A full answer would immediately exceed the frame of this Q&A format, but may I suggest that you read Roger Penrose's wonderful "Cycles of Time" - which most likely provides, at our contemporary level of scientific knowledge, the best currently available answer.

First let's analyse what the Cosmic Microwave Background tells us about the Big Bang:

Here is Fulvio Melia work fitting the CMB Two-Point Angular Correlation Function. He compares the scenario where the radius of the Universe (radius in an idiotic sense, since in his mind, the radius is the radius of time, that is timed using time which is relative and influenced by mas and gravitation...:)

So to say the least, the analysis is tinted with the current flavor of Physics (Einstein's Equations and General Relativity).

You can see that it tells you that R_h=ct or the radius expanding at the speed of light is a BETTER fitting to observations than L-CDM (the GR based theory or Friedmann-Lemaitre Model with Dark Matter and Dark Energy).

This means that CMB best measurements (Planck Survey) actually REFUTES Dark Matter and L-CDM and General Relativity. A constant expansion speed is not a solution to Einstein's Equations. So, the CMB refutes GR and DM.

CMB isotropy and homogeneity is consistent with the Universe being a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface BECAUSE if you look back in time , the inner hypersurfaces (depicted as a red sphere) would be just hydrogen and full to the rim with matter (as in a Black Hole). Notice that symmetry alone is enough to explain both isotropy and homogeneity without the need for the ABSURD Inflation Theory and an infinite Universe (to get the translation homogeneity).

So, CMB by itself refutes General Relativity, Inflation Theory and points towards an Universe that is a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface (as I proposed in 2005).

################################################

Let's analyse what the Sloan Digital Sky BOSS Survey tells us about the Universe.

I used their 1.3 million galaxy information to create the following 3D Galaxy Density Plot of the Universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytuEctnD334&t=15s

It shows an spherical region with a radius of 5 billion light years (the largest structure in the Universe) which has been seeded by spherical acoustic oscillations.

Since spherical acoustic oscillations cannot happen in a Boundless (infinite) 3D Spatial Manifold, the only possible conclusion is that the Universe is bounded and embedded (as a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface would be).

The marginal Galaxy Density distribution along distance nails the argument by showing not only that the Universe was seeded but the number of recurrences of the seeding acoustic oscillations (36).

All this analysis can be reproduced (if you own a computer, of course) just by running simple plotting python scripts:

https://hypergeometricaluniverse.quora.com/Universe-Trove

Hence the SDSS also refutes GR (by supporting an extra spatial dimension and an hyperspherical topology). Furthermore, the marginal distribution refutes the Big Bang, that is, they refute that the Universe started hot. The pattern (clustering) shown in the plot is only consistent with the acoustic oscillations starting small and growing. This means that the Universe started as a Zero Kelvin Blackholium (the distinct name is to refer to the distinct shape of the Universe as a single Black Hole). A Blackholium is a hyperspherical hypersuperficial Black Hole.

Of course, the Universe being born already adult...:) is not something that the current model for matter can handle. My theory can.

So, the SDSS also refutes the Higgs Model for Matter creation, Symmetry Breakdown...Singularity Physics, etc, etc...

################################################

What about the Supernova Project? What does the Supernova Project tells us about the velocity of expansion of the Universe?

Everyone know that due to the Cosmological Ruler d(z), calibrated upon the 580 Type 1a Supernovae distances. These distances are calibrated using the Stellar Candles Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that all SN1a have identical Absolute Luminosities.

Of course, that is only correct if the Gravitation is always the same. Since Einstein General Relativity is just a dressed-up of Newton's Gravitational Law, it has not Fundamental Understanding of Gravitation. Current efforts to guild the pill (polish the turd) are obviously incorrect and non-fundamental.

I created a theory of Gravitation that yields this macroscopic Law of Gravitation:

Notice that the Gravitational Constant G is inversely proportional to the 4D Radius of the Universe. This means that earlier times had stronger G. Since the SN1a only detonate when they reach the Chandrasekhar Mass Limit (CML) and that has a G^{-3/2} dependence, SN1a would become epoch/distance dependent. Farther SN1a would be inherently weaker (smaller Absolute Luminosity).

If you insist in considering that they are identical, the distances will be overestimated. The farther they are, the larger the overestimation of the photometrically derived distance.

I corrected the distances and compare with a simple Cosmological Ruler d(z) , I derived from first principles from the topology (lightspeed expanding hyperspherical Universe). Here you see the cross-section of the Universe along a SINGLE direction in the sky. The triangle OAC is used to derive d(z).

