The first volume of my work was published on Amazon
Józef
Gelbard
On
the Philosophical Track
The
New Cosmology
Universe
of Dual Gravitation
At
the threshold of the second (gravitational) quantum revolution
(Revolution?
Maybe Arrogance?)
First
volume
At
the base of a New Cosmology
From the
cosmological principle to the Big Bang
Hubble,
background radiation, everything that exist
Supplement
Many conclusions consistent
with the concept presented here could be reached as early as in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. This is not an exaggeration. Another thing is that
such a model would certainly not be preferred. Even in the early twentieth
century, it was common to view, solely on the basis of intuition, that the
universe was static and infinite. Significantly, this "infinity" was
quite small (...) because it was not known that there are hundreds of billions
of other galaxies outside of our galaxy. Nevertheless, the infinite, static
universe was obvious then.
At that time, knowledge about the universe was too poor. In addition,
knowledge about the micro world was only just beginning to develop. Although
even in the time of Galileo it was possible to go in the direction indicated
here (the cosmological principle), and Giordano Bruno fantasized in the spirit
of this principle (and ended badly), even in Einstein's time it was definitely
too early. For this reason, he introduced a cosmological constant into the equations
of general relativity, but he rejected it as soon as it turned out that the
universe was expanding. He called it (this constant introduction) his biggest
mistake. According to other scientists, if not all, even today, it was a
mistake to "deny" even though the universe is still not static (…). Who
was right? In my humble opinion, however, Einstein was right. Well, changing
your mental habits is an extremely slow process, straight through a generation,
if it doesn't take ages.
By the way, I would like to add from myself that the return to the
cosmological constant in recent times, despite the fact that the Universe is
actually un-static, proves, contrary to appearances, the objective existence of
a deep crisis in cosmology. Yes, but thanks to this, dark energy was "discovered"... As
a reminder, today cosmology is uncritically totally based on general
relativity, even taking into account the cosmological constant. Today, this
theory (even without the cosmological constant) should be supplemented a bit
today, and maybe even modified. "Is it not desecrate of holiness?" Every
theory should pass the test of falsification. I am convinced that Einstein
would not have gone in a direction he himself rejected (and rightly so). Now,
well, the drowning man grabs the razor (Ockham's razor here). [The real crisis leads
to real progress.]
But let's go back to the universe. In the final conclusion of this first
article, on the basis of the cosmological principle, we can even say that the
Universe is a fully self-consistent over- object, and the tempo of its
evolution is determined by global time. The development of the Universe in each
of its elements, even on the smallest scale, is the same, because the basic
laws of nature do not depend on the scale. We will return to this conclusion in
later articles. Anyway, it will be strengthened by further arguments.
We came to far-reaching conclusions; we basically built the foundations
of a coherent model of the universe. And we needed so little for that.
Everything now depends on the results of astronomical observations. If they do
not confirm the correctness of the model that we are going to build (on the
basis of the proportionality of speed and distance, as a conclusion from the
cosmological principle), then either another solution should be sought,
consistent with the cosmological principle, or this principle is not correct.
However, I would leave this conclusion for the end; if only in connection with
the Noether theorem (see above).
The center of the universe does not exist
According to today's views, we imagine the space of the Universe as a
"balloon" of Riemann's space with positive curvature. The universe of
matter is as if on the surface of this balloon. Thanks to this approach, there
is no preferred point, no center. But that is not the only possible way to get
rid of this special point (to consistence with the cosmological principle).
One can reason differently - what we did here, starting from the
postulate that the observed (and observable) Universe is everything, it is
expanding, and at the beginning of this expansion it was a relatively small
entity. Simply, “Once upon a time we were all together and made something very
small” - it was full space. There is no space outside the universe. Only the
relative motion of objects of cosmological significance enlarges space, and
this increases with the universal relative motion of objects, even inertia. We
came to quite surprising conclusions. Will the observational facts confirm
them? Will they be confirmed by arguments that will appear later in further
articles?
A reader who was impressed by reading my book wrote to Me.* It
appears from the letter that he is an educated man (though not a physicist). I
also discovered, not for the first time, thanks to the comments on my posts,
that the biggest problem is the conclusion, already in the first article on the
cosmological principle, that the observable universe is the All, that there is
no space outside the universe. This is the most difficult for everyone to
digest, despite the fact that it follows explicitly from the cosmological
principle.
