The homogeneous isotropic empty space was described here based on its metric. The only parameter of this metric was taken to be equal to the Hubble constant. The tensor of energy-momentum of empty space was calculated. Upon this, the density of the empty homogeneous space turned to be equal to the expected density of the Universe. In other words, the density of the empty space is the “dark energy”. Of not less importance is the fact that the same metric imposes the exponentially increasing law of the red shift asymptotically close to the Hubble law at little red shift values. The solution has no singularities.
As far as I have comprehend the stationary universe has those properties:
- The observer on earth looks into the past of all observed objects.
- Time runs slower as more far the objects are, what is by constant light velocity equal to as more far back into the past we look.
- More far in the past means younger than our environment, too.
- Red shift is not a property of expansion, but of youth of the observed universes sub-area.
Please correct me, if I am wrong. The interesting point to me is, that humans feel a similar difference in time counting dependent on age.
It is possible to derive such a time dependence by an information process view using pretty physical values like energy and effect = benefit: Book Physics of Love alias "A Model of Information Processing Groups"
Because all exchange from big mass transfers to small human's observation includes information exchange, the properties above could be a possible extrapolation.
On the other hand isotropic space and the stationary property do not tell, how the deeply structured distribution of galaxies and the local contractions could raise out of it, which an accretion disk of a universe surely shows.
Instead the information process view always results to a fractal breakdown of dimensions and from galaxy super clusters down to planet systems the fractal foam of mass distribution is evident and contradicting to an isotropic assumption.
Additionally questionable is the missing start of the dynamics. If the universe would have been stationary, the starting point could be assumed to lie a negative infinite time in the past. Why could we find more far objects, red shifted because of less age, where this difference can be neglected compared to the total already infinite time of existence?
Even a slower advance of time for more past objects, could result to a finite dynamics integration about the time amount (This view puts time to the y axis and x axis would be the entropy reduction amount.) resulting to a finite time of existence of the universe, which contradicts to the stationary assumption.
Here I like to emphasize that time cannot be viewed separately from energetic dynamics as the quantum mechanical uncertainty relation tells.
For answering the question "How realistic is the stationary assumption?" I like to few it as a method of extrem simplification by neglecting all local structuring, but if this condition is told, the model has scientific value and therefore as well real and useful application. But for all models including mine it is valid that reality is more and the model only a part description. I would dream about some way of unification of the stationary and the fractal dynamic view, but I have no idea, how to do.
For me, fractal models are something incomprehensible and I can not operate on them. I come from the classic general relativity. The only assumption is that the only metric parameter with the dimension of the Hubble constant is the Hubble constant. The metric does not repeat the Hubble law. The redshift is nonlinear and it contradicts the accelerated redshift model adopted today. But there is evidence that the law actually has an inverse relationship.
Dear
The following is a interesting reference for the interested readers
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_problem_with_the_cosmological_constant
Perhaps GR explains the stationary universe. With the corrected Hubble law and constant curvature.
Preprint Dark energy as zero energy of gravity field
The assumption of a relation between the cosmological (constant) = anti-gravitational force and the dark energy is something, that I feel to be near to evidence.
The problem is the isotropic method of GR, which results to some comprehension problem even for Einstein. Instead as far as I remember the dark energy postulation was a product from calculation of rotation speed deviations of observed galaxies. This tells, that local formation and local energy exchange matters. My opinion is, that it is the driving force for destruction of isotropic mass distribution to fractal formation.
All the above told explanations may not be very complete today, but are already much more comprehendible and intellectually attractive than some inflation phase after the Big Bang event.
Here I like to become a little negative: For me physics of today tells about three phantasmic effects of non-sense:
It is time to overcome!
The universe is a difficult field for experiments, but all explosive events on earth show automatic fractal structure formation as any video of such an expansive cloud shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5SF4SlqNDQ
Not any of those events shows an isotropic expansing surface. Do you know any common physical law, which tells, why and how?
Additionally to my contribution told above I like to remark this one: https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.de%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DbJPZDAAAQBAJ
From both points of view there is a relation to life and if Prof. Morozov's question would be answered as: "Yes, it is realistic." the additional not asked answer results: "Yes, the universe is alive."
Here is an idea how to examine all three views:
The last is the one told by for longer: Big Bang results to isotropic expansion and following inflation phase supports formation of matter.
The first does not need any expansion. If it is stationary there is none and red shift is totally dependent on age of observed objects and related slow down of time advance.
