The basis for today's modelling of the Universe
This article, along with the previous two, provides the backdrop for the
considerations which will be presented in further articles dealing with
cosmological issues. They indicate a departure from the traditional, widely
accepted view on this subject. If only for this reason I do not think worth it
to delve here into the details which are widely known. All this has been
described in numerous books, a lot of information can be obtained on the Web.
However, I am bringing up these known issues, to create and highlight an alternative
to today's models, today's concepts, and even for the sake of perception of
what is registered by our predetermined senses.
Contents
1. Friedmann’s cosmological models
2.
Microwave background radiation
3. Dark energy
1. Friedmann’s cosmological models
As I
have often pointed out, even in the early twentieth century it was widely
believed, without any deeper intellectual exploration of this view, that the
Universe is static and infinite. For this reason, to meet this popular belief,
this obviousness, Einstein in his field equations (GTR) introduced the
cosmological constant, which today makes a stunning career despite the fact
that shortly after making this invention he called it his biggest mistake.
Judging by the content of the first article (Cosmological Principle), and the
following ones, he was not wrong (admitting to having made a mistake). Even
before he acknowledged it, a number of models of the Universe were created, all
taking into account this unfortunate constant. Niche attracts like light
(moths).
In 1922, Alexander Friedmann (Russia) found
new solutions to the equations of general theory of relativity, which were to
model the Universe, new in relation to the fact that he had already omitted the
cosmological constant. These equations indicate the possibility of an expanding
Universe (which may be actually true) according to one of the three models,
depending not so much on its mass, but on the average density. After the Hubble’s
discovery (1929), Einstein finally decided that the introduction of the
cosmological constant was a mistake and accepted Friedmann’s solutions of the
field equations as more appropriate. The course of development of the Universe
according to the three models (listed below) can be readily found in various
sources. Here I will present the matter in summary form. We’ll return to these
issues in another place, in the context of other considerations and while using
some simple mathematical tools.
However, it is interesting (from the point of view of
the history of science) that in the second half of the twentieth century this abandoned
concept of cosmological constant was reaccepted (Was
it because of exhausted creativity?) Or maybe
because it was easier to accept less abstract model of the static and infinite
Universe, which… expands? In this situation, the idea of dark energy has fallen
on fertile ground. Because it is right, right? Rather not. Meander.
Here are the three Friedmann’s models. Open
model – The Universe will expand forever because its average density is too
small (gravity is too weak) to stop the unlimited expansion. The closed
model - if the average density (and therefore mass) of the Universe is big
enough, its expansion will stop and it will start to contract until the
collapse of the whole into a singularity* from which it all began (as it is
commonly imagined if the singularity can be actually imagined). The Critical model which
constitutes a borderline between the two aforementioned models - more about it
further. Is the Universe like that? Perhaps
the real Universe pulsates by alternating expansion and compression? Critical model
forms the boundary between the open and the closed one. Judging by the fact
that mathematically the border is a point, the critical development of the Universe
is actually something totally improbable or else, (Attention!) the “critical”
development is the only option possible. I am inclined to this view, although
according to the critical model, the Universe would expand to infinity, and it
would be balancing on the line of zero thickness - the so-called flatness
problem. However, I assume that the Universe oscillates. Therefore it's not so
much about the criticality but that the space of the Universe is simply flat.
It just so happens that the critical model also assumes flatness.
What
then with the other two models? As you can see we have a new reason to pounder,
the more so since the “start” of the Big Bang is not predicted by the general
theory of relativity. Vacuum energy, inflation, well, that’s another paragraph.
The problem of the origins of the Universe I already explored in a series of
articles on the dual gravity. As you can see, the philosopher's stone is still
far away. The problem of dynamics of the Universe will be tackled in many texts
and various contexts.
