Contracting and Expanding Universe Theories and the Big Bang
85A New Contracting Universe Theory Based on Astronomical Observations
(This article appears in Alex Caldon's book The Quest for Truth: On Finding the Grail, which is published, sometimes FREE from the site www.thequestfortruth.co.uk. There are more forums and videos shown there too. Happy Questing...)
There may be some adjustments to be made to our understanding of how the Universe works. The telescopic observations which astrophysicists used to conclude that the Universe is expanding from a Big Bang, may in fact be providing us with evidence that the Universe is contracting. Let’s take a look at how the Big Bang Theory came about, and then go on to look for an alternative theory which might explain the observations.
The history of the Big Bang Theory developed and changed and improved over many years. We find one piece of the jigsaw, which causes another to fall into place; human understanding grows ever onward. We are going to begin our review somewhere after creationism and somewhere before a Theory Of Everything. A convenient year to start would be 1917, for it was in this year which Einstein published his paper entitled: “Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity”. It was Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity which provided the first theoretical argument that the Universe must be either contracting or expanding. The accepted model of the Universe prior to the General Theory was that it was static and infinite. This view was so widely held that Einstein himself tried to make his new Theory fit the wisdom of the day. Almost unthinkingly he tweaked his theory in order to make it match the static model - he introduced an arbitrary figure, what he called the Cosmological Constant, which caused the relativistic equations to fit a static Universe. In hindsight, years later, Einstein called it “the biggest blunder of my life”. Nevertheless, the maths which came out of his General Theory of Relativity (without the Cosmological Constant) provided scientists with the first hint that they should be searching for evidence for an expanding Universe.
So for quite some time the static model of the Universe prevailed. But evidence started to come in which would change perceptions. It was while Einstein was content with his static version of the General Theory that a certain Vesto Slipher was making spectrographic readings of distant stars at the Lowell Observatory, Arizona. The observations clearly showed that there was a Doppler shift in the light spectra from the distant stars. Light is subject to Doppler shifts in the same way that sound is. When we listen to a car which approaches and passes us, we notice its sound is high pitched on approach, and the sound drops in pitch on passing. It gives us that particular meeee-owwwmmm effect which we all know. As the car approaches, the sound waves are kind of bunched up, and as a result the pitch of the sound is higher. After the car passes, the waves are stretched out and make the sound lower in pitch. Light works in much the same way. Now, Slipher observed that light from distant stars was red shifted – in other words the light was of lower frequency than would be seen from a static star. The obvious conclusion was that all the stars Slipher was observing were moving away from us. The findings and the conclusion were of enormous relevance, but the study remained in obscurity for a good while yet.
Slipher’s work was taken up by Edwin Hubble. Hubble applied the Doppler shift principle and one or two other cunning tricks and made studies of the distances and velocities of other galaxies. In fact, his work helped prove that other galaxies exist. Prior to 1919, when Hubble took up astronomy, there was thought to be only one galaxy: the Milky Way. The model of the known Universe was taking massive leaps forward, and the Universe was found to be really rather large indeed. After Hubble had found new galaxies, he started applying the Doppler principles to the galaxies’ spectra. By the early 1930’s it was found that all the galaxies that had been discovered were moving away from us. Not only that, but the further galaxies were moving away faster than nearby galaxies. The “obvious” inference was that the Universe was expanding in all directions. By logical extension, way back in time the Universe must have been at a point in space. The model of the Universe had developed, and now there seemed to be a beginning to it all.
But Hubble somehow managed to remain largely ignorant of Einstein’s General Theory and so he missed the full cosmological significance of his observations. Instead, the idea of an expanding Universe kicked off by a Big Bang was first put forward by the Belgian priest and academic Georges Lemaître in the 1920’s in his “fireworks theory”. The observational evidence was amassing to back up Lemaître’s theory, but he was ahead of his time; more evidence was yet to come.