If for the second case any expansion automatically results to isotropy break down and fractal formation this reduces the average of expansion velocity significantly. Resulting to something intermediate between 1 and 3.
Can we identify a measurable parameter of astronomic observation, which could decide, which model is closest to reality?
Sorry, I am not well educated enough to tell.
I consider only one task. Homogeneous space.
The result appears "red cosmological shift", the energy density of the space. Thus, considering only the geometric properties of space, the possibility is proved that our universe can be infinite and isotropic. The complex structure of the visible part of the universe is explained by the infinity of existence.
But if we agree to space curvature by gravitation, is not this a contradiction to homogeneous space? You may tell that this is only local and you like to paint the big picture neglecting those small areas. But on the other side, how to produce the origins of light, which show red shift?
My decision can serve as a backdrop for building models of the universe. The cosmological red mixing in this solution is a consequence of differences in the course of time. This does not exclude that hotel galaxies are in a chaotic motion.
OK. But in this case your formulas tell only about the time relation and not about any motion. Hence they do not contradict to an expanding universe either, is not it? Hence stationary universe could be one solution of many. Do you agree?
To my opinion the traditional assumption of expansion and the interpretation of red shift as Doppler effect and the effect by time slow down by your findings could both be the case. The observer would need some additional symmetry breaking information to distinguish the parts adding to the observed effect.
What is your interpretation of the 3K background radiation, which standard physics interprets as Big Bang trace? Something infinitely stationary does not produce a cause, is not it?
"Hence stationary universe could be one solution of many. Do you agree?"
Yes, but this is not a set of hypotheses, but a well-defined metric space. The metric contains only one parameter - the Hubble constant. I consider cosmological background radiation as a very strong redshift of an infinite universe.
Dear Valery!
Let's make a thought experiment: We remove all types of matter from the assumed infinite or finite space of the universe. Are you sure that the space exist furthermore independent of the existence of matter? That furthermore time passes without any material processes? If so, then the universe is actual createt by God.
Space results from the existence of matter and time is the result of the different processes of matter.
Our understanding of space and time is rudimentary. Therefore theoretical half-truths are in great demand. The theories about the universe ('big bang') and the fundamental structures of matter ('quarks') are questionable. I'm the opinion that sometime in the future when the dogmas of the current theories are eliminated the mankind will know better answers.
I claim: we have a dynamic universe, neither an expanding nor an stationary universe. The universe exist as eternal cycles of matter what mean cycles of material and energetical matter. The transitition points between both fundamental forms of matter are pair production and annihilation.
My Regards! Hans
No one said that space is not material. In his article " Ether and Theory of Relativity" (1920) Einstein explains the role of space as a carrier of energy and the exchange of this energy with matter: "Summarizing, we can say that the general theory of relativity endows space with physical properties; therefore, in this sense the ether exists. According to the general theory of relativity, space is unthinkable without ether; indeed, in such a space it would not be possible to spread light, but could not there would be scales and hours and there would be no spatially simultaneous distances in the physical sense of the word, however, this ether cannot be imagined as consisting of time-traceable parts; tion has only ponderable matter, just as it can not be applied the concept of motion."
Dear Hans "The universe exist as eternal cycles of matter what mean cycles of material and energetical matter."
I completely agree with you, but to this we must add the exchange of energy between the gravitational field and matter. Since this happens everywhere and always in this sense, the universe is stationary, i.e. monotonous. “Stationary” does not mean “static”.