Friedmann’s models assume that the
expansion rate decreases, in analogy to the body thrown up - its speed slows
down. It is however about the changes in the curvature of the space that is
supposed to be created by the Universe. The rate of expansion H is here the
fundamental parameter. However, in this work, no less important role is played
by the relative speed, the constant speed for a given pair of objects, the
actual speed of motion of galaxies (and not the changes of the scale factor),
the upper limit of which is obviously the invariant speed c. It is the speed of expansion of the Universe. We are talking
here about the constant relative velocity despite the fact that the Universe may
be also pulsating. How is that? We'll see later, although I have already managed
to blurt out something. We’ll come back to discuss this topic further.
The three
aforementioned models which are the solutions to the Einstein-Friedmann field
equations constitute the basis of cosmology (apart for the injection of
heuristics through the cosmological constant and dark energy). The development
of the real Universe, what awaits "us" according to Friedmann model
depends on its average density, which ratio to the critical density is called
density parameter Ω.
Why not dependent on mass? Now, mass is an extensive value, which
means that it depends on the magnitude of the system. Assuming that the
Universe is infinite (or that it’s not visible in its entirety - according to
today's views, "the mass of the Universe" is something indefinite.
That's why the intensive value is used, the one not dependent of the
quantitative content, and in our case – the average density. However, if we
assume that what is observable is Everythingness, the thoughts on the mass of
the Universe make sense, and even lead to interesting conclusions. We'll see
about that later.
It turns out, as indicated by the results of
observations, that the real Universe is evolving (most likely) according to the
critical model (W = 1). [It
is said to make sure "very close to the critical." But I say that
criticality is the only option, therefore it is difficult to use this term -
criticality. We’ll return to these issues.] It
does not mean that it will be always like that. Who knows, maybe evolution of
the Universe encompasses all three models which constitute its particular
stages? We will return to this supposition, not necessarily to support it.
As you know,
seven years after the publication of the seminal Friedmann’s work, Hubble made
his discovery. The GTR equations indicate changeability, (gradually decreasing)
rate of expansion. Does that contradict Hubble’s discovery? Well, no, because
the Friedmann’s theory deals with the dynamics of the Universe, changes in its
condition, while Hubble's law refers to the space at a certain moment of
observation.
Within a short time, still in the twenties,
there appeared quite a few models of the Universe based on general theory of
relativity. They provided an excellent heuristic and intellectual base for
discoveries that came later. The earliest was the discovery made by Hubble. The
models discussed in this chapter are still valid, they are even considered by
most contemporary theories. I don’t spend much time in my work on other models
since generally they do not comply with the concept presented here, and
besides, they are only of historical significance. Friedmann’s models are
something else, despite the fact that "ideologically" they don’t fully
fit into my vision of the world. I present them so as to, among other things, explain
better my standpoint. I don’t reject the general theory of relativity. I accept
it without a shadow of a doubt, because the better one has not been yet invented.
However, I believe that this theory perfectly describes systems, but in relation
to the description of the Universe, which is in itself an absolute unity and
"everythingness" it loses (who knows) its appropriateness. For there
is no place from which one could view the Universe, because beyond it space
does not exist, there is no frame of reference. This view kind of betrays
the researchers’ way of thinking, for whom the general theory of relativity
(used to describe the Universe) is an everyday tool of their research workshop.
There is no way they will abandon it, regardless of the circumstances. They
think (intuitively, but intuition is to a large extend based on what makes the
current knowledge) that the existence of multiple universes, or at least the matter
beyond the horizon, is fully acceptable. Because the horizon itself is only of
“interconnecting” significance (I have already mentioned this in the preceding
article. There will be more about it.) This view, I think, is also a
manifestation of intuition’s spasmodic attachment to the static and infinite
universe (here we are entering the field of psychology). As for the general
theory of relativity, there is another aspect limiting the scope of its
applicability. It is about the duality of gravity and its consequences in
relation, particularly, to the microcosm in the case of a high concentration of
matter, as we have discovered it in the articles dealing with dual gravity.
