What is the big bang theory. Big Bang

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 collection of matter exudes tremendous energy, which contradicts the physical law of conservation of energy. 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 despite the theoretical substantiation of the 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. The complete history of 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.

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

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

Space microwave background

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

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

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

Abundance of light elements

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

Show comments (148)

Collapse comments (148)

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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?

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]

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

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

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

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

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)

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?".

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.

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;))

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

The word "Emptiness" for exact science is absolutely incorrect, as well as the word "Explosion". Based on this statement, it should be noted that any physical phenomenon must have understandable qualities or properties, such as, for example, volume. In the context, it should be taken into account that all processes of any kind take place within the boundaries of this volume, and the influence of these processes, to certain limits, also extends outside.
So, - Explosion in the Void! Egg universe! Typical expressions for a 19th century sensation shouted out by the street vendors of newspapers and magazines of the time.
In fact, in the theory of the "Big Bang" (in a competent description) it is directly stated that "the Universe began to expand about 15 billion years ago from a red-hot clot of superdense matter." It is not at all about an explosion or about emptiness. Only a hypothesis is stated at the moment, confirmed by the analysis of the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background radiation. And let's say it's called "The Big Bang Theory". Just phraseological balancing act, nothing more ...
P.S. "Nature does not tolerate emptiness!"

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

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?

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

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????.........

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".

Reply

The cosmological redshift and the "Pioneer anomaly" are one effect representing the loss of kinetic energy over time, which is converted into the energy of vacuum fluctuations. This is easy to verify by doing simple calculations. Spacecraft anomalous deceleration constant a = (8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2, Hubble constant (74.2 +- 3.6) km/s per megaparsec. Light travels one megaparsec in 1E14 sec. Multiplying the anomalous deceleration by this time, we obtain the Hubble constant:
(8.74 +- 1.33)E-10 m/s^2 x 1E14 s = (87.4 +- 13.3) km/s
This suggests that all particles, including photons, are subject to anomalous drag, but since photons are waves that always move at the speed of light, only the energy that photons have is purely kinetic decreases. A similar situation is when photons lose energy (turn red) in a gravitational field, while other particles that can be at rest slow down, losing speed. Hence it turns out that the cosmological redshift can be calculated using the anomalous drag constant, i.e. instead of two constants, one is enough. Abnormal braking: V=at, where a is the constant of abnormal braking, t is time. Accordingly, the "red shift" of the de Broglie waves: z=at/v, where v is the speed of the particle. Since the principle of corpuscular-wave dualism 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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Reply
- 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?
  
  Reply
  - 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.
    
    Reply
    
    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.
    
    Reply

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.

- 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.
  
  Reply
  - 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.
    
    Reply
    
    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?
    
    Reply
    - 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?
      
      Reply
      - Do you think that only BW is capable of producing hydrogen from heavy elements? And the "supernova" is not able to?
        I'm not against bv "instrumental universe" (very apt phrase), I'm against the identification of the instrumental universe and the universe.
        Scientists who study the universe have one huge flaw.
        The fact is that inanimate and living matter are simply very different, they exist, as it were, in different worlds. Any living organism positions itself as the center of the Universe, but the rest then understand that this is not so, that this is just an illusion of an individual.
        So: the perception of the material world by living organisms is an illusion.
        (I do not insist that I am right, but if you are a smart person, then at least try to understand this thought)
        From this point of view, it is difficult to talk about the evolution of the Universe, because Time is also an illusion of living organisms. For the Universe, Time does not exist.
        All of the above contradicts the BV theory.
        
        Reply
        
        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.
        
        Reply
        
        "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.
        
        Reply
        
        "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?
        
        Reply
        
        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.))))
        
        Reply
        
        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 !!!
        
        Reply
        
        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.
        
        Reply

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.

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

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

Reply
- 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.
  
  Reply
  - - 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.
      
      Reply
      - 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.
        
        Reply
        
        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.
        
        Reply
        
        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
        
        Reply
        
        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).
        