In 1965 new observations brought with them a new piece of the jigsaw. Two radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were working with a radio-telecommunications antenna at Bell Laboratories, New Jersey, and they found that a constant background “hiss” of stray microwaves was hindering their work. No matter which direction they aimed their receiver, the same noise was detected, day and night, every day. Their initial reaction was to assume there was something wrong with their equipment, and they spent a good year checking every piece of the radio-telescope for faults. Famously, they even climbed into the telescope dish to sweep out “white dielectric material” - bird shit to you and me. But the noise remained.
It was known at the time that the further away one looks in distance, the further back in time one is seeing. For instance, the light from the Sun takes some 8 minutes and 18 seconds to reach Earth: when we look at the Sun we are looking back in time more than 8 minutes. If we look at further stars we are seeing light which left them many years previously. Now, in the 1940’s the Russian born astrophysicist George Gamow first put forward the idea that if one looks far enough one may see the radiation which was first generated during the birth of the Universe at some kind of Big Bang. He calculated that the Big Bang radiation should today be found as background microwaves. And that is exactly what Penzias and Wilson found. It was another team, led by Robert Dicke at Princeton University, who then interpreted the observations as further evidence to support the Big Bang Theory.
The Big Bang Theory is the accepted wisdom today, and is by and large quoted as established fact. But it isn’t an established fact. Let’s take a side-ways look at the Universe, and see if the expanding Universe model represents certain truth.
Our Universe is commonly considered to have four dimensions. To us mortals there appears to be three space dimensions and one of time, but this is not how it is - this model was proved to be inadequate by Einstein’s theories of relativity. In his theories the time and space dimensions of the Universe are shown to be intimately combined into four dimensions of space-time. The model he created defies our Earthly intuition, but has been shown to be accurate from many observations. To help us to explore a contracting Universe, we are going to work with a four dimensional space-time model. It will help us if we first consider a one dimensional Universe and then add dimensions one at a time to build up a model in four dimensions.
Imagine a one dimensional Universe, something like a piece of string. Let’s fill a one dimensional Universe like this with little 1D creatures which bob to and fro along a single line. (It would probably be quite an inconvenient place to live as it’s so difficult to get past your best 1D friend to visit the 1D pub on the other side. It just isn’t practical. It is thought by some scientists that the reason we live in a Universe with about four dimensions is that that is the number which is needed to allow life to happen.) Imagine a 1D Universe stretching out to infinity in each direction. The problem with this Universe is that maths finds infinities uncomfortable. A short piece of string-Universe would have a finite size on the other hand, but it would have ends, and similarly maths doesn’t like ends. It poses the problematic question – what’s on the other side of the end? A more convenient 1D Universe therefore, would be to tie the two ends together to form a ring – our Universe now has a finite size and also has no ends. Much better. We can extend this idea up to two dimensions. Consider a Universe which is a 2 dimensional plane – like a sheet of paper – it could stretch out to infinity, or it could have edges like a regular piece of paper. Again, both options are mathematically undesirable. But wrap it around to form a sphere and the Universe is still two dimensional, but it has a finite area, and no edges. Obviously, little 2D creatures on the surface of the sphere would appreciate the ease of being able to move around in an extra dimension. And the 2D creatures would be completely oblivious of the fact that their Universe was bent into a third dimension – they are completely incapable of looking into the third dimension, and even the concept of it is impossible to hold in their 2D heads. If a 2D creature had a telescope powerful enough, it could see all the way around the spherical Universe and actually be able to look at the back of its own head. (Incidentally, in Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time he concludes that a 2D Universe couldn’t harbour life because of its impracticalness. He moots the argument that to consume food, a 2D dog, for example, would require a tube going all the way through it. And if you draw a tube going all the way through a 2D drawing of a dog, the result would be to cut the dog in two, by its own innards. Hawking neglects to consider the amoeba, which consumes food by enveloping it, and then re-moulding itself around what it is consuming. It shows there would be no eating difficulties for a 2D animal.)
