History of the universe

History of the universe

  • Antonio Alfonso-Faus added an answer:
    How can quantum fluctuations scale up to make something as massive as our universe?
    I do not find the concept of “quantum fluctuations” convincing as the cause of the Big Bang in a one step process. The equations do not provide any reasonable cause for something on the scale needed to create our universe. A “something from nothing flat universe” is credible; however, a sequence of many phases would seem more reasonable to separate that much energy into positive and negative (gravity) forms. Does not the uncertainty principle apply only to the quantum scale?
    Antonio Alfonso-Faus · Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    If you have a first quantum fluctuation, say a quantum black hole with the Planck´s units, AND apply the causal set theory that "replicates" these particles (a 10^61 replication) then you get roughly the physical properties of our present universe:

                                          Planck´s mass 10^-5 g  x   10^61   =   10^56 g

                                           Planck´s length 10^-33 c  x  10^61  = 10^28 c

                                           Planck´s time 10 ^-44s  x  10^61    =  10^17  s

    Since the entropy goes like the area of the horizon, so to speak, the entropy of the present universe must be about 10^122 k, k Boltzmann constant as the unit of entropy, and so forth.

  • Jean-Louis Honeine added an answer:
    If space and time are interlocked and the universe is expanding shouldn't time be measured with respect to the rate of universe expansion?
    And when an event like a supernova is dated is the rate of the expansion of the universe taken in the account? I mean if this supernova occurred at point A at some point in time and we are at point B and that point B is travelling away from point A then to be able to date the supernova one need also to know how far point B travelled with respect to A.

    I am curious to know the actual answer (Thank you in advance)
    Jean-Louis Honeine · University of Pavia

    Yes this is exactly what I meant. Thank you ^^ 

  • Mihai Prunescu added an answer:
    What do we know about Initial Singularity?
    Assuming that the Big Bang theory reflects the actual chronology of "The Birth of the Universe", imposes the question of whether The Big Bang makes sense without existence of The Initial Singularity? If not, then The Initial Singularity Theory grows to the fundamental problem of "The Birth of the Universe".
    Thus, what is the place of The Initial Singularity Theory in the chronology of "The Birth of the Universe"? Does Initial Singularity existed before the Big Bang only as a philosophical idea, or only a mathematical boundary condition - in other words - only as the zero point, which arose just to get at the same time explode?
    If Initial Singularity does not only the zero point, then I asked the question: How long the Initial Singularity existed before The Big Bang?
    Mihai Prunescu · Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy

    Louis,

    good point in stating Problems 1 and 2. Of course there are some other... I am also dreaming about a discovery of some object which is so far away respectively so old, that our Big Bang reduces from the Explosion which is the whole universe to a little local bang in a bigger world. I don't know if my dream, if realized, help us closer to your dream. Starting whith the easy relation "more knowledge > less knowledge", I think so. From this position, I will say like Wittgenstein: "worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber soll man schweigen" (we must keep silent on the subjects about we cannot speak...)

  • Igor Piskarev added an answer:
    Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe?
    We know that our star, the Sun loses about 10^-14 of its mass per year as a result of electromagnetic radiation and particle emission. That reduction in mass should show up as a decreasing gravitational red shift. Same thing should happen to entire galaxies. But isn't it true that the galaxies we observe that are farther from Earth are also the younger we see (because light has taken millions of years more to come to us) and, as a consequence the more massive when we consider entire galaxies? (Because we cannot possibly see them as they are, but as they were millions of years ago.) Shouldn't we expect, correspondingly that the gravitational red shift of an observed galaxy will increase with its distance to Earth?
    Igor Piskarev · Lomonosov Moscow State University

    Red shift may be not Doppler's red shift at all, but absorbtion im matter, as vacuum is relict radiation (some kind of matter)

