process of the emergence of the first star systems.

Even after almost 14 billion years, the cosmic microwave background still remains. Its existence in combination with redshift is given as an argument in support of the validity of the Big Bang theory.

Cosmological singularity

If, using the general theory of relativity and the fact of the continuous expansion of the Universe, we return to the beginning of time, then the dimensions of the universe will be equal to zero. The initial moment or science cannot accurately describe using physical knowledge. The applied equations are not suitable for such a small object. A symbiosis is needed that can combine quantum mechanics and general relativity, but, unfortunately, it has not yet been created.

Evolution of the Universe: what awaits it in the future?

Scientists are considering two possible scenarios: the expansion of the universe will never end, or it will reach a critical point and the reverse process will begin - compression. This fundamental choice depends on the value of the average density of the substance in its composition. If the calculated value is less than the critical value, the forecast is favorable, if it is greater, then the world will return to a singular state. Scientists currently do not know the exact value of the described parameter, so the question of the future of the universe is up in the air.

The Relation of Religion to the Big Bang Theory

The main religions of mankind: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Islam, in their own way support this model of the creation of the world. Liberal representatives of these religious denominations agree with the theory of the emergence of the universe as a result of some inexplicable interference, defined as the Big Bang.

The world-famous name of the theory - "Big Bang" - was unwittingly presented by the opponent of the version of the expansion of the Universe by Hoyle. He considered such an idea "completely unsatisfactory". After the publication of his thematic lectures, the interesting term was immediately picked up by the public.

The causes of the Big Bang are not known for certain. According to one of the many versions, owned by A. Yu. Glushko, the original substance compressed into a point was a black hyper-hole, and the explosion was caused by the contact of two such objects consisting of particles and antiparticles. During annihilation, matter partially survived and gave rise to our Universe.

Engineers Penzias and Wilson, who discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation, received the Nobel Prize in Physics.

The CMB temperature readings were initially very high. After several million years, this parameter turned out to be within the limits that ensure the origin of life. But by this period, only a small number of planets had managed to form.

Astronomical observations and research help to find answers to the most important questions for mankind: "How did everything appear, and what awaits us in the future?". Despite the fact that not all problems have been solved, and the root cause of the emergence of the Universe does not have a strict and harmonious explanation, the Big Bang theory has found a sufficient number of confirmations that make it the main and acceptable model for the emergence of the universe.

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

The concept of the Big Bang came about with the discovery of Hubble's law in the 1920s. This law describes in a simple formula the results of observations, according to which the visible Universe is expanding and galaxies are moving away from each other. It is easy, therefore, to mentally “roll the tape back” and imagine that at the initial moment, billions of years ago, the Universe was in a superdense state. This picture of the evolution of the Universe is confirmed by two important facts.

Space 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 a characteristic classical blackbody 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, then to deep red. When the fire is almost extinguished, the coals stop emitting visible radiation, however, when you raise your hand to them, you will feel the heat, which means that the coals continue to emit energy, but already in the infrared frequency range. The colder the object, the lower the frequencies emitted by it and the longer the wavelength ( cm. Stefan-Boltzmann law). In essence, Penzias and Wilson determined the temperature of the "cosmic embers" of the universe after it had cooled for 15 billion years: its background radiation was found to be in the microwave radio frequency range.

Historically, this discovery predetermined the choice in favor of the Big Bang cosmological theory. Other models of the Universe (for example, the theory of the 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. Comparing these predictions with the actually observed ratio of light elements (corrected for their formation 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 proofs above (microwave background and light element ratio), 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 cardinal questions about the structure of the Universe. Of course, problems remain: we cannot explain the very root cause of the universe; it is not clear to us whether the current physical laws were in effect at the time of its inception. But more than enough convincing arguments in favor of the Big Bang theory have been accumulated to date.

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 relic electromagnetic radiation.

Born in Munich, Penzias 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 radio noise that interferes with radio communications. Noting a number of probable causes (up to contamination of the antennas with pigeon droppings), they came to the conclusion that the source of stable background noise is outside our galaxy. In other words, it was the cosmic radiation background predicted by theoretical astrophysicists including Robert Dick, Jim Peebles, and George Gamov. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.

Show comments (148)

Collapse comments (148)

We are still expanding and cooling down. We are only expanding very slowly. And after billions of years. When gravity hits the limit. The universe will begin the reverse process of contraction. Unfortunately we don't know how it will end.

Answer

There is no doubt.
"Big Bang", no, there was not, and will not be.
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2004/09/17-31.html - There was no big bang!!!
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. Redshift tells us that some time ago distant objects were smaller than they are now. Just the finiteness of the speed of light is the reason that the change in the value of the speed of light that has occurred in our country is not observed in the distance (in the past).
Information is late.
Subjective removal of remote objects from us, the process is the opposite of gravity (subjective, or if you want - 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 Setter of the heavens and the earth" (Sura al-Anam: 101).

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

"Did not those who did not believe see that the heavens and the earth were united, and We separated them ..." (Surah Prophets, 30)

This means that all matter was created through the Big Bang from one 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 20th century, Allah informed us of the reality of this in the Qur'an sent to people fourteen hundred years ago:

"It is We who established the Universe (by Our creative) power, and verily, it is We who constantly expand it" (Sura The Dispersing, 47).