In
response to the letter, I wrote, among other things: The fact that the universe
has no center is due to the cosmological principle. There are no privileged
points in any way. There is no center, but also there are no points
constituting the surface of the "sphere" - the Universe. Anyway, the
existence of such a surface directly proves the existence of a center ... There
is no surface sphere separating the Universe from the supposedly existing
remaining space. So the universe cannot be something sunken. In an infinite
void. All points belonging to the Universe are absolutely equiponderant to each
other. Therefore, space outside the Universe (of limited size) does not exist.
It is not a matter of imagination, but a specific, unknown today, topology. It
is even obvious, at least logical. Yet, it is not possible to break through the
barrier of the imperative of habitual thinking, and this applies to everyone.
Today's
cosmology is in trouble precisely because it has violated the cosmological
principle. It is in the light of this principle that every point in the
Universe (including an observer) is its center, and at the same time the
geometric locus of the points (positions) furthest from it is a kind of sphere.
In
an article devoted to the topology of the universe, I cited an ancient
sentence: God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and the
perimeter is nowhere. Here God, being a sphere, presents the sky with
himself - he is the Universe (also an infinite set of points - observers ...),
and not what is understood today as God. What a beautiful allegory. The
Universe is also a being with a specific topology: it cannot be a sphere
because it has no center - due to the full equivalence of all points. So there
is no outer surface (of a sphere) that would constitute something alien, would
be a violation of harmony, and above all a violation of the cosmological
principle. Intuition often fails. In this situation, one cannot speak of a
circuit (it is nowhere to be found). What an accurate approach to the topology
of the universe. This is reminiscent of Spinoza's pantheism. By the way: How
did the ancients know about this?
*) "The universe
of dual gravity" in Polish
The
dimensions of the universe; the space of the universe; the cosmological
principle and the principle of conservation of angular momentum.
Let us return to our hypothesis that the speed
of cosmological objects is proportional to the distance. Along with this, the
speed of expansion cannot be greater than c - hence, regardless of
proportionality, it follows that the size of the universe is limited.
Based on this finding, is it possible to
determine the supposed size of the universe? Well, you can, due to the
existence of the upper limit of velocity (c), which is the speed of expansion.
It will be very easy if it turns out that the radial velocity is indeed
proportional to the distance - that was our priority hypothesis. However, this
proportionality must first be detected observationally. We have already written
this proportionality in post 7: v / r = const. The size of the universe (R)
would correspond to the speed of light (c). To compute these dimensions, all
you have to do is ... find the value of the proportionality coefficient
("const"). One should refer to observation. This is a very important
finding. One could say that this concept is falsifiable.
And now
the question: Why should more distant objects they moves away faster? This is
an essential question, but it causes confusing. Who asked about it? Only
children, I guess. Now, the fact of expanding means that once, in the distant
past, the whole universe was relatively small. Supposedly at some point there
was chaos. In it, the speed of individual elements of this whole was varied.
Due to inertia (yes, just inertia), their motion is preserved. The faster ones
are farther away today, and the fastest ones, almost where only light can
reach. I guess I answered that question. This approach is also justified by the
flatness of the Universe's space (Euclidean space). Why flatness? Therefore, because
it is about the real (and inertial) movement of objects. So it is not about
some kind of pushing, or about the result of some primordial pressure from
nothingness of singularity. By whom? Ask theologians.
Will the model adopted today and in force
answer the question that opens this reflection with the same ease?
So what defines the space of the Universe? Is
it the state of its curvature, or is it just the relative inertial motion of
objects, causing the universe to take up more and more space? I am inclined to
view matters in such a way. And what is beyond the material everything? I guess
some indefinability, or just (we should be consequent) space outside the
Universe does not exist. The space of the Universe increases with the increase
of distance between any specific objects (having cosmological significance). The
space is created by their movement. Outside of the material universe, space
does not exist. Let me even say that given the observation the Universe is
everything, it is the full and only being. Have I exaggerated (judging by
current perceptions)? I do not think so.
And where
is the center of the universe, that is, the place of the Explosion? There is no
problem with this if the observable universe is and has always been everything,
both material and spatial. All points, all today's positions of bodies together
constitute this point of the Explosion, because "we were all together
once".
You can also look at it differently. If the
universe were an object embedded in a larger (infinite?) Space, it would have a
surface (like the surface of a sphere). So it would be possible to determine of
the center. In addition, the points belonging to this surface would be
highlighted points, and this would be contrary to the cosmological principle.
Here we come across the issue of the topology of
the universe. Also this will be discussed. As a reward for your patience.