  • Vikram Zaveri added an answer:
    Does creation of the universe violate physical law?
    If the universe appeared out of the vacuum due to vacuum fluctuations, is not entropy reduced? And if entropy is reduced, does this not require an external source of energy?
    Vikram Zaveri · Independent Researcher
    Yes Richard. Dark energy is made up of extremely subtle particles. You can compare them with the particles of which the mind is made up or the particles of which the thoughts are made up.
  • Reza Katebi added an answer:
    Assuming that the observable universe collapses, after the collapse is there any force that can counteract with gravity?
    Assume that the observable universe would collapse due to gravity, is there any force that can counteract with gravity collapse in the universe? In other word, after the universe collapses, how and by which law (or force) will the universe expand again? A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. For the purposes of proving the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, a spacetime with a singularity is defined to be one that contains geodesics that cannot be extended in a smooth manner. The end of such a geodesic is considered to be the singularity. This is a different definition, useful for proving theorems. The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities. Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang. My question is, if the universe collapses, will it reach to infinite density and zero volume? Or is there a force that will counteract with it?
    Reza Katebi · Ohio University
    Sorry the correct link to Hawking's paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761
  • Victor Ostrovskii added an answer:
    Do you know of any proofs for the independence of the gravitation coefficient from the star age and size?
    The fact is that, until the gravitation coefficient independence from the star age and size is proved by independent measurements, the notions on the so-called dark matter, dark energy, etc. are no more than the scientific fiction, because these notions result from the rates of recession of galaxies, which, in their turn, are estimated on the basis of the constancy of the gravitation coefficient.
    Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
    Open letter.
    Dear Prof. Matts Roos,
    I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”.
    This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention.
    The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows.
    (i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington);
    (ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington);
    (iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity);
    (iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR).
    None of these assumptions was proved.
    The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc.
    Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them?
    As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it.
    The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation.
    We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons:
    (x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.
    (y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.
    (z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.
    We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies.
    The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes.
    Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation.
    This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space.
    We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them.
    (1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements?
    (2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma?
    (3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe?
    (4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe?
    We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless.
    The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism.
    The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question:
    (5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang?
    Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question:
    (6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections?
    I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive.
    I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works.
    Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there.
    The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars.
    The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows.
    The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications.
    I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers.
    The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored.
    Sincerely,
    Victor
  • Victor Ostrovskii added an answer:
    Are solutions of the problems of dark matter, black holes, etc. hidden in celestial phenomena or in our heads, i.e., in erroneous notions on stars?
    The so-called standard solar model and all calculations of the masses and rates of stars are based on arbitrary Eddington's (1919) notions on the stars as on the balls of an ideal gas, which transform in time under the action of inner thermonuclear processes. Are such computational results of applications of these notions, as the "dark matter", "dark energy", "black holes", etc. unconfirmed for several decades, the critical phantoms, which show that the notions of the Universe historical grounds should be reconsidered, similarly to those of the 19th, 18th, and earlier centuries?
    The last question is now actual the more so because a new theory of the stellar nature and development is available, which considers the stars as the "cold" knots in the mass/energy space and which includes the processes of formation of all elements over the space around each star and on the basis of radiation-chemical reactions rather than formation of selected elements inside definite stars on the basis of fusion reactions (see here, PFO-CFO Hypothesis).
    Victor Ostrovskii · Karpov Institute of Physical Chemistry
    Open letter.
    Dear Prof. Matts Roos,
    I use an opportunity given by the ResearchGate site organizers to address this letter to you as to one of the most experienced if not the most experienced in the cosmology ResearchGate member and author of the book “Introduction to cosmology”.
