The big bang theory story. God and the Big Bang

Everyone has heard of the theory big bang, which explains (at least for now) the origin of our universe. However, in scientific circles there will always be those who want to challenge ideas - by the way, great discoveries often grow out of this.

However, Dikke realized, if this model were real, then there would not be two kinds of stars - Population I and Population II, young and old stars. And they were. This means that the Universe around us nevertheless developed from a hot and dense state. Even if it wasn't the only Big Bang in history.

Amazing, right? Suddenly there were several of these explosions? Dozens, hundreds? Science has yet to find out. Dicke suggested to his colleague Peebles to calculate the temperature necessary for the described processes and the probable temperature of the residual radiation in our day. Approximate calculations Peebles showed that today the Universe should be filled with microwave radiation with a temperature of less than 10 K, and Roll and Wilkinson were already preparing to search for this radiation when the bell rang ...

Difficulties in translation

However, here it is worth moving to another corner. the globe- in USSR. Closest to the discovery of cosmic microwave background came (and also did not finish the job!) in the USSR. Having done a huge amount of work over the course of several months, the report of which was published in 1964, the Soviet scientists put together, it seemed, all the pieces of the puzzle, only one was missing. Yakov Borisovich Zeldovich, one of the giants of Soviet science, carried out calculations similar to those carried out by the team of Gamow (a Soviet physicist living in the USA), and also came to the conclusion that the Universe must have begun with a hot Big Bang, which left background radiation with a temperature a few kelvins.

Yakov Borisovich Zeldovich, -

He even knew about Ed Ohm's article in the Bell System Technical Journal, who roughly calculated the temperature of the CMB, but misinterpreted the author's conclusions. Why didn't the Soviet researchers realize that Ohm had already discovered this radiation? Due to a translation error. Ohm's paper claimed that he measured the temperature of the sky to be about 3 K. This meant that he had subtracted all possible sources of radio interference and that 3 K was the temperature of the remaining background.

However, by coincidence, the same (3 K) was the temperature of the radiation of the atmosphere, a correction for which Ohm also made. The Soviet specialists erroneously decided that it was these 3 K that Ohm had left after all the previous adjustments, subtracted them too and were left with nothing.

Today, such misunderstandings would be easily eliminated by electronic correspondence, but in the early 1960s, communication between scientists in the Soviet Union and the United States was very difficult. This was the reason for such a shameful mistake.

The Nobel Prize that slipped away

Let's go back to the day the phone rang in Dicke's laboratory. It turns out that at the same time, astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson reported that they accidentally managed to pick up a faint radio noise coming from everything. They did not know then that another team of scientists independently came up with the idea of ​​the existence of such radiation and even began to build a detector to search for it. It was the team of Dicke and Peebles.

Even more surprising is the fact that the cosmic microwave background, or, as it is also called, the relic, radiation was described more than ten years earlier in the framework of the model of the emergence of the Universe as a result of the Big Bang by Georgy Gamow and his colleagues. Neither group of scientists knew about it.

Penzias and Wilson accidentally heard about the work of scientists led by Dicke and decided to call them to discuss it. Dicke listened carefully to Penzias and made a few remarks. After hanging up, he turned to his colleagues and said: “Guys, we have jumped.”

Almost 15 years later, after many measurements made at the most different lengths waves by many groups of astronomers, confirmed that the radiation they discovered was indeed a relic echo of the Big Bang, having a temperature of 2.712 K, Penzias and Wilson shared the Nobel Prize for their invention. Although at first they did not even want to write an article about their discovery, because they considered it to be untenable and not fit into the model of the stationary Universe that they adhered to!

It is said that Penzias and Wilson would consider it sufficient for themselves to be mentioned as the fifth and sixth names on the list after Dicke, Peebles, Roll and Wilkinson. In this case, the Nobel Prize, apparently, would have gone to Dicke. But everything happened the way it happened.

P.S. Subscribe to our newsletter. Every two weeks we will send 10 of the most interesting and useful materials from the MIF blog.

The grandeur and diversity of the surrounding world can amaze any imagination. All objects and objects surrounding a person, other people, different kinds plants and animals, particles that can only be seen with a microscope, as well as incomprehensible star clusters: they are all united by the concept of "Universe".

