The cosmological principle 9

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 8

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. 

The cosmological principle 7

 

Models of the universe consistent with the cosmological principle

Many models can be built, but here we will limit ourselves to a very simple, elementary model, although this particular model is very consistent with what is apparent from the observations. In my books I made more in-depth analysis. But that's enough for the rest of our discussion.

Here I am omitting views based models that are unacceptable to me, which I think are wrong. Among them, the LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model is very popular today. I mentioned this at the end of Article 6. Lambda (Λ) is Einstein's "cosmological constant". He gave it up when it became clear that the universe was not static - Hubble's discovery in 1929. But today this constant is in fashion because it creates dark energy. However, in my opinion, dark energy does not exist. I described this in the article: "Horizontal Catastrophe B".  I do not accept at all a cosmology based on mathematical equations, based on general relativity. In my opinion, this theory as local does not fit the description of the universe that is not local.

But it is not everything. Let's summarize first. We have already talked about the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, about the same properties of matter everywhere and of course about the same laws of nature everywhere. We spoke of the coordinated, concerted evolution of the entire universe, and then also of global time. It will soon turn out that, on the basis of our conclusions, we can also describe the cosmological motion of objects, the motion that determines the incessant change of the entire universe.

The question then arises: what conclusions can be drawn by observing the movement of distant galaxies? Is there a clear trend in their movement independent of the direction of observation? Although observation would do us a lot, at this point we will only think. Obviously it is a radial motion (near - far). Various movements can be considered (as long as they do not contradict the cosmological principle).

Is the averaged (statistically) speed zero? This is hard to accept as we have already concluded that the universe is changing - it is not static. If the universe is not static, then perhaps there is some mathematical relationship between the velocity of the galaxies and the distance (from us). Two options are preferred: accelerated (or retarded) motion and uniform motion (constant speed). If the motion is accelerated, it is a sign that every galaxy is affected by a force. In what direction? After all, there is no preferred direction (according to the cosmological principle). Looking at the same galaxy from two different points, we find that the directions of the force vectors are different. Thus, the direction of acceleration is not clear. This complicates our description a lot. In addition, according to the cosmological principle, there is no non-locally preferred direction of motion.

In this situation, it is worth checking the simpler option - uniform motion, since, according to the cosmological principle, the forces acting on each galaxy from all sides balance each other. [Even in the center of a massive sphere, gravity is reduced to zero according to Gauss's law.] This leads to the hypothesis that relative motion, with respect to any pair of objects, is uniform. [Everyone either gets closer or away.] And yet the speed is different for different distances (in a set of different objects). The farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it moves (at a constant speed). "Faster" and not slower, which would be absurd, because then the nearest galaxies would move very fast. And this observation does not confirm. In the simplest case, the speed is proportional to the distance, which means that a galaxy twice as far is moving twice as fast. This case is preferred because it is not the result of simultaneous action of different local factors. Again: the universe is non-local. We can put it briefly as follows:

v/r = const

Of course, the existence of proportions follows the cosmological principle (the simplest option). This is a hypothesis that, at this point, is not based on any observation. If the observation rejects this model, we will go back to the earlier, more complicated option.

    Interestingly, scientists did not consider this option, even though the cosmological principle was well known and even constituted an important criterion in cosmological research. The discovery made in 1929 (more on this later) did not change the attitude of scientists who, even to this day, sort of have forgotten the cosmological principle. Even after the publication of general relativity, Einstein did not think about this model when he tried to describe the universe. At that time, everyone was convinced that the universe was infinite and static. Therefore, the discovery of Hubble in 1929 took the scientific world by surprise. Hubble's empirical law confirms our hypothesis (about the proportionality of distance and velocity).

 

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. 

The cosmological principle 5

Global time. Is there a spatial non-homogeneous of time?

 

   We have already defined the global time of the universe. But we also know about the existence of time dilation - kinematic and possibly also gravitational. It will be discussed elsewhere.

   We are aware that in our eyes the objects, the farther away from us, are the more retarded in their in evolutionary development. [As is well known, an explanation for this is simple and logical. After all, to see what is happening in the object, one has to wait for the light coming from there, for example, after the explosion of a supernova star. However, with regard to the very distant objects (billions of light-years), their motion must also be taken into account.] It follows that the observer himself (on his watch) represents real time (without lag). This is the global time, the time of the universe - a time that has passed since the beginning of the count, from the beginning of being. Here is the definition of global time.