    This my action is induced by the opinion that astrophysicists, as scientists of no other specialty, are responsible vis-a-vis the population for its naturalistic world outlook and by the believe that, in sciences, truth is always better than notorious invention.
    The present astrophysics, including all its conclusions on the allegedly actual occurrence of such celestial objects as the dark matter and dark energy, black holes and different colored dwarfs, etc., on their sizes, ages, and distances between them, on the Universe age and size, and on the nature and transformations of the celestial objects and the Universe as a whole, is based on four assumptions which, being taken together, represent the basis for all subsequent calculations and conclusions. These assumptions are made about 90 years ago and, thus, are bases on the level of knowledge of those times and were intended for the explanations of the observations then available. The assumptions are as follows.
    (i) Stars exist and transform as a result of three-dimensional fusion reactions in their interiors, and just these reactions are the source of the stellar luminosity, heat emission, and other forms of radiation (Eddington);
    (ii) The parameters of the stellar state can be calculated on the basis of the ideal-gas laws (Eddington);
    (iii) The gravitation coefficient value inherent in the Solar System is applicable to the entire Universe (Einstein, Special Relativity and General Relativity);
    (iv) The speed of light is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe (Einstein, SR and GR).
    None of these assumptions was proved.
    The acceptance of the assumptions (i) and (ii) can be explained only by the absence in the 1920s of any alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission. Indeed, it is unthinkable that a fusion reaction could proceed stationary over giant volumes of a pressed substance with liberation of so small specific energy amount as it is observable for the Sun and that the behavior of a hot highly-concentrated plasma might be assimilated to the ideal gas. Of course, “explanations” for these imaginary phenomena were invented, but they look like a square peg in a round hole. Just these assumptions were put in the basis of this so-called standard solar model which, in turn, represented first floor for the building of fantasies, including the structure and history of the stars, origination of chemical elements, etc.
    Today, we have an alternative explanation for the solar luminosity and energy and neutrino emission, this explanation in its common form being apparently applicable to other stars independently of their age and sizes. Isn’t it time to look critically at the fundamental assumptions of almost 100-year age and at the entire building constructed over them?
    As for the assumption (iii), it is, as least, questionable, because it is quite unconditioned and nothing counts in its favor, although there are no proved objections against it.
    The assumption (iv) is, in our opinion, completely unacceptable as a ground for any earnest conclusions on the Universe as a whole. However, this statement requires a rather detailed substantiation.
    We see three factors that force us to doubt in the constancy of the light speed and direction (We think that it is clear that the variations in the direction are equipollent to variations in the speed) over the Universe. Moreover, we think that the speed of light should be dependent on the distance and, there is very likelihood, on the time by the following reasons:
    (x) The gravitation coefficient might be different in different stellar systems or, all the more, in different galaxies. It is observationally shown that light deviates in gravitation field (just such an observation was taken as a confirmation of Einstein’s earlier theory). If the gravitation coefficient is different over the Universe and changes in an unknown manner, the light speed out of the Solar System is unpredictable.
    (y) Even if the gravitation coefficient is the same over the Universe (We have grounds to think that this is improbable; see below), it is possible that light propagates through the inter-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-galaxy channels and through the intra-galaxy space, in preference, along the between-star channels , where gravitation to the adjacent objects is compensated; thus, it can propagate in a straight line along great but limited distances and, when propagating through multi-galaxy distances, choose the directions of minimum resistance; in this case, its direction is also unpredictable.
    (z) In the 20th century, after development of the quantum field theory (1934), an opinion existed that gravitation is a property of each atom as such and that this property is caused by the existence of gravitons, i.e., massless spin-2 boson particles that represent carriers of this property. However, no gravitons were discovered within nuclei, in spite of their 80-year searches over the world. Eighty years is a rather long period; today, it is necessary to be rather obstinate optimists to wait the discovery of such particles and there are no scientific ground to believe that the gravitation constant is the same over the Universe; the recent LHC experiment is the source of optimism for some physicists, however no consensus exists even among its participants. It must not be ruled out (although we do not undertake to state) that gravitation is an integral feature of the space/celestial-body system but not the feature of each atom and that this feature depends on the size and, may be, age of the star that forms the stellar system.