Anyway! We can add another dimension again, to examine a 3D Universe. If our Universe stretched out to infinity in all directions it’s uncomfortable, and likewise if it had edges. Now, it is possible that our Universe is bent into an additional dimension which we are completely incapable of observing, just like our other 1 and 2 D Universes were bent into an additional dimension. Again if we had a powerful enough telescope we could see far enough to observe the back of our own heads. (Not that this is a good enough reason to justify the expense of building such a huge telescope, which would obviously be required to do this. No, it is far easier to use a system of mirrors.)
Now consider the 2D Universe on the surface of a sphere, shown in the picture on this hub...
Say a Big Bang explosion occurs at the North Pole. All the stuff from the explosion is blasted away and heads off, in the direction of the South Pole. At the South Pole, the space debris eventually starts colliding and compacting into a Big Crunch. As more stuff accumulates at the South Pole, its mass becomes bigger and bigger, and therefore so does it’s gravitational attraction to the rest of the stuff which is on its way from the Big Bang at the North Pole. The great mass at the Big Crunch pulls the Universe’s contents towards it. Say we are in this 2D Universe, observing it at A, somewhere near Cornwall, in the UK. We, of course, have also in the past been blasted away from the North Pole, and the accumulating mass at the South Pole is dragging us southwards. What do we see? Well, if we look east or west, we may see nearby stars moving away from us, as the space stuff is stretched out moving towards the equator. Looking north or south from A, it is anybody’s guess what would be seen. Maybe stars to the north or south of A are also moving away from each other. But now let’s look at the southern hemisphere. Here, one would intuitively expect to make observations which would show all the stars moving closer together heading towards the Big Crunch. But paradoxically, this is not the case. Since the Big Crunch will be accelerating everything southwards, a star to the south of B (near Zanzibar) will be moving faster southwards than a star slightly to the north. So in a contracting Universe, we may see stars and galaxies moving away from us in all directions! Which is exactly what Slipher and Hubble deduced from their observations of Doppler shift. Not only that but in our model, the further away the galaxy being observed, the faster it is moving away from us – just as in the observations. So our established belief that our Universe is currently growing may not be the case at all: we may be on the home run, and we’re all going to be crushed in the Big Crunch a lot sooner than we previously thought1.
What about the background microwaves as detected by Penzias and Wilson? Looking far away in our Big Crunch model we will see galaxies moving away at ever greater speeds. The Doppler shift to the lower frequency red end of the spectrum will become ever greater, and for very distant galaxies, the Doppler shift might stretch out their visible light until it enters the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. And (this may be a bit of conjecture going on) that’s exactly what Penzias and Wilson found. (!)
(An aside…While we’re on the subject of background microwave radiation, there’s another hypothesis about the nature of the Universe which is worth going over. There is an argument which refutes the possibility of an infinite Universe. Olbers’ Paradox provides a well known argument against an infinite Universe. The Paradox says that if the Universe is infinite then it wouldn’t matter which direction we looked on a starry night, our line of sight would always be incident upon a star; even in between the closer stars there would be ever more stars stretching out to infinity in all directions. If this were the case then the appearance of the night sky would consequently be completely bright, with no blackness. It has been said that since our night sky is quite dark then it proves that the Universe is not infinite. However, this argument does not take into account time. If the age of the Universe were less than the time it takes for the light from the more distant stars to reach us, then those lines of sight would still appear dark. There would then exist a spherical limit, centred on our Earth within which we can see and beyond which the light would be yet to reach us. The “sphere of known universe” would consequently be growing all the while. AH! The reader retorts, the obvious error here is that this implies there was a birth to the Universe, which means, okay it may still be infinite in space, but a clearly defined beginning in time implies it is not therefore infinite in all four of the space-time dimensions. Hmmm. Well there it is anyway, just to let everyone know that the old “the-sky-would-be-all-shiny-and-bright” chestnut is possibly wrong.
An aside to the aside…In fact, if you think about it, the background microwaves observed by Penzias and Wilson were observed in every direction – maybe that provides evidence for an infinite Universe? Curious. Hmm….anyway, I’ll have to finish this one some other time….)