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

Answer

And there is no expansion of the Universe, it is practically static, and even vice versa, the galaxies are approaching, otherwise there would not be so many colliding galaxies.

Answer

How did you decide that light spends some kind of energy? (and not only light) what does it overcome? It flies in the same straight line as everything in the universe, by and large, everything does not come off (as we try to get off the ground), and once thrown into space, it falls into nowhere. (I am an adherent of the theory that the universe is inflated, not is expanding, which means, most likely, that it is possible that there are other forces that make everything fly without cost - remember the second series of spy children, when they were already tired of flying, and they even rested while doing so. I exaggerate, but I mean something similar) . Although earlier I also believed that everything, something flies somewhere, overcomes something, which means that it loses energy, but life experience has shown that when we lose, we sometimes gain much more. Maybe this is a paradox in physics? By increasing the entropy, we streamline it, and increase it again, but on a different level?!
PS. It is desirable to give a link to this page in the answers to the soap, I have not been here for a long time, and I hardly found where to answer!

Answer

And here's one thing I don't understand. Hoping for some clarification.
It is argued that the fate of the universe depends on the density of interstellar gas. If the gas is dense enough, then sooner or later the stars and galaxies will stop their mutual separation and begin to approach each other.
But gas is also part of the universe.
It arose in the flames of the Big Bang, like everything else.
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 in any case doomed to eternal expansion?
If some unpredictable factor does not intervene in this process - for example, a person?

Answer

The Universe arose about 15 billion years ago as a hot bunch of superdense matter, and since then it has been expanding and cooling.
I am not an astronomer, not a scientist and my logic is quite simple, so it is easier for me to understand.
There is a theory that black holes are the centers of galaxies.
however, I assume, based on the above, that perhaps
black holes are also future universes. superdense matter - a black hole, which can be of any size
Readers are requested 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 quarks and their girlfriends antiparticles and antiquarks,
all types of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational, muon, glion, etc.
- everything was collected in a "singular point".
What then surrounded the singular point?
VOID - NOTHING.
Agree. But why are they talking about this in general phrases, without specifying,
Not specifically. It surprises me why it is VOID - NOTHING.
no one writes down the physical formula?
After all, every schoolchild knows that emptiness is NOTHING.
is 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 propagate?
Not in T=OK? It is clear that only in the emptiness - NOTHING T=OK.
* * *

Now they believe that the Universe, as an absolute reference system, is in
state T = 2.7K (remnants of the relic radiation of the big bang).
But this relic study is expanding and will change, decrease in the future.
What temperature will it reach?
Not T=OK? Thus, if we go in the past and in the present and in
in the future, we can't run away from the VOID - 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. So 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 they really dead particles? After all, everything in nature is in motion.
To answer this question, it is necessary to more clearly understand the EMPTINESS - NOTHING.
* * *
Does this EMPTINESS - NOTHING have borders?
No. EMPTINESS - NOTHING and there is EMPTINESS - NOTHING.
She has no boundaries. EMPTINESS - NOTHING infinitely.
Let's write it down with the formula: T=0K=.
What time is 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 merged with time.
Only in SRT this EMPTINESS - NOTHING has another name:
negative four-dimensional Minkowski space.
Then SRT describes the behavior of particles having a geometric
form - a circle in the emptiness - NOTHING Т=0К.
* * *
According to SRT, these circle particles can be in two states of motion:
1) These particles-circles can fly in a straight line with a speed of c=1.
In this kind of motion, the particles-circles are called the Quantum of Light (Photon).
2) These particles-circles can rotate around their diameter, and then their shape and physical parameters change according to the Lorentz transformations.
In this kind of motion, the particles-circles are called Electron.
* * *
But what is the reason for the movement of the particle-circles, because in the emptiness - NOTHING
no one affects her peace?
Quantum theory provides the answer to this question.
1) The rectilinear motion of the particle-circles depends on the Planck spin (h=1)
2) The rotational motion of the particle-circles depends on the spin
Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck (ħ = h / 2pi).
* * *
Strange particles surround the "singular point".
These particles-circles can be in three states:
1) h = 0 ,
2) h = 1,
3) ħ = h / 2pi.
and decide for themselves what action to take.
Only particles that have their own consciousness can act in this way.
This consciousness cannot be frozen, it develops.
The development of this consciousness goes "from an indefinite desire to a clear thought."

Answer

this bunch has a size and lifetime like a quark, modern ideas say that the universe will live 10 to 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 to be their star and what kind of energy it has, after all, we must look at everything by analogy, there is something where there are many such quarks and they break out and hit something, the ancient teaching says that the Almighty created and destroyed universes 950 times like a blacksmith hits an anvil and sparks fly and when I saw ours in which we live, I said this one is good, I ask the forum I respect, to think about it

Answer

Dear scientists. THE QUESTION IS WHAT WAS BEFORE THE BIG BANG. THEY SAY THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. AND HOW TO UNDERSTAND NOTHING AND WHERE THIS NOTHING ENDED. VERY PLEASE AT LEAST BRING ME CLOSER TO THE TRUTH (WHICH IS SOMEWHERE THERE)

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 quite coincide with the everyday ideas of a person 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 just such that the worldly concept of time does not work in them.

