the universe since the big bang. Superpower

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.

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

Space microwave background

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

A simple analogy will help you interpret this result. Imagine that you are sitting by the fireplace and looking at the coals. While the fire is burning brightly, the coals appear yellow. As the flame dies out, the coals dim to orange color, then to dark red. When the fire is almost extinguished, the coals stop emitting visible radiation, however, when you raise your hand to them, you will feel the heat, which means that the coals continue to emit energy, but already in the infrared frequency range. The colder the object, the lower the frequencies emitted by it and the longer the wavelength ( cm. Stefan-Boltzmann law). In essence, Penzias and Wilson determined the temperature of the "cosmic embers" of the universe after it had cooled for 15 billion years: its background radiation was found to be in the microwave radio frequency range.

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

Abundance of light elements

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

In addition to the two proofs above (microwave background and light element ratio), recent work ( cm. The inflationary stage of the expansion of the Universe) showed that the fusion of Big Bang cosmology and the modern theory of elementary particles resolves many cardinal questions about the structure of the Universe. Of course, problems remain: we cannot explain the very root cause of the universe; it is not clear to us whether the current physical laws were in effect at the time of its inception. But more than enough convincing arguments in favor of the Big Bang theory have been accumulated to date.

See also:

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

Arno Allan Penzias (pictured right) and Robert Woodrow Wilson (pictured left) are American physicists who discovered relic electromagnetic radiation.

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

Show comments (148)

Collapse comments (148)

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

Answer

There is no doubt.
"Big Bang", no, there was not, and will not be.
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2004/09/17-31.html - There was no big bang!!!
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2001/11/14-54.html - Outside mathematical application.
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2006/04/08-05.html - About Islam, aliens, and more.
And in short it is. Redshift tells us that some time ago distant objects were smaller than they are now. Just the finiteness of the speed of light is the reason that the change in the value of the speed of light that has occurred in our country is not observed in the distance (in the past).
Information is late.
Subjective removal of remote objects from us, the process is the opposite of gravity (subjective, or if you want - relative approximation) of objects lying inside some synchronized system.
Sincerely,
Sergey

Answer

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

"He [Allah] is the Setter of the heavens and the earth" (Sura al-Anam: 101).

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

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

This means that all matter was created through the Big Bang from one point, and, being divided, formed the Universe known to us. The expansion of the universe is one of the most important evidence that the universe was created from nothing. Although this fact was discovered by science only in the 20th century, Allah informed us of the reality of this in the Qur'an sent to people fourteen hundred years ago:

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

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

Answer

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

Answer

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

Answer

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

Answer

The Universe arose about 15 billion years ago as a hot bunch of superdense matter, and since then it has been expanding and cooling.
I am not an astronomer, not a scientist and my logic is quite simple, so it is easier for me to understand.
There is a theory that black holes are the centers of galaxies.
however, I assume, based on the above, that perhaps
black holes are also future universes. superdense matter - a black hole, which can be of any size
Readers are requested to send their thoughts to [email protected]

Answer

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

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

Now they believe that the Universe, as an absolute reference system, is in
state T = 2.7K (remnants of the relic radiation of the big bang).
But this relic study is expanding and will change, decrease in the future.
What temperature will it reach?
Not T=OK? Thus, if we go in the past and in the present and in
In the future, we can't run away from the VOID - NOTHING.
* * *
Everyone knows what a singular point is.
But no one knows what emptiness is - NOTHING, T=0K.
To understand this, you need to ask the question:
What geometric and physical parameters can particles have at T=OK?
Do they have volume?
No. So them geometric shape- 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) Rectilinear motion 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 such conditions are possible when the difference becomes noticeable. In particular, the conditions of the Big Bang are just such that the worldly concept of time does not work in them.

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

Answer

Listen, you're a smart kid. I should be friends with you. I'm also into astronomy, and I'm obsessed with the big bang too. SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING BEFORE THE BIG BANG. 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 cyclical process - expansion - compression - formation 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 clear 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 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 can be easily verified by doing simple calculations. Spacecraft anomalous deceleration constant a = (8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2, Hubble constant (74.2 +- 3.6) km/s per megaparsec. Light travels one megaparsec in 1E14 sec. Multiplying the anomalous deceleration by this time, we obtain the Hubble constant:
(8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2 x 1E14 s = (87.4 +- 13.3) km/s
This suggests that all particles, including photons, are subject to anomalous drag, but since photons are waves that always move at the speed of light, only the energy that photons have is purely kinetic decreases. A similar situation is when photons lose energy (turn red) in a gravitational field, while other particles that can be at rest slow down, losing speed. Hence it turns out that the cosmological redshift can be calculated using the anomalous drag constant, i.e. instead of two constants, one is enough. Abnormal braking: V=at, where a is the constant of abnormal braking, t is time. Accordingly, the "red shift" of the de Broglie waves: z=at/v, where v is the speed of the particle. Since the principle of corpuscular-wave dualism operates for all particles, the redshift of photon waves can also be calculated using the same formula: Z=at/c, where c is the speed of a photon (light). For example, the same formula for a photon through the Hubble constant has the form: Z=Ht. (The formulas are approximate, i.e. for small changes.) In outer space, it is necessary to take into account the resistance that vacuum fluctuations can exert. The fact that they exist and can exert pressure has been experimentally confirmed - the Casimir effect. Moving objects "stumble" on vacuum fluctuations. Electrons in atomic orbits "tremble" from them. According to quantum physics, the physical vacuum is not a void and it constantly interacts with real matter - the Lamb shift, the Casimir effect, etc., the interaction represents a force, so it can affect the movement.