Okay. This Contracting Universe Theory which we’ve arrived at may of course, be wrong. But that’s the point! The Big Bang and Expanding Universe theories may well be true. But then again they may well be wrong! The truth is that in contemplating such mighty themes as the birth of a Universe, scientists are working at the limits of reason. We have no way of knowing for sure what really went on at the birth of the Universe, or indeed if there was a birth. There is nothing to say that the laws of physics as studied now on Earth are the same as those which brought the Universe into being. And yet the Big Bang Theory is so often regurgitated as though it were a firmly established fact. And there is no limit to the academic qualifications of those who claim it to be the truth. The greatest professors and gurus on the planet are sometimes guilty of claiming such hypotheses to be firm facts. What the discussion here has given us is not just another view of the Universe, but it has shed some light on how we think. The telescopic observations could easily have been wrongly interpreted, but now scientists have dug themselves into a hole. The collective psyche of the scientific community is as prone to dysfunction as is the psyche of any individual. When scientists believed the creationist theory they were sharing a delusion which now is by and large cured. In claiming the irrefutable truth of the Big Bang Theory, scientists are allowing their egos to gain the upper hand. And when the psyche grows excessive ego, it becomes unreceptive to change and perception starts to drift away from reality. The pattern of ego resisting truth and growth may be repeated in the theories of the Universe.
We have found another example of how the human race can be too complacent. Why did scientists automatically assume the evidence showed expansion and not contraction? Perhaps somewhere in the subconscious of us all are those nagging questions about how and why we were created. And in our subconscious pre-occupation with where we came from we neglected to think about where we are heading to. It’s curious to think that this Contracting Universe Theory may show we have less time to live than we previously thought. If it is to be of any use to us, we need to ask how does that affect the way we live?
2D Expanding and Contracting Universe
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (1)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
very impressive.
I have the best answer for the question..
Why we are here ?
answer: It's up to us
'''HAHAHA
There's not enough matter in the universe to pull together and cause the contract.
Red Shift look it up!
if the universe is infinite, it follows that its mass is infinite, time is also infinite and who knows how many ways that the fabric of space and time is bent, so it will most likely be folded and bent infinitely meaning that with enough folds, time becomes an infinite number of plurals all existant at the same time, meaning the universe is expanding and contracting and pre-bang all at once and for ever. Or something
I appreciate the philosophical points mentioned. When I was about seventeen I had a dream about the universe in which, I was removed from it. Drifting away from earth and far outside the solar system then Milky Way, moving infinitely fast from my minds eye perspective of origin, which in the dream, was my bed on earth. The dream let me know that, there are 2 forms of gravity, the type that is ripping away from the original atom at the BB. Then there is gravity B which, compressed it. Modern Physics, holds that gravity is one force. In type A there is gravity from mass and movement etc. in type B there is only one force pushing back against the rifting Gravity A (from BB) type A is not the constant but only taking place as instantly as the big bang itself. In my dream I was outside of it existing in the big bang I was floating away from it and seeing it as constant and still while moving infinitely fast from earth. When away from it, and or outside of it. I saw it as fast and perpetual as a piston slamming in a car engine. There are not two poles to the universe. It is not infinite either. It expands to dissipation and is slammed back to an atom. Over and over again instantaneously. Time is relative, and because of the dream I feel compelled to look at it and my experience of space time as a residual still of a finite place in the instantaneously exploding expanding and contracting universe. With your poles there, you’re making it look like there are two pistons or dynamo’s working back and forth, there is only one piston, it is the opposite force of gravity outside of the universe pushing it back that is not properly identified as a different type of gravity that causes the confusion. And myself, never being good at math, was unable to mold such inspiration into theory. So, please lets stop focus on giant white hole and black hole concepts. The next statement is philosophy not physics, black holes can only exist in the expanding stage. they aid in the contraction phase, and are the only seen example of B type gravity. There ARE NO WHITE HOLES! It’s the flawed thinking on gravity that causes such flights to fancy as well as not being able to make proper conclusions on questions posed by the special theory of relativity. the residual space time still that we exist in that, is to our relative perspective of space time stable, is only one of the infinite dimensions/ residual stills created by the infinite explosions and contractions. we are able to exist from the illusion of time not its actual existence. While in a still you can not defy thermodynamics. However, cranking up the dial on elements that do not naturally exist in our solar system because it is not dense enough to provide them etc. is possible to create artificial type B gravity allowing the pushing of matter between stills, so to speak.