To finish this part (and by the way) it would
be appropriate to mention the work of the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lamaître
who independently of Friedmann and before Hubble’s discovery came (in 1927) to very
similar conclusions, although he maintained in his equations the cosmological
constant. In his investigations he also tried to remodel the Big Bang. For this
reason he actually deserves to be called the "father of the Big
Bang," although he didn’t invent the term. According to him, the explosion
preceded the state of "the primary atom" (as he called it) of the
size thirty times larger than the sun. As a result of the explosion came the Universe,
which is still expanding.
Currently
cosmology can still reap the benefits of the inexhaustible possibilities given
to scholars by the general theory of relativity, although their multitude by no
means brings us closer to the univocity of the objective being. Do not worry.
Nature will not be persuaded to succumb to equations if they do not express it
in an absolute way. So we can freely and calmly look for further signs of the
philosopher's stone.
The results of astronomical observations,
consistent with the cosmological principle, lead (not to say convince) us to
accept the thesis that the Universe is expanding. If this “theory” is correct,
it should also anticipate the observational effects not yet known, indicating
the direction of future research and exploration. As you know, the matter of
the Universe is composed not only of stars and planets. It is also
electromagnetic radiation which has certainly existed since the very early
stages of evolution, already in the first seconds after the "start".
This is not about the details.
It
can be expected that the temperature in the first moments (not necessarily at
the very beginning) was very high. As it is known, matter (the body) of any
absolute temperature (above 0 K) is a source of electromagnetic radiation. Characteristics
of radiation depend on temperature of the source. In this sense, we can speak
of radiation temperature. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that this
radiation still persists as a relic of a very early stage of the expansion, the
moment of chaos (the phase transformation, during which dissipated the kinetic
energy of an orderly expansion - matter gained the features of a thermodynamic
character, the object was at first very hot with the highest temperature in the
whole history. At this point there appeared electro-magnetic interactions, and
of course radiation. It should have had the qualities of thermal radiation. Then
the massive particles (leptons and hadrons) had to form as separate entities,
at least those that interact electromagnetically. From that moment, for some
time, there was a balance between radiation and the matter of particles. The
creation of particles and their annihilation proceeded with equal ease.
As
suggested in my works, the earliest to separate were neutrinos. This took place
still during the accelerated expansion - Urela** (not inflation) until the
phase transition, as a result of which there appeared quarks and electrons. Quarks
immediately formed protons. Electrons and protons are stable particles. At the
same time, there appeared other particles - all unstable, mainly due to the
interaction with neutrinos. In particular, there came neutrons. [About
neutrinos, how they were formed, and about their role, I wrote some quite
surprising things in an essay devoted to them - in the third part of the book
***.] That’s how I see it.
With
the (substantial) matter coexisted multiplicity of photons, creating an
environment in which was taking place, as I described above, the creation and
annihilation processes involving pairs of various particles. Over time, due to
lowering of the temperature, the processes of creation and annihilation
substantially ceased and what was left was electromagnetic radiation corresponding
to ever lower temperature. It still exists as a relic of the early phase of
expansion.
At
the beginning matter and radiation was a bubbling soup of very high temperature
of billions, trillions degrees Kelvin. Gradually, along with the expansion, the
temperature decreased. It was only after about half a million years of
uninterrupted expansion (more precisely: 300 - 700 thousand years) the
temperature and density decreased enough to enable final separation of
radiation from substantial matter. This separation has been called decoupling. Since then, radiation in terms of quantity (number of
photons) has not changed. At that stage the radiation temperature was around
3000K, and the Universe became transparent because the radiation could no
longer remove electrons from atoms****. Hardly shining hydrogen and helium
filled the space. It was quite dark, despite the existence of radiation,
because its interaction with matter was negligible... until the appearance of
the first stars after about 200 million years. This radiation should exist to
this day as a fossil, a relic of a time preceding by the almost two billion
years the formation of galaxies. After all, this radiation has not left the Universe,
being its integral part. And “horse-sense” dictates that this was not in
fact possible in view of the fact that the speed of (Hubble) expansion is equal
to c. So by the way we have one more argument to support this claim.