One hundred years ago, the proposition that
the speed of light is invariant, was a revolutionary heuristics and the basis
of special relativity. [It doesn't matter whether Einstein knew about the
Michelson-Morley experiment or not.] After all, the cosmological principle
could not provide the context for research in the field of electromagnetism. Today,
after a hundred years, the invariance of c is a conclusion from the
cosmological principle (provided that the concept proposed in this paper is
applied). The very existence of the upper limit of the (relative) velocity results
from the essence of electromagnetism. [Note that all particles (except for
neutrinos) participate in the electromagnetic force, so their local speed is
not greater than the speed of light. We will deal with neutrinos in an essay
devoted to them, solving the problem of their "otherness".]
I have noticed this in my book on the special
theory of relativity (An elementary introduction to the Special Theory of
Relativity, a bit ... differently). And what does this cosmology have to do
with the electromagnetic force (after all, it is about the speed of light)?
Apparently, this interaction appeared just as the speed of the universe's
expansion had stabilized. It is therefore a secondary thing. The "speed of
light" is a relic of this special moment in the history of the universe.
Summing up, it can be said that this speed is a relic of the time when the
electromagnetic interaction appeared, as well as the moment when the expansion
of the universe with today's features started. In this context, it may be
justified to suppose that the velocity of the electromagnetic wave may be
locally differentiated (even in a vacuum) due to inhomogeneous distribution of
matter on a large scale. Is this a reasonable supposition? Is it right? This
topic will be discussed in other articles.
And one more thing. According to Noether's
theorem, the invariance of the fundamental laws of motion is related to the
fulfillment of certain conservation laws. In particular, the invariance of the
choice of direction in space is related to the conservation of angular
momentum. The principle of conservation of angular momentum is universal, as
experiment has shown. So there is complete symmetry with respect to the direction.
What does this remind us? Of course, the cosmological principle. As you can
see, the cosmological principle is not only a requirement of our cognitive
intuition, not only a common-sense imperative. This is a direct conclusion from
undoubtedly right and universal findings regarding the course of physical
phenomena, findings based on an experiment and confirmed in all phenomena
without exception. You can also the opposite. Well, the fulfillment of all
these fundamental rights means the rightness of the cosmological principle, its
confirmation. These rights are derived from it. This is saying something.
The basis of measurements
Indeed, distances from distant galaxies and their velocities must be
measured. At the beginning of the 20th century, this issue was not considered,
although measuring tools were already at the disposal of scientists. About a
hundred years ago, everyone was convinced that the universe was infinite and
static. Besides, they did not know that many of the nebulae previously
discovered were galaxies like the Milky Way (our galaxy), very distant
galaxies. Back then, there was no intellectual basis for measurements, was no
motivation. It is obvious that even the model we built, based on the
cosmological principle, would not matter. One more thing, everyone has been
busy testing general relativity and building models of the universe from it -
with great commitment. To this day, this
direction of interest has dominated, despite the fact that at least fifty years
ago science found itself in an impasse (and is still there today).
[Cosmological constant and dark energy
is a sign of a struggle for survival. Scientists do not know that the balloon
of the Riemann Universe (I think) has already burst.
But it was already possible
to measure. Speed measurement was not as problematic (Doppler Effect), while
distance measurement was challenging. It was already clear that very bright
stars such as "white giants" could be used to measure distances,
taking into account their brightness variation with distance. They can be
identified on the basis of their characteristic spectra. It is enough to rely
on the fact that visual brightness is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance. However, for comparison purposes, another method had to be found.
In 1912 (Henriette Leavitt) it was discovered that Cepheid stars pulsate with a
frequency that depends on their absolute brightness (pulsation cycle period:
1-50 days). Cepheids are also giant stars. They were discovered in 1784 (John
Goodricke). It is enough to know the pulsation period - to determine the
absolute brightness. Comparing it with the visual brightness (magnitude) makes
it possible to determine the distance of a given star.
Continued in the next
article.
Preface
Many scientists treat the cosmological principle as a secondary matter.
Here in this work, this principle is the basis of all cosmological thinking.
Now is the time to research whether our conclusions, based on this principle,
agree (or do not conflict) with the observation.