That is, the question "what was before the Big Bang?" incorrect for the same reason as the question "what is north of the North Pole?".

Answer

Listen, you're a smart kid. I should be friends with you. I'm also into astronomy, and I'm obsessed with the big bang too. SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE THE BIG BANG. AND WHAT IS THIS NOTHING, AND WHERE IS IT BORDERS.

Answer

There may be a lot in the name itself indecent, ostyuda and all sorts of gossip? They called it very badly, "explosion", therefore they understand it as an explosion, and probably not quite an ordinary explosion? Many authors, even very respected by me, begin to talk about it as an explosion just like a peasant, and this is not good. It is necessary to convene 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 bunch of superdense matter" - let's say. Why is the geometry of our universe almost flat (Euclidean)? If the matter is superdense, then at least the surface must be spherical.
2) The existence of the origin of time is equivalent to its inhomogeneity. This has not been confirmed as far as I know. Why?
3) If we allow the process to be cyclical - expansion - contraction - formation of a black hole - explosion - ... I have a question about a black hole. (Slightly off topic, I guess.) Obviously, the matter in it is compressed to a point (singularity), and the forces of compression - 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" for exact science is absolutely incorrect, as well as the word "Explosion". Based on this statement, it should be noted that any physical phenomenon must have understandable qualities or properties, such as, for example, volume. In the context, it should be taken into account that all processes of any kind take place within the boundaries of this volume, and the influence of these processes, to certain limits, also extends outside.
So, - Explosion in the Void! Egg universe! Typical expressions for a 19th century sensation shouted out by the street vendors of newspapers and magazines of the time.
In fact, in the theory of the "Big Bang" (in a competent description) it is directly stated that "the Universe began to expand about 15 billion years ago from a red-hot clot of superdense matter." It is not at all about an explosion or about emptiness. Only a hypothesis is stated at the moment, confirmed by the analysis of the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background radiation. And let's say it's called "The Big Bang Theory". Just phraseological balancing act, nothing more ...
P.S. "Nature does not tolerate emptiness!"

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 mean speed of the run-up (removal) of galaxies, let's 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 removal speed of 1000 times less than the speed of light.
Logically, with a speed of 2000 kilometers per second, the most distant galaxy from the epicenter of the explosion should be at a distance 1000 times less (because the removal rate is 1000 times less) and equal to 14.4 million light years.
Where I didn’t understand something, I thank you in advance

Answer

It's been two years now since G. Starkman and D. Schwartz's article "Is the Universe Well-Tuned?" was published in the journal "In the World of Science" for # 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 you talk about it?

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 isotope U-238 seven thousand years ago was half the value." We build all the complex mathematical and cosmological constructions in real time and cannot look into the distant future and into the past (this is our whole trouble). 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 "torturing" for a very long time.
What does "as it cools" mean? A banal example - a cooling kettle gives off part of the heat (energy) to the external space.

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

Answer

• about the "analysis of the characteristics of relic radiation" (from 04/12/2007 15:08 | Science-lover)
  namely: we are talking about the spectral composition of the relic background.
  Moreover, the maximum density (on the spectrum) corresponds to a temperature of several degrees K (~ 4, but I can be wrong). It is from here - m-but to find the time during which the cooling occurred.

  February 12, 2009 13:28 | FcuK
  Where does our universe give off heat?
  - see what the search engine (yandex, google) gives for "thermal death of the universe" (ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death)
  Kettle - warms the environment (the 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 closure of the universe - was discussed earlier. And, as far as I remember, they came to the conclusion that the universe is not closed. But this - m. too complex "simplification", so that the search engines - "rule".

  05/03/2008 00:53 | ko1111
  About the change in gravity: see "drift of constants"
  In general, this is the theist's view of the questions of the universe. And questions of faith - science (exact, an example - physics) does not study, because. relies - on facts, and - reproducible results.

  12.10.2007 14:45 | Phil
  There are facts that are best explained by the BBT (Big Bang Theory). It's just that another, sufficiently "smooth" theory does not yet exist.
  The string has big questions with the "practical side".

  Answer

The cosmological redshift and the "Pioneer anomaly" are one effect representing the loss of kinetic energy over time, which is converted into the energy of vacuum fluctuations. This is easy to verify by doing simple calculations. Spacecraft anomalous deceleration constant a = (8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2, Hubble constant (74.2 +- 3.6) km/s per megaparsec. Light travels one megaparsec in 1E14 sec. 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 drag, but since photons are waves that always move at the speed of light, only the energy that photons have is purely kinetic decreases. A similar situation is when photons lose energy (turn red) in a gravitational field, while other particles that can be at rest slow down, losing speed. Hence it turns out that the cosmological redshift can be calculated using the anomalous drag constant, i.e. instead of two constants, one is enough. Abnormal braking: V=at, where a is the constant of abnormal braking, t is time. Accordingly, the "red shift" of the de Broglie waves: z=at/v, where v is the speed of the particle. Since the principle of corpuscular-wave dualism applies to all particles, the redshift of photon waves can also be calculated using the same formula: Z=at/c, where c is the photon (light) speed. 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 exert. The fact that they exist and can exert pressure has been experimentally confirmed - the Casimir effect. Moving objects "stumble" on vacuum fluctuations. Electrons in atomic orbits "tremble" from them. According to quantum physics, the physical vacuum is not a void and it constantly interacts with real matter - the Lamb shift, the Casimir effect, etc., the interaction represents a force, so it can affect the movement.