From
the process of decoupling to the emergence of the first stars must have passed quite
a lot of time. The matter was still too hot to converge in density
fluctuations. Gas which was a mixture of hydrogen and helium (with negligible amount
of lithium), could not shine brightly enough to be visible even by the largest
telescopes. Based on the well-known and well-established models of stellar
evolution, it can be assumed that the first of them appeared only after approx.
200 million years. Will we ever see them? I think we're on a good way to
achieve that. Today, we seem to see, thanks to satellite telescopes, a kind of
glow, probably of the primary stars. Most recent observations seem to indicate
something like this, but so far it is to a large extent a matter of interpretation.
And radiation itself... we
should detect it, although its current temperature should be relatively low -
there shouldn’t be radiation of visible light, judging by the fact that the
night sky is black. If, indeed, there was the Big Bang, such radiation should
be detected. It should be heat radiation. That what was already thought in the
late forties of the last century.
Thus, this
radiation should be all the time and should fill the entire space (enclosed by
the Hubble horizon). The total number of photons should not change. So the
radiation should reach us from everywhere and, according to cosmological
principle, manifest itself with almost the same intensity, in accordance
with the cosmological principle. “Almost” due to the local heterogeneity of
matter which probably have some minor effect on radiation density. Small
influence, because there are much more photons than massive particles.
This is thermal radiation of a specific
spectrum. Thus it cannot be a monochromatic radiation. So as to find this
radiation, we should predict the length of its wave, which after all had to
change during all these years of continuous expansion of the Universe. "So
as to fill the widening space the photons had to undergo continuous change. The
length of their wave had to increase (length - one dimension) at the same rate
at which increased the radius of the Universe, in which all the dimensions got larger",
as did the movement of each of them in one directions within three-dimensional
space (and not, as if expanded - in three dimensions at the same time). As
an aside, let’s note that this approach kind of belies the contemporary
modeling of the expansion of Universe in the sense of decreasing the curvature
of space, the expansion which doesn’t involve the content of the Universe
(galaxies, bodies, particles). However, photons get longer, despite the fact
that even galaxies do not change, carried like dots on the surface of the
balloon... In any case, that’s how it is visually presented today so as to meet
the cognitive needs of amateurs. Yet doesn’t it makes one wonder (photons yes,
galaxies no)? But in any case, it’s an oversimplification. And how is it in
fact?
"The length of their wave
should increase..." suggests the horse-sense, although in the forties of
the last century this was not so obvious. Just then G. Gamow and his students,
based on the assumption that in the beginning the temperature had to be very
high, predicted the existence of background radiation constituting a relic of most
ancient times - just after the Big Bang (that’s how this scholar called the
Great Explosion). "This should be the thermal radiation, which function
should correspond to Wien’s displacement law."
Judging by the presented above simplified
model, it can be concluded that the wavelength of the assumed relic radiation
increases in proportion to the size of the Universe, that is, to its radius.
This is written as follows:
Here we would have a problem because this initial wavelength (when,
during the Explosion appeared the electromagnetic radiation), the smallest in
the history of the Universe, we cannot know. Of course, it is not possible to derive
it from observation. Fortunately, it is possible to calculate how much time had
to pass since the Big Bang till the separation of radiation and substantial matter.
This moment can serve as a point of reference. As mentioned above, the
radiation separated from substantial matter when it corresponded to the
temperature 3000K. This occurred after about three hundred thousand years since
the "Explosion." The radius of the Universe was equal to the same number
of light-years. Of course, we do not take into account the initial, very early period
in which, according to the commonly accepted and quite well-founded view (which
I share), there was a non-linear increase, but it lasted for a very short time,
just a tiny fraction of a second (according to our subjective measure of time).
