The cosmological principle 11

 

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