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

Answer

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

Answer

Big bang from the point of view of quantum etherodynamics.
Stage compression of the universe - but not yet collapse. Increasingly compacted converging gravitational flows are partially balanced by counter divergent structural flows. But at a certain stage of compression, the converging flows completely stop the oncoming diverging flows, as if blocking them. The equilibrium is broken, but the conservation laws are in effect. And at some stage of compression, the locked and ever-increasing energy of the quantum medium is released. At the same time, diverging flows acquire a certain wave structure - matter is formed (possibly new). The remnants of old matter can serve as centers of fluctuations in the newborn universe.

Answer

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

Answer

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

Answer

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

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

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

Answer

- 1. I think so too. Then what is the inconsistency of continuing beyond the existing instrumental boundaries?
  2. What I mean is that if you cannot specify a point, the absence of an explosion does not follow from this.
  In addition, "bang", literally, and not an explosion at all, but "boom!". Which can be not only from the explosion, but also from various other processes.
  
  Answer
  - 1. In the question and the answer: "the existing instrumental boundaries", if I understood you correctly, these are the boundaries of the ever-expanding universe. This means that the space, which the "boundaries" have not yet reached, is not yet the universe, otherwise the very concept of the "expanding" universe loses its meaning.
    That is, the phrase "continuation beyond the available instrumental boundaries" (of the expanding universe) contains two mutually exclusive concepts.
    2. With space objects, unlike the L-shaped tube, everything is simpler:
    besides the fact that they are all close to a spherical shape, they also have a center of mass that could completely roll beyond the center of the universe.
    
    Answer
    
    Instrumental borders... seems to understand you. They are limited by the sensitivity of the instruments of modern science.
    Then imagine them as a balloon: with the development of science, it becomes wider and wider, but what reason do we have not even to assert, but only to assume that the same picture is happening outside of it?
    
    Answer
    - Well, until now, they haven’t hit the crystal sphere, there are chances to move on :) Even if physics changes outside of modern visibility, there will be no sharp border, we will feel something is wrong in advance, but for now there is no such thing. Then, if "there" the stars emit not photons, but some kind of grunts, then they would have already reached us and we observed them (we are not limited to 15 billion or how many years there?)
      "everyone is close to a spherical shape, so they still have a center of mass that could quite roll past the center of the universe."
      And in such a configuration, if there is an explosion, it will not be Big, so, supernovas are trifles. The geometry of BV is not at all like that, but let me not talk about what I cannot imagine myself. I'd rather say something else: _absence_ of BV creates even more problems. Stars, galaxies evolve, and this process is irreversible. From heavy elements hydrogen will not be born again, and will not scatter into large interstellar clouds. And, if you look back, a stationary picture 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 fact is that inanimate and living matter are simply very different, they exist, as it were, in different worlds. Any living organism positions itself as the center of the Universe, but the rest then understand that this is not so, that this is just an illusion of an individual.
        So: the perception of the material world by living organisms is an illusion.
        (I do not insist that I am right, but if you clever 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

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

Answer

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

Answer

You would be right if things were as you imagine. They gave the galaxies a good kick, and now they scatter in all directions. You were misled by the word "explosion". Replace it with the word "process", this should help in understanding. Big Process. An "infinitely many" large (explosion...) _processes_ is one Big Process.
What does this process look like? Let's imagine for a second that we have marked the Universe with some interval of [fixed] air molecules. Well, the stars do not whistle through this air, no, in the immediate vicinity of _each_ star, the air is practically still. But the distance between _each_ neighboring molecules slowly grows over time (the same for each pair). And this is not an expansion of gas into the void, because we have filled _all_ the Universe with gas. The very "base" to which our molecules are "nailed" swells. Note that there is no smell of any "explosion" here!
Let the rate of "swelling" between a neighboring pair of molecules be equal to V. Then after a time t they will move apart by a distance V * t. And the molecule after one will move 2*V*t. Those. its escape velocity will be 2*V. And a molecule that is N pieces away will run away at a speed of N*V. That. takeoff speed increases linearly with distance.
But the most important thing is that the picture does not change if we take _any_ other molecule as a reference point, in _any_ direction. Well, where is the center here, and why is it needed?
"it can't stand the theory of relativity"
This is wrong. The theory of relativity forbids superluminal _interactions_. And so, wave the laser in the direction of the Moon at a speed of 90 degrees / sec, and a "bunny" will run across the Moon with superluminal speed(you can calculate which one). The expansion of the Universe is just the opposite, it turns out as one of the solutions to the Einstein equations (for a certain value of the parameters).