Theories of the origin of the universe have been developed by man for a long time. Despite the absence of even the initial concept of religion or science, in the inquisitive minds of ancient people questions arose about the principles of the world order and about the position of a person in the space that surrounds him. It is difficult to count how many theories of the origin of the Universe exist today, some of them are being studied by leading world-famous scientists, others are frankly fantastic.

Cosmology and its subject

Modern cosmology - the science of the structure and development of the universe - considers the question of its origin as one of the most interesting and still insufficiently studied mysteries. The nature of the processes that contributed to the emergence of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets, their development, the source of the emergence of the Universe, as well as its size and boundaries: all this is just a short list of issues studied by modern scientists.

The search for answers to the fundamental riddle about the formation of the world has led to the fact that today there are various theories of the origin, existence, development of the Universe. The excitement of specialists looking for answers, building and testing hypotheses is justified, because a reliable theory of the birth of the Universe will reveal to all mankind the probability of the existence of life in other systems and planets.

Theories of the origin of the Universe have the character of scientific concepts, individual hypotheses, religious teachings, philosophical ideas and myths. They are all conditionally divided into two main categories:

1. Theories according to which the universe was created by a creator. In other words, their essence is that the process of creating the Universe was a conscious and spiritualized action, a manifestation of the will
2. Theories of the origin of the Universe, built on the basis of scientific factors. Their postulates categorically reject both the existence of a creator and the possibility of a conscious creation of the world. Such hypotheses are often based on what is called the principle of mediocrity. They suggest the likelihood of life not only on our planet, but also on others.

Creationism - the theory of the creation of the world by the Creator

As the name implies, creationism (creation) is a religious theory of the origin of the universe. This worldview is based on the concept of the creation of the Universe, the planet and man by God or the Creator.

The idea was dominant for a long time, until the end of the 19th century, when the process of accumulating knowledge in various fields of science (biology, astronomy, physics) accelerated, and evolutionary theory became widespread. Creationism has become a kind of reaction of Christians who adhere to conservative views on the discoveries being made. The dominant idea at that time only increased the contradictions that existed between religious and other theories.

What is the difference between scientific and religious theories

The main differences between theories of various categories lie primarily in the terms used by their adherents. So, in scientific hypotheses, instead of the creator - nature, and instead of creation - origin. Along with this, there are questions that are similarly covered by different theories or even completely duplicated.

Theories of the origin of the universe, belonging to opposite categories, date its very appearance in different ways. For example, according to the most common hypothesis (the Big Bang theory), the Universe was formed about 13 billion years ago.

In contrast, the religious theory of the origin of the universe gives completely different figures:

• According to Christian sources, the age of the universe created by God at the time of the birth of Jesus Christ was 3483-6984 years.
• Hinduism suggests that our world is approximately 155 trillion years old.

Kant and his cosmological model

Until the 20th century, most scientists were of the opinion that the universe was infinite. This quality they characterized time and space. In addition, in their opinion, the Universe was static and uniform.

The idea of ​​the infinity of the universe in space was put forward by Isaac Newton. The development of this assumption was engaged in who developed the theory about the absence of time limits as well. Moving further, in theoretical assumptions, Kant extended the infinity of the universe to the number of possible biological products. This postulate meant that in the conditions of the ancient and vast world, without end and beginning, there can be an innumerable number of options, as a result of which the appearance of any biological species is real.

Based on the possible emergence of life forms, Darwin's theory was later developed. Observations of the starry sky and the results of astronomers' calculations confirmed Kant's cosmological model.

Einstein's reflections

At the beginning of the 20th century, Albert Einstein published his own model of the universe. According to his theory of relativity, two opposite processes take place simultaneously in the Universe: expansion and contraction. However, he agreed with the opinion of most scientists about the stationarity of the Universe, so he introduced the concept of the cosmic repulsive force. Its impact is designed to balance the attraction of stars and stop the process of movement of all celestial bodies in order to maintain the static nature of the Universe.

The model of the Universe - according to Einstein - has a certain size, but there are no boundaries. Such a combination is feasible only when the space is curved in such a way as it occurs in a sphere.