        Reply
        
        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.
        
        Reply
        
        "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.
        
        Reply

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 ...

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!

Greetings to all! interested in the mystery of the origin of Our WORLD "Universe".
To this question, the ancient Philosophers said that "The world-universe is arranged as two snakes swallow each other"
And regarding this, the Big Bang theory is not entirely correct.
I was also interested in "what really happened, but it seemed to be and will be ..."
After analyzing the data, I came to this conclusion - PARADOX; First - What is the Universe and what is the Big Bang??
And what do we mean by these concepts?
And the paradox is that; There was no Big Bang and there was a Big Bang and there is more than one evidence of this mass ...
Not so long ago, the media wrote and said that a year or two ago, astronomers recorded a powerful flash - an explosion
and this is supposed to have been the birth of a galaxy, and what is a galaxy is a mini universe.
According to String theory, they calculated that the shape of the universes can be - spherical, spiral-shaped or dumbbell-shaped and other shapes, which is what we see in the form of galaxies
Here comes the big bang and the birth of the universe
Following further along this path, our galaxy "Milky Way" is also a mini universe, and can remove this word "mini"
because here, depending on where to look, from the Earth, the Earth can also be a mini universe,
and even continents, seas and individual areas ...

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.

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

Write a comment

The idea of the development of the Universe naturally led to the formulation of the problem of the beginning of the evolution (birth) of the Universe and its

end (death). Currently, there are several cosmological models that explain certain aspects of the origin of matter in the Universe, but they do not explain the causes and process of the birth of the Universe itself. Of the totality of modern cosmological theories, only Gamow's theory of the Big Bang has been able to satisfactorily explain almost all the facts related to this problem by now. The main features of the Big Bang model have survived to this day, although they were later supplemented by the theory of inflation, or the theory of the expanding Universe, developed by the American scientists A. Gut and P. Steinhardt and supplemented by the Soviet physicist A.D. Linda.

In 1948, the outstanding American physicist of Russian origin G. Gamow suggested that the physical Universe was formed as a result of a gigantic explosion that occurred about 15 billion years ago. Then all the matter and all the energy of the Universe were concentrated in one tiny superdense clot. If you believe mathematical calculations, then at the beginning of the expansion, the radius of the Universe was completely equal to zero, and its density is equal to infinity. This initial state is called singularity - point volume with infinite density. The known laws of physics do not work in the singularity. In this state, the concepts of space and time lose their meaning, so it is meaningless to ask where this point was. Also, modern science cannot say anything about the reasons for the appearance of such a state.

However, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, matter cannot be pulled into one point, so it is believed that the Universe in its initial state had a certain density and size. According to some estimates, if the entire matter of the observable Universe, which is estimated at about 10 61 g, is compressed to a density of 10 94 g/cm 3 , then it will occupy a volume of about 10 -33 cm 3 . It would be impossible to see it in any electron microscope. For a long time, nothing could be said about the causes of the Big Bang and the transition of the Universe to expansion. But today there are some hypotheses trying to explain these processes. They underlie the inflationary model of the development of the Universe.

"Beginning" of the Universe

The main idea of the Big Bang concept is that the Universe in its early stages of origin had an unstable vacuum-like state with a high energy density. This energy originated from quantum radiation, i.e. as if from nothing. The fact is that in the physical vacuum there are no fixed

particles, fields and waves, but this is not a lifeless void. In a vacuum, there are virtual particles that are born, have a fleeting existence and immediately disappear. Therefore, the vacuum "boils" with virtual particles and is saturated with complex interactions between them. Moreover, the energy contained in vacuum is located, as it were, on its different floors, i.e. there is a phenomenon of differences in the energy levels of the vacuum.