Details at http://m622.narod.ru/gravity

Answer

The Doppler effect can also be explained by the rotation of the object. proponents of the extension like to make the example of a train approaching directly at the observer. If the observer wants to live, he will let the train pass, for example, to his right. D.'s effect will take place. And if the train passes at a safe distance from left to right past the observer? The effect of D. will also take place. What if he walks in circles? By the way, this opinion was in scientific circles. Completely proven. But somehow it did not coincide with the general opinion. But it is the Doppler effect yavl. basis of the big bang theory. But there is also the presence of radiation "from coals". These little embers got me hooked. There was an explosion! That's just what? It somehow contradicts common sense that an explosion can be the beginning of creation. And how did it all happen - on the run? Try to do something on the run. But the end of the explosion may be. Why does it not occur to theorists that they see this end. End of the previous universe. And already in a warm place, on the coals, our Universe arose. By the way, it can 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 wise guy, or even a group of wise guys, will play with matches and... I am writing, apparently, not in vain. No one has looked at this site for a long time.

Answer

Big bang from the point of view of quantum etherodynamics.
Stage compression of the universe - but not yet collapse. Increasingly compacted converging gravitational flows are partially balanced by counter divergent structural flows. But at a certain stage of compression, the converging flows completely stop the oncoming diverging flows, as if blocking them. The equilibrium is broken, but the conservation laws are in effect. And at some stage of compression, the locked and ever-increasing energy of the quantum medium is released. At the same time, diverging flows acquire a certain wave structure - matter is formed (possibly new). The 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 at infinity. The question is, when will the next Big Bang happen?
What is the time interval between Big Bangs?

Answer

Fans of the theory of the origin of the universe as a result of the big bang are still not able 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 ability to contemplate the cosmos, then this theory is no longer consistent.
2. If the universe arose from an explosion, then the place 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 the supporters of the theory, apparently, lack the mind to compare these facts.

Answer

• The universe is an infinite number of cells. And honeycombs are compressed to critical sizes and masses, and then an infinite number of
  Big Bangs. And everything starts again expansion in honeycombs, the formation of galaxies in honeycombs, then their disbandment and compression to critical masses and
  so endless. The dimensions of honeycombs (cubes) are approximately 100 Mpx.

  Answer

  • One does not contradict the other.
    I have nothing against your explanations 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 cells interact with each other?

    Answer

    • Like all masses in the Universe by gravitational forces. But since in honeycombs
      masses are the same approximately 10 to 49 degrees kg, then their interactions are balanced. Honeycombs are cubic cells in the center of which are located
      maximum masses - black holes, which gradually collect all the mass
      cells reach critical mass and explode (get out of collapse) and
      everything went first.

      Answer

      A black hole, according to the theory of relativity, cannot "get out of collapse". So you have to give up something, either your own or Einstein's theory)))
      I - for the rejection of the Einstein.

      Answer

1. Tell me, are the laws of physics, for example, in the Andromeda Nebula the same as ours?
2. Let's do a mental experiment. Let us fill the L-shaped quartz tube with a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen in the required proportion (8:1). Illuminate evenly with ultraviolet and get an explosion. And now indicate, please, 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 you cannot specify a point, the absence of an explosion does not follow from this.
    In addition, "bang", literally, and not an explosion at all, but "boom!". Which can be not only from the explosion, but also from various other processes.

    Answer

    • 1. In the question and the answer: "the existing instrumental boundaries", if I understood you correctly, these are the boundaries of the ever-expanding universe. This means that the space, which the "boundaries" have not yet reached, is not yet the universe, otherwise the very concept of the "expanding" universe loses its meaning.
      That is, the phrase "continuation beyond the available instrumental boundaries" (of the expanding universe) contains two mutually exclusive concepts.
      2. With space objects, unlike 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 roll beyond the center of the universe.

      Answer

      Instrumental borders... seems to understand you. They are limited by the sensitivity of the instruments of modern science.
      Then imagine them as a balloon: with the development of science, it becomes wider and wider, but what reason do we have not even to assert, but only to assume that the same picture is happening outside of it?

      Answer

      • Well, until now, they haven’t hit the crystal sphere, there are chances to move on :) Even if physics changes outside of modern visibility, there will be no sharp border, we will feel something is wrong in advance, but for now there is no such thing. Then, if "there" the stars emit not photons, but some kind of grunts, then they would have already reached us and we observed them (we are not limited to 15 billion or how many years there?)

        "everyone is close to a spherical shape, so they still have a center of mass that could quite roll past the center of the universe."
        And in such a configuration, if there is an explosion, it will not be Big, so, supernovas are trifles. The geometry of BV is not at all like that, but let me not talk about what I cannot imagine myself. I'd rather say something else: _absence_ of BV creates even more problems. Stars, galaxies evolve, and this process is irreversible. From heavy elements hydrogen will not be born again, and will not scatter into large interstellar clouds. And, if you look back, a stationary picture also does not work. Maybe BW isn't so bad after all?