   In this context, it is worth mentioning the existence of kinematic time dilation, related to the expansion of the universe, visible with respect to objects moving at very high speeds (close to the speed of light) - very distant objects. The reason for the existence of this dilatation is that the speed of light does not depend on a system of reference. This dilation does not violate the existence of global time and of course also of the cosmological principle. After all, the size of this dilatation does not depend on the direction of observation. 

   The problem is that there is also (in theory) a local non-homogeneity of time caused by a gravitational field. This is due, as an interpretation, to general relativity. If this type of time dilation exists, the existence of global time is also in doubt. After all, it would violate the internal coordination of the entire universe, for example the course of evolutionary processes - different when looking at different directions. 

The cosmological principle 4

Looking at the distant galaxies. What do you see and what results from it?

Looking at distant galaxies, we find that they represent a Universe not today.  After all, the light from them must have traveled towards us for a very long time - this is how it is explained today. Are these objects identical with those near us? Observations show that it is not.  The quasars, for example, are all billions of light-years away from us. They represent the universe billions of years younger. What does this indicate? Indicates the existence of evolution, the variability of the universe. It follows that a "strong" cosmological principle is not correct. [Says that the universe does not change, that is, time is not a factor in the description of the universe.] After all, we notice that further objects looks different: quasars - active galaxies - galaxies closest to us.  And no matter which direction we look. Indeed, background radiation properties also indicate the existence of evolution. Thanks to the discovery of this radiation in 1964 we already know that the universe is changing.

   If we were to observe the universe from the outside (is it possible?), we would find that the universe as a whole evolves the same everywhere.  We would get the impression of coordination, the same development everywhere despite the lack of any immediate connection between the parts (because of very large distances). The universe would look like a living organism. It's the impression. Simple, matter everywhere is the same and evolving at the same rate - at any scale: from the galaxies to atoms, elementary particles and deeper, of course proportional to the scale of the distance. There is no reason to be otherwise. All objects are equally distant in time from the common beginning.   In this sense one can speak of a global time, a time of the whole universe. Is it possible to measure time? Yes, it is possible. This is each observer's local time, because other objects, are delayed in time.  The universe, that's it all and is devoid of local features - is not part of a larger entity. The universe is all that exists as matter in the broadest sense.

 

  

   

The Cosmological Principle 3

   Indeed, we have oneness in space and time - the whole universe. Hence the conclusion that there is also a genetic unity of everything that is part of the universe, all parts of the universe, despite the remoteness of most celestial bodies. Awareness of this leads to the need to consider two options. According to the first, the properties of bodies, materials and radiation are determined to be permanent and eternal. However, are there any physical phenomena taking place in this case? Are there any interactions? In this case a negative answer to these questions is natural. In this case, the matter is closed to discussions, not least because the existence of time itself is highly doubtful.

   According to the second possibility, there is a global evolutionary process, there is a variability that indicates the existence of time. If so, then there is a basis for scientific research, astronomical observation and inquiry.  And this, we already know today, confirms the genetic unity of the matter of the universe.

   On this occasion it is worth noting that the unity of physical properties of matter despite the large distance of objects, would indicate that some time ago we were all together and time flows at the same rate everywhere. After all, we see the same development of matter (the same in every direction of observation) despite the distance between the objects and this requires a kind of coordination right from the start of development - until today . All material has a common history. Hence the conclusion that the rate of development everywhere is equal. Indeed, the conclusion that some time ago together we were a very small entity compared to what we see today - is well-founded.

   One might think that it is not about auto-coordination, but about the creation of everything by the transcendental factor. That's it. But how was it created? For what purpose? On this occasion did he cause time to come into being? When? ... and all this to create a hideous creature that combines the features of a wild animal and a thinking and prudent person? That there would still be a conflict between good and evil - with the predominance of the latter?  

      A long time ago we were (all the matter of the universe) a very small entity and today the distances are huge. So we come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. But it is still not a final conclusion. This is one of the options available. Shrinkage also takes time. Perhaps before the universe was so small, it shrank. Apparently even earlier, before contracting, it was expanding. This is how the thought of the oscillation of the universe and all nature is born. This is what the sages of antiquity already thought.

     We are only at the beginning of our discussion and despite this we have come to interesting conclusions. We did not need much data. Was enough to be based on the cosmological principle and the most elementary observation (including of the spectrum).

  One may ask: does it follow from the existence of time that there was an absolute beginning in the past?  If the cyclical nature of nature follows from the cosmological principle, it makes no sense to speak of the absolute beginning of time. We refer to the beginning as a point in a sequence of cyclical variability. Like a dot on the sinusoid graph. We have chosen this point as the starting point, as the beginning of expansion, the beginning of the cycle.