This is an intriguing scientific research project that ought to provoke new pathways to discovery, which I, for one, heartily applaud. The conceptualization is solid because the idea of a stationary infinite universe appears plausible. For one thing, I like the idea of an "infinite universe," which nonetheless appears to contradict the idea of it being "stationary." In other words, the two terms of "stationary" and "infinite" would have to constitute the "endgame" of a DNA-like string, or entangled strings, of echelons of subsidiary propositions with supporting proofs ad infinitum! In this respect, the terminology of "stationary" may hold as a "saving grace"! Furthermore, both of these terms, "stationary" and "infinite" are inherently stable and, without necessitating a mechanistic cosmological Weltanshcauung, do not at all appear to be in conflict with traditional physics and mathematics as exemplified in the theories of Newton and Einstein, nor, indeed, with the organically grounded theories of socially oriented scientists, including Darwin, Spencer, and Marx. At the other end of this spectrum, the concept of a stationary infinite universe does not at all appear to be incompatible with contemporary quantum theory. Perhaps this "stationary" and "infinite" approach will help to resolve at least one part of the jigsaw by reconfiguring some of the vector interrelationships of known phenomena. This is an intriguing scientific research project that ought to provoke new pathways to discovery, which I, for one, heartily applaud. The conceptualization is solid because the idea of a stationary infinite universe appears plausible. For one thing, I like the idea of an "infinite universe," which nonetheless appears to contradict the idea of it being "stationary." In other words, the two terms of "stationary" and "infinite" would have to constitute the "endgame" of a DNA-like string, or entangled strings, of echelons of subsidiary propositions with supporting proofs ad infinitum! In this respect, the terminology of "stationary" may hold as a "saving grace"! Furthermore, both of these terms, "stationary" and "infinite" are inherently stable and, without necessitating a mechanistic cosmological Weltanshcauung, do not at all appear to be in conflict with traditional physics and mathematics as exemplified in the theories of Newton and Einstein, nor, indeed, with the organically grounded theories of socially oriented scientists, including Darwin, Spencer, and Marx. At the other end of this spectrum, the concept of a stationary infinite universe does not at all appear to be incompatible with contemporary quantum theory. Perhaps this "stationary" and "infinite" approach will help to resolve at least one part of the jigsaw by reconfiguring some of the vector interrelationships of known phenomena. This is an intriguing scientific research project that ought to provoke new pathways to discovery, which I, for one, heartily applaud. The conceptualization is solid because the idea of a stationary infinite universe appears plausible. For one thing, I like the idea of an "infinite universe," which nonetheless appears to contradict the idea of it being "stationary." In other words, the two terms of "stationary" and "infinite" would have to constitute the "endgame" of a DNA-like string, or entangled strings, of echelons of subsidiary propositions with supporting proofs ad infinitum! In this respect, the terminology of "stationary" may hold as a "saving grace"! Furthermore, both of these terms, "stationary" and "infinite" are inherently stable and, without necessitating a mechanistic cosmological Weltanshcauung, do not at all appear to be in conflict with traditional physics and mathematics as exemplified in the theories of Newton and Einstein, nor, indeed, with the organically grounded theories of socially oriented scientists, including Darwin, Spencer, and Marx. At the other end of this spectrum, the concept of a stationary infinite universe does not at all appear to be incompatible with contemporary quantum theory. Perhaps this "stationary" and "infinite" approach will help to resolve at least one part of the jigsaw by reconfiguring some of the vector interrelationships of known phenomena. This is an intriguing scientific research project that ought to provoke new pathways to discovery, which I, for one, heartily applaud. The conceptualization is solid because the idea of a stationary infinite universe appears plausible. For one thing, I like the idea of an "infinite universe," which nonetheless appears to contradict the idea of it being "stationary." In other words, the two terms of "stationary" and "infinite" would have to constitute the "endgame" of a DNA-like string, or entangled strings, of echelons of subsidiary propositions with supporting proofs ad infinitum! In this respect, the terminology of "stationary" may hold as a "saving grace"! Furthermore, both of these terms, "stationary" and "infinite" are inherently stable and, without necessitating a mechanistic cosmological Weltanshcauung, do not at all appear to be in conflict with traditional physics and mathematics as exemplified in the theories of Newton and Einstein, nor, indeed, with the organically grounded theories of socially oriented scientists, including Darwin, Spencer, and Marx. At the other end of this spectrum, the concept of a stationary infinite universe does not at all appear to be incompatible with contemporary quantum theory. Perhaps this "stationary" and "infinite" approach will help to resolve at least one part of the jigsaw by reconfiguring some of the vector interrelationships of known phenomena. This is an intriguing scientific research project that ought to provoke new pathways to discovery, which I, for one, heartily applaud. The conceptualization is solid because the idea of a stationary infinite universe appears plausible. For one thing, I like the idea of an "infinite universe," which nonetheless appears to contradict the idea of it being "stationary." In other words, the two