Answer
- Perfectly described the process of expansion within the universe, but not the universe itself.
  "That's not true. The theory of relativity forbids superluminal _interactions." Gravitational interaction is orders of magnitude faster than the light interaction .... the theory of relativity is resting.
  
  Answer
  - - We don't need an inside view.
      Describe how the boundaries of the universe behave!
      And is it impossible to calculate the center from their behavior? after all, the time of the explosion was calculated in this way.
      The funny thing is that on the basis of the Doppler effect, which also has exceptions, from which it cannot even be called a rule, a chain of dubious conclusions is being built that lead to conclusions about the curvature of space. I won’t be surprised if people start talking about parallel worlds soon.
      
      Answer
      - I don't see any contradiction. It's so obvious that I don't know what else to clarify.
        You probably think the same
        Funny. There is no need for a third one.
        "If you turn the movie back, then everyone will drive up to the" point " _simultaneously_"
        There is no reason to assume. that unmanifested (by science) matter will behave in the same way.
        
        Answer
        
        In the garden of elderberry - in Kyiv, the uncle: this is not a contradiction, the links of the logical chain are simply missing. There are no boundaries - ... - visible matter is expanding, not the Universe. What is behind the "..."?
        Let me explain if there are boundaries: there are boundaries - we determine the distances to them - we find the geometric center - we consider the expansion from it.
        "There is no reason to suppose that unmanifested (science) matter will behave in the same way."
        About the unmanifested - yes, nothing can be said. And "dark matter" proved to be gravity.
        PS
        At the same time, please tell us about the exceptions in the Doppler effect.
        
        Answer
        
        Is expansion of space different from expansion in space?
        How can that which has no limits expand?
        Let there be "dark" instead of "unmanifested" - will the meaning change?
        About exceptions in the Doppler effect was not correctly expressed,
        I meant that some nebulae and galaxies are not moving away, but are approaching us (interestingly, by analogy with the scattering effect at any point in the universe, these nebulae approach any point in the universe). I tried to find this site ... alas, for that I found interesting news, which, however, has nothing to do with our conversation - http://grani.ru/Society/Science/m.52747.html
        
        Answer
        
        Sorry, I'll rearrange the questions a bit.
        "How can that which has no limits expand?"
        What has boundaries can expand, can't it? Wonderful. Let's push the boundaries wider, nothing will change, will we? Well, the last step is to take them to infinity. There are no borders, the process remains.
        "The expansion of space is different from the expansion in space?"
        Is different. Imagine two strands of beads, one on a string, the other on an elastic band. Expansion in space, this is the movement of beads along the rope; there are certain consequences of such a movement of the bead in relation to the place on the rope where it is currently located. The expansion of space is the stretching of the elastic band, each bead resting relative to its point on the elastic band.
        "Let there be "dark" instead of "unmanifested", will the meaning change?"
        Cardinally. Unmanifested means not interacting in any way, which is equivalent to non-existence. "Dark" means not participating in other interactions, _except_ gravitational; very little is known about her, but not so much that _nothing_. It clumps with ordinary matter, and if it hasn't separated yet, then in retrospect it's the same.
        "some nebulae and galaxies do not move away, but approach us (interestingly, by analogy with the receding effect at any point in the universe, these nebulae approach any point in the universe)"
        Look up the Local Group of Galaxies. The galaxies in the group participate in the movement around the center of mass of the group, with rather decent velocities, exceeding the speed of recession at such "small" distances. They do not approach any point in the Universe, but only those that lie in the direction of the velocity vector, and then only up to a certain distance (after all, their own speed relative to the selected point is constant, and the speed of the runaway grows linearly with the distance to the point).
        
        Answer
        
        At the last step, when the boundaries of the universe are transferred to infinity (rejection of boundaries), a qualitative transition occurs from the expansion of space to expansion in space.
        Dark matter doesn't mix with ordinary matter.
        About the Local Group of Galaxies, thanks, I’ll look at my leisure, here I admit that you are right.
        