Remember that in this work the cosmological principle has been taken as
a basic assumption (a priori) as an axiom. About 500 years ago, at the time of
Copernicus, the thought that we are not the center of the universe was a
breakthrough, a revolution. Copernicus himself, and later many other
philosophers, did not understand the essence of the principle. Even Giordano
Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for his views, did not realize its
essence. But today the cosmological principle seems so clear (and
"obvious") that even its violation by many hypotheses and theories is
not a problem... [It is important that this violation can be presented
mathematically - it is immediately acceptable as a scientific thing par
excellence, regardless of the category: False - true. The existence of a
mathematical notation has become the sole criterion of science. Should it be
so?] Recently, the cosmological principle has ceased to be a criterion for
assessing the correctness of many hypotheses and even theories. This is not
their advantage. The cosmological principle has become a marginal thing, far
from what attracts the attention of scientists who obviously deal with
"serious" matters. Soon only the historians of science will deal with
the cosmological principle. Is it right? After all, based on this principle as
a starting point, we obtained interesting and scientifically important results,
and we were also able to predict the results of the observations. What matters is
that our expectations can be refuted empirically (they are falsifiable). This
is the real criterion of science.
Today, the movements of the galaxies (in the Newtonian sense) are not
being considered. As you know, in line with the common (and binding) position,
we are talking about the expansion of space. In this context, the cosmological
principle is not so important. Is it right? I am asking again, referring to the
article on the speed of expansion (No. 8). After all, the existence of a speed
that does not depend on system of reference - c, even results from a principle.
In my opinion, compliance with the cosmological principle should be the
criterion for assessing cosmological hypotheses and theories.
The main result of adopting the cosmological principle with regard to
the dynamics of objects of cosmological significance was, as we remember, the
hypothesis that the relative velocities of galaxies are proportional to their
mutual distances. We wrote it symbolically as follows:
v/r =const.
It's a kind of anticipation. Will scientific research confirm this? Is
it possible to measure the constant that appears in the formula above? We see
that we only need to (...) measure speeds and distances.
Are currently accepted views about the universe
absolutely correct?
Is general relativity
really the correct tool for describing the universe as a whole? On the one
hand, we have a cosmological principle, and on the other hand, a model based on
general relativity. The
cosmological principle defines the universe as nonlocal, and general relativity
is a local theory. Today's vision of the Universe is based on the one hand on
this theory, and on the other hand on the interpretation (not necessarily
correct) of the results of observations.
Today, as is commonly believed, the expansion of the universe is not
related to motion in the classical sense, but is the result of changes in the geometry
of the universe (changes in curvature). Is it true? Suppose yes. If so, there
is a possibility of "accelerated motion" because it is not about
forces, but about the expansion of space. In this sense, the Newtonian (force)
model is not relevant. [We remind you that according to the cosmological
principle, the resultant force acting on any object of cosmological
significance is equal to zero. This is consistent with the thesis that the
relative motion of objects of cosmological significance is inertial (uniform)
motion.] Although the cosmological principle allows for acceleration (if
proportional to distance), doubts and questions arise immediately: What is the
reason for the acceleration (if any)? Is it an "outward" acceleration
although gravity acts in the opposite direction, although General Relativity
only describes gravity attraction? [Here I am omitting the "cosmological
constant" that Einstein added to his equation, and fourteen years later he
gave it up when it became clear that the universe was not static.]
Suppose there is acceleration after all. The speed increases in
proportion to time, and also, as previously assumed, in proportion to the
distance - accelerated expansion. Under these conditions, the speed of the
quasars should be very high. Is their speed greater than the speed detected in
the observation (spectrum)? Not of course. But this would indicate that the
universe is much smaller than we think. Is it testable? In this situation, is
the speed of the galaxies really proportional to the distance (as we expected -
see the formula in article 7)? Observation will decide. Wait patiently.
Regardless, the universe in quasar times was much smaller than today -
then gravity (attraction), according to the cosmology based on general
relativity, was much stronger than today - counteracting expansion (against
outward acceleration) more strongly. Besides, where does this outward
acceleration come from? Something's not right here.
So maybe the acceleration decreases with distance? If so, the
acceleration of the nearest galaxies should be the greatest. But we do not
state this. However, we know that the Andromeda Galaxy is even approaching us
at a speed of about 300 km / h. We can see that this option is also
unrealistic.
Perhaps the retard of movement of galaxies, decreases with time, but
more and more with distance? If so, then the speed of the quasars should
decrease very quickly, as opposed to the fact that they move very fast relative
to us. So this option is also not remarkable. What if acceleration increases
over time? So here with us it must be very high (not to mention speed). We do
not detect it. In addition, currently, global gravity (which is supposed to
inhibit expansion) is expected to be less than in the past when the universe
was smaller (according to general relativity). Also this option is not
realistic.