terms of "stationary" and "infinite" would have to constitute the "endgame" of a DNA-like string, or entangled strings, of echelons of subsidiary propositions with supporting proofs ad infinitum! In this respect, the terminology of "stationary" may hold as a "saving grace"! Furthermore, both of these terms, "stationary" and "infinite" are inherently stable and, without necessitating a mechanistic cosmological Weltanshcauung, do not at all appear to be in conflict with traditional physics and mathematics as exemplified in the theories of Newton and Einstein, nor, indeed, with the organically grounded theories of socially oriented scientists, including Darwin, Spencer, and Marx. At the other end of this spectrum, the concept of a stationary infinite universe does not at all appear to be incompatible with contemporary quantum theory. Perhaps this "stationary" and "infinite" approach will help to resolve at least one part of the jigsaw by reconfiguring some of the vector interrelationships of known phenomena. This is an intriguing scientific research project that ought to provoke new pathways to discovery, which I, for one, heartily applaud. The conceptualization is solid because the idea of a stationary infinite universe appears plausible. For one thing, I like the idea of an "infinite universe," which nonetheless appears to contradict the idea of it being "stationary." In other words, the two terms of "stationary" and "infinite" would have to constitute the "endgame" of a DNA-like string, or entangled strings, of echelons of subsidiary propositions with supporting proofs ad infinitum! In this respect, the terminology of "stationary" may hold as a "saving grace"! Furthermore, both of these terms, "stationary" and "infinite" are inherently stable and, without necessitating a mechanistic cosmological Weltanshcauung, do not at all appear to be in conflict with traditional physics and mathematics as exemplified in the theories of Newton and Einstein, nor, indeed, with the organically grounded theories of socially oriented scientists, including Darwin, Spencer, and Marx. At the other end of this spectrum, the concept of a stationary infinite universe does not at all appear to be incompatible with contemporary quantum theory. Perhaps this "stationary" and "infinite" approach will help to resolve at least one part of the jigsaw by reconfiguring some of the vector interrelationships of known phenomena.
Dear Prof. Valery Borisovich Morozov,
I am not a cosmologist, but I still like Prof. Hoyle's steady-state theory of the universe, even later the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation proved it was wrong.
Those BBC radio interviews with Profs. Hoyle, Bondy and Gamov are still great to listen to. Are there relations with your theory? Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
Pedro L. Contreras E. ,
The strongest argument in favor of a non-stationary universe is the observed recession of galaxies. Until recently, the only acceptable cause of the cosmological redshift was the Doppler effect of receding galaxies. Here the reason for the redshift is the uneven course of time in a homogeneous space.
Article Cosmology of Uniform Empty Space
Best regards, Valery
Dear Valery,
I'm not a cosmologist, but I have discussions with friends who study quantum gravity. As is well known, traditional cosmology teaches us that the universe had a beginning. Loop quantum gravity completely undermines this certainty and according to this assertion the Big Bang would never have happened and according to this view the universe had no beginning and will not have an end.
Regards,
Valentino
Sstationary universe is cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
Kindly check https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275045159_The_ten_assumptions_of_science_Toward_a_new_scientific_worldview
Thank you so much for the nice explanation and the paper, I will read it, Prof. Valery Borisovich Morozov.
As a graduate Theoretical Solid State Physics student, I had to take two graduate courses on GR (there were no more available courses), I could not understand a word of what was the teacher saying, she was flying far away from any physical reality.
Eventually, a lot of math but no physics, then I decided to take the book of Prof. Linde on inflationary cosmology and go to the final examination, I was sent to another Prof. who gave me an A+. I never returned to the subject, neither to QFT. But, I looked at your paper and it is very nice to observe a lot of physics in only two pages.
An infinite (spacial) and stationary (infinite temporal) universe rises the following questions:
- Why is our view limited?
- Why is any foreground light not totally overexposed by the background light, which an infinite number of sources found in any direction of view have sent, and which can reach the observer because of the infinite time available, even if velocity of light is finite?
- If time advance is reduced with distance resulting to the measurable Hubble constant, at which point time advance reaches zero?
- Would it not be required to define this distance to be the border of the universe?
- If there was a time in the past, where time advance was zero, was this not a starting point for a later universe?
- How to accelerate time advance?
- If stationary property would be the case, would the measured Hubble constant not be a contradiction?
Dear All,
I would like to add some other reflections, always as a “non-cosmologist”. To date we cannot know what caused the appearance of the Universe and even if it had a beginning. Currently, according to cosmological friends, there is no clear evidence of a possible initial singularity that would have generated the Universe. A Universe that in the early stages was still hot and dense before cooling down and expanding. These data also seem to be confirmed by some space missions, such as the "Plank mission" of the European Space Agency.
Regards,
Valentino
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Books