        Answer
        
        "Expansion in space is the movement of beads along the rope; there are certain consequences of such a movement of the bead relative to the place on the rope where it is currently located. The expansion of space is the stretching of the elastic band, each bead rests relative to its point on the elastic band"
        Concerning the rope, elastic.... What in the Universe plays the role of a rope or an elastic band? If you remove them from your example (make them not real, but imaginary), then there will be no difference in the behavior of the beads.
        
        Answer

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

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

Answer

But it is proved that the process began about 15 billion years ago. And what was
before and when will it end?
The theory of relativity forbids superluminal interactions - and how
gravitational interactions? The inertia of the masses would not manifest itself instantly, after many light years!!! Setting a speed limit
this is a brake on the development of science!

Answer

Greetings to all! interested in the mystery of the origin of Our WORLD "Universe".
To this question, the ancient Philosophers said that "The world-universe is arranged as two snakes swallow each other"
And regarding this, the Big Bang theory is not entirely correct.
I was also interested in "what really happened, but it seemed to be and will be ..."
After analyzing the data, I came to this conclusion - PARADOX; First - What is the Universe and what is the Big Bang??
And what do we mean by these concepts?
And the paradox is that; There was no Big Bang and there was a Big Bang and there is more than one evidence of this mass ...
Not so long ago, the media wrote and said that a year or two ago, astronomers recorded powerful flash-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 it depends where watch from earth so the earth can also be a mini universe,
and even continents, seas and individual areas ...

Answer

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

Answer

Allow me, respectable audience, to take part in your community discussing the pressing problems of the universe. I am glad that I got to this site, and I was convinced that I am not alone in my own juice on this topic. I am most impressed by a-b, strelijrili, Boom - as one of the classics said, "Comrades, you are on the right path." In my opinion, the hypothesis of the "Big Bang" and the expansion of the Universe (it cannot even be called a theory) is not consistent and is confidently turning into a science-like religion of the 3rd millennium. The failure of the expansion of the Universe and, as a consequence, "BV" is that the fact of the red shift in the spectra of observed galaxies is explained by the Doppler effect, the question arises on what basis? It turns out there is no basis, there is no evidence base. Conclusions from the solution of equations cannot be facts until they are confirmed by observations, i.e. turned into facts. The expansion hypothesis immediately runs into its own paradox: observing distant galaxies, E. Hubble established the isotropy of the redshift, i.e. its independence from the direction of observation, interpreting the c.s. the Doppler effect turns out - the galaxies move away from the observer, so the observer is at the "singular" point, the point of the "Big Bang". And since we, being on Earth in solar system The "Milky Way" galaxies, and we are ordinary participants in this process, could be at any other point in the Universe, it turns out that the singular point is located in the entire Universe. This is already beyond common sense. Is it really that difficult?
It is necessary to return to the nature of the redshift fact and give a reasonable explanation of the physics of this phenomenon. And there may be options.
I didn’t want to get involved in the discussion, but ... something hurt - someone hooked on philosophy, well ... here:
1. There is a Big Bang! Just like the small one. The BV sequences offered today are extremely unfounded. Not from mathematics, which is only a tool for studying Reality and "draws" only its Image. And it has the right to generate only an Image, and not Reality itself. Not from the side of philosophy, which was pushed into the closet of science. She was offended and now chuckles, watching from there how they are trying to give birth without her. Yes, only miscarriages are obtained - without a midwife. And I'll watch - as long as I can stand it. So - if you add up all the comments, mix it up - just the BV theory turns out. And everything in it - even the speed of the gravitational effect is already there. Well, but what about - there is a graviton, therefore ...
2. Take into account the postulate - relic radiation has nothing to do with the BV itself. It refers... to another explosion - such, citizens, philosophy. And there is no need to argue - with philosophy. All the same, the eldest - both in rank, and in experience, and in status.
3. One should never take what seems to be real. Although behind each Appearing, the Ghost of the Real is always hidden. In holography, too, at the beginning there is natural object, and in any movie - but what about. But on the screen - only the Image. Look for the meaning of BV! Get tired - then "paws" up and to philosophy. She is not harmful and not vindictive - she will show him. Even tomorrow! But "paws" - this is a must - well, there must be compensation, at least moral. And then - you yourself. There is still a lot of things - enough for everyone - to rake.
4. True, something will have to be cleaned. OTO, for example. The "coat" became dusty, and the moth gnawed in places. Artifact? - Duck, no one is against it. But no more than that. And then the foundation of science has already begun to look like a boutique - "flavors" - wholesale and retail, gluons from imported manufacturers, even orders for bosons - now, they say, they should receive.
5. No, citizens - Nature is frugal. And as a member of parliament of a power that is not very friendly to us once said - "he does not luxuriate in unnecessary reasons." And how many elementary "reasons" already exist? So - our "answer to Chamberlain" - philosophy notes that their number is incalculable and it is precisely on this that Nature saves. (Physicists, of course, cannot understand this, but can they remember?) Nature is not trade! There, of course, not a single boutique can cope with so many of them. Even if it explodes.
Everything will repeat again from the beginning. As one of the commentators rightly noted, such is the dialectic. And, as you know, it is part of philosophy ... hm. (Please do not confuse it with mathematics - oh, this mathematics.

