This article was written by Vladimir Gorunovich for this site and a site "Wikiznanie".
Big Bang — is the cosmological model describing an expected forwardness of the Universe and the hypothetical beginning of its hypothetical expansion. Affirms that before the Big Bang is the Universe was in a singular condition.
The Big Bang was direct proofs of that in the history of the Universe ever; the physics at the moment has no. There are some experimental data (red shift in ranges of remote galaxies, so-called relict radiation, etc.) allowing ambiguities of interpretation:
Red shift can be a corollary a photon-neutrino interactions ignored by standard model and as a result and the model of the Big Bang constructed on the basis of standard model.
Relict radiation can be a corollary of neutrino interactions (at collision with each other neutrino pass to excited states, and after fixed time pass to conditions with smaller energy with emission of photons). Thus, magnificent illusion of emergence of an electromagnetic radiation from space is created. And as the rest-mass of an electronic neutrino is extremely small that it’s unable to measure by the modern methods, and the difference between energies of the next excited states and as a result energy of photons radiated upon such transitions will be corresponding. And, therefore, relict radiation also can't be considered as the proof of the Big Bang.
Thus, to argue that in the history of the Universe there was a Big Bang, the physics at the moment can't. Also existence of the expansion of the Universe and concept the "early" Universe isn't proved can lose any meaning.
Contents
1 Big Bang and cosmology
2 Big Bang and singularity
3 Big Bang and Universe expansion
4 Big Bang and classical electrodynamics
5 Big Bang and field theory
6 Result
1. Big Bang and cosmology
Is affirms that the Universe arose 13,7 ± 0,13 billion years ago as a result of the Big Bang from some reference "singular" state and since then extends continuously and cooled. The earliest moment allowing the description, supposes the moment of the Planck era with temperature about 1032 K (Planck temperature) and density about 1093 g/cm ³ (Planck density).
Is affirms that the early Universe is represented a high-homogeneous and isotropic medium with extraordinary high density of energy, temperature and pressure.
It is supposed that after the Big Bang 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.
Is 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 expected period in development of the Universe received the name of Space inflation.
Is affirms that after the termination of this period (Big Bang) the structural material of the Universe represented quark-gluon plasma.
Is affirms that after the lapse of time the temperature fell to values at which the following phase change, called the barrio genesis became possible.
Is affirms that at this stage (Big Bang) quarks and gluons are 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 annihilation, turning into radiation.
Is 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 nuclear synthesis era at which protons, uniting with neutrons, formed cores of a deuterium, helium-4 and several more mild isotopes.
Is affirms that after further temperature drop and expansion of the Universe there came the next transitional moment in the history of the Big Bang at which gravitation became dominating force.
Is affirms that 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).
Is affirms that 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 of the Big Bang.
Let's try to understand all this from the point of view of physics.
This age of the Universe paid off at the unproved assumption of expansion of the Universe and ignoring photon-neutrino interactions. Therefore, this age of the Universe isn't true. And the temperature of the Planck era of the Big Bang in general is made up. That concerning such huge density that question: and what it so compressed - whether god? Compression of elementary particles needs the huge energy surpassing the total internal energy of elementary particles.
The statement that the early Universe represented a high-homogeneous and isotropic medium with extraordinary high density of energy, temperature and pressure is proved by nothing. These are all assumptions of model of the Big Bang. Also there is a question of an energy form. The physicist established existence in the nature of two forms of energy of fundamental interactions corresponding to two types (electromagnetic and gravitational). All other forms of energy should be derivative of these two. And the inventing of a separate form of energy (like dark energy or any other) is beyond physics - the physics studies only the nature (fairy tales to physics don't interest). And if energy was in the form of elementary particles (i.e. electromagnetic) - then that there is all this fairy tale. Other possibilities for energy in the nature aren't present.
Elementary particles can't be formed as a water drop at expansion and steam cooling. Elementary particles are created and will be transformed under nature laws.
In the nature there are not four types of fundamental interactions - and two. And gravitation from an electromagnetism can be divided only conditionally. Creation of a gravitational field needs electromagnetic energy and considerable.
The quark-gluon plasma in the nature doesn't exist - all these inventions of standard model and after it models of the Big Bang.
The temperature primly so can't fall in the Universe is will be violation of the law of conservation of energy. The temperature can fall in case energy will be spent for formation of new elementary particles, but here nature laws again come into effect.
Quarks and gluons don't exist in the nature - all these fairy tales of standard model. If at this stage in the nature there were protons, therefore, they were and earlier (even before creation nonexistent in the nature a quark-gluon plasma). And continuation of point is the one more unproved assumption of model of the Big Bang.
Physical forces can't be torn off from elementary particles. Physical forces are a corollary of fields of which elementary particles consist. Elementary particles are created according to nature laws so there is a question from what actually, when and as protons, neutrons, electrons, photons were created, a neutrino and other elementary particles. Besides here instability of neutrons is ignored - they will break up even quicker to a proton, an electron and an electronic antineutrino. So business won't reach formation of kernels of helium as approves model of the Big Bang. And in the Universe other "cocktail" from elementary particles, excellent that assumes model of the Big Bang will turn out absolutely.