        Answer

        • Do you think that only BW is capable of producing hydrogen from heavy elements? And the "supernova" is not able to?
          I'm not against bv "instrumental universe" (very apt phrase), I'm against the identification of the instrumental universe and the universe.
          Scientists who study the universe have one huge flaw.
          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 the rest then understand that this is not so, that this is just an illusion of an individual.
          So: the perception of the material world by living organisms is an illusion.
          (I do not insist that I am right, but if you are a smart person, then at least try to understand this thought)

          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. At its high concentration (density), not only nuclei, but no particles are stable (this is no longer from the TBV, this is a fact experimentally verified on accelerators). Only with its decrease did particles begin to appear first, and then nuclei. In the currently observed [part] of the Universe, there are no mechanisms for such a concentration of energy for _all_ (or the vast majority) of matter. In order to restore something, it is necessary to "burn" noticeably more, and supernova explosions are afterburning, not restoration.
            And further. TBV (like any other physical theory) is not words, but formulas. And in the TBV formulas, all the available space is involved, and not just the observable piece. If it were possible to confine ourselves to a part, be sure someone has already staked out such a branch (everyone wants a Nobel Prize).

            "Any living organism positions itself as the center of the universe, but the rest then understand that this is not so, that this is just an illusion of the individual."
            Be careful on turns! :) One person came to the same conclusion that his coordinate system, no matter how skewed it may be due to gravity, acceleration or rotation, is no worse than that of other individuals. And others have it no worse than him. Then he deduced formulas on 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 absolutely _correct_ thought, because it is not refuted. And to return to physics, do the following experiment (you can mentally): take a hammer and hit with decent force on any of your fingers. 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 will ever take a hammer in his hands. And you don’t feel sorry for other people’s fingers.)
            Let the illusion, but this illusion is not anyhow, 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!) There was an illusion of the Big Bang, described by illusory formulas. Too long. Illusoryness is better to put 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 in the formulas of the TBV, all the available space is involved"
              Who has 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 person came to the same conclusion that his coordinate system, however skewed it may be due to gravity, acceleration or rotation, is no worse than other individuals. And others are no worse than his. Then he derived formulas on how to move from a crooked system to a skewed one ... "
              You correctly understood my idea)))
              Similar formulas have already been derived: the Poincaré hypothesis about the multidimensionality (more than 3) of space, the theory of relativity, TBV ...

              Experiments on accelerators are an empty place, 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 were invented, one should not expect any special discoveries from them.

              Answer

              • "Like any THEORY, these are not formulas, but words"
                If you mean that equations are just shorthand for verbal formulations, 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 down to the criticism of the Pythagorean theorem: it is wrong, because the picture is not pants, but shorts! (For advanced people who will say that shorts are also pants, let's clarify: they are crooked, not a single decent person will wear such).
                "Who's in cash?" We all have. Choose any origin: you want the Earth, you want the Sun, a star on 2/3 of the other arm of the Galaxy, any. Choose _any_ other point. From the TBV equations it will be possible to find the position of this other point relative to the position of the reference point at any time ago, up to the limit of applicability of the theory.
                "Experiments on accelerators - an empty place"
                Well, yes, everything in the world is bullshit, except for wild bees. Better tell me how to deal 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 starting point the space that lies beyond the tangibility of our devices, as well as calculate its location in N-th time.
                  I don’t know about the aging of stars, but I think most of the answers to questions will be given when the particles responsible for gravity are discovered.

                  By the way, since you own "Wise Thoughts", show me the role of dark (not manifested today) matter in the TBV formulas.))))

                  Answer

            The shortness of gravitational interaction was studied by N.A. Kozyrev, professor at the Pulkovo Observatory in the 50s of the 20th century. And he showed that it spreads almost instantly and called it the streams of time !!!

            Answer

            I don't know if this will surprise you, or if you knew in advance, but in the collection of works by N.A. Kozyrev (from the site you indicated) there is nothing about the speed of gravitational interaction. 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 occur. Like this.

            Answer

        ... Are there any experimental data on the speed of gravity?
        Of course, they are known: Laplace dealt with this issue in the 17th century. He made a conclusion about the speed of gravity by analyzing the data known at that time on the motion of the moon and planets. The idea was this. The orbits of the Moon and the planets are not circular: the distances between the Moon and the Earth, as well as between the planets and the Sun, are constantly changing. If the corresponding changes in the forces of gravity would occur with delays, then the orbits would evolve. But centuries-old astronomical observations testified that even if such evolutions of orbits occur, then their results are negligible. From here, Laplace obtained a lower limit on the speed of gravity: this lower limit turned out to be 7 (seven) orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light in vacuum. Wow, right?
        And that was just the first step. Modern technical means give even more impressive results! So, Van Flandern talks about an experiment in which, over a certain time interval, sequences of pulses were received from pulsars located in different parts of the celestial sphere - and all these data were processed together. The current velocity vector of the Earth was determined from the pulse repetition frequency shifts. Taking the derivative of this vector with respect to time, the current vector of the Earth's acceleration was obtained. It turned out that the component of this vector, due to attraction to the Sun, is directed not to the center of the instantaneous apparent position of the Sun, but to the center of its instantaneous true position. Light experiences lateral drift (Bradley aberration), but gravity does not! According to the results of this experiment, the lower limit on the speed of gravity exceeds the speed of light in vacuum already by 11 orders of magnitude.…
        This is a snippet from there:
        http://darislav.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar ticle&id=605:tyagotenie&catid=27:2008-08-27-07-26-14 &Itemid=123