While the vacuum is in equilibrium, there are only virtual (ghostly) particles in it, which borrow energy from the vacuum for a short period of time to be born, and quickly return the borrowed energy to disappear. When, for some reason, the vacuum at some starting point (singularity) was excited and left the equilibrium state, then virtual particles began to capture energy without recoil and turned into real particles. In the end, at a certain point in space, a huge number of real particles were formed, along with the energy associated with them. When the excited vacuum collapsed, a gigantic radiation energy was released, and the superpower compressed the particles into superdense matter. The extreme conditions of the "beginning", when even space-time was deformed, suggest that the vacuum was also in a special state, which is called a "false" vacuum. It is characterized by an energy of extremely high density, which corresponds to an extremely high density of matter. In this state of matter, strong stresses, negative pressures can arise in it, equivalent to a gravitational repulsion of such magnitude that it caused the unrestrained and rapid expansion of the Universe - the Big Bang. This was the first impulse, the “beginning” of our world.

From this moment, the rapid expansion of the Universe begins, time and space arise. At this time, there is an unrestrained inflation of "bubbles of space", the embryos of one or several universes, which may differ from each other in their fundamental constants and laws. One of them became the embryo of our Metagalaxy.

According to various estimates, the period of "inflation", going exponentially, takes an unimaginably short period of time - up to 10 - 33 s after the "beginning". It is called inflation period. During this time, the size of the universe has increased 1050 times, from a billionth of the size of a proton to the size of a matchbox.

By the end of the inflation phase, the universe was empty and cold, but when inflation dried up, the universe suddenly became extremely "hot". This burst of heat that lit up the cosmos is due to the huge reserves of energy contained in the "false" vacuum. This state of vacuum is very unstable and tends to decay. When

the decay ends, the repulsion disappears, and so does inflation. And the energy, bound in the form of many real particles, was released in the form of radiation, which instantly heated the Universe to 10 27 K. From that moment on, the Universe developed according to the standard theory of the “hot” Big Bang.

Early evolution of the universe

Immediately after the Big Bang, the Universe was a plasma of elementary particles of all kinds and their antiparticles in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium at a temperature of 10 27 K, which freely transformed into each other. Only gravitational and large (Great) interactions existed in this bunch. Then the Universe began to expand, at the same time its density and temperature decreased. The further evolution of the Universe took place in stages and was accompanied, on the one hand, by differentiation, and, on the other hand, by the complication of its structures. The stages of the evolution of the Universe differ in the characteristics of the interaction of elementary particles and are called eras. The most important changes took less than three minutes.

hadron era lasted 10 -7 s. At this stage, the temperature drops to 10 13 K. At the same time, all four fundamental interactions appear, the free existence of quarks ceases, they merge into hadrons, the most important of which are protons and neutrons. The most significant event was the global symmetry breaking that occurred in the first moments of the existence of our Universe. The number of particles turned out to be slightly larger than the number of antiparticles. The reasons for this asymmetry are still unknown. In a common plasma-like bunch, for every billion pairs of particles and antiparticles, one particle turned out to be more, it lacked a pair for annihilation. This determined the further appearance of the material Universe with galaxies, stars, planets and intelligent beings on some of them.

lepton era lasted up to 1 s after the onset. The temperature of the Universe dropped to 10 10 K. Its main elements were leptons, which participated in the mutual transformations of protons and neutrons. At the end of this era, matter became transparent to neutrinos; they stopped interacting with matter and have since survived to the present day.

Radiation era (photon era) lasted 1 million years. During this time, the temperature of the Universe decreased from 10 billion K to 3000 K. During this stage, the processes of primary nucleosynthesis, the most important for the further evolution of the Universe, took place - the combination of protons and neutrons (there were about 8 times less

less than protons) into atomic nuclei. By the end of this process, the matter of the Universe consisted of 75% protons (hydrogen nuclei), about 25% were helium nuclei, hundredths of a percent fell on deuterium, lithium and other light elements, after which the Universe became transparent to photons, since the radiation separated from matter and formed what in our era is called relic radiation.