Now, on other issues the dream gave me insight on. The moon was formed by impact it has no core and all the light elements are there to prove it. Most important is helium 3 which, will be necessary to create stable forms of fusion. Cold fusion is real but for the experiment to be conducted successfully, you need helium 3, and I believe that was the light on the dark side of the moon the Viking probe picked up, just naturally escaping from the surface etc. also, while I’m talking about the moon, for those that don’t believe we went there, those that say what happened to the original tape in new zeland etc. here you go boys, and girls, it wasn’t misplaced it was kept secure to this day by CIA, due to the fact that there was an unidentifiable flying object that escorted the Apollo 11 launch for an excess of two hours. Then reappeared while the famous two were doing their work on the lunar surface. there is always representation of CIA in or near mission control at all times for this reason, you cant comment on something you can not explain. You dig, you just say the last ten min of radio will be omitted and will be classified. People at nasa know what the term classified means, just ask the scientists on “kraut hill in Alabama.” Maybe it was just the subconscious of those scientists my dream picked up on, but believe me it’s simple not complex. The illusion of space and time are here for our benefit not pain. The custodial system that seeded and visits us is us existing in the still just before ours was made, punch it chewy and warp factor 4 mr sulu are novel and not possible, what do you think I mean when I say crank up the dial. That we as we know ourselves get in a ship after achieving the technologies to create it with out destroying ourselves then travel in a line faster than light to another star or even yet galaxy. Novel! Indeed. We could only store our alpha patterns in a 7k teraflop puter and create a self-sustaining form of life conducive to the craft and it’s travels then because of time being relative we could use such technologies for our foundation elsewhere you dig? It’s real been done that’s why we exist, so we can do it and push ourselves into the next still and so forth. If true cloning(not just splitting of zygotes) is possible this is how it would and will take place. our species is a stepping stone to a grater species we are about to be forced to create from ourselves for survival. Only the smartest, not strongest, of our ancestors survived the ice age. the question I ask is, what catalyst is coming to make adaptations to the operating system we all are. War, environmental change. Those with the technologies to survive will. Those with out will not. But regardless with out death existence means nothing, time only exists in this vacuum philosophically where we are present to observe it. When it comes to morph us, what ever the catalyst, don’t loose your head to anger and violence. Death and evolution are natural like birth. Be well in this fact and assured time is it’s own blessing. make the most of yours. Ask Neil Armstrong what I'm talking about, he'll agree about time and all, but when it comes to first contact and observation of them they it etc. his smile gives away his lie when asked. no contact just observation is what his mind gave away when asked by larry king.
in closing i would like to commend the author of the article above for pointing out the fact that what could have been beyond genius wasn't to fit ideas of the day. my favorite quotes of albert are the ones in which he comments on the great mystery and having seen such a mystery you change your thoughts on physics and the universe for ever, what did albert see? the same thing as i and many others have. none of us are crazy and we don't all see the same type by the way. this group would also include ben franklin judging by his quotes about how man will achieve flight when he does from his autobiography etc.
it's all just food for thought boys and girls. don't laugh too hard or get bent out of shape.