The HU d(z) properly predicts all SN1a distances properly:

No other theory can do this and that includes GR, L-CDM, MOND, etc, etc.

Hence, the Supernova Project also REFUTES General Relativity, Big Bang, and everything we know in Physics. THat is expected because this knowledge is not Fundamental. Everything theorist polish day and night is based upon Empirical Laws, discovered hundreds of years when Apples would just fall from Trees in Newton's neighborhood.

##########################################

IN SUMMARY

ALL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS REFUTE GENERAL RELATIVITY, L-CDM, INFLATION THEORY, THE BIG BANG, THE HIGGS MECHANISM FOR MASS CREATION, THE STANDARD MODEL OF QUANTUM CHROMODYNAMICS...:)

I said that aloud because you never heard that before and pretty soon some willy scientist will plagiarize me...:) It happened before and will happen again..:) Those daredevils... fear nothing, even shame...:)

You might still ask me. What about the "evidence" about Dark Matter.. You now know that the theory (Friedmann-Lemaitre Model and GR) that supported it has not legs and is kaput...So, only the evidence holds Dark Matter as chewing gum...:)

Well, the evidence is falsified by the topology itself (lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface).

Since we live in a flat 3D Hypersurface that is expanding at the speed of light, we are subject to a constraint force (like the force on the floor, holding you from falling into the center of Earth). In the case of an expanding hypersphere, the force yields an acceleration (irrespectively to the mass you place there).

The force is shown to be only velocity dependent.

There are details in the reasoning the most Humans cannot understand and I will not try to explain here..:) feel free to ask questions.

The constraint force is called the Hypergeometrical Force and has a simple equation

mv/R_0 where R_0 is the 4D radius of the Universe.

I showed that the addition of this force precludes the use of the Virial Theorem (the force depends upon velocity), so Zwicky's analysis of the Coma Cluster had to be modified.

I solved the Spiral Galaxy and Coma Cluster conundra here:

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/WSN-98-2018-127-139.pdf

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WSN-101-2018-222-228.pdf

So, there is no Dark Matter, there is no Universe acceleration. It is steady velocity and that velocity is the speed of light (as one should had expected - there are obvious clues e.g. Hubble parameter)

A full answer would immediately exceed the frame of this Q&A format, but may I suggest that you read Roger Penrose's wonderful "Cycles of Time" - which most likely provides, at our contemporary level of scientific knowledge, the best currently available answer.

The slow expansion of the universe is happening at present and it is due to the radial momentum of the gravitational field. The dark energy is also the positive part of the gravitational field energy. For detailed analysis please see the preprint of my research publication titled "Self Consistent Gravitational Field Theory of Universe" . Link for this paper is : https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30137.01128

In my analysis, the universe is in a quasi-steady state, and its total energy is completely balanced to a total of zero. The positive energy of matter and its kinetic energy and the positive part of the gravitational energy in totality is balanced by the negative energy of the interaction energy of matter with the gravitational potential.

My Belief:

I don't think there was a big-bang at any time in the distant past. I believe, the universe has slowly evolved from a few atoms ( electrons and protons) which got created from the electromagnetic field in vacuum interacting with the gravitational field in vacuum, to start with, and this process is still continuing even now causing growth in the total mass of the universe as well as its size.

This is an interesting believe. Do you know the mass of the Universe and the Age of the Universe? From that you could estimate the rate of creation of matter out of these fields and compare with what you can measure.

If you do some basic calculations a) the average density is around 2 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, the Universe has 13.85 billion years of age and a radius of 13.58 billion light years.

There are a million or billion photons per atom.

the average gravitational field is very small...etc. a million or a billion photons is not that much either.

One can easily increase the photon density and look for mass creation. That would be a simple experiment to do.

Could you please explain me what kind of mass creation rates you would expect ( a numerical estimation)?

For detailed analysis please see the preprint of my research publication titled "Self Consistent Gravitational Field Theory of Universe" . Link for this paper is : https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30137.01128 . From this paper of myself I give a paragraph on the rate of creation of matter required as my research paper : . Using the value

M1 = 2.61337 c**2 R / G and δM1 from equation (98) , we get the increase in universe mass in one second as :

δM1 = 0.061797 x 2.61337 c**3 / G = 0.1614984 c**3 / G

= 0.1614984 x 10**35 x ( 2.9979246 )**3 / 6.6742 kilograms

= 0.651975x 10**35 kilograms

= 0.389588 x 10**62 Hydrogen atoms

This is quite a large creation of matter per second, like creating nearly 32780 solar masses per second . So, we take a look at the universe volume, which is ( 4π/3 ) R**3 = 9.321806 x 10**78 m**3 . This δM1 requires a creation of one hydrogen atom per second in a volume of 23.927344 x 10**16 m**3 or in a volume of