Then, for almost 500 thousand years, no qualitative changes occurred - the Universe slowly cooled and expanded. The universe, while remaining homogeneous, became increasingly rarefied. When it cooled down to 3000 K, the nuclei of hydrogen and helium atoms could already capture free electrons and turn into neutral hydrogen and helium atoms. As a result, a homogeneous Universe was formed, which was a mixture of three almost non-interacting substances: baryon matter (hydrogen, helium and their isotopes), leptons (neutrinos and antineutrinos) and radiation (photons). By this time there were no high temperatures and high pressures. It seemed that in the long term the Universe was waiting for further expansion and cooling, the formation of a "lepton desert" - something like heat death. But this did not happen; on the contrary, there was a jump that created the modern structural universe, which, according to modern estimates, took from 1 to 3 billion years.

The spectacle of the night starry sky, strewn with stars, fascinates any person whose soul has not yet become lazy and completely stale. The mysterious depth of Eternity opens up before the astonished human gaze, causing thoughts about the original, about where it all began...

The Big Bang and the Origin of the Universe

If, out of curiosity, we pick up a reference book or some popular science manual, we will certainly stumble upon one of the versions of the theory of the origin of the Universe - the so-called big bang theory. Briefly, this theory can be stated as follows: initially, all matter was compressed into one "point", which had an unusually high temperature, and then this "point" exploded with tremendous force. As a result of the explosion, atoms, substances, planets, stars, galaxies and, finally, life were gradually formed from a super-hot cloud of subatomic particles gradually expanding in all directions. At the same time, the Expansion of the Universe continues, and it is not known how long it will continue: perhaps someday it will reach its boundaries.

There is another theory of the origin of the universe. According to it, the origin of the Universe, the entire universe, life and man is a reasonable creative act carried out by God, the creator and omnipotent, the nature of which is incomprehensible to the human mind. "Convinced" materialists are usually inclined to ridicule this theory, but since half of humanity believes in it in one form or another, we have no right to pass it over in silence.

explaining origin of the universe and man from a mechanistic position, interpreting the Universe as a product of matter, whose development is subject to the objective laws of nature, supporters of rationalism, as a rule, deny non-physical factors, especially when it comes to the existence of some kind of Universal or Cosmic mind, since this is "unscientific". Scientific same should be considered that which can be described with the help of mathematical formulas.

One of the biggest problems facing the proponents of the big bang theory is that none of the scenarios they propose for the origin of the universe can be described mathematically or physically. According to basic theories big bang, the initial state of the Universe was a point of infinitely small size with infinitely high density and infinitely high temperature. However, such a state goes beyond the limits of mathematical logic and cannot be described formally. So in reality, nothing definite can be said about the initial state of the Universe, and the calculations here fail. Therefore, this state has received the name "phenomenon" among scientists.

Since this barrier has not yet been overcome, in popular science publications for the general public, the topic of "phenomenon" is usually omitted altogether, and in specialized scientific publications and publications whose authors are trying to somehow cope with this mathematical problem, about the "phenomenon" are said to be scientifically unacceptable. Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and J.F.R. Ellis, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cape Town, in his book "The Long Scale of Space-Time Structure" states: beyond the known laws of physics." Then we have to admit that in the name of substantiating the "phenomenon", this cornerstone big bang theory, it is necessary to admit the possibility of using research methods that go beyond the scope of modern physics.

The "phenomenon", like any other starting point of the "beginning of the universe", which includes something that cannot be described by scientific categories, remains an open question. However, the following question arises: where did the "phenomenon" itself come from, how did it form? After all, the problem of "phenomenon" is only part of a much larger problem, the problem of the very source of the initial state of the Universe. In other words, if the Universe was originally compressed into a point, then what brought it to this state? And even if we abandon the “phenomenon” that causes theoretical difficulties, the question still remains: how did the Universe form?