I thought that due to the way i wrote it it would not be posted. however, an example of a still with in an explosion can be seen here. in some very rare cases, a person standing very close to an explosion can be spared due to the resistance from all the matter around it compressing and forming a "shock wave" the person losses hearing and suffers some brain jarring in the skull but survives. it's because the resistance from the compression of the matter outside the burst has not been met. there is a still, a brief second in which the resistance/compression is not happening to cause the damage from the burst. then the compression and the result etc. the explosion does nothing, it's the resistance it meets that causes the harm. but there is a finite field where nothing takes place. with time/space being a relative thing how long would the relative time of this still exist for, if the resistance from a burst pushed back as quickly as the velocity of the bang? because the two forces were equal in the xyz plane in which the bb/universe exist etc. the same type of field is where we are in the big bang/universe. those have always been my thoughts on it since i was young. all things exist in duality there is an opposite force to gravity outside the bang or why would it keep any shape at all if their was no resistance etc. I like all pole universe theories because they point the obvious questions you deal with when thinking the bang ended and isn't happening right now that's why both expansion and contraction can be seen and supported etc. didn't think the above would be posted.
It is intgeresting tht the concept of a congtracting universe (in which space and matter within it are both contracting at light speed, yields some straightforward explanations for the constant speed of light - inparticular, why light from the receding edge of the sun's disc arrives here at the sqame tome that light from the receding edge does.
onsider for a moment the situationwherein a basega=ball pitdcher throws a baseball of mass m toward the catcher,at velocity v. The pitcher invests one-half of m times v squared energy into theball, and another equal amaount into the rest of the universe via his foothold on earth. When the catcher stops the ball, all of that energy is returned, since the ball is then no longer in motion. Now consider the anahalation of a mass m in a canddle flame. The energy released id m times c squared.
Clearlyt, before it was \'stopped\\\\\\' the mass m was traveling with velocity c.
Since no direction is favoured for the motion, it must be either a contractin g or anexpanding universe. If it were expanding at velocity c, then light would never reach from point of origin to any destination, The space would be increasing as the light wavefront advanced. Sothe universe must be contracting - space and allmattter in it. Atomw do not move farther apart because the space between them contracts. We do not percieve the contraction becaus we and our measuring paraphenalia (yardstick) are contracting in lock step woth the universe.
Now, for gravitation.Considering mass to be a high energy cond=centration in space, it is an easy conjecture that the more mass is so concentrated, then the more resistance there is to further concentration. Hence massive objects like planets,cause a deceleratiopnin the contraction rate, in proportion to their mass. At the earth this is 32 feet per second per secondf - a miniscule speed reduction rtelative to c, but enough to 'explain' (or to at least rationalise the concept of gravitation). gravitation.
Now for the bending of light path in a gravitational field. The velocity of light (the contraction velocity of space) being reduced slightly in the presence of large masses, causes the appareent 'wave front' to bend toward the massive object in a manner simillar to the way a troup of marching soldiers obliquely encountering a plowed field bends its path toward the field.
I wpon't run on with this,but there is a lot of simplification to be had by envisioning a contracting universe.
There is alsro the concept to consider that the thing is in oscillation, currently approaching another big 'crunch'! That is an interesting conjecture to pursue also.
I hope that this fits into your theory, and that you may have a comment for me on it.
Interesting conjecture, but still, the observed apparent expansion, though, wouldn't be isotropic in the case of this contraction and observationally, our observed universe apparently is??
Let me ask few questions, what is finite and infinite? Is an atom finite or infinite? If we keep developing more and more powerful microscopes, will we continue to see more and more detail?
The universe is expanding and contracting at the same time. Search for rucko gravity.
this is allot , but is nice picture
well, as science now admits, the sun is the best place to start and while all those pics of the Horse head Nebula are wonderful, how does our sun work?
For starters, we are getting close to admitting that the electric universe is correct and from there to the holographic and then to fractals seems correct. See D Bohm theory.
iam still confused does this mean that the universe is expanding and shrinking at the same time?
If the mass of the observabe univere is accelerating away from us in much the same way regardless of the direction of observation; then at some distance in every direction the mass of the universe would exceed the speed of light, thus defining the observable universe. Also the obsevable universe would be continually shrinking.