The characteristics of the space of such a model are:

• Three-dimensionality.
• Closing yourself.
• Homogeneity (lack of center and edge), in which galaxies are evenly distributed.

A. A. Fridman: The Universe is expanding

The creator of the revolutionary expanding model of the Universe, A. A. Fridman (USSR) built his theory on the basis of the equations characterizing the general theory of relativity. True, the generally accepted opinion in the scientific world of that time was the static nature of our world, therefore, due attention was not paid to his work.

A few years later, astronomer Edwin Hubble made a discovery that confirmed Friedman's ideas. The removal of galaxies from the nearby Milky Way has been discovered. At the same time, the fact that the speed of their movement is proportional to the distance between them and our galaxy has become irrefutable.

This discovery explains the constant "retreat" of stars and galaxies in relation to each other, which leads to the conclusion about the expansion of the universe.

Ultimately, Friedman's conclusions were recognized by Einstein, who subsequently mentioned the merits of the Soviet scientist as the founder of the hypothesis of the expansion of the Universe.

It cannot be said that there are contradictions between this theory and the general theory of relativity, however, with the expansion of the Universe, there must have been an initial impulse that provoked the scattering of stars. By analogy with the explosion, the idea was called the "Big Bang".

Stephen Hawking and the Anthropic Principle

The result of the calculations and discoveries of Stephen Hawking was the anthropocentric theory of the origin of the universe. Its creator claims that the existence of a planet so well prepared for human life cannot be accidental.

Stephen Hawking's theory of the origin of the Universe also provides for the gradual evaporation of black holes, their loss of energy and the emission of Hawking radiation.

As a result of the search for evidence, more than 40 characteristics were identified and verified, the observance of which is necessary for the development of civilization. The American astrophysicist Hugh Ross estimated the probability of such an unintentional coincidence. The result was the number 10 -53.

Our universe contains a trillion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars. According to scientists' calculations, the total number of planets should be 10 20. This figure is 33 orders of magnitude smaller than the previously calculated one. Consequently, none of the planets in all galaxies can combine conditions that would be suitable for the spontaneous emergence of life.

The big bang theory: the emergence of the universe from a negligible particle

Scientists who support the big bang theory share the hypothesis that the universe is the result of a grand bang. The main postulate of the theory is the assertion that before this event, all the elements of the current Universe were enclosed in a particle that had microscopic dimensions. Being inside it, the elements were characterized singular state, at which indicators such as temperature, density and pressure cannot be measured. They are endless. Matter and energy in this state are not affected by the laws of physics.

What happened 15 billion years ago is called the instability that arose inside the particle. The scattered smallest elements laid the foundation for the world that we know today.

In the beginning, the universe was a nebula formed by tiny particles(smaller than an atom). Then, when combined, they formed atoms, which served as the basis of stellar galaxies. Answering questions about what happened before the explosion, as well as what caused it, are the most important tasks of this theory of the origin of the Universe.

The table schematically depicts the stages of the formation of the universe after the big bang.

As follows from the above data, the universe continues to expand and cool.

The constant increase in the distance between galaxies is the main postulate: what distinguishes the big bang theory. The emergence of the universe in this way can be confirmed by the evidence found. There are also grounds for its refutation.

Problems of the theory

Given that the big bang theory is not proven in practice, it is not surprising that there are several questions that it is not able to answer:

1. Singularity. This word denotes the state of the universe, compressed to a single point. The problem of the big bang theory is the impossibility of describing the processes occurring in matter and space in such a state. The general law of relativity does not apply here, so it is impossible to make a mathematical description and equations for modeling.
   The fundamental impossibility of obtaining an answer to the question about the initial state of the Universe discredits the theory from the very beginning. Her non-fiction expositions tend to gloss over or only mention this complexity in passing. However, for scientists working to provide a mathematical foundation for the big bang theory, this difficulty is recognized as a major obstacle.
2. Astronomy. In this area, the big bang theory is faced with the fact that it cannot describe the process of the origin of galaxies. Based on modern versions of theories, it is possible to predict how a homogeneous cloud of gas appears. At the same time, its density by the present time should be about one atom per cubic meter. To get something more, one cannot do without adjusting the initial state of the Universe. The lack of information and practical experience in this area become serious obstacles to further modeling.