        Answer

Dear a_b Your "Stars, galaxies evolve, 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 the Hubbal law, for a distance of 12 mpc, the speed of movement 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 movement of galaxies will be higher than the speed of light, and this cannot stand 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 infinite space, in a finite time, what flies away 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 scatter in all directions. You were misled by the word "explosion". Replace it with the word "process", this should help in understanding. Big Process. An "infinitely many" large (explosion...) _processes_ is one Big Process.
  What does this process look like? Let's imagine for a second that we have marked the Universe with some interval of [fixed] air molecules. Well, the stars do not whistle through this air, no, in the immediate vicinity of _each_ star, the air is practically still. But the distance between _each_ neighboring molecules slowly grows over time (the same for each pair). And this is not an expansion of gas into the void, because we have filled _all_ the Universe with gas. The very "base" to which our molecules are "nailed" swells. Note that there is no smell of any "explosion" here!
  Let the rate of "swelling" between a neighboring pair of molecules be equal to V. Then after a time t they will move apart by a distance V * t. And the molecule after one will move 2*V*t. Those. its escape velocity will be 2*V. And a molecule that is N pieces away will run away at a speed of N*V. That. takeoff 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 reference point, in _any_ direction. Well, where is the center here, and why is it needed?
  "it can't stand the theory of relativity"
  This is wrong. The theory of relativity forbids 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 a superluminal speed (you can calculate with what). The expansion of the Universe is just the opposite, it turns out as one of the solutions to the Einstein equations (for a certain value of the parameters).

  Answer

  • Perfectly described the process of expansion within the universe, but not the universe itself.
    "That's not true. The theory of relativity forbids superluminal _interactions." Gravitational interaction is orders of magnitude faster than the light interaction .... the theory of relativity is resting.

    Answer

    • • We don't need an inside view.
        Describe how the boundaries of the universe behave!
        And is it impossible to calculate the center from their behavior? after all, the time of the explosion was calculated in this way.
        The funny thing is that on the basis of the Doppler effect, which also has exceptions, from which it cannot even be called a rule, a chain of dubious conclusions is being built that lead to conclusions about the curvature of space. I won’t be surprised if people start talking about parallel worlds soon.

        Answer

        • • • • I don't see any contradiction. It's so obvious that I don't know what else to clarify.
                You probably think the same
                Funny. There is no need for a third one.

                "If you turn the movie back, then everyone will drive up to the" point " _simultaneously_"
                There is no reason to assume. that unmanifested (by science) matter will behave in the same way.

                Answer

                • In the garden of elderberry - in Kyiv, the uncle: this is not a contradiction, the links of the logical chain are simply missing. There are no boundaries - ... - visible matter is expanding, not the Universe. What is behind the "..."?
                  Let me explain if there are boundaries: there are boundaries - we determine the distances to them - we find the geometric center - we consider the expansion from it.
                  "There is no reason to suppose that unmanifested (science) matter will behave in the same way."
                  About the unmanifested - yes, nothing can be said. And "dark matter" proved to be gravity.
                  PS
                  At the same time, please tell us about the exceptions in the Doppler effect.

                  Answer

                  • Is expansion of space different from expansion in space?
                    How can that which has no limits expand?
                    Let there be "dark" instead of "unmanifested" - will the meaning change?

                    About exceptions in the Doppler effect was not correctly expressed,
                    I meant that some nebulae and galaxies are not moving away, but are approaching us (interestingly, by analogy with the scattering effect at any point in the universe, these nebulae approach any point in the universe). I tried to find this site ... alas, for that 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 bit.
                      "How can that which has no limits expand?"
                      What has boundaries can expand, can't it? Wonderful. Let's push the boundaries wider, nothing will change, will we? Well, the last step is to take them to infinity. There are no borders, the process remains.
                      "The expansion of space is different from the expansion in space?"
                      Is different. Imagine two strands of beads, one on a string, the other on an elastic band. Expansion in space, this is the movement of beads along the rope; there are certain consequences of such a movement of the bead in relation to the place on the rope where it is currently located. The expansion of space is the stretching of the elastic band, each bead resting relative to its point on the elastic band.
                      "Let there be "dark" instead of "unmanifested", will the meaning change?"
                      Cardinally. Unmanifested 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 if it hasn't separated yet, then in retrospect it's the same.
                      "some nebulae and galaxies do not move away, but approach us (interestingly, by analogy with the receding effect at any point in the universe, these nebulae approach any point in the universe)"
                      Look up the Local Group of Galaxies. The galaxies in the group participate in the movement around the center of mass of the group, with rather decent velocities, 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 the runaway grows linearly with the distance to the point).

                      Answer

                      • At the last step, when the boundaries of the universe are transferred to infinity (rejection of boundaries), a qualitative transition occurs from the expansion of space to expansion in space.
                        Dark matter doesn't mix with ordinary matter.
                        About the Local Group of Galaxies, thanks, I’ll look at my leisure, here I admit that you are right.