Is the universe expanding or contracting?Where's the centre of the universe? if it is finite, it should have one,right?If we are moving towards the centre,then the universe is contracting,if we're moving away from the centre then it's the opposite!!So I suppose the sensible thing to do would be to (try to) find the centre and find our movement relative to it,not the motion of the galaxies relative to each ohter.Obviously the red shift and the background microwaves give ambiguous answers,so our line of thought should start from a point which'll give ONE definite answer i.e. the centre of it all.
Overall an interesting read.
Mate how can you find the centre of something if you don't know where it ends? That's why we can only use other objects as a reference point...
JSmith
The trouble with observation especially on earth is that if we extend our sight long enough, we will see the back of our head. An extended observation of an expanding universe will form a geodesic that finds no end so long as the universe is expanding. If the expansion stopped there will be an end to the geodesic of the universe.
does that mean that the universe will continue to "fight"
for expansion or contraction?
?????? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????? ????. ??? : ??? ????? ? - ????? ???? ??? ??? ? - ????? ?????? ??????? ? - ????? ????? ?
?????? : ????? / ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? - ????? – ???????
???????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? : ???????????????? ??? ?????? ????????????? ?????????? ? ? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????? ???? ? ?? Imagine the universe
???? : ????? ????? – ??? ????? .
It is presently an unsolved question whether our universe contains closed, flat or open spatial three-geometries.
???? ????? : ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????????? ????????????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?(? ???????:29 )
???? ?????: ????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ???? ?????: ???
???? ?????: ???? ????????? ????????? (1) ?????????? ?????????? ????????? (2) ??????? ????????? ??????? (3) ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? (4) ?????????? ?????????? ?????????. ???? ???????? (5)
???? ????? : ?????? ????????? ?????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????????? ? ???? ??????? : ??
???? ????? : ???????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???????????? ( ???? ????? - ????? 5 )
???? ????? : ???????? ???? ????????? ???????? ????? ????????????? ??????????? ???????? ??????? ???????????????? ) ????????: 31 (
???? ????? : ( ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ( 12 )
???? ????? : ???????????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????[?????: 12 )
???? ?????: ?????? ??????? ?????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? (?????:2). ?????? ????????????? ???????? ?????? (?????:10 )
???? ????? : ? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? ? (??????????:104).?
???? ?????? ???? ??? :
??? ???? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ( ????? ?????) ? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ? ????? : ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ? ?? ???? ????? ? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?
??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? (???? ?????) ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? .
????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ( ? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? Casimir–Polder force ) ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???
? ???? ??? ????? ??????? : ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ....................................... ? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? ? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ? ?????? ??? ???????? ? ? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ? ????? .
????? : ????? ???? ??? ??? ?
What space is the universe expanding into?
???? ?????: ???? ???????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????? ???????? ???? ??????????? ??????? (???????:75?76
???? ?????: ???????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????????[????????: 47]
???? ?????? ???? ??? :
??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ( ?????? ??? ?????) ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ? ???? ?????
????? : ????? ?????? ??????? ?,?(Black Holes)
Simulated view of a black hole (center) in front of the Large Magellanic Cloud
Today there is almost universal agreement that black holes exist, though their exact nature is still in question.
???? ????? : ???????? ????????? ????? ????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? (???? ?:6 )
???? ?????: ????? ???????? ???????????? . ????????? ????????? (????????:15- 16.)
???? ?????? ???? ??? :
???? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ,??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??????? ( ?????? ??????? ) ?????? ????? ?(: Black Holes
??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ( ????? ????? ) ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ( ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ? ???? ) ????? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ? ??? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ( ??????? ?? ???? ??????) ? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ( (vacuum ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ( vacuum fluctuations ) ??? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ? ????? ? ?? ?????? ? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ..................
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
????? : ????? ????? ?
The ultimate fate of the universe is a topic in physical cosmology. Many possible fates are predicted by rival scientific theories, including futures of both finite and infinite duration.
???? ?????: ??????? ?????????? ???????? ( ????????: 8.)
