Errors in the physics: BIG BANG
Originally I didn't plan to be got involved in one more fight in physics, and thought to be limited to only elementary particles. But having understood "a dark matter" and "dark energy", grasped minds of people I understood what to stand aside and quietly to look, how quietly destroy a science in physics - I can't. Having understood also "red shift" and having seen its unilaterality, I understood that the root of all this is concentrated in model of "Big Bang" and I should show to people that this fairy tale of the XX century actually represents. I clearly understand that if not to stop a flow of fairy tales in physics - that of the physicist as a science will cease to exist.
Creating a science about the nature under the name "physics" it founders carried out huge number of experiments, studying the nature and looking for in it regularities. Then by means of mathematics the found regularities took a form of formulas, and some of them found the status of laws of the nature and were put in the science base. Thereby into physics were injected as the global laws of the nature called fundamental (such as the law of conservation of energy) and laws of separate areas of physics (operating in the corresponding areas). Thus, the physics as a science about the nature is based on the base from laws of the nature and argues that these laws operate in the nature, and, therefore, and in the Universe.
Any scientific theory developed in physics should keep strictly laws of the nature or prove incorrectness of those. The exit for a framework of laws of the nature or a contradiction with them speaks about a theory inaccuracy (model, hypotheses and …). For this reason nature laws (along with experiment) are the obligatory instrument of check of authenticity of developed theories (models). For it they aren't loved" so by pseudo-scientific fairy tales, and most of all they can't suffer "law of conservation of energy". From here all fairy tales that the law conservation of energy can temporarily is broken. But if the law of the nature is broken – that it is not the nature law. And here it is necessary or to carry out global audit of a science if experiments unequivocally speak about violation of the law of the nature or to give a kick under the back of such "theory" and to its authors engaged pseudo-scientific games, when there is no direct proofs. All oblique certificates interpretation allowing ambiguity can't be considered as the experimental confirmation of incorrectness of laws of the nature.
Statements of type "existence of a boson of Higgs proves possibility of violation of the law of conservation of energy" say that before us not a science, and the fairy tale. And it is absolutely unimportant who her author and whom the mathematics in it - in it is absent physics, a science about the nature. And Higgs's boson isn't found, and it is possible to invent anything, including that "almost opened it".
So we will pass the "Big Bang" hypothesis through laws of physics and we will look, as far as it corresponds to nature laws, and also the knowledge saved up by physics of the nature.
For the analysis the laws regulating considered model are necessary. It will be, first of all, the main three of conservation laws: law of conservation of energy, law of conservation of momentum and conservation law of a spin (moment). Besides as elementary particles are possess electromagnetic fields, to selected laws electromagnetism laws (simply telling Maxwell's equations) and their corollaries will be added still. For consideration of factors of the elementary particles caused by a structure it is necessary to connect as required also the field theory of elementary particles.
Certainly, when the model of the Big Bang was developed, the field theory of elementary particles wasn't created yet and authors of model couldn't use it – but it doesn't cancel action of the field theory in the nature and it will be therefore necessary to consider a corollary and the field theory.
Now we will start the analysis of model of the Big Bang on compliance to the selected laws of the nature. If it will appear that the model contradicts, to any law it will mean that the analyzed model doesn't correspond to the nature (or simply speaking – the model isn't true).
1. Affirms that the Universe arose 13,7 billion years ago from some reference singular state and since then extends continuously and cooled.
Let's take the small quote from "Wikipedia":
Cosmological singularity — the Universe condition during the initial moment of the Big Bang, being characterized in the infinite density and in substance temperature. The cosmological singularity is one of examples of the gravitational singularities predicted by the general theory of relativity and some other theories of gravitation.
Emergence of this singularity at continuation back in time of any decision general theory of relativity, expansion of the Universe describing dynamics, was strictly proved in 1967 by Stephen Hooking. Also he wrote:
«Results of our supervision confirm the assumption that the Universe arose at a given time. However the moment of the beginning of creation, a singularity, doesn't submit to any of known laws of physics».
That the singularity doesn't submit to any of known laws of physics (and, therefore, and to nature laws), already speaks about an inaccuracy of a hypothesis of the Big Bang. But it isn't essential to her authors, in comparison with possibility to create the super theory of all times - "the theory of creation of the Universe".