Answer

There was a Big Bang, but not in the form in which you imagine it. According to the M-theory, in which our world, which is presented in the form of a brane for the connection of fundamental interactions, was turned inside out during the BV. In order not to go into details, I will say that BV was in every point of space at the same time, and the process itself was going on from within the microworld.

Answer

About the Big Bang (BV), in my opinion there was no BV at all, just particles of the beginning of the Proto Particles without mass and charge at the beginning dispersed creating a sub-space, there were two cross and zero, to say there was a lot of them means to say nothing. And there was a center from where they were born, and quantization waves 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 and motion appeared, space and time appeared, time directly for matter. And at each point of the accumulation of elements, its own Big, that is, Small Bang, the birth of stars, galaxies, etc., etc., occurred. getting old. A biocell passing through the time filter, as it were, counts 1.2.3.4.5. etc. and time counts X.0.X.0.X. or 0.1.0.1.0.1.as you wish. With a large compression of gravity, it looks like quantization waves for them and they are portioned, they appear as if a shadow of mass. And time in such areas of space flows differently. It is intricately compressed. TIME is nothing but movement in space saturated with proto-particles. sitting or standing in one place, you somehow move due to the rotation of the earth around the axes of the earth, the sun, the galaxy, etc. It is a mistake to think that there is no time for a stone or meteorite because they do not change over time, they do not age, the stone lies to itself on the shore and the meteorite flies in black silence forever. After all, sooner or later the meteorite will hit something, and you will take the stone and throw it into the water, or it will fall into the stone crusher, or the meteorite will also not meet the stone. So each particle has its own fate, if you like. And in general, there will be no collapse of collapse, atheists will not wait. In the future, the universe will cool down. Hydrogen in the stars will burn out, Egyptian darkness will come, yes, But! Tic-tac-toe will not disappear anywhere because, in our opinion, they don’t exist anyway. It’s just that quantization will begin again. The birth of a new Hydrogen. raw chaotic fabrications.

Answer

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

Answer

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

Answer

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

Answer

With a big explosion, all the elements of the periodic system Dm.Mnd would be formed. The conditions were more than suitable, both pressure and temperature, but for some reason this did not happen. But something completely opposite happened - the whole universe was filled only with hydrogen atoms that did not undergo any (absolutely no) influences. Only then did this primary matter enter into interaction and fill the universe with light, heat and heavier elements. This means that either the explosion was cold and without pressure, or ... what is called the boundary (membrane) of the big bang is a white hole that still generates cold hydrogen inside itself during expansion. And when expanding, it is the cooling process that occurs, as far as I remember. By the way, this explains the temperature of the relic radiation.

Answer

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

Answer

Write a comment

Even modern scientists cannot say exactly what was in the Universe before the Big Bang. There are several hypotheses that lift the veil of secrecy over one of the most complex issues of the universe.

Origin of the material world

Prior to the 20th century, there were only two. Religious believers believed that the world was created by God. Scientists, on the contrary, refused to recognize the man-made universe. Physicists and astronomers were supporters of the idea that the cosmos has always existed, the world was static and everything will remain the same as it was billions of years ago.

However, accelerated scientific progress at the turn of the century led to the fact that researchers have the opportunity to study extraterrestrial expanses. Some of them were the first to try to answer the question of what was in the Universe before the Big Bang.

Hubble research

The 20th century destroyed many theories of past eras. New hypotheses appeared in the vacated place, explaining hitherto incomprehensible secrets. It all started with the fact that scientists established the fact of the expansion of the universe. It was made by Edwin Hubble. He discovered that distant galaxies differ in their light from those cosmic clusters that were closer to the Earth. The discovery of this regularity formed the basis of Edwin Hubble's law of expansion.

The big bang and the origin of the universe were studied when it became clear that all galaxies "run away" from the observer, no matter where he was. How could this be explained? Since galaxies are moving, it means that some kind of energy is pushing them forward. In addition, physicists have calculated that all the worlds were once at the same point. Due to some kind of push, they began to move in all directions with unimaginable speed.

This phenomenon is called the Big Bang. And the origin of the universe was explained precisely with the help of the theory about this long-standing event. When did it happen? Physicists have determined the speed of movement of galaxies and derived a formula by which they calculated when the initial "shock" occurred. No one can name exact numbers, but approximately this phenomenon took place about 15 billion years ago.