There is also a discrepancy between the calculated mass of our galaxy and the data obtained when studying the speed of its attraction to Judging by everything, the weight of our galaxy is ten times greater than previously thought.

Cosmology and quantum physics

Today there are no cosmological theories that do not rely on quantum mechanics. After all, it deals with the description of the behavior of atomic and quantum physics. The difference between quantum physics and classical physics (expounded by Newton) is that the second one observes and describes material objects, while the first assumes an exclusively mathematical description of the observation and measurement itself. For quantum physics, material values ​​do not represent the subject of research, here the observer himself acts as part of the situation under study.

Based on these features, quantum mechanics has difficulty describing the universe, because the observer is part of the universe. However, speaking of the emergence of the universe, it is impossible to imagine outsiders. Attempts to develop a model without the participation of an outside observer were crowned with the quantum theory of the origin of the Universe by J. Wheeler.

Its essence is that at each moment of time there is a splitting of the Universe and the formation of an infinite number of copies. As a result, each of the parallel Universes can be observed, and observers can see all quantum alternatives. At the same time, the original and new worlds are real.

inflation model

The main task that the theory of inflation is called upon to solve is the search for an answer to questions that have remained unexplored by the big bang theory and the expansion theory. Namely:

1. Why is the universe expanding?
2. What is the big bang?

To this end, the inflationary theory of the origin of the universe provides for the extrapolation of the expansion to the zero point in time, the conclusion of the entire mass of the universe at one point and the formation of a cosmological singularity, which is often referred to as the big bang.

The irrelevance of the general theory of relativity, which cannot be applied at this moment, becomes obvious. As a result, only theoretical methods, calculations and conclusions can be applied to develop a more general theory (or "new physics") and solve the problem of the cosmological singularity.

New alternative theories

Despite the success of the cosmic inflation model, there are scientists who oppose it, calling it untenable. Their main argument is criticism of the solutions proposed by the theory. Opponents argue that the solutions obtained leave some details omitted, in other words, instead of solving the problem of initial values, the theory only skillfully drapes them.

An alternative is a few exotic theories, the idea of ​​which is based on the formation of initial values ​​before the big bang. New theories of the origin of the universe can be briefly described as follows:

• String theory. Its adherents propose, in addition to the usual four dimensions of space and time, to introduce additional dimensions. They could play a role in the early stages of the universe, and at the moment be in a compactified state. Answering the question about the reason for their compactification, scientists offer an answer saying that the property of superstrings is T-duality. Therefore, the strings are "wound" on additional dimensions and their size is limited.
• Brane theory. It is also called M-theory. In accordance with its postulates, at the beginning of the formation of the Universe, there is a cold static five-dimensional space-time. Four of them (spatial) have restrictions, or walls - three-branes. Our space is one of the walls, and the second is hidden. The third three-brane is located in four-dimensional space, it is limited by two boundary branes. The theory considers the collision of a third brane with ours and the release a large number energy. It is these conditions that become favorable for the emergence of a big bang.

1. Cyclic theories deny the uniqueness of the big bang, arguing that the universe goes from one state to another. The problem with such theories is the increase in entropy, according to the second law of thermodynamics. Consequently, the duration of the previous cycles was shorter, and the temperature of the substance was significantly higher than during the big bang. The probability of this is extremely small.

No matter how many theories of the origin of the universe exist, only two of them have stood the test of time and overcome the problem of ever-increasing entropy. They were developed by scientists Steinhardt-Turok and Baum-Frampton.

These relatively new theories of the origin of the universe were put forward in the 80s of the last century. They have many followers who develop models based on it, search for evidence of reliability and work to eliminate contradictions.

String theory

One of the most popular among the theory of the origin of the Universe - Before proceeding to the description of its idea, it is necessary to understand the concepts of one of the closest competitors, the standard model. It assumes that matter and interactions can be described as a certain set of particles, divided into several groups:

• Quarks.
• Leptons.
• Bosons.

These particles are, in fact, the building blocks of the universe, since they are so small that they cannot be divided into components.

A distinctive feature of string theory is the assertion that such bricks are not particles, but ultramicroscopic strings that oscillate. In this case, oscillating at different frequencies, the strings become analogues of various particles described in the standard model.