Here again there is a part of point 6. And about dominating force of gravitation that is a question how to consider. Gravitational interactions are weak fundamental interactions even in standard model.
It assumptions of model of the Big Bang and not proved.
And why the matter wasn't diaphanous for radiation earlier? It is very similar to attempt to adjust model of the Big Bang under relict radiation.
Summing up it is visible that in model of the Big Bang nature laws were repeatedly ignored, forms of energy not existing in the nature, elementary particles were invented, properties and interactions of elementary particles were ignored, and it is a lot of unproved assumptions. Therefore, the model of the Big Bang doesn't correspond to the nature. Simply speaking, the model of the Big Bang is the beautiful fairy tale which is not concerning physics.
2. Big Bang and singularity
For compression of electromagnetic fields of elementary particles the energy surpassing their total internal energy is required. And compression of electromagnetic fields of an elementary particle in a singular condition, needs the energy aspiring in infinity. And so is for each elementary particle of the Universe. Therefore the singular condition is unattainable for the Universe and no Big Bang could be.
3. Big Bang and Universe expansion, red shift, relict radiation, Hubble's law
The physics didn't establish existence of expansion of the Universe - therefore: the physicist existence of an obligatory corollary of the Big Bang didn't establish.
Red shift and relict radiation also can't be considered by physics as proofs of the Big Bang.
Red shift has some components:
photon-neutrino interactions,
driving of a galaxy,
driving of stars in a galaxy,
gravitation.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine traveling speed of object by size of red shift, without knowing other components. Thus the photon-neutrino interactions are suitable for Hubble's law as the number of the met neutrinos (at their constant concentration) will be proportional to length of a way. Well and as the photon will participate in each subsequent collision with energy, smaller on size equal lost at the previous collision - which dependence of such red shift on distance to galaxies will be as a whole non-linear. And this nonlinearity will be observed at larger distances towards fall of size of red shift (by mistake interpreted by supporters of the Big Bang as the proof of existence of acceleration of expansion of the Universe). From this it follows that Hubble's law isn't the proof of existence of expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang.
The physics also didn't establish connection of relict radiation with the Big Bang.
4. Big Bang and classical electrodynamics
Elementary particles are primly so don't arise from energy and won't be transformed inverse to energy. Their creation should be accompanied by implementation of laws of the nature (laws of conservation of energy, an impulse, a spin, etc.). But as elementary particles possess still electromagnetic fields - their creation should be accompanied still by keeping of laws of an electromagnetism, i.e. laws of the Classical electrodynamics (or in the simplified form - Maxwell's equations). Therefore primly to create a proton or a neutron from "true" energy it will not turn out - the nature doesn't allow making it. The nature allows creating pairs: a particle - an antiparticle, but then in the nature it should be observed a half of substance and antimatter half, and also periodically to be observed global shocks at their relative annihilation. Well and quarks, gluons and a quark-gluon plasma in the nature don't exist - all these inventions of standard model.
Thus, model of the Big Bang, describing process of creation of elementary particles, ignores a part of laws of the nature, including electrodynamics laws. Therefore, the model of the Big Bang contradicts the Classical electrodynamics and doesn't correspond to the nature.
5. Big Bang and field theory
Elementary particles consist of an electromagnetic field. To electromagnetic fields there correspond electromagnetic fundamental interactions. Besides electromagnetic fields create gravitational fields to which there correspond gravitational fundamental interactions. To tear off gravitation separately from its source (electromagnetism) it is possible only in mathematician - in the nature they are inseparable. All interactions in the nature are derivative of these two types of fundamental interactions. Forces of interactions of elementary particles are a consequence of these two types of fundamental interactions and generation of fields of elementary particles. The net energy in the nature doesn't exist. In the nature there is an electromagnetic and gravitational energy. All other types of energy are reduced to these two types of energy, is equal as all interactions are reduced to two types of fundamental interactions.
The electromagnetic field can't be created from anything. The electromagnetic field can be transformed only according to nature laws (laws of an electromagnetism, etc.). And as electromagnetic fields can't exist in the nature without elementary particles, education from "true" energy of physical forces and elementary particles in their modern form in the nature isn't possible. Therefore the model of the Big Bang doesn't correspond to the nature.
6. Result
Hypothesis of the Big Bang:
ignores a part of laws of the nature,
enters a form not existing in the nature of energy,
after standard model enters elementary particles not existing in the nature and their conditions,
contradicts the Classical electrodynamics,
contradicts the field theory of elementary particles,
and the singular condition is unattainable for the Universe.
Therefore, existence of the Big Bang in the history of the Universe isn't established by physics, and the physics has no bases to consider that such event could (or can) to occur. It is necessary to look for scientific explanations observable, instead of to compose new bible fairy tales with reference to the Universe.
Vladimir Gorunovich