                        Answer

                    • "Expansion in space is the movement of beads along the 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 band, each bead rests relative to its point on the elastic band"
                      Concerning the rope, elastic.... What in the Universe plays the role of a rope or an elastic band? 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:
"The gravitational interaction is orders of magnitude faster than the light interaction"
Boom:
"The inertia of the masses would not manifest itself instantly"

You would somehow agree with each other. "In orders of magnitude" and "instantly" are not the same thing at all. On a cosmic scale, the speed of light is tortoise, to the _closest_ star 4 years. The Magellanic expedition completed a circumnavigation of the world in 3 years.
PS
It would be nice, after all, calculations or a link to calculations ...

Answer

But it is proved that the process began about 15 billion years ago. And what was
before and when will it end?
The theory of relativity forbids superluminal interactions - and how
gravitational interactions? The inertia of the masses would not manifest itself instantly, after many light years!!! Setting a 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 arranged as two snakes swallow each other"
And regarding this, the Big Bang theory is not entirely correct.
I was also interested in "what really happened, but it seemed to be and will be ..."
After analyzing the data, I came to this conclusion - PARADOX; First - 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 more than one evidence of this mass ...
Not so long ago, the media wrote and said that a year or two ago, astronomers recorded a powerful flash - an explosion
and this is supposed to have been the birth of a galaxy, and what is a galaxy is a mini universe.
According to String theory, they calculated that the shape of the universes can be - spherical, spiral-shaped or dumbbell-shaped and other shapes, which is what we see in the form of galaxies
Here comes the big bang and the birth of the universe
Following further along this path, our galaxy "Milky Way" is also a mini universe, and can remove this word "mini"
because here, depending on where to look, from the Earth, the Earth can also be a mini universe,
and even continents, seas and individual areas ...

Answer

About how long the expansion of the Universe will go on and what's next.
As I understand it, there are many other universes outside of our universe. Expanding, each universe is more and more "pressed" to other universes, as a result of which, "compression points" are formed. These points become subsequently those points that then explode and give rise to New Universes. And so endlessly.

Answer

• Allow me, respectable audience, to take part in your community discussing the pressing problems of the universe. I am glad that I got to this site, and I was convinced that I am not alone 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 (it cannot even be called a theory) is not consistent and is confidently turning into a science-like religion of the 3rd millennium. The failure 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 basis, there is no evidence base. Conclusions from the solution of equations cannot be facts until they are confirmed by observations, i.e. turned into facts. The expansion hypothesis immediately runs into its own paradox: observing distant galaxies, E. Hubble established the isotropy of the redshift, i.e. its independence from the direction of observation, interpreting the c.s. the Doppler effect turns out - the galaxies move away from the observer, so the observer is at the "singular" point, the point of the "Big Bang". And since we, being on Earth in the Solar System of the Milky Way Galaxy and being 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 redshift fact and give a reasonable explanation of the physics of this phenomenon. And there may be options.

  I didn’t want to get involved in the discussion, but ... something hurt - someone hooked on philosophy, well ... here:
  1. There is a Big Bang! Just like the small one. The BV sequences offered today are extremely unfounded. Not from mathematics, which is only a tool for studying Reality and "draws" only its Image. And it has the right to generate only an Image, and not Reality itself. Not from the side of philosophy, which was pushed into the closet of science. She was offended and now chuckles, watching from there how they are trying to give birth without her. Yes, only miscarriages are obtained - without a midwife. And I'll watch - as long as I can stand it. So - if you add up all the comments, mix it up - just the BV theory turns out. And everything in it - even the speed of the gravitational effect is already there. Well, but what about - there is a graviton, therefore ...
  2. Take into account the postulate - relic radiation has nothing to do with the BV itself. It refers... to another explosion - such, citizens, philosophy. And there is no need to argue - with philosophy. All the same, the eldest - both in rank, and in experience, and in status.
  3. One should never take what seems to be real. Although behind every Appearing, there is always a Phantom of the Real. In holography, too, at first there is a natural object, and in any movie - but what about. But on the screen - only the Image. Look for the meaning of BV! Get tired - then "paws" up and to philosophy. She is not harmful and not vindictive - she will show him. Even tomorrow! But "paws" - this is a must - well, there must be compensation, at least moral. And then - you yourself. There is still a lot of things - enough for everyone - to rake.
  4. True, something will have to be cleaned. OTO, for example. The "coat" became dusty, and the moth gnawed in places. Artifact? - Duck, no one is against it. But no more than that. And then the foundation of science has already begun to look like a boutique - "flavors" - wholesale and retail, gluons from imported manufacturers, even orders for bosons - now, they say, they should receive.
  5. No, citizens - Nature is frugal. And as a member of parliament of a power that is not very friendly to us once said - "he does not luxuriate in unnecessary reasons." And how many elementary "reasons" already exist? So - our "answer to Chamberlain" - philosophy notes that their number is incalculable and it is precisely on this that 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 again from the beginning. As one of the commentators rightly noted, such is the dialectic. 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 presented in the form of a brane for the connection of fundamental interactions, was turned inside out during the BV. In order not to go into details, I will say that BV was in every point of space at the same time, and the process itself was going on from within the microworld.