To understand the theory, one must realize that strings are not any matter, they are energy. Therefore, string theory concludes that all the elements of the universe are composed of energy.

Fire is a good analogy. When looking at it, one gets the impression of its materiality, but it cannot be touched.

Cosmology for schoolchildren

Theories of the origin of the Universe are briefly studied in schools in astronomy classes. Students are taught the basic theories about how our world was formed, what is happening to it now and how it will develop in the future.

The purpose of the lessons is to familiarize children with the nature of the formation of elementary particles, chemical elements and celestial bodies. Theories of the origin of the universe for children are reduced to a presentation of the big bang theory. Teachers use visual material: slides, tables, posters, illustrations. Their main task is to awaken children's interest in the world that surrounds them.

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

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

Einstein strongly did not believe in the beginning and end of the universe and therefore came up with an ever-existing static universe. To do this, he needed to introduce into his equations a special component that created "anti-gravity" and thus formally ensured the stability of the world order. Einstein considered this addition (the so-called cosmological term) inelegant, ugly, but still necessary (the author of general relativity did not believe his aesthetic instinct in vain - later it was proved that the static model is unstable and therefore physically meaningless).

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

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

0. Big bang.

Planck era: 10-43 p. Planck moment. There is a separation of gravitational interaction. The size of the Universe at this moment is 10-35 m (the so-called Planck length). 10-37 p. inflationary expansion of the universe.

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

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

Lepton era: 1 s. Hydrogen nuclei are formed. Begins nuclear fusion helium.

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

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

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

Star era: 1 billion years. Formation of the first galaxies. 1 billion years. Formation of the first stars. 9 billion years. The formation of the solar system. 13.5 billion years. This moment

Receding galaxies

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

And in 1929, Hubble obtained the same dependence experimentally by processing data on the distance of twenty-four galaxies and the redshift of the light coming from them. Five years later, Hubble and his assistant observer Milton Humason provided new evidence for this conclusion by monitoring very faint galaxies at the extreme periphery of observable space. The predictions of Lemaitre and Robertson were fully justified, and the cosmology of the non-stationary Universe, it would seem, won a decisive victory.

Unrecognized model

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

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

The ballooning world stock did not rise much after George Gamow and his graduate student Ralph Alfer built a new, more realistic version of the model in early 1948. Lemaitre's universe was born from the explosion of a hypothetical "primary atom", which clearly went beyond the physicists' ideas about the nature of the microworld.

For a long time Gamow's theory was called quite academically - "dynamic evolving model". And the phrase "Big Bang", oddly enough, was introduced into circulation not by the author of this theory, and not even by its supporter. In 1949, BBC science producer Peter Laslett suggested that Fred Hoyle prepare a series of five lectures. Hoyle shone in front of the microphone and instantly gained a lot of fans among radio listeners. In his last speech, he talked about cosmology, spoke about his model, and finally decided to settle scores with competitors. Their theory, Hoyle said, "is based on the assumption that the universe came into being 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." This is how the expression first appeared. It can also be translated into Russian as "Big Cotton", which probably more accurately corresponds to the derogatory meaning of u that Hoyle put into it. A year later, his lectures were published, and the new term went around the world.

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

This proportion was in full agreement with astronomical data on the distribution of light elements in the universe. These conclusions were soon confirmed by Enrico Fermi and Anthony Turkevich. They also found that the processes thermonuclear fusion are required to generate some of the light isotope helium-3 and the heavy isotopes of hydrogen - deuterium and tritium. Their estimates of the concentration of these three isotopes in outer space also coincided with the observations of astronomers.

Problem theory

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

Secondly, Gamow's theory stalled on nucleosynthesis. Having explained the origin of helium, deuterium, and tritium, she could not move on to heavier nuclei. The helium-4 nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. Everything would be fine if it could attach a proton and turn into a lithium nucleus. However, nuclei of three protons and two neutrons or two protons and three neutrons (lithium-5 and helium-5) are extremely unstable and decay instantly. Therefore, in nature there is only stable lithium-6 (three protons and three neutrons). For its formation by direct fusion, it is necessary that both a proton and a neutron simultaneously merge with the helium nucleus, and the probability of this event is extremely small. Indeed, under conditions high density matter in the first minutes of the existence of the Universe, such reactions still occur occasionally, which explains the very low concentration of the most ancient lithium atoms.