???? ?????: ????? ?????????? ?????????? (1) ?????????? ?????????? ????????? (2) ??????? ???????? ??????? (3)?????????? ??? ?????? ??????????? . ???? ????????
???? ?????: ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?????????? ?????????? [????????:104]?
???? ?????: ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????????? ?.(? ????????:48)?
???? ?????: ????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? (???? ????? :77)
???? ?????? ???? ??? :
??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ( ?????? ??? ?????) ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ? ????? ???? ????? ? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ? ???? ?????? ??????? (??? ????? ???? ) ? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???????( ??????? ?? ???? ??????) ? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ( ??? ?????? ???? ) ? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ( ????? ????? ? ???????? ?????) ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ? ??? ???? ??? ?????? (?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ???????????)
. (???????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ????????)
. ????? / ???? ???? ???? ?? 20/ 3/ 2012
??????? ??? ??? ??????? :
. ????? / ???? ????
???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???????? - 7 ???? ???? ????? -????? – ??????? faridharas@hotmail.com
?????? : 01002585479
??????? : 93 ???? ??? ????? – ??? ????
Super article. I also enjoyed Thomas McCarthy's contributions in the comments.
is the universe expanding
I know how to prove this theory with physical representation and expression in front of your eyes.
Here's my insight:
If the universe was to appear "moving away from us in all directions" at A (don't know math to calculate this exactly, though), this would imply some significant amount of static mass around the point of the big bang, which would cause slowing down expansion of a part of the mass on the northern hemosphere and its collapse to a crunch again. However, if energy of the big bang was big enough to send half of the mass over to southern hemosphere, the big crunch point would be created due to the gravitation, but some portion of the mass wold be left in suspension in between the two gravitational poles with the two symmetrical forces balancing each other's influence.
What would happen next, if the sphere is somewhat elastic, is the two poles attracting each other and colliding making the 2D surface of the universe the donut-like shape (the two poles would touch). Most of matter would collapse to the south or the north pole leaving stable, balanced area around the equator, where gravitational forces of the poles cancel each other, leaving a belt of matter. Which would condensate and collapse to the center of the donut-like shape leaving us with rather strange geometrical figure. This is the figure of 2D universe in equilibrium. A 2D universe, where gravitation propagates in 3D.
Now, how would it go for a 3D universe? Never mention the string-theorethical 10D figures, and that is from one point of big bang.
I have no arguments with the Hubble Constant. My argument is with the interpretation of it. According to the common interpretation of it the Universe is accelerating in exansion while all the facts I have read prove otherise. The basis of the accelerating univers is that the more distant the object is that is observed the farther that objects light is shifted to the red end of the spectrum which does mean that object is travelling away from us at a higher rate of speed than say an object that is much closer which has less red shift. The part that is ignored in this summary is the 4th demision. Time. The farther away an object is that we are observing the farther back in time we are looking. So if the farthest objects are travelling away the fastest and nearer objects are travelling away slower then the universe is slowing down because what we are observing with the farthest objects is the farthest back in time. :All rights reserved: None of the text here may be printed for profit without the express permission of the Author: Christopher L. Brown.
I posted above post; Thought I would join after reading some articles.
Sorry for the typo's in the previous post. I just wanted to point out that we are observing the universe from one single point; Earth. The Universe we are observing is not at the same point in time as we are. The farther an object is from us, the farther back in time we are looking. Sort of like being at a baseball game in the nosebleed section; You see the batter hit the ball then, you hear it. Because; it took the sound a moment to arrive to you, while the light is nearly instant. In the Hubble Constant the farther off a galaxy is the faster it is receeding from us and, the closer the galaxy is to us, the slower it is receeding from us. The catch that has been overlooked is that the galaxy the most distant is farther back in time than the closer galaxy. What we are seeing is sometimes Billions of years ago. When you look at it in a 4th dimensional view the the Universe's expansion appears to be slowing down.
Kashish Khan 2 years ago
i m impressed