239.27344 x (100 kilometer )**3 which is quite a large amount of volume to have creation of one hydrogen atom per second, or equivalently creation of one hydrogen atom per year in a volume of 7.582118 kilometer**3. ( Strange are the ways of this Universe !! ) . Continuous creation of matter is also proposed in the Steady State theory of Hoyle and Narlikar (1964). If a way of creating electrons and protons, in empty space is existing, to form hydrogen atoms ( and hydrogen molecules ), then the above stated value of δM1 is quite feasible, the requisite energy for creation of these hydrogen atoms being provided by the interaction energy of the atomic particle mass with the gravitational potential Φ . Thus, the time dependent solution of this gravitational field theory provides for a continuous growth of the universe from the near past universe to the near future universe, at the present time having a quasi-steady state universe of some size as a sphere of radius R and some growth time constant

τ = 10 π R / c . As per my above mentioned research paper the expansion velocity of the universe at the boundary radius R of the universe is only 0.061797 c . In my research paper the Lagrange Field Theory is utilised , where the Field is in Field Theory sense, and actually the Gravitational Potential function is called as the Field function.

Marco Pereira

Now please reply the feasibility of creating the electrons, protons and hydrogen atoms at the above required rate.

Dr. Chander Mohan Singal

“…Is the physics of dark energy the same as the physics of the big bang?…..”

In physics till now there is no any rational experimental and theoretical data from which could follow some rational conjectures as some possible answers on the question “what was Big Bang?” Unique rational conjectures, though, exist in religions – this Universe was created by some conscious Creator, which is the component of Universe as a Superconsciousness, the main created Universe’s component is Matter. Any of numerous existent “scientific physical” models of Creation are evidently nothing more than some fantastic mental constructions that have no any physical base.

In the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 it is rigorously proven that everything what exist is/are only some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, which are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, including Creator, if exists, is only some informational system also.The Matter’s creation rather probably was done by Creator aimed at to have some stable residence in the Set – as fundamentally non-material human’s consciousness uses practically material human’s body as the stable residence.

Correspondingly humans don’t know how Creation happened; and only some plausible conjectures – not, of course, as some unbelievable “Big Bang fluctuations” of unbelievable “singularities in some spacetime points” because of unbelievable in this case “Heisenberg uncertainty” – are possible,

see the link above , Sec. 6.1.3. “The problem of Beginning and evolution of Universe” and [first of all why Matter doesn’t contain antimatter practically and what can be “dark matter particles”] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494 , at least Sec. 3.3 “Planck mass particles”.

In the links above it is conjectured that Creation was as a two-step process: the first step was exponential creation of a dense lattice of fundamental logical elements (FLE), the second step was pumping uniformly in the lattice a huge portion of [“Energy is ”absolutely fundamental “Logos” set’s element, see the first link above] energy; the appeared disturbances in the lattice are the existent material objects – particles, bodies, etc.

Though, again, nothing, what would be for sure adequate to the reality, about real Creator’s aims and ways till now cannot be stated.

Though possible [if it will be more grounded at least experimentally, now in this case there are a number of equally arbitrary non-disprovable interpretations] “space expansion”,

[in the reality that is not, of course, so, the space cannot be expanded principally by definition ;what are indeed correct definitions of the absolutely fundamental phenomena “Space” and “Time”, which are the Logos's set elements also, see the first link],

in the reality possible some expansions/deformationns of the FLE-lattice, can be made by Creator as some continuation of the “first step” above; it isn’t impossible that Baby grows till now. However, again, this process, if proceeds, can be principally, as that was at Creation, outside physics. In that would be nothing surprising, moreover, that seems as utmosrt probable, however now there is no data to exclude some, at least partial, “physical” explanation also, though.

Cheers

No. The Big Bang refers to what happened before inflation started, when gravity isn't classical; dark energy is a name that refers to certain effects of classical gravity, that occurred after inflation stopped. Incidentally, certain of these latter effects, namely the accelerated expansion of the Universe, for the moment, are perfectly well described by a property of classical gravity, called the cosmological constant-that's as much a property of classical gravity as Newton's constant is.

There is some ambiguity in the terminology.

1) Sometimes Big Bang is singularity, which is predicted by General Relativity in the Begin of Time. In this case dark energy is not related. It can not cause or prevent the singularity.