In an attempt to circumvent this difficulty, some scientists propose the so-called "pulsating universe" theory. In their opinion, the Universe is infinite, over and over again, it shrinks to a point, then it expands to some boundaries. Such a universe has neither beginning nor end, there is only a cycle of expansion and a cycle of contraction. At the same time, the authors of the hypothesis claim that the Universe has always existed, thereby seemingly completely removing the question of the "beginning of the world." But the fact is that no one has yet presented a satisfactory explanation of the mechanism of pulsation. Why does the Universe pulsate? What are the reasons for it? Physicist Steven Weinberg in his book "The First Three Minutes" indicates that with each next pulsation in the Universe, the ratio of the number of photons to the number of nucleons must inevitably increase, which leads to the extinction of new pulsations. Weinberg concludes that in this way the number of cycles of pulsation of the Universe is finite, which means that at some point they must stop. Therefore, the "pulsating Universe" has an end, and therefore has a beginning...

And again we run into the problem of the beginning. Einstein's general theory of relativity creates additional trouble. The main problem with this theory is that it does not consider time as we know it. In Einstein's theory, time and space are combined into a four-dimensional space-time continuum. It is impossible for him to describe an object as occupying a certain place at a certain time. The relativistic description of an object defines its spatial and temporal position as a single whole, stretched from the beginning to the end of the object's existence. For example, a person would be depicted as a single whole along the entire path of his development from the embryo to the corpse. Such constructions are called "space-time worms".

But if we are "space-time worms", then we are only an ordinary form of matter. The fact that man is a rational being is not taken into account. By defining man as a "worm", the theory of relativity does not take into account our individual perception of the past, present and future, but considers a number of separate cases, united by spatio-temporal existence. In fact, we know that we exist only in today, while the past exists only in our memory, and the future - in our imagination. And this means that all concepts of the "beginning of the Universe", built on the theory of relativity, do not take into account the perception of time by human consciousness. However, time itself is still little studied.

Analyzing alternative, non-mechanistic concepts of the origin of the Universe, John Gribbin in his book "White Gods" emphasizes that in recent years there has been a "series of ups and downs of the creative imagination of thinkers, whom today we no longer call either prophets or clairvoyants." One of such creative upsurges was the concept of "white holes", or quasars, which "spit out" entire galaxies in the flow of primary matter. Another hypothesis discussed in cosmology is the idea of so-called space-time tunnels, so-called "space channels". This idea was first expressed in 1962 by physicist John Wheeler in the book "Geometrodynamics", in which the researcher formulated the possibility of extra-spatial, extraordinarily fast intergalactic travel, which, if moving at the speed of light, would take millions of years. Some versions of the concept of "supra-dimensional channels" consider the possibility of using them to travel to the past and future, as well as to other universes and dimensions.

God and the Big Bang

As you can see, the "big bang" theory is under attack from all sides, which causes legitimate displeasure among orthodox scientists. At the same time, scientific publications more and more often come across indirect or direct recognition of the existence of supernatural forces beyond the control of science. There is a growing number of scientists, including major mathematicians and theoretical physicists, who are convinced of the existence of God or a higher Mind. Such scientists include, for example, Nobel Prize winners George Wylde and William McCree. The famous Soviet scientist, doctor of sciences, physicist and mathematician O.V. Tupitsyn was the first Russian scientist who managed to mathematically prove that the Universe, and with it man, were created by a Mind that is immeasurably more powerful than ours, that is, by God.

One cannot argue, writes O. V. Tupitsyn in his Notebooks, that life, including intelligent life, is always a strictly ordered process. Life is based on order, a system of laws by which matter moves. Death is, on the contrary, disorder, chaos and, as a consequence, the destruction of matter. No order is possible without influence from the outside, moreover, the influence of a reasonable and purposeful one - the process of destruction immediately begins, which means death. Without understanding this, and therefore without recognizing the idea of God, science will never be destined to discover the root cause of the Universe that arose from pra-matter as a result of strictly ordered processes or, as physics calls them, fundamental laws. Fundamental - this means basic and unchanging, without which the existence of the world would be generally impossible.

However, it is very difficult for a modern person, especially one brought up on atheism, to include God in the system of his worldview - due to undeveloped intuition and a complete lack of a concept of God. Well, then, you have to believe in big Bang...

Big Bang Mysteries

Our universe began 13.7 billion years ago with the Big Bang, and scientists have been trying to understand this phenomenon for generations.