The emergence of the Big Bang theory

The fact that all galaxies are sources of light means that a huge amount of energy was released during the Big Bang. It was she who gave rise to the very brightness that the worlds lose in the course of their distance from the epicenter of what happened. The Big Bang theory was first proven by American astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias. They detected an electromagnetic cosmic microwave background whose temperature was three degrees Kelvin (that is, -270 Celsius). This finding supported the idea that the universe was extremely hot at first.

The Big Bang theory answered many of the questions posed in the 19th century. However, now there are new ones. For example, what was in the Universe before the Big Bang? Why is it so homogeneous, while with such a huge release of energy, the substance should scatter unevenly in all directions? The discoveries of Wilson and Arno called into question the classical Euclidean geometry, since it was proved that space has zero curvature.

inflationary theory

The new questions posed showed that the modern theory of the origin of the world is fragmentary and incomplete. However, for a long time it seemed that it would be impossible to move beyond the open in the 60s. And only very recent research by scientists has made it possible to formulate a new important principle for theoretical physics. It was a phenomenon of superfast inflationary expansion of the Universe. It has been studied and described using quantum field theory and Einstein's general theory of relativity.

So what was the universe like before the Big Bang? Modern science calls this period "inflation". In the beginning, there was only a field that filled all the imaginary space. It can be compared to a snowball thrown down the slope of a snowy mountain. The lump will roll down and increase in size. In the same way, the field, due to random fluctuations, changed its structure over an unimaginable time.

When a homogeneous configuration was formed, a reaction occurred. It contains the biggest mysteries of the universe. What happened before the Big Bang? An inflationary field that didn't look like current matter at all. After the reaction, the growth of the universe began. If we continue the analogy with a snowball, then after the first of them other snowballs rolled down, also increasing in size. The moment of the Big Bang in this system can be compared to the second when a huge boulder fell into the abyss and finally collided with the earth. In that moment, an enormous amount of energy was released. She still can't get over. It is due to the continuation of the reaction from the explosion that our Universe is growing today.

Matter and field

Now the Universe consists of an unimaginable number of stars and other cosmic bodies. This aggregate of matter exudes tremendous energy, which contradicts physical law energy conservation. What does he say? The essence of this principle boils down to the fact that over an infinite time the amount of energy in the system remains unchanged. But how can this be combined with our universe, which continues to expand?

The inflationary theory was able to answer this question. It is extremely rare that such mysteries of the universe are solved. What happened before the Big Bang? inflation field. After the emergence of the world, matter familiar to us came in its place. However, in addition to it, in the Universe there also exists which has negative energy. The properties of these two entities are opposite. This is how the energy coming from particles, stars, planets and other matter is compensated. This relationship also explains why the universe has not yet turned into a black hole.

When the Big Bang first happened, the world was too small for anything to collapse. Now, when the Universe has expanded, local black holes have appeared in some of its parts. Their gravitational field absorbs everything around them. Not even light can escape from it. Actually because of this, such holes become black.

Universe expansion

Even though theoretical background inflationary theory, it is still not clear what the universe looked like before the Big Bang. The human imagination cannot imagine this picture. The fact is that the inflationary field is intangible. It cannot be explained by the usual laws of physics.

When the Big Bang happened, the inflationary field began to expand at a rate that exceeded the speed of light. According to physical indicators, there is nothing material in the Universe that could move faster than this indicator. Light spreads through the existing world with exorbitant numbers. The inflationary field has spread with even greater speed, precisely because of its non-material nature.

The current state of the universe

The current period of the evolution of the Universe is the best suited for the existence of life. Scientists find it difficult to determine how long this time period will last. But if anyone undertook such calculations, then the resulting figures were in no way less than hundreds of billions of years. For one human life, such a segment is so large that even in mathematical calculation it has to be written using degrees. The present has been studied much better than the prehistory of the universe. What happened before the Big Bang, in any case, will remain only the subject of theoretical research and bold calculations.

In the material world, even time remains a relative quantity. For example, quasars (a type of astronomical objects) that exist at a distance of 14 billion light years from the Earth lag behind our usual “now” by those same 14 billion light years. This time gap is enormous. It is difficult to define it even mathematically, not to mention the fact that it is simply impossible to clearly imagine such a thing with the help of human imagination (even the most ardent one).

Modern science can theoretically explain to itself the entire life of our material world, starting from the first fractions of seconds of its existence, when the Big Bang had just occurred. Full history The universe is still being completed. Astronomers discover new amazing facts with the help of modernized and improved research equipment (telescopes, laboratories, etc.).