In conclusion, any option other than the expansion of the universe at a constant speed is problematic and even unacceptable. And yet scientists cling to the cosmology based on general relativity (they know no other option) and dream of describing the universe with the help of a cosmological constant that supposedly accelerates expansion (there was no other idea, and you have to move forward). Yet Albert Einstein called the cosmological constant his greatest mistake. In my humble opinion, contrary to today's beliefs, he was right.
The cosmological principle and the speed of light
It is known that the speed of light does not depend on the system of
reference (invariance). This invariance is a conceptual basis of the special
theory of relativity. Light is an electromagnetic wave and the theory of
relativity is based on electromagnetism. Is there any relationship between the
speed of light and the expansion of the universe and the cosmological
principle?
Based on the special theory of relativity, we know that there is an
upper limit of speed - a material body cannot move faster than the limit speed.
The speed of light is the limit. But it's not just about electromagnetism. It
turns out that the speed of light is the upper limit of the speed of each
particle, even if it does not participate in the electromagnetic interaction.
Indeed, the matter must be approached from a broader perspective. "But why
is this velocity also not dependent on the system of reference, why is it
invariant?" [In special relativity it is only assumed that the speed of
light is invariant (as a postulate). However, there is no answer to the
question: "Why?"] We know that motion is relative - it is impossible
to clearly define the speed of the body (due to the existence of different
frames of reference). But the speed of light is absolute.
"Invariance of the speed of light" is a postulate, an
assumption by Albert Einstein, not directly based on observational facts.
However, the conclusions of the theory are confirmed by the experiment. But we
still don't know "why the speed of light is invariant." Is it
possible to explain invariance? We will soon see that it is.
In the previous article, we built a model (preferred in our eyes) in
which the relative velocity of celestial bodies is proportional to the distance
(in a set of various objects). According to this model, more distant objects
move at a higher radial speed. But we already know that there is a maximum speed
equal to the speed of light. Therefore, the speeds of the farthest objects
should be close to the speed of light and cannot be greater than it (even
equal).
What's the conclusion? It is very possible that the dimensions of the
universe are limited. The boundary of the universe (horizon) is determined by
an object that moves at the speed of light. Based on this, the speed of the
expansion of the universe can be determined. It's the speed of light, of
course. The size (radius) of the universe is obviously defined as the distance
at which there are objects that move away at the speed of light. [It should be
noted here that modern cosmology uses the concept of the tempo of expansion,
which is defined by the Hubble factor H. This will be discussed later.]
This limiting speed (speed of expansion) does not depend on the
direction of observation, that is, according to the cosmological principle.
Thus, it is invariable - it does not depend on the system of reference, because
regardless of the direction of observation - the same maximum speed. In
summary, the speed of light does not depend on a system of reference, as it is
the expansion speed of the universe. This is the secret of the existence of
invariant speed. We have here confirmation of the validity of the cosmological
principle. The speed of light is not relative, it is not local. Also, the
universe as a whole is not local because it is all that exists (materially). [A
local object is one whose location can be determined because there are other,
external objects.]
The size of the universe ("radius") is determined by the
distance of the most distant objects because their velocity tends to c. They
represent matter that existed at a very early stage of expansion, about 15
billion years ago. Back then, the universe was very small, so it was auto-coordinated
in terms of features and phenomena, and so it also expanded in any direction at
the same speed c. It is acceptable that even today the universe is completely auto-coordinated.
[So we have a cosmological principle. Here the circle closes.] It is obvious
that you cannot see what was at the very beginning, even with the best
telescopes. It is not possible. After all, in the first moments, there was no
electromagnetic radiation (light). However, our model is in line with what we
already see.
The opinion that there are objects faster than light - "they cannot
be seen because they are beyond the horizon" is not the conclusion from
the observation (for understandable reasons). There is no observational fact
that confirms this opinion even indirectly. This judgment is based solely on
the theory, or more precisely on the interpretation of general relativity. In
the model of the universe built on this theory, light does not run in a straight
line, but along geodetic lines - this gives the possibility of a speed greater
than light. The idea that there are objects beyond the horizon defined by the
speed of light is consistent with the inflation hypothesis. But that's not
proof; it's just a hypothetical option, not necessarily the right one.
For the sake of completeness, it is worth adding that there is an option of moving faster than light. But what would move like that? Perhaps some particles - rather not galaxies.