In the late 20s of the 20th century, Edwin Hubble discovered that all the galaxies we see are flying apart - like fragments of a grenade after an explosion, at the same time the Belgian astronomer and theologian Georges Lemaitre put forward his hypothesis (in 1931 it appeared on the pages of "Nature" ). He believes that the history of the universe began with the explosion of the "primary atom", and this gave rise to time, space and matter (earlier, in the early 1920s, the Soviet scientist Alexander Fridman, analyzing Einstein's equations, also came to the conclusion that "The universe was created from a point" and it took "tens of billions of our ordinary years").

At first, astronomers resolutely rejected the reasoning of the Belgian theologian. Because the theory of the Big Bang was perfectly combined with the Christian faith in God the Creator. For two centuries, scientists prevented the penetration into science of any kind of religious speculation about the "beginning of all beginnings." And now God, expelled from nature under the measured swaying of the wheels of Newtonian mechanics, unexpectedly returns. He is coming in the flames of the Big Bang, and it is difficult to imagine a more triumphant picture of his appearance.

However, the problem was not only in theology - the Big Bang did not obey the laws of the exact sciences. The most important moment in the history of the universe was beyond cognition. At this singular (special) point, located on the axis of space-time, the general theory of relativity ceased to operate, because pressure, temperature, energy density and curvature of space rushed to infinity, that is, they lost all physical meaning. At this point, all those seconds, meters and astronomical units disappeared, turned not into zero, not into negative values, but into their complete absence, into absolute insignificance. This point is a gap that cannot be bridged on the stilts of logic or mathematics, a hole right through in time and space.

It wasn't until the late 1960s that Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking convincingly showed that, within Einstein's theory, the Big Bang singularity was inevitable. However, this could not facilitate the work of theorists. How to describe the Big Bang? What was, for example, the cause of this event? After all, if there was no time at all before it, then there could not seem to be a reason that gave rise to it.

As we now understand, in order to create a complete theory of the Big Bang, it is necessary to link together the teachings of Einstein, which describes space and time, with quantum theory, which deals with elementary particles and their interaction. Probably, more than one decade may pass before it will be possible to do this and derive a single "formula of the universe."

And where, for example, could the tremendous amount of energy that generated this explosion of incredible force come from? Perhaps it was inherited by our Universe from its predecessor, which shrunk into a singular point? But then where did she get it from? Or was the energy poured into the primordial vacuum, from which our Universe slipped out as a “bubble of foam”? Or do the Universes of the older generation transmit energy to the Universes of the younger generation through - those singular points - in the depths of which, perhaps, new worlds are born that we will never see? Be that as it may, the Universe in such models appears as an "open system", which does not quite correspond to the "classical" picture of the Big Bang: "There was nothing, and suddenly the universe was born."

The universe at the time of formation was in an extremely dense and hot state.

And perhaps, as some of the researchers believe, our Universe is generally ... devoid of energy, more precisely, its total energy is zero? The positive energy of radiation emitted by matter is superimposed on the negative energy of gravity. Plus times minus equals zero. This notorious "0" seems to be the key to understanding the nature of the Big Bang. From it - from "zero", from "nothing" - everything was born instantly. By chance. Spontaneously. Just. A negligibly small deviation from 0 gave rise to a universal avalanche of events. You can also make such a comparison: a stone ball, balanced on a thin, like a spire, top of some Chomolungma, suddenly swayed and rolled down, giving rise to an "avalanche of events."

1973 - Physicist Edward Tryon from America, tried to describe the process of the birth of our universe, using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the foundations of quantum theory. According to this principle, the more accurately we measure energy, for example, the more uncertain time becomes. So, if the energy is strictly equal to zero, then the time can be arbitrarily large. So big that sooner or later in the quantum vacuum, from which the Universe is to be born, a fluctuation will arise. This will lead to the rapid growth of the cosmos, seemingly out of nothing. “It's just that the Universes are sometimes born, that's all,” Trion explained the background of the Big Bang so unpretentiously. It was a big Random explosion. Only and everything.