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

However, the model of the "hot" birth of the Universe had one more card in reserve, which eventually became a trump card. In 1948, Alpher and Gamow's other assistant, Robert German, came to the conclusion that the cosmos is permeated with microwave radiation that arose 300,000 years after the primary cataclysm. However, radio astronomers showed no interest in this prediction, and it remained on paper.

The emergence of a competitor

Gamow and Alfer invented their "hot" model in the US capital, where from 1934 Gamow taught at the George Washington University. Many productive ideas came to them while drinking moderately at the Little Vienna bar on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. And if this path to constructing a cosmological theory seems exotic to some, what about the horror movie-influenced alternative?

Fred Hoyle: The expansion of the universe goes on forever! Matter is born spontaneously in the void at such a rate that the average density of the universe remains constant

In good old England, at the University of Cambridge, after the war, three remarkable scientists settled - Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold. Before that, they worked in the radar laboratory of the British Navy, where they became friends. Hoyle, an Englishman from Yorkshire, was not yet 30 at the time of the surrender of Germany, and his friends, natives of Vienna, turned 25. Hoyle and his friends in their "radar era" took their souls in conversations about the problems of the universe and cosmology. All three disliked Lemaitre's model, but Hubble's law was taken seriously, and therefore rejected the concept of a static universe. After the war, they met at Bondy's and discussed the same problems. The insight descended after watching the horror movie "Dead in the Night". Her main character Walter Craig got into a closed event loop, which at the end of the picture returned him to the same situation with which it all began. A film with such a plot can go on indefinitely (like a poem about a priest and his dog). It was then that Gold realized that the Universe could turn out to be an analogue of this plot - simultaneously changing and unchanged!

Friends thought the idea was crazy, but then they decided that there was something in it. Together they turned the hypotheses y into a coherent theory. Bondy and Gold gave its general presentation, and Hoyle, in a separate publication "A New Model of the Expanding Universe" - mathematical calculations. He took the equations of general relativity as a basis, but supplemented them with a hypothetical "field of creation" (Creation field, C-field), which has a negative pressure. Something like this appeared 30 years later in inflationary cosmological theories, which Hoyle emphasized with no small pleasure.

Steady state cosmology

The new model entered the history of science as Steady State Cosmology. She proclaimed the complete equality of not only all points of space (Einstein had this), but also all moments of time: the Universe expands, but has no beginning, since it always remains similar to itself. Gold called this statement the perfect cosmological principle. The geometry of space in this model remains flat, as in Newton. The galaxies scatter, but in space "from nothing" (more precisely, from the field of creation) new matter appears, and with such intensity that the average density of matter remains unchanged. In accordance with the then known value of the Hubble constant, Hoyle calculated that only one particle is born in every cubic meter of space for 300,000 years. The question was immediately removed why the instruments do not register these processes - they are too slow by human standards. The new cosmology did not experience any difficulties associated with the age of the Universe, this problem simply did not exist for it.

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

Triumph and defeat

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

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

For forty years now, this theory has been considered the standard and generally accepted cosmological model. She also has competitors. different ages, but no one takes Hoyle's theory seriously anymore. She was not helped even by the discovery (in 1999) of the acceleration of the expansion of galaxies, the possibility of which both Hoyle and Bondy and Gold wrote about. Her time is irrevocably gone.

Coursework on the subject " Theoretical basis progressive technologies"

Completed by: Belozerskaya Larisa Mirzodzhonovna, Course I

Moscow State Open University, branch

Cosmology is a physical study of the Universe, which includes the theory of the entire world covered by astronomical observations as part of the Universe.

The greatest achievement of modern cosmology was the model of the expanding universe, called the Big Bang theory.

According to this theory, the entire observable space is expanding. But what happened at the very beginning? All matter in the Cosmos at some initial moment was squeezed literally into nothing - compressed into a single point. It had a fantastically huge density - it is almost impossible to imagine, it is expressed by a number in which there are 96 zeros after one - and an equally unimaginably high temperature. Astronomers have called this state a singularity.