2) Sometimes Big Bang = Inflation = exponential expansion of early Universe. There is some similarity with accelerated expansion due to Dark Matter. One could speculate on the relation between Inflation and Dark Matter.

“…There is some ambiguity in the terminology. ….”

That is indeed so, including, e.g. such allegations as

“…Sometimes Big Bang is singularity, which is predicted by General Relativity in the Begin of Time. In this case dark energy is not related. ….”

“Big Bang” isn’t a singularity; it, if indeed happened, was the Creation process. Which had, of course, no any relation to general relativity, which operates with existent masses and existent spacetime, which principally didn’t exist before the Creation.

“Begin of Time” is essentially irrational term also; any rational claims about the absolutely fundamental phenomena “Space” and “Time”, which are the Logos's set elements [see SS post above and links in the post] are possible only in framework of the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception [again see the SS post above], where it is shown that any concrete dynamical informational object/system absolutely necessary always exists and changes only in some concrete space/time/spacetime, it is senseless to say something as “what was earlier, “Time” [and “Space”] or “Big Bang”?; or “Time” and “Space” or anything else?, thoguh .”

“…Sometimes Big Bang = Inflation = exponential expansion of early Universe. There is some similarity with accelerated expansion due to Dark Matter [seems should be “Dark Energy”].…..”

That is more semantically correct; and becomes be, rather probably, yet more correct, if would be as, say, “Big Bang = Inflation [= exponential expansion of “?”] + pumping into "?" of energy = creation of “early Universe”/ Matter” [again see SS post above; it could be useful to read SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_dimension_relate_to_cosmogenesis also].

In the SS&VT informational conception “?” is an “ether”, the dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements, which exists in the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime till now, where all/every material objects are permanently moving with 4D speeds of light disturbances in the lattice.

More see the SS post above and papers that are linked in the post.

Cheers

“…The Big Bang refers to what happened before inflation started….”

That isn’t so – see last SS post above here.

“… dark energy is a name that refers to certain effects of classical gravity, that occurred after inflation stopped…”

“Dark energy” has no relations to the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, and to other fundamental Nature forces, say, to “EM force”, as wel. “Dark energy” in official physics is simply ad hoc term/name that relate to completely unknown now processes/forces, etc. that rather probably caused exponential transformation of the FLE lattice at Beginning and possible the lattice’s weak transformations later [more see the SS posts above].

“…. Incidentally, certain of these latter effects, namely the accelerated expansion of the Universe, for the moment, are perfectly well described by a property of classical gravity, called the cosmological constant-…..”

Again, any ad hoc “description”, which are irrational, but, nonetheless, exist in phyics now, including in the quote above, is in the reality nothing more than assigning of some name to some events/effects/processes, about which there is no any knowledge – by what reason and why that appears/happens/proceeds. Such desriptions have no rational sense, besides some convenience at discussions, however they can be used only provided that discussants understand this point.

Including this case, again, now there is no any physical hypotheses that could contain some rational grounds at solving the problem of Creation; all what exists in official physics, nonetheless, in spite of evident principal absence of corresponding grounds, is/are some fantastic and evidently meaningless [for such inference there are sufficient physical data/reasons] ad hoc mental constructions.

Besides their evident unphysical content, these constructions cannot principally to answer on the quite natural question – why and how from seems quite physically natural extreme chaos after a “official physical Big Bang” so rigorously logically organized informational system “Matter” appeared?

Which, besides, is highly “smartly” organized:

– it is on one hand simple logical system that mostly organized basing on simplest binary logic, as that von Weizsäcker had shown in first 1950-th;

- and on a reversible logic, as that was shown in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s informational physical model in 2008-2010, so Matter, which is practically infinitesimal element of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, doesn’t lose its energy into outer the Set’s regions/elements, and so in Matter the energy conservation law acts;

- which uses seems only 4 additional logical conditions “Nature forces”, which are so rationally different in that have different strengths, actions on distances, and types of charges, that it turns out to be possible to create innumerous diversity of innumerous objects – particles, atoms, molecules, bodies, stars, etc., etc., etc.

Again, from these evident facts with a very non-zero probability follows that appearance of Matter wasn’t an “accidental” process, that was conscious action of a conscious Being. Who has unknown for human aims, uses unknown instruments, methods, etc., and has unknown problems, also, of course, at existence in the Set…

Again, more see SS posts above and links in the posts.