Could the Big Bang happen again?

Oddly enough, yes. We live in a universe that can still bear fruit and give birth to new worlds. Several models have been created that describe the "Big Bangs" of the future.

Why, for example, in the same vacuum that gave rise to our Universe, new fluctuations should not appear? Perhaps, over these 13.7 billion years, countless worlds have appeared next to our universe that do not touch each other in any way. They have different laws of nature, there are different physical constants. On most of these worlds, life could never have arisen. Many of them immediately die, experience a collapse. But in some Universes - by pure chance! - the conditions under which life can arise.

But the point is not only in the vacuum that exists before the beginning of "all times and peoples." Fluctuations fraught with future worlds can also arise in the vacuum that is poured into our Universe - more precisely, in the dark energy that fills it. This kind of "renewal universe" model was developed by an American cosmologist, a native of the Soviet Union, Alexander Vilenkin. These new "big bangs" do not threaten us with anything. They will not destroy the structure of the Universe, will not burn it to the ground, but will only create a new space beyond the limits accessible to our observation and understanding. Perhaps such "explosions" that mark the birth of new worlds occur in the depths of numerous black holes that dot space, believes American astrophysicist Lee Smolin.

Another native of the USSR, living in the West, cosmologist Andrei Linde believes that we ourselves are capable of causing a new Big Bang, having collected at some point in space an enormous amount of energy that exceeds a certain critical limit. According to his calculations, space engineers of the future could take an invisible pinch of matter - just a few hundredths of a milligram - and condense it to such an extent that the energy of this bunch will be 1015 Gigaelectronvolts. A tiny black hole is formed, which will begin to expand exponentially. Thus, a “daughter Universe” with its own space-time will arise, rapidly separating from our Universe.

... There is a lot of fantastic in the nature of the Big Bang. But the validity of this theory proves a number of natural phenomena. These include the expansion of the Universe that we observe, the pattern of the distribution of chemical elements, as well as cosmic background radiation, which is called the "Big Bang relic".

The world does not exist forever. It was born in the flames of the Big Bang. However, was this a unique phenomenon in the history of the cosmos? Or a recurring event, like the birth of stars and planets? What if the Big Bang is only a phase of transition from one state of Eternity to another?

Many of the physicists say that initially there was Something, and not Nothing. Perhaps our universe - like others - was born from an elementary quantum vacuum. But no matter how "minimal simple" such a state is - and less than a quantum vacuum, the laws of physics do not allow it to be - it still cannot be called "Nothing".

Perhaps the Universe we see is just another aggregate state of Eternity? And the bizarre arrangement of galaxies and galaxy clusters - something like a crystal lattice, which in the n-dimensional world that existed before the birth of our Universe, had a completely different structure and which is possibly predicted by the "formula of everything" that Einstein was looking for? And will it be found in the coming decades? Scientists are peering intensely through the wall of the Unknown that has protected our universe, trying to understand what happened a moment before, according to our usual ideas, there was absolutely nothing. What forms of the Eternal Cosmos can be imagined, endowing time and space with those qualities that are unthinkable in our universe?

Among the most promising theories, in which physicists are trying to squeeze the whole of Eternity, may be called the theory of quantum geometry, quantum spin dynamics or quantum gravity. The greatest contributions to their development were made by Abey Ashtekar, Ted Jacobson, Jerzy Lewandowski, Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin and Thomas Tiemann. All these are the most complex physical constructions, entire palaces built from formulas and hypotheses, just to hide the abyss lurking in their depth and darkness, the singularity of time and space.

The Age of the Singularity

The roundabout paths of new theories force us to step over obvious, at first glance, truths. So, in quantum geometry, space and time, previously infinitely divided, suddenly break into separate islands - portions, quanta, less than which there is nothing. All singular points can be embedded in these "stone blocks". Space-time itself turns into an interweaving of one-dimensional structures - a "network of spins", that is, it becomes a discrete structure, a kind of chain woven from separate links.