For some reason, this amazing balance was suddenly destroyed by the action of gravitational forces - it's hard to even imagine what they should have been with an infinitely huge density of "primary matter"!

Scientists have given the name "Big Bang" to this moment. The universe began to expand and cool.

It should be noted that the question of what was the birth of the Universe - "hot" or "cold" - was not immediately resolved unambiguously and occupied the minds of astronomers for a long time. Interest in the problem was far from idle - after all, from physical condition matter at the initial moment depends, for example, the age of the universe. In addition, thermonuclear reactions can take place at high temperatures. Consequently, the chemical composition of the "hot" Universe must differ from the composition of the "cold" one. And this, in turn, determines the size and rate of development of celestial bodies ...

For several decades, both versions - "hot" and "cold" birth of the Universe - existed in cosmology on an equal footing, having both supporters and critics. The matter remained "for small" - it was necessary to confirm their observations.

Modern astronomy on the question of whether there is evidence for the hypothesis hot universe and the Big Bang, can give an affirmative answer. In 1965, a discovery was made, which, according to scientists, directly confirms that in the past the matter of the Universe was very dense and hot. It turned out that in outer space there are electromagnetic waves that were born in that distant era, when there were no stars, no galaxies, or our solar system.

The possibility of the existence of such radiation was predicted by astronomers much earlier. In the middle of 1940s. American physicist George Gamow (1904-1968) took up the problems of the origin of the Universe and the origin of chemical elements. The calculations made by Gamow and his students made it possible to imagine that the Universe had a very high temperature in the first seconds of its existence. The heated substance "shone" - it emitted electromagnetic waves. Gamow suggested that they should be observed in the modern era in the form of weak radio waves, and even predicted the temperature of this radiation - about 5-6 K.

In 1965, American scientists, radio engineers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, registered cosmic radiation that could not be attributed to any known cosmic source at that time. Astronomers have come to the conclusion that this radiation, which has a temperature of about 3 K, is a relic (from the Latin "remainder", hence the name of the radiation - "relic") of those distant times when the Universe was fantastically hot. Now astronomers have been able to make a choice in favor of the "hot" birth of the Universe. A. Penzias and R. Wilson, received in 1978 the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (this is the official name of the cosmic microwave background) at a wavelength of 7.35 cm.

The big bang is the name given to the creation of the universe. Within the framework of this concept, it is assumed that the initial state of the Universe was a point called the singularity point, in which all matter and energy were concentrated. It was characterized by an infinitely high density of matter. The specific properties of the singularity point are unknown, as is unknown what preceded the singularity state.

An approximate chronology of events that followed from the zero point in time - the beginning of the expansion, is presented below:

Regarding the conditions and events that occurred before the moment 5·10-44 seconds - the end of the first time quantum - there is no reliable information. About the physical parameters of that era, one can only say that then the temperature was 1.3 1032 K, and the density of matter was about 1096 kg/m3. The given values ​​are limiting for the application of existing theories. They follow from the ratios of the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck's and Boltzmann's constants and are called "Planck's".

The events of the period from 5 10-44 to 10-36 seconds reflect the model “ inflationary universe”, a description that is difficult and cannot be given within the framework of this presentation. However, it should be noted that, according to this model, the expansion of the Universe occurred without a decrease in the volume concentration of energy and at a negative pressure of the primary mixture of matter and energy, i.e., as it were, repulsion of material objects from each other, which caused the expansion of the Universe, which continues to this day.

To understand the processes that took place during the period of 10-36-10-4 seconds from the beginning of the explosion, a deep knowledge of elementary particle physics is required. During this period, electromagnetic radiation and elementary particles - various types of mesons, hyperons, protons and antiprotons, neutrons and antineutrons, neutrinos and antineutrinos, etc. existed in balance, i.e. their volume concentrations were equal. A very important role at that time was played first by the fields of strong and then weak interactions.

