The cosmological principle 6

The universe is not infinite! The question of the speed of the passage of time.

The universe is limited both materially and spatially. What we see is the whole universe, not a part of it.

And time? Did he suddenly appear without existing before? If so, when did it appear? That sounds weird.

   The awareness of the spatial gradation (with distance) of the features of objects in relation to their evolutionary advancement, as well as the fact that the universe is isotropic, leads to the view that all celestial bodies have a common origin. And this despite that today the distances are really huge. Probably some time ago the entire universe was a very small and very dense thing. Additionally, this gradation of object features does not depend on the viewing direction. This suggests that the observable universe is all there is.

That's not all. There is nothing beyond the horizon, that is, the border of visibility. It is an absolute horizon that constitutes the border between existence and non-existence. The view I presented above is really rare today, even though it is quite logical. When we deal with background radiation, we get a real reinforcement of this view. However, such a view, in the cosmological context, requires the use of a rather specific topology when describing the universe.

As is well known, the only tool actually used to describe the universe is general relativity. Is it really justified? After all, this is a local theory, and the universe is not local. The results of the observations are decisive, not the theory, no matter how best. Interestingly, most of the observational results surprise scientists, yet they do not want to give up their mental routine.

In conclusion, it can be said that the universe is limited in its dimensions - it is not infinite.

This thesis is reinforced by the conclusion that in the distant past the universe was very small (the distance between celestial bodies was very small). Moreover, spatial infinity would deny the existence of evolution (both on a global and local scale, even in the smallest dimensions of elementary particles). There would also be no temporal reconciliation of properties and phenomena between all objects, no gradual evolution according to distance.

 

The most distant objects are quasars, although observational data point to something more distant that preceded the appearance of quasars - a faint glow, perhaps created by the first stars, even before larger-scale accumulation of matter began, about a billion years later.

The first stars appeared about two hundred million years after BB (what happened at the very beginning will be discussed later in another article). We do not see the beginning itself for both technical and fundamental reasons - so it is very possible that the properties of matter were different. After all, there was no electromagnetic radiation the existence of which allows observation. Indeed, evolution does exist, while "infinity" (and singularity) is just mathematics with no reference to real nature. These matters are dealt with differently today: mathematics is the starting point for all discussions and research. Is it right? I am not the first to raise doubts. But let's not get ahead of what is still ahead of us.

What about the passage of time? There is no doubt that it exists. But what does it look like from a cosmological point of view? Here is a way of thinking (one of those possible): When was time created? Contrary to appearances, there is no consensus on this matter. If evolution already exists, then is it possible that time is not limited - in both directions? And in this context: Can an evolutionary process go on forever? Was there also before the Great Beginning? According to many people, time did not exist then. In any case, it is difficult to accept "the existence of time ahead of time". It's hard to agree with that.

   And if evolution takes place (what we have already stated), when did it start? After all, it had to start sometime. When? Is it then also the time was created? Not necessarily.

If evolution takes place, what was the earliest state of matter? According to a fairly common opinion, time and space suddenly formed at the zero point (on the axis of numbers). But does it make sense? What was before? Is this a really naive question? And one more question: will time once formed still exist and flow endlessly?

Of course, these are embarrassing questions. Those who don't think have no problem.

In order to get rid of these (and similar) questions, it is worth considering (not for the first time, of course) the option of the cyclical nature of Nature, the cyclicity of the evolution of the universe. In this way, we returned to the idea that had already emerged. Is the universe really oscillating? This is what makes it possible to reconcile evolution with infinity.

   Many cosmologists look for grounds for the position that the universe is cyclical because it is intuitive. It is not easy to express this judgment at present.

   The point is that today the dominant conviction, and even belief, in the existence of the Cosmological Constant. Einstein introduced it into the equations of general relativity, and when it turned out that the universe was not static but was expanding, he rejected it, claiming that it was his biggest mistake in his life.

 And yet this constant was reactivated. Its (alleged) existence is to cause an accelerated expansion of the Universe - dark energy. Today, the LCDM (lambda-cold-dark-matter) model is widely adopted. In my humble opinion, this is not the last word of science. It is commonly believed that there was a singularity in the beginning, and since then the universe has expanded endlessly, even with acceleration. A striking internal inconsistency.

Interestingly, in the philosophy of the ancient Near East (even among ancient South Americans), periodicity is a fundamental feature of nature. Today this rule has been forgotten. Perhaps because time is treated as a linear thing - perhaps influenced by Christianity.