Cheers

Chander Mohan Singal

Dear, Chander,

There are ways to create strong electromagnetic fields. They interact with Gravitation - there is Gravitation on Earth and that is higher than the average gravitational field in the Universe.

I would like you to answer why isn't matter creation being detected under those conditions? That is a trivial experiment to be made. Any gyrotron (a vacuumed device) would detect if hydrogen or any other isotope were being created inside it.

If you consider all the 100s of million of microwave ovens out there. Mass creation insider their gyrotrons would be a detectable issue. It is not.

Matter does not get created anywhere appreciably. That is a known fact.

You seemed you gave me some large number which is supposed to be created within the Universe as a whole. That does not shed any light on why matter creation is not detected where the conditions are perfect.

Of course, here we are considering the idea that you are breaking the conservation of energy and telling me that energy is created from fields without destroying them.

If you are saying that there is a conversion between one form of energy and another, that wouldn't solve the problem of where the initial energy came from.

Just another aside. 32780 Solar Masses per second * 13.58E9*365*24*3600=1.4038326e+22

There are a trillion galaxies each with a trillion stars=1e24.

So, just a back of envelope calculation tells me that you are producing 1% of the mass of the Universe by some magic.

A 99% error is not acceptable in any theory.

Dear Marco Pereira

Your calculation has shown that 1% of total mass of the universe has to be created in 13.58 billion years, and for creating the complete mass of the universe you would need a time of 1358 billion years, or even longer than this time duration. So, what is wrong with that. I am working on the concept of a quasi-steady state universe, which is growing very slowly, and has started infinitely back in time , growing by the factor exp(t/τ) with

τ = 10 π R / c = 13.58 billion years *10*π = 426.63 billion years, with starting mass as nearly zero to begin with. I think this concept is better than assuming all the mass being already existing at time zero when the so called big bang happened, because who decided upon the value of the mass existing at that beginning time, and why not ten times that or one-tenth of that. Beginning with zero mass ( Vacuum to begin with ) is far more logical than beginning with the total mass of the present day universe.

The law of conservation of energy is not violated, because the positive energy of the created mass including its kinetic energy is balanced by negative interaction energy of mass with the gravitational potential, keeping the total energy as zero always. What only remains to be explored is a way of creating first few atoms ( electrons and protons ) in vacuum , from electromagnetic and gravitational potentials.

Dr. Chander Mohan Singal

Dear Mikhail G. Ivanov and Stan Nicolis

Dark Energy in the Universe is a reality, while the so called Big Bang is only a hypothesis about the beginning time of universe. For detailed analysis please see the preprint of my research publication titled "Self Consistent Gravitational Field Theory of Universe" . Link for this paper is : https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30137.01128. From this paper of myself I give a

definition and formula for the dark energy distribution density Ed in the universe in terms of the gravitational potential Φ of the universe at any radial location r in the universe of radius R as below :

Ed = [ (1/c**2 ) (∂Φ/∂t )**2 + (∂Φ/∂r )**2 ] / [8πG ]

= Growth Energy Density + Gradient Energy Density

It is to be mentioned here that for the gravitational Φ , we define the gradient energy density and the growth energy density by the terms (∂Φ/∂r)**2 / [8πG ] and (1/c**2 ) (∂Φ/∂t )**2 / [8πG ] respectively, appearing in the Hamiltonian density H.

Further, the slow expansion of the Universe at any radial location r is due to the radial momentum density Pr of the gravitational potential Φ, derived ( in my above mentioned research paper ) to be :

Pr = - (∂Φ/∂t ) (∂Φ/∂r) / (4πG c**2)

Thus , it is clear that slow expansion of the universe, as well as dark energy are both related to the gravitational potential of the universe, and are a reality, while the big-bang is only a hypothesis. The actual values for the quantities mentioned here including the expansion velocity at any radial location r are evaluated and shown in clear graphs in my research paper. My research paper is of 54 pages, inclusive of 38 graphical figures and 5 tables to make things very precise. I hope now you would agree that dark energy and slow expansion of the universe is a real phenomena.

Dr. Chander Mohan Singal

To begin, and without equivocation, inflation (as per inflationary theory according to Guth himself) preceded the "Big Bang" and in fact put the "bang" in the "Big Bang" ( http://news.mit.edu/2014/3-q-alan-guth-on-new-insights-into-the-big-bang). The concept that “…The Big Bang refers to what happened before inflation started….” is fundamentally incorrect. The "Big Bang" occurred post-hyper inflation...and the implications for the existence of dark matter...together with dark energy...in addition to the asymmetry in matter - antimatter remain unclear....