In the period of 10-4 - 10-3 seconds, the formation of the entire set of elementary particles took place, which, transforming one into another, now make up the entire Universe. Annihilation of the overwhelming majority of elementary particles and antiparticles that existed earlier took place. It was during this period that the baryon asymmetry appeared, which turned out to be the result of a very small, only one billionth part, excess of the number of baryons over antibaryons. It arose, apparently, immediately after the era of the inflationary expansion of the Universe. At a temperature of 1011 degrees, the density of the Universe has already decreased to a value characteristic of atomic nuclei. During this period, the temperature halved in thousandths of a second. At the same time, the existing and now relic neutrino radiation was born. However, despite its significant density, which is no less than 400 pieces/cm3, and the possibility of obtaining with its help the most important information about that period of the formation of the Universe, its registration is not yet feasible.

In the period from 10-3 to 10-120 seconds, as a result of thermonuclear reactions, helium nuclei and a very small number of nuclei of some other light chemical elements were formed, and a significant part of the protons - hydrogen nuclei - did not undergo fusion into atomic nuclei. All of them remained immersed in the “ocean” of free electrons and photons of electromagnetic radiation. From that moment on, the ratio was established in the primary gas: 75-78% hydrogen and 25-22% helium - according to the masses of these gases.

Between 300 thousand and 1 million years, the temperature of the universe dropped to 3000 - 45000 K and the era of recombination began. Previously free electrons united with light atomic nuclei and protons. Hydrogen, helium, and some lithium atoms formed. The matter became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation, observed so far, “separated” from it. All currently observed features of the relic radiation, for example, fluctuations in the temperature of its streams coming from different parts of the celestial sphere or their polarization reflect the picture of the properties and distribution of matter at that time.

During the next - the first billion years of the existence of the Universe, its temperature decreased from 3000 - 45000 K to 300 K. Due to the fact that by this time period the Universe had not yet formed sources of electromagnetic radiation - stars, quasars, etc., and CMB has already cooled down, this era is called the “Dark Age” 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 black body radiation, characteristic of objects with a temperature of about -270 ° C (3 K), that is, only three degrees above absolute zero.

A simple analogy will help you interpret this result. Imagine that you are sitting by the fireplace and looking at the coals. While the fire is burning brightly, the coals appear yellow. As the flame dies out, the coals dim to orange color, then to dark red. When the fire is almost extinguished, the coals cease to emit visible radiation, however, when you put your hand on 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. inflationary stage of the expansion of the Universe) showed that the fusion of Big Bang cosmology and modern theory elementary particles resolves many cardinal questions of 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,
Sergei

Answer

There is no doubt, but how could it be otherwise, this fact, open modern physicists only in the 20th 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.
I 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 STO space also has 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) rotational movement particles-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 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. 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 with a removal speed applied 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 out for "thermal death of the universe" (en.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 a 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. Abnormal deceleration constant spacecraft 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 material 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 does not work either. 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 point is that the lifeless living matter but they simply differ greatly, 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 smart man, then at least try to understand this idea)

          From this point of view, it is difficult to talk about the evolution of the Universe, because Time is also an illusion of living organisms. For the Universe, Time does not exist.

          All of the above contradicts the BV theory.

          Answer

          • Worse. And BV is incapable. If you read the script, it talks about energy in the early stages. 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 roll, because not a single philosopher will take a hammer in his hands for anything. 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 best taken out of the 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 about the movement 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 not true. 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 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 Kiev, 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. A " dark matter"revealed itself as 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 chosen 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. V cosmic scale the speed of light is snail's, it takes 4 years to reach the nearest star. 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 this path and our galaxy " Milky Way"also a mini universe, but maybe 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, dear audience, to take part in your discussion community pressing issues 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 redshift 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 on the part of 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 - that's what they say they should receive.
  5. No, citizens - Nature is frugal. And as a member of parliament of a power 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 having no mass and charge at the beginning dispersed creating a sub-space, there were two crosses and a zero, to say them was a lot 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. 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 pick up 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 accepted that vacuum is one of the forms of matter, representing the state of a quantum field with least energy, there was 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 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 = 0.001 kg) flies at a speed of 10000 m/s for 100 years (t = 3155760000 sec), then the de Broglie wave will make 4.76E47 oscillations (tmv^2/h) , respectively, the dissipation of the kinetic energy will be tmv^2/hx 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, using 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

  This theory has one the main problem: 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 rather 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 constituent 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