However, there are still not understood phenomena. Such a white spot, for example, is its dark energy. The essence of this hidden mass continues to excite the minds of the most educated and advanced physicists of our time. In addition, there has never been a unified point of view about the reasons why there are still more particles in the Universe than antiparticles. Several fundamental theories have been formulated on this subject. Some of these models are the most popular, but none of them has yet been accepted by the international scientific community as

On the scale of universal knowledge and the colossal discoveries of the 20th century, these gaps seem quite insignificant. But the history of science shows with enviable regularity that the explanation of such "small" facts and phenomena becomes the basis for the whole idea of mankind about the discipline as a whole (in this case, we are talking about astronomy). Therefore, future generations of scientists will certainly have something to do and something to discover in the field of understanding the nature of the Universe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting periods in the formation of the Universe

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

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

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

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

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

Cosmological singularity

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

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

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

The Relation of Religion to the Big Bang Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About 1 billion years ago, the formation of galaxies began, at that moment the Universe began to remotely resemble what we can see now. 300,000 years after the Big Bang, it had cooled so much that the electrons were firmly held by the nuclei, as a result of which stable atoms appeared that did not decay immediately after colliding with another nucleus.

Particle formation

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

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

After the birth of the universe

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

Sources:

Elements, Big bang
Elements, Early Universe

One of the directions of the natural sciences, lying on the border of physics, mathematics, and partly even theology, is the development and study of theories of the origin of the Universe. To date, scientists have proposed several cosmological models, the concept of the Big Bang is generally accepted.

The essence of the theory and the consequences of the explosion

According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe passed from the so-called singular state into a state of constant expansion as a result of a general explosion of some substance of small size and high temperature. The explosion was of such magnitude that each particle of matter sought to move away from the other. The expansion of the universe implies the usual categories three-dimensional space, before the explosion, obviously, they did not exist.

Before the explosion, several stages are distinguished: the Planck era (the earliest), the era of the Great Unification (the time of electronuclear forces and gravity) and, finally, the Big Bang.

First, photons (radiation) were formed, then particles of matter. Within the first second, protons, antiprotons and neutrons were formed from these particles. After that, annihilation reactions became frequent, so the Universe was very dense, the particles continuously collided with each other.

In the second second, when the Universe cooled down to 10 billion degrees, some other elementary particles were formed, for example, an electron and a positron. In addition to the time interval, most of the particles annihilated. There were minimally more matter particles than antimatter particles. Therefore, our Universe consists of matter, and not of.

Three minutes later all the protons and neutrons turned into helium nuclei. After hundreds of thousands of years, the ever-expanding Universe cooled down significantly, helium nuclei and protons could already hold electrons in themselves. In this way, helium and hydrogen atoms were formed. The universe has become less "close". The radiation could propagate over considerable distances. Until now, on Earth, you can "hear" the echo of that radiation. It is called relic. The discovery and existence of the CMB confirms the concept of the Big Bang, it is microwave radiation.

Gradually, during the expansion, random condensations formed in certain places of the homogeneous Universe. It was they who became the forerunners of large densifications and points of concentration of matter. So in the Universe, regions were formed where there was almost no matter, and regions where there was a lot of it. The clumps of matter grew under the influence of gravity. In such places, galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies gradually began to form.

Criticism

At the end of the twentieth century, the concept of the Big Bang became practically accepted in cosmology. However, there are many criticisms and additions. For example, the most controversial provision of the concept is the problem of the causes of the explosion. Also, some scientists disagree with the idea of an expanding universe. Interestingly, different religions have generally received the concept positively, even finding indications of the Big Bang in the Sacred

We are opening a new rubric "Intellectual Hour" - for those who love science. We will talk about how the Universe works and what processes take place in it, about the secrets of physics and astrophysics, mathematics, statistics, psychology and philosophy, about artificial intelligence. If your mind rejoices at the words "knowledge", "representativeness", "black body", "equation", "non-transitive" and "quanta" - this rubric is for you.

Today we will learn a little more about the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background radiation and inflation, the "bloat" of the Universe: the lecturer will be John Gribbin, an astrophysicist from the UK, the author of popular science literature on quantum physics, evolution, the origin of the Universe, climate change and other topics, including the recently published book in Russian “13.8. In Search of the True Age of the Universe and the Theory of Everything".

Relic radiation. Start

The first satellite of the Earth, launched specifically for the study of relic radiation back in 1983, was the Soviet "RELIKT-1". He proved the feasibility of such missions, but was not sensitive enough to confirm the inhomogeneity of the radiation at different points in the sky. And it was necessary to do this, because if the radiation was really an echo of the Big Bang, it should contain traces of the fluctuations of the early days of the Universe, which developed, giving rise to the galaxies that we see today.

By the early 1980s, cosmologists were already worried about the apparent excessive uniformity of the CMB: the resulting flatness of the universe - the balance between expansion and contraction - seemed too ideal a model.