Let's ask a question: the singularity is a point or some extremely small volume. If the singularity is a point, it can't extend – as don't increase a point it a point and remains. In this case expansion of a singularity will be not possible. The mass of such singularity (so and mass of the created Universe) will be indefinite as the mathematics can't tell to that equally work of zero on infinity. Well and if the singularity is volume that of infinitely big density of substance infinitely larger mass of the Universe that contradicts the observable sizes of the Universe follows. Also that for substance it was so oblate – the physics of such substance doesn't know. Also is not why here to draw for solidity general theory of relativity. It is necessary to prove still that general theory of relativity will work in the cosmological singularity consisting of weight of hypothetical substance unknown to the nature and why at this "substance" gravitation should be shown.
One more question: what is the temperature of substance unknown to the nature? In physics the temperature characterizes existence and size of drop energy of atoms, molecules and other particles of substance. But in hypothetical "substance" still anything isn't present except the infinite density to the unknown nature of weight. But if in a singularity the hypothetical substance is initially broken into elementary particles, it will be an electromagnetic matter, and then model will contradict a classical electrodynamics and the field theory. Electromagnetic fields primly so aren't compressed, especially in a point – huge energy on compression of electromagnetic fields of each elementary particle is required. Likely temperature dragged in for larger persuasiveness.
Besides nobody proved that the present Universe extends – it is possible to explain red shift and without resorting to a Doppler effect.
Thus, even in the first point the model of the Big Bang doesn't maintain criticism, and ignoring of laws of the nature (opened by physics) should be considered as error in physics.
2. Affirms that the early Universe represented a high-homogeneous and isotropic medium with extraordinary high density of energy, temperature and pressure. As a result of expansion and cooling in the Universe there were the phase changes similar to condensation of liquid from gas, but with reference to elementary particles.
The term the early Universe can be at an assumption of an accuracy of model, but there is a question: and whether there can be a Universe early. The physics has no proofs of that 13,7 ± 0,13 billion years ago the Universe represented a high-homogeneous and isotropic medium with extraordinary high density of energy, temperature and pressure.
The following question of an energy form of which the Universe then (as affirms) consisted. If it was the special form of energy – that it in the nature both wasn't, and isn't present. Behind a given form of energy there are no fundamental interactions and natural fields. Besides the special form of energy will contradict the fundamental law of the nature: to the law of conservation of energy. Well and if this form of energy electromagnetic then it submits to electromagnetism laws, and at once there is a question: who so compressed it – whether god? Speaking to more simple language: electromagnetic fields at will "theorists" primly so aren't compressed – on compression huge energy (I remind, than the elementary particle, the representative of an electromagnetic form of a matter, subjects it is less in the sizes it is heavier - a corollary of the field theory of elementary particles) is required.
Concerning temperature there are objections from point 1.
One more question: what is the pressure of an isotropic medium of an unstated form of energy? As well as why there is a pressure in self-contained volume of gas it is possible to look in thermodynamics, but pressure in the isotropic medium which does not have structures of energy (i.e. not consisting of atoms, molecules, at last, simply elementary particles) is as what miracle forces of nature behind it stand? - When you compose the physical fairy tale, it is necessary to familiarize with physics at least at first.
Further nobody proved that the Universe extended. But even if to assume «expansion of the early Universe» there is a question: and why the Universe should be cooled thus. At gas amplification cooling occurs, as work at the expense of an internal energy of gas is thus made – and Universe expansion with gas amplification hasn't something in common. Absolutely other laws of the nature distinct from thermodynamics laws here will work.
Also that for miracle phase changes similar condensations of liquid from gas with reference to elementary particles. – Elementary particles aren't condensed from a form of energy not existing in the nature. Elementary particles are created and will be transformed under nature laws. And the form of energy should be electromagnetic.
Apparently statements of point 2 also don't correspond to the nature and its laws. When you want to compose the beautiful physical fairy tale, it is necessary to familiarize at first with laws of physics and to understand where and as they work. And this fairy tale of common with physics has no anything.
3. Affirms that approximately in 10−35 seconds after approach of the Planck era (Planck time — 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang, at this time the gravitational interaction separated from other fundamental interactions) phase change caused exponential expansion of the Universe. This period received the name of Space inflation. After the termination of this period the structural material of the Universe represented quark-gluon plasma. After the lapse of time the temperature fell to values at which the following phase change, called the baryon genesis became possible. At this stage quarks and gluons united in baryons, such as protons and neutrons. Thus at the same time there was an asymmetric education as matters which prevailed, and anti-matters which it is relative is annihilation, turning into radiation.