The volume of the smallest possible space loop is only 10-99 cubic centimeters. This value is so small that in one cubic centimeter there are many more quanta of space than those same cubic centimeters in the Universe we observe (its volume is 1085 centimeters in a cube). Inside the quanta of space there is nothing, no energy, no matter - just as inside a mathematical point - by definition - you can not find either a triangle or an icosahedron. But if we apply the "submicroscopic fabric of the universe" hypothesis to describe the Big Bang, we get startling results, as shown by Abey Ashtekar and Martin Bojowald of the University of Pennsylvania.

If we replace the differential equations in the Standard Theory of Cosmology, which assume a continuous flow of space, with other differential equations following from the theory of quantum geometry, then the mysterious singularity will disappear. Physics does not end where the Big Bang begins - this is the first encouraging conclusion of cosmologists who refused to accept as the ultimate truth the properties of the universe that we see.

In the theory of quantum gravity, it is assumed that our Universe (like all others) was born in as a result of a random fluctuation of the quantum vacuum - a global macroscopic environment in which there was no time. Every time a fluctuation of a certain size occurs in the quantum vacuum, a new universe is born. It "buds" from the homogeneous environment in which it was formed, and begins its own life. Now it has its own history, its own space, its own time, its own arrow of time.

In modern physics, a number of theories have been created showing how such a huge world as ours can arise from an eternally existing environment where there is no Macrotime, but at certain points of which its own microtime flows.

For example, physicists Gabriele Veneziano and Maurizio Gasperini from Italy, in the framework of string theory, suggest that the so-called “string vacuum” originally existed. Random quantum fluctuations in it led to the fact that the energy density reached a critical value, and this caused a local collapse. Which ended with the birth of our universe from a vacuum.

Within the framework of the theory of quantum geometry, Abey Ashtekar and Martin Bojowald showed that space and time can arise from more primitive fundamental structures, namely "networks of spins".

Eckhard Rebhan of the University of Düsseldorf and, independently, George Ellis and Roy Maartens of the University of Cape Town, are developing the idea of a "static universe" that was conceived by Albert Einstein and the British astronomer Arthur Eddington. In their quest to do without the effects of quantum gravity, Rebhan and his colleagues came up with a spherical space that is in the middle of an eternal void (or, if you prefer, empty eternity), where there is no time. Due to some instability, an inflationary process develops here, which leads to a hot Big Bang.

Of course, the listed models are speculative, but they fundamentally correspond to the modern level of development of physics and the results of astronomical observations of the last few decades. In any case, one thing is clear. The Big Bang was more of an ordinary, natural event than a one of a kind.

Will such theories help to understand what could have been before the Big Bang? If the universe was born, what gave birth to it? Where does the "genetic imprint" of its parent appear in modern theories of cosmology? 2005 - Abey Ashtekar, for example, published the results of his new calculations (Tomas Pawlowski and Paramprit Singh helped to do them). From them it was clear that if the initial premises were correct, then the same space-time existed before the Big Bang as after this event. The physics of our universe, as if in a mirror, was reflected in the physics of the other world. In these calculations, the Big Bang, like a mirror screen, cut through Eternity, placing the incompatible side by side - nature and its reflection. And what is the authenticity here, what is the ghost?

The only thing that can be seen “from the other side of the mirror glass” is that the Universe did not expand then, but contracted. The big bang became the point of its collapse. At that moment, space and time stopped for a moment, to be reflected again - to continue - to rise like a phoenix already in the world we know, that universe that we measure out with our formulas, ciphers and numbers. The universe literally turned itself inside out, like a glove or shirt, and has been steadily expanding ever since. The Big Bang was not, according to Ashtekar, "the creation of the whole Universe from Nothing", but was only a transition from one dynamic form of Eternity to another. Perhaps the Universe is going through an endless series of “big bangs”, and these tens of billions (or how many) years separating its individual phases are only periods of the “cosmic sinusoid”, according to the laws of which the universe lives?