    We wrote earlier about a wide criticism relative to the present calculations of the masses and distances for the celestial bodies. Eddington’s assumptions are arbitrary, like the assumption on the over-Universe constancy of the gravitation coefficient and on the light speed constancy over the Universe, and the miracles, to which this set of assumptions has led the astrophysics, show that these assumptions should be turned down. Therefore, we state that not only the Universe expansion is questionable. The opinions on the natures of the so-called standard solar model, all dark things, black holes, variegated dwarfs, etc. should be reconsidered. At the ResearchGate site, a number of researchers had tried to make objections against this our conclusion but nobody of them presented scientific proofs counting in favor of these products of hypnotizing imagination. We are sure that the half-hearted hypotheses are scarcely acceptable. If a pseudo-science is build on sandy dunes, it is necessary to be ready that the sand may begin to move in any day. And, please, demonstrate your magic wand, if you have it. The today astrophysics includes the entire set of the four assumptions listed in the beginning of this letter; rejection of any one of them would lead to its full dismounting. Meanwhile, three first of them are not proved and the fourth one is practically disproved by the occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings and other figures obtained as a result of not-direct light incidence on an object. It is difficult to ignore that light is capable of changing at any boundary, where the space density varies.
    The occurrence of the so-called Einstein’s rings in their ideal or deformed variants shows that the time of light propagation from any object to the Earth can’t be used to determine the object-Earth distance even if the gravitation coefficient is constant. (Really, there is quite likelihood that it is non-constant.) Einstein’s mistake who took in the SR and GR that the light speed is constant and identical everywhere over the Universe is explainable: he can’t know that, 50 years after his death, Hubble will discover on the vault of heaven a great number of rings and similar figures and so many “glowworms” that, even if 99.99% of them represent mirages, the real quantity of the stars is immeasurably greater than it was known in his time. May be, in the Universe, which was known to Einstein, it was possible to take approximately that light propagates in straight lines, but in the Universe, which is known to us after studies by Hubble, light propagates by more complicated routes.
    Apparently, only one explanation of these phenomena occurs: if an illuminating object, the center of a half-way galaxy, and an observer are along the light stream (the conventional wisdom that these three objects should be along a straight line is not quite correct, because light deviates in gravitation fields) and if no other galaxies exist along this line, the observer sees a dark disk and a light ring around it (very random situation); if the light direction from the illuminating object is somewhat shifted from the center of the half-way galaxy, the observer sees any other more complicated figure instead of the ring (not so random situation). Thus, Einstein’s figures are observable as the result of rounding the half-way galaxies by light. However, it is clear that not the entire outer radiation rounds the half-way galaxy and the excluded light streams not necessarily interlock after it. Depending on the light pitch angle, on the galaxy size, and on other causes, some portions of the primary light stream pass through the galaxy and are being absorbed, reflected, and scattered by it. Apparently, just the scattered and reflected light is the cause of the observable space background radiation.
    This means that a major portion of light doesn’t go through galaxies but chooses the way around them, where there is no gravity, and may go down and bifurcate. The way of each portion of a primary light stream from a radiating celestial object is much longer than the straight distance. The light from any remote star may round many galaxies. Therewith, it may separate, may walk over the Universe, and may come to the Earth even from a direction that is opposite to the real direction to the real remote star. Moreover, a portion of the light should be reflected and dissipated over the space.
    We address ourselves to you as to one of the main advocates of the widely distributed understanding of the Universe with the following concrete questions and we are waiting unambiguous answers to them.
    (1) Is there any scientific proof that stars exist as a result of fusion reactions within them, or is this assumption taken only because there is no other idea to explain the stellar emission of light, heat, and neutrinos and the mechanism of formation of chemical elements?
    (2) Is there any scientific proof that stars can be assimilated to balls of ideal gas to calculate their state independently of fulfillment the previous assumption, and is there the confidence in correctness of such calculations if the previous assumption is fulfilled and stars represent highly-pressed concentrate plasma?
    (3) The independence of the gravitation coefficient over the Universe and time, can it really be obviously true and are there any scientific proofs that the gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe?
    (4) Are there any scientific proofs that the speed of light is constant over the Universe?
    We contend that all these assumptions are artificial, wrong, and smell of the lamp, and their application had led to nothing but secondary fantasies, such as dark matter and energy, black holes, expansion of the Universe etc.; the masses, speeds, and distances of the celestial bodies are obtained just on the basis of these four fantastic assumptions supplemented with different other no more grounded fabrications. And I think that any attempts to save the widely distributed views on the Universe are today in the Internet epoch senseless.
    The available notion of the way of formation of the chemical elements is too complicated and requires several meets of several objects and rather questionable processes, such as many-parsec collapses, their initiations, supernova, etc. Too many of unknown and questionable things are used to explain the incomprehensible things. Meanwhile, Nature is simple and doesn’t luxuriate in excesses. Such a complicated way of formation of the chemical elements is of low probability for one realization and is scarcely possible for billions realizations in any one galaxy. The explanations for such phenomena as the solar corona high temperature, high planetary moment, periodicity of the protuberances and of the variability of the magnetic moments, isotopic anomalies, cold Bok globules, and many others are obscure and can be easily subjected to criticism.