About the Planck era - there are no proofs that it was, and it is possible to invent anything.
Introduction of phase change brought to education from an unknown form of energy a quark-gluon of plasma is attempt to draw an analogy between the "arising" Universe and substance conditions from a molecular physics (likely it is that section of physics which is clear to authors of model). But in a molecular physics other laws of the nature not bound to a structure of atoms and fields work, therefore, this analogy ignores laws of the nature existing in the case under consideration.
Quark-gluon plasma in the nature doesn't exist; these are all inventions of standard model not corresponding to the nature. So any structural material on completion of hypothetical Space inflation it was not created – it is impossible to create that can't exist in the nature.
Into the account of falling of hypothetical temperature it was not known that it is already told. It doesn't belong to physics.
The next phase change under the name "baryon genesis" as a result of which is invented, baryons were formed of quarks not existing in the nature and gluons (protons and neutrons), and protons with neutrons was formed more than their antiparticles. – Here electromagnetism laws are ignored. As protons and neutrons possess electromagnetic fields that this field it is possible to create not from mystical something, and from other electromagnetic fields. And asymmetric formation of particles and antiparticles it is primly a trimming under the observable Universe.
In this turmoil of "creation" of the Universe forgot about leptons (in particular about electrons) – but if electrons not to create from what atoms then will be created. There is a question: from what how and when electrons were created.
Apparently statements of point 3 also don't correspond to the nature and its laws.
4. Affirms that further temperature drop led to the following phase change — to formation of physical forces and elementary particles in their modern form. Then there came a nucleon synthesis era at which protons, uniting with neutrons, formed cores of a deuterium, helium-4 and several more mild isotopes. After further temperature drop and expansion of the Universe there came the next transitional moment at which gravitation became dominating force. Through 380 thousand years after the Big Bang the temperature decreased so that there was possible an existence of atoms of Hydrogenous (before processes of ionization and a recombination of protons with electrons were in equilibrium). After an era of a recombination the matter became diaphanous for radiation which, loosely extending in space, reached us in the form of relict radiation.
Formation of elementary particles is possibly only according to nature laws, including with electromagnetism laws as particles possess electromagnetic fields. And hypothetical phase change to formation of elementary particles has no relation. If during a hypothetical era of "nucleon synthesis" there were elementary particles in the modern form, means, these particles were and till an expected era.
Formation of physical forces – is one more fairy tale. Physical forces are a consequence of fields of elementary particles and can't arise on someone's command. If till a nucleon synthesis there were fields at elementary particles – that with them there were also physical forces. But if there were no physical forces then, there were no also elementary particles.
Also not everything is sleek with formation of kernels of mild isotopes. Forgot that the neutron is an unstable elementary particle and after time (about 1000 seconds) will break up to a proton, an electron and an electronic antineutrino. Thus, business won't reach a nucleon synthesis – we will receive the hydrogen Universe practically without kernels of mild isotopes.
Concerning temperature it was already told.
As to a background radiation by mistake of (historically) called relict that is a separate subject and it is possible to look at my article «Relict radiation».
Thus, and even point 4 doesn't maintain criticism.
So, the model of the Big Bang enters forms of energy not existing in the nature, substances and elementary particles, ignores a part of laws of the nature, doesn't consider substantial properties of elementary particles, manipulates with physical forces, therefore, the model of the Big Bang is error in physics. Or in simple terms: the model of the Big Bang is a bible fairy tale of the XX century. It is not surprising that it so was pleasant to church.
Similarly it is possible to check any theoretical constructions easily: as a «dark matter» and «dark energy» and even «standard model» or super fashionable «string theory» to separate a science from pseudo-scientific fairy tales. And if discrepancy at least to one law of the nature (most likely it will be the law of conservation of energy) that it is found will testify to discrepancy to the nature. And on statements of type «The standard model of an elementary particle physics is checked for today with big accuracy» there is a good answer from physics history: laws of warmth were received on the basis of a hypothetical heat sort, and actually behind them there is an energy and such unloved pseudo-scientific fairy tales "Law of conservation of energy" - one of fundamental laws of the nature.Well and about accuracy, it means that there are areas in which the standard model well works (as well as a heat sort) – but from this doesn't follow that the standard model is true.
Vladimir Gorunovich
15.11.2012