  Answer

  About the Big Bang (BV), in my opinion there was no BV at all, just particles of the beginning of the Proto Particles without mass and charge at the beginning dispersed creating a sub-space, there were two crosses and a zero, to say there was a lot of them means to say nothing. And there was a center from where they were born, and waves of quantization went from the center. The particle itself is something, and a portion of them is already palpable. In the end, hydrogen and other elements appear. Matter and gravity appeared and movement appeared space and time, time directly for matter. And at each point of the accumulation of elements, its own Big, that is, Small Bang, the birth of stars, galaxies, etc., etc., occurred. getting old. A biocell passing through the time filter, as it were, counts 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, it looks like quantization waves for them and they are portioned, they appear as if a shadow of mass. And time in such areas of space flows differently. It is intricately compressed. TIME is nothing but movement in space saturated with proto-particles. 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, and you will take the stone and throw it into the water, or it will fall into the stone crusher, or the meteorite will also not meet the stone. So each particle has its own fate, if you like. And in general, there will be no collapse of collapse, 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. It’s just that quantization will begin again. The birth of a new Hydrogen. raw chaotic fabrications.

  Answer

  How about this theory. Photographs of the universe and the brain are similar in many ways. But what if the Universe is someone's brain, on a small particle of which we live. Then the Big Bang is his birth 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 starts to grow old, the Universe will begin to narrow, 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 can be the same life as on planet Earth.

  Answer

  Sometimes de Broglie waves are interpreted as probability waves, but probability is a purely mathematical concept and has nothing to do with diffraction and interference. Now, when it has already become generally recognized that vacuum is one of the forms of matter, representing 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 representing the transfer 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 goes into the internal energy of the medium. 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 of the electromagnetic field. De Broglie waves (waves of kinetic energy), as well as any waves, lose energy over time, which passes into the internal energy of the vacuum (the energy of vacuum fluctuations), which is observed as the deceleration of bodies - the effect of the "Pioneer anomaly".

  A unique formula for the dissipation (loss) of kinetic energy for one period of the de Broglie wave oscillation for all bodies and particles, including photons, is derived: W=Hhс/v, where H is the Hubble constant 2.4E-18 1/s, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light, v is the speed of the particle. For example, if a particle (body) with a mass of 1 gram (m = 0.001kg) 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) , respectively, the dissipation of the kinetic energy will be tmv^2/h x hH(с/v) = Hсvtm = 22.7 J. In this case, the velocity 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, with the help of the Hubble constant, according to a single formula, it is possible to calculate not only the reddening of photons, but also the deceleration of spacecraft - the effect of the "Pioneer anomaly". In this case, the calculations completely coincide with the experimental data.
  And everything changes!!! The expansion of galaxies slows down with an acceleration of 8.9212 by 10"-14 m/sec"2. Moreover, the "inflationary stage" turns into a "period of anomalous deceleration"!!!
  And 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 the remoteness of the observed objects, the BV happened 50 billion years ago, but only 14 billion years ago did the formation of stars and galaxies begin.

  Answer

  And there is no expansion of the Universe, it is practically static, and even vice versa, the galaxies are approaching, otherwise there would not be so many closely spaced or already colliding galaxies.
  Unfortunately, Hubble made a premature conclusion about the recession of galaxies. There is no scatter, the redshift does not mean the removal of objects, but the change in their properties while the light from them reaches us through such huge distances. Those. we do not see the real picture due to the finiteness of the speed of light.
  Personally, I believe that the universe is infinite and eternal.

  Answer

  With a big explosion, all the elements of the periodic system Dm.Mnd would be formed. The conditions were more than suitable, both pressure and temperature, but for some reason this did not happen. But something completely opposite happened - the whole universe was filled only with hydrogen atoms that did not undergo any (absolutely no) influences. Only then did this primary matter enter into interaction 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 when expanding, it is the cooling process that occurs, as far as I remember. By the way, this explains the temperature of the relic radiation.

  Answer

  There is one main problem in this theory: no one can explain why something exploded? Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, time does not exist at the singularity point. If time does not exist, then no change can occur. According to the theory of relativity, any point of singularity 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 singularity point.
  The Big Bang and the accelerating removal of galaxies is the result of the interaction of energy (most of which is still in the form of mass) and vacuum in space. It's just that energy and vacuum penetrate each other (mix). Time is just the number of periods of change of the reference cyclic system, relative to which the time between the states of the measured system is measured and is not connected in any way with space. Because the dimensions of the space are quite large and the vacuum initially occupied almost the entire space, and its energy is a microscopic part - that is, the process of mixing or interpenetration of energy and vacuum occurs with acceleration. Energy gradually from a fairly dense state (type) - mass gradually turns into much less dense types - electromagnetic and kinetic, which are more evenly mixed with vacuum in space. Any closed system (which is the Universe, since the law of conservation of energy is observed in it) always tends to move to a static, balanced state of its components. For the Universe, this is the state when all energy will be uniformly "mixed" with vacuum in all space. By the way, the space of the Universe is finite and closed. Infinities were invented by mathematicians, with whom they themselves constantly struggle. In real life, there are big ones, very big ones, gigantic 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