Let’s start with estimating the wavelength of
thermal radiation corresponding to said temperature of three thousand degrees
Kelvin. We’ll use Wien’ displacement law:
Here: C – constant, C = 2.898·10^-3[m·K], T - temperature on an absolute scale, which for
simplicity we’ll call heat radiation temperature. In our case it amounts to
3000K. So we get:λ1 =
0.966·10^-6m.
Now let’s assume that the radius of today’s
Universe is equal to 15 billion light years (according to the value of the
Hubble constant which we have "tentatively" adopted), and at the
moment of decoupling it was 3·10^5ly Basing on equation (*) we get: λ2
= 4.83·10^-2m. It is the wavelength of microwave radiation. This
result gives only an estimate of magnitude. It’s hard to find more difficult
demands. After all, we based essentially on the high school physics. But does
this radiation exist?...
This estimate,
as I mentioned above, is a significant simplification also for this reason that
quantitatively photons hugely exceed over the massive particles. For every
baryon there are about a billion photons. Therefore, even if the temperature
corresponding to the peak of the spectrum is relatively low (e.g. 3000K), there
is a large number of photons with extremely great energy. So it was not as if
by magic wand that the Universe suddenly became transparent. This is one of the
reasons that these calculations are just a rough estimate, only for general
orientation. Besides, if only for the same reason, the very process of decoupling
had to be stretched over time, could not be an act taking place in a flash. It
should be added that already then the Universe itself was uniform only on a global
scale and local heterogeneities certainly existed. Caused by what? - More on
that later.
It can be assumed that in
the forties George Gamow reasoned in a similar way. His disciples Alpher and
Herman decided
that this should be microwave radiation. Working in different centers Peebls
and Zeldowicz (in the early sixties) estimated the temperature of the hypothetical CMB
radiation to be of the order of 5 - 10 K. This is the temperature corresponding
to the actual microwave radiation. They did not know that exactly at the same
time was made the greatest discovery of the twentieth century (as many think,
but today they rather tend toward dark energy, wrongly in my opinion.)
Background radiation was discovered in the
most appropriate time, in the spring of 1964 (although not in the most
appropriate place). Scientists so involved in its prediction did not even know
about it. The discovery was made accidentally by two radio astronomers Arno
Penzias and Robert Wilson. In their daily work routine they did not seek any relic
radiation. Their antenna by chance received a strange microwave noise of a
length of 7.35 cm, significantly stronger than the noise of an apparatus. Changing
the orientation of the antenna (and its cleaning) made no difference. The
radiation was isotropic. That was it. The discovery of the CMB radiation
determined the validity of the concept of the Big Bang. For their discovery, the
above named astronomers received the Nobel Prize (1978). Well, blunders are
made even by the venerable Nobel committee, but in two thousand eleven, it
flopped all the way (dark energy).
This discovery marked the beginning of a very
intense research. Cosmology has even become a fashionable field of physics,
especially in the last decade. [I was drawn to those things in childhood, but
only in the old age I have dared to publicize my perpetrations. And in the
course of this activity, as it's natural, I succumbed to an avalanche of new
ideas, the more so by being inspired by new discoveries. By the way, I was given a chance to publicize
relatively recently, when the internet came along, and I learned it. Contrary
to appearances, my age played no role. In terms of creativity I seem to keep
ahead of those youngsters who would have sent me into retirement already some thirty
years ago. Maybe that's why my head is full of unruly thoughts – soon you’ll
see. Who would want to publish them? Glory to the internet (as in a carol).]
It turned out that the
background (relic) radiation exhibits the characteristics of blackbody
radiation at a temperature 2.73K. As you can see, the error in our rough estimation
is rather small. That might confirm the validity of the approach.