    The following group of our questions to you relates to the understanding of the Origin. In our opinion, when discussing Origin, scientists should keep in mind that Origin, according to the content of the term, should be absolute, i.e., the questions about the events and phenomena, which had been occurring before Origin, should not arise at all and that there are no grounds to ignore the physical laws of conservation and the laws of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, the notion of the so-called Big Bang fulfils none these conditions. In the philosophical plane, it cannot be considered as the Origin. The notion of it has no physical ground because the expansion of the Universe is no more than a myth, put new unreciprocated questions about the pre-explosion events, previous history of the "neutron egg" and “energetic field”, time and events before it, etc., and assumes its appearance outside physical laws. This notion solves no problems but initiates a number of new problems and has no scientific grounds. In this connection, we ask you for answering the following question:
    (5) Do you have any opinion about the appearance of those materials that were the subject of the so-called Big Bang?
    Meanwhile, apparently, there is a unique solution that leads to no additional problems. Only one solution is irreproachable from the scientific point of view, can be proved from the contrary and leaves no additional questions; it is given by Friedrich Engels (“Natural dialectics”, Papers, any edition: the last page of the Introduction) in his discussion with Eugen Dührings: “universe is eternal and infinite”. Not all agree to this, but, unfortunately, there is no absolutely closed question over the world. We put you one more question:
    (6) Do you object to this Engels’s solution, and, if so, can you formulate your principal objections?
    I use, may be, too undisguised expressions. I ask you and all readers of this open letter to excuse me for the intransigence. The fact is that the many-decade scientific activity has taught me that science has no intermediate solutions and that efforts of accommodation of conflicting interests are non-productive.
    I think that the notions of fusion reactions within stars, gravitation coefficient and light speed constancy over the Universe, and stars as balls of ideal gas are the viruses of the terrible disease. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to ideas fix on the dark matter, dark energy, black holes, Universe extension, and Big Bang as the consequence of this entire devilry and just the shock therapy is the unique medicine for this disease. In any other science, any one of similar results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament. For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. The rejection of the notion of fusion reactions is necessary because it was possible only at the dawn of discovery of such reactions to believe that they can be localized by Nature within giant volumes with no explosion, because the notion of fusion reactions gives no possibility of going to a realistic notion of the mechanism of formation of chemical elements, and because of other causes about which we wrote above and in our published works.
    Until no new hypothesis was available, the criticism against the old one was non-productive because it could create a vacuum zone and because each vacuum zone in the system of knowledges is dangerous as different superstitions rush there.
    The times have changed after formulation of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis by me together with Elena Kadyshevich, and its ignoring under Internet is senseless. Its first version was published in the Advances in Plasma Astrophysics, 2011; and, at present, we propose for discussion the works of 2013. The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development including its finish state of 2013; it includes our version of the mechanism of formation of stars.
    The main principles of the hypothesis are as follows.
    The Universe is eternal and infinite, and the space consists of energy/mass of a low concentration and has infinite rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the energy/mass space. No fusion reactions proceed within stars. Just radiochemical decays over the stellar vicinities represent the unique alternative to fusion reactions. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings. In each stellar system, all chemical elements originate over the star vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance and just the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity and heat-emission, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops. The planetary systems around stars are formed on the basis of the stellar substance emitted by protuberances and as results of explosive destructions of the stellar radiation zones, after which stars return to their initial state. The hypothetical mechanisms of all processes are described in the available publications.
    I am waiting for unambiguous answers to questions (1) – (6). And I think that not only I am waiting for your answers.
    The point is that the conclusions on astrophysical problems are of great public importance; they propagate over the world by the mass media, writers, etc., get into the scholar books, and are taken by the population as the reality. Therefore, I think that, at least, the degree of validity of each statement should be strictly determined by the most experienced scientists and the assumptions underlying these statements should be clearly outlined. It is an open secret that the results in the field of astrophysics are of ideological importance. Thus, the responsibility of each researcher who works in the field of ideology is too high vis-a-vis the population to be ignored.
    Sincerely,
    Victor
  • Maurizio Pea added an answer:
    Could our universe be in a positive acceleration between two long periods of negative acceleration?
    If we imagine that after the Big Bang there was a "negative acceleration" for the action of the gravitational forces, similar to a bungee cord; at the absence of such forces the rope breaks and the acceleration of the body, that the elastic rope had restrained, becomes (for a "moment") positive to return immediately after negative. Our universe could not be in this peculiarity? In a positive acceleration between two long periods of negative acceleration?
    Maurizio Pea · University of Verona and ULSS 22 Bussolengo, Italy
    Dear Dr Stephane thank you very much for your kind and patient attention, best regards, Maurizio

Topic Followers (19) See all