The critical density required for the flatness of the Universe must change with time (it is not the same for different cosmic epochs). Einstein's equations tell us that if the universe was born from a big bang and its density is just a little bit more than necessary for a flat model, then this deviation will increase over time, since the presence of excess matter will slow down the expansion and maintain a high density of space.

Conversely, if the initial density of the universe is slightly less than the critical one, this difference will begin to increase in the other direction, forcing the matter to be distributed less and less densely. Absolute flatness is the least likely model of all.

Problem number 1, or Something else about the Universe

Although everyone knew about this problem before, no one gave it of great importance until Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles, two Princeton researchers who discovered the CMB in the mid-1960s, brought it to the attention of scientists in the late 1970s.

In an attempt to explain the flatness of the modern universe, earlier researchers concluded that the density at the time of the Big Bang should have been no more than one quadrillion (1/10 to the 15th power) of the critical density for that time. It was obvious that this indicator could tell us something important about the birth of the universe, but no one knew what exactly - until December 6, 1979.

Alan Guth, an American physicist and cosmologist who first proposed the idea of cosmic inflation, a young researcher from Cornell University, attended Dicke's lecture on the problem of a flat universe in the spring of that year. Intrigued by this mystery of the universe, he kept it in his head all the time and tried to read as much as possible about cosmology.

Knowledge of particle physics began to be linked in his head with cosmological data, and on December 6, after discussing his favorite topic with Sidney Coleman, who came from Harvard, it dawned on him.

He sat at his desk until the morning, and on Friday, December 7, 1979, entered his really important discovery into a notebook under the loud heading "ASKING INSIGHT".

He knew that he had stumbled upon something very important. Guth realized that during the creation of the universe, in the first fraction of a second, a process called symmetry breaking occurred, and within its framework, a phase transition, similar to how steam condenses into water and releases energy. It was a powerful release of energy that launched the process of rapid expansion - Guth called it inflation, literally "inflation" - ended. (Inflation is often included in the Big Bang, but it is important to understand that it preceded it.)

Universe inflation

How did it happen? Let's take a closer look. In the process of inflation, the size of the universe increased exponentially, doubling every 10 to a minus 38 power of a fraction of a second, that is, everything in the observable Universe "inflated" from some initial state a billion times smaller than a proton to the size of a basketball in about 10 to a minus 30 power of a second (At this speed, in about the same time, a tennis ball could expand to the size of visible space). And then the Big Bang happened. This idea was further developed by Andrey Linde, an American of Russian origin, and other researchers.

The Universe we see is so homogeneous because it was formed from such a tiny state in which there were no conditions for a difference in densities.

This model also solves the problem of flatness: inflation flattens the universe in the same way that the surface of an inflated balloon or any other growing sphere becomes flat. The surface of a tennis ball, which is a two-dimensional object wrapped around a third dimension, is obviously round, but if we inflate it to the size of the visible universe and try to examine its surface, then no measurements will be able to notice its deviation from flatness.

The same happens with the real Universe, only in three, not two dimensions (Such a model also offers a solution to the horizon problem, since the far-separated parts of the Universe are connected earlier, but separated by an ultra-fast stretching of space. This stretching occurred in a certain sense faster than the speed of light but nothing can move through space faster than light. This strong evidence for the existence of inflation was discovered by Sandage and later confirmed by observation.)

The primary state itself within the framework of this model can be explained by the so-called quantum fluctuation - a slight distortion of the fabric of the space-time continuum, which did not have time to disappear and was subjected to inflation.

Quantum Fluctuations and the Big Bang

To top it off, during inflation in the nascent universe, new quantum fluctuations occur, which also undergo inflation, leaving ripples on the structure of matter, with which the Big Bang then occurs. This ripple, often referred to as anisotropy, becomes the germ of structures such as galaxies (more precisely, clusters and superclusters of galaxies), and it was supposed to leave its mark on the CMB.

If you try to trace the history of the Universe, based on fluctuations in the radiation observed today, you must focus on the difference in the temperature of this radiation in different parts of the sky.

This temperature is about one hundred-thousandth part, that is, for a temperature of about 2.7 K, the fluctuations will be 土0.00003 K. If we start from the theory of inflation, we can predict exactly where in the sky traces of these “bloated” quantum fluctuations will be visible. Inflation should have left a clear imprint on the sky, if only we have enough accurate sensors to pick it up. It is not surprising that RELICT-1 (by the way, RELICT-2 was never launched) failed to detect these subtle deviations. But already the next satellite, launched to study the cosmic microwave background radiation, had more sensitive sensors.

John Gribbin tells even more about the Universe, determining its age and relic radiation in his book: in detail and without unnecessary simplifications.

P.S. If you love science, join the MIF.SciencePop communities in