Surprisingly, this radiation is
isotropic, despite the fact that the Universe does not appear to be uniform - recently
there were discovered vast areas where the concentration of galaxies is
significantly higher than average. One of them was called the Great Wall. There
were also found dark areas with only faintly glowing galaxies – the Great
Attractor. Large-scale objects of this type exert some influence on the
behavior of galaxies. It was found for instance that (our) Galaxy moves in the
direction of the great Attractor***** with an unexpectedly high speed of 600
km/s. So it turns out that the particularly concentrated areas are separated by
no less extensive, amounting to hundreds of millions light years, seemingly
empty spaces. Research using Hubble telescope (in the first years of this
century) show the Universe as a kind of soap foam, with the condensations of galaxies
at the edge of "bubbles" which, interestingly, coincide spatially
with condensation of dark matter, that is supposedly indicated by the presence
of gravitational lensing. This is indicated by the particular direction of
research on the genesis of galaxies. I devoted to it a separate essay. This
comparison (foam) quite often returns in books on cosmology. How do you
reconcile all that with the homogeneity and isotropy of the CMB radiation?
That is the question. We’ll come back to it.
It was therefore necessary to examine this
radiation more accurately. The task was entrusted to the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite sent
into orbit in November 1989. These studies
were carried out again (more precisely) thanks to probe WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), put
into orbit of a special trajectory - Lissajous orbit around the L2 libration point
of the Earth-Sun system - by the Delta 2 rocket in June 2001. It turned out
that the uniformity of the CMB radiation is not absolute. This means that already
at the time when it freed itself from the substantial matter (some five hundred
thousand years after the Explosion), its temperature was not one hundred percent
the same throughout it. I guess this is not so strange considering that the process of
separation of radiation from substantial matter was spread in time (from 300
thousand to 700 thousand years). "Why this spread?" You may ask. It
can be assumed that this (detected by satellite) tiny, seemingly insignificant,
anisotropy of radiation, explains the astonishing fact of heterogeneity in the occurrence
of galactic objects. Is it really? Maybe it is just a coincidence of facts having
the same source? Why this anisotropy of radiation is so insignificant in
comparison with the large-scale heterogeneity of massive objects? Is it simply
because the radiation (the number of photons) is hugely overbalancing the number
of massive particles (billion times more than baryons)?
Or maybe the existence of heterogeneity is caused to some extend be dark
matter, which does not interact electromagnetically but its gravity has a
non-negligible impact on radiation itself? On its magnitude - yes, but on its
heterogeneity? These issues I also discussed in a different place. I should
refer to the articles dealing generally with gravity, and in this context
discussing, among other things, the first moments of the Big Bang, in
particular, the process, which I called Urela, as well as phase transformation
following soon after, constituting the cause of fluctuations - those that later
emerged in the form of large-scale non-homogeneities.
It
should be added that on a global scale, despite those findings, it is believed
that the Universe is fully homogeneous and confirms to the cosmological
principle. [The principle is confirmed even more (than by the supposed
homogeneity) by the existence of the same non-homogeneities ("foams")
in the eyes of any observer, whatever his location]. The results obtained using
the above-mentioned probes definitely proved
the validity of the claim that the expansion was preceded by a condition in
which all the matter of the Universe was at one moment concentrated in a very
small area and created a self-adjusted system (this latter statement I have not
consulted with anyone). True, many
scholars are convinced that it was a singularity (I see in this the
singularity-peculiarity of human habits of thought), but this is not at all
binding. What’s important is that the expansion was simultaneous for all
elements spatially included in the expanding object. Currently, basically no
one has any doubt about it. By the way, this simultaneity, as mentioned above,
could mean absolute self-adjustment of properties and processes occurring in
the earliest phase of the Explosion, even though the interconnecting paradigm
is in force. To the topic I will devote quite a bit of thought further on.
In an article devoted to the cosmological
principle, I accepted as valid the thesis that the observable Universe is
Everything that exists, is Everythingness. There is nothing beyond it. There is
nothing beyond the horizon, there are no parallel universes, no intersecting universes
or some running askew. Its specific, finite dimensions are determined by the H factor and the c constant. This is demonstrated directly by CMB radiation. "Really?" Absolutely. The
temperature of this radiation which was already estimated by Gamow, and the confirmation
of this prediction may serve as an eloquent proof. After all, he based his
conclusions on the properties of black body radiation, enclosed in a limited space
(in a nook). [If the Universe were infinite, there would be no nook, and of
course there would be no CMB radiation.] Change of radiation temperature contained
therein is then approximately proportional to the variable linear dimensions of
this "nook" (inverse proportionality). Knowing the temperature at the
time of decoupling (about 3000K), and the dimensions of the Universe at the time,
say five hundred thousand light years, and knowing the approximate current size
of the Universe (based on H law and speed c) we also could predict (with a
tolerable result) the wavelength of CMB radiation. And now Attention! If there was something extra (unobservable), and
at the same belonging to our Universe (the size of the nook would exceed the
Hubble dimensions), then the predicted temperature resulting from calculations would
not be compatible with the temperature of the CMB radiation. It would be much
lower. By how much? Good question, food for thoughts. Indeed, today it is
believed that the Universe reaches much further than the Hubble radius. The
diameter of the Universe has been actually determined to be equal to approx. 92
billion light years. This is a clear (if not "outright blatant")
inconsistency. Well, yes, but then you have to take into account the mutually
moving coordinates. Besides, there was "inflation", which caused that
the Universe is much bigger than it is. The dark energy also played a role, making
the Universe bigger than it is... In the articles devoted to the dual gravity,
I described Urela and phase transformation, and I said (in an article devoted
to the cosmological principle), that space is made of movement (even inert) of
matter formed through this transformation.
Relying on inflation and "an
escape beyond the visible Universe" of some part of it, and in addition relying
on the interconnecting paradigm - waiting for objects so far invisible (beyond
the horizon), leaves me unsatisfied (not to put it otherwise). These
superluminal continue a run away without giving us a chance to catch up. Where?
Into infinity? To other universes? The space is infinite (and flat) - as the static
universe? And what about Riemann bubble which is to model our backwater? And
what about the CMB radiation? A lot of inconsistency.
Conclusion:
The observable Universe is Everythingness. The boundary of Hubble horizon encloses everything. And what’s
further? There is no point talking about it. The Universe is apparently the
object of specific, not yet fully penetrated topological features, with the Möbius
strip serving here as its pictorial (linear, not spatial) model. This
particular topology imposes specific, cyclic changeability of the Universe.
If
the observable Universe is Everythingness, and moreover, its size is limited
and clearly defined, the most natural thing is to determine its mass, and
considering only the density parameter leaves one wanting. Satisfying this
striving seems most reasonable. The accurate determination of its spatial
dimensions makes it possible to estimate the mass of the Universe. Indeed, this
will result in interesting conclusions (if not definite findings). Do all these
outrageous thought of mine make you impatient? Don’t warry, is only the
beginning.
3. Dark energy?
Something like
this does not exist...
*) To exclude punctuality, that is infinite minuteness
which does not agree with the reality of material existence, the singularity
can be considered as an area of the Planck size.
**) Urela – Ultra-relativistic acceleration.
***) „Wszechświat grawitacji dualnej” - “The Universe of
Dual Gravity” is to be published in second half of 2016.
****) At
that moment there were only three elements: hydrogen, helium, and lithium
Conditions for the synthesis of other elements were brought about only with the
appearance of the stars.
*****) For those interested I recommend an interesting article:
,,A Map of the
Universe” by J.Richard Gott, Mario Jurić, David Shlegel, Fiona Hoyle, Michael
Vogeley, Max Tegmark, Neta Bahcal, Jon Brinkmann. It appeared in Astrophysical Journal (Gott et al., 2005, ApJ, 624, 463)
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz