Cosmology theory without formulas
1.Supermatter
The concept presented herewith is based on the notion
that all the occurring events are not unique. Mathematically speaking, the
probability of these events is nonzero; otherwise they just wouldn’t be able to
occur. Not only the events are not unique, but also the place where they occur,
i.e. the Universe itself, is not. One can object to it by saying that the
probability of events is relevant only to what is occurring inside our own
Universe, and that it cannot be extended over the Universe itself. Nevertheless,
we believe that there is unknown space beyond our Universe, and therefore the known
laws can be applied to the Universe as a whole, at least until proved otherwise.
This suggestion (or, rather a postulate, for it cannot
be verified yet) results in the fact that something similar to what is happening
around us, has been happening and will be happening time and again. Later we
will discuss the model of Universe that allows such repetitions, but now let us
just give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that such model exists.
Time, in its modern sense, is unidirectional, and
this process is irreversible for us. Nevertheless, talking about the repetitiveness
of the events, we make the concept of future or past sound rather relative. Let
us illustrate this statement. Let us assume that somehow we were able to live
through all the cataclysms and witness the end of the Universe, when after a
great succession of “lifeless” Universes there finally emerges a new Cosmology, theory without formulas,
supposedly similar to our old one. A hypothesis that this new Universe is
similar to our can be proven, for example, by existence of dinosaurs. I.e.
we-from-the-future end up in our past and witness it, but in another Universe,
similar to ours. We can prophesy the events of the future, for we have already
witnessed or learned them in our past, in our Universe. Our past has become our
present and our future. This sounds rather confusing, but this is exactly what
we implied by saying that past and future are relative concepts.
Out time-travel (sequential “living” through history,
observing it) ending up in a Universe identical to ours requires an ideal
combination of circumstances and a lot of explanations. E.g., how do we survive
the Big Bang of the new Universe. We can only assess the dimension of the Universes
agreement to a certain extent, in the ranges of time and space available to us.
One also should bear in mind that the end of the Universe will arrive earlier
for the remote objects, so they will not be able to know what will happen to
us, and we will not be able to exchange any information with them. This means
that we will have to create some kind of an “extensive observer”, or a string
of observers, and compare different parts of Universe at a maximum available
time range.
If we are still not able to come up with a physical
device capable of traveling from one Universe into another, and this outcome is
very likely, then the philosophical result of our failure will be limitation of
cognitive process that will end up with the Universe, and will begin from
scratch in some other new Universe. The most unpleasant is that we will never
be able to confirm our Universe model directly and accurately. On the other
hand, the Universe ending together with the observer in each and every one of
the endless chain of repetitive Universes can finally bring an answer to the
awkward question: if the repetitive chain of events is truly endless, why hadn’t
we been ever able to overcome the “death” of our Universe and preserve the
civilization or at least the accumulated knowledge?
Our belief is based on the human limitations related
to inability to break through from our Universe, e.g. due to lack of energy
needed to stand up to the collapsing Universe. To our mind, the fact that
cognition is limited by time can be proven by the idea that, if the observer
could survive through endless Universes while preserving the knowledge
accumulated during their existence, then this observer’s capabilities would be
limitless and almost godlike. This possibility of limitless knowledge, though
intriguing consequences for worldview
and philosophical point of view, will not be considered in this paper.
Now then, continuing our observations with the
Universe, we should face up to the chance of occasional event that can
interfere with our future just a bit (a grain of sand on your PC screen), or
and even that can change everything you ever known, e.g. an asteroid that failed
to collide with our planed, thus saving all the dinosaurs. I.e. at a certain
stage of future we will be able to notice that we are in a slightly different
or in an altogether very different Universe. It’s no big deal, for we have an
endless amount of tries (both in time and in the chain of events). So we just
have to patiently wait until the unknown Universe ends, and, if we are lucky, a
similar to our Universe emerges. If not, we will be very patient and wait until
we finally end up in our own past in the Universe identical to ours. We can add
up to this confusion by saying that ending in the Universe identical to ours
does not imply that this “meeting” will take place in exactly the same space
point. We’ll talk about that later.
We can only
understand that the identity is complete to a certain extent, because we
couldn’t have witnessed the past of our planet by ourselves. It means that one
may compare two Universes with a certain amount of certitude only by what one
sees in the present and future of our Universe, comparing these things to what
may be seen in a new Universe after the moment when the events start to
coincide. We can only assume with a high degree of accuracy, that observable
past of non-our Universe is identical to the past of our Universe, because they
are identical from a certain point when we are able to compare them. One should
note that our observer never “sleeps” and sees a continuous chain of events,
because otherwise this observer will “wake” in the past or in the future and
will eventually be “tangled” in time and multiply Universes.
Why are we discussing this unlikely but still real in
our model chain of similar Universes? Here’s why: one of the most important
results of our approach is that unique events that occurred against all
possible odds in a single Universe are quite probable in our hypothesis. For
instance, an ideal combination of circumstances took place and made life on
Earth possible: the existence of the Moon, preventing the Earth from moving in
precession and thus creating a life-compatible climate. Or existence of
Jupiter, a giant planet that protects us from all the uninvited “guests” from
outer space, gravitating comets and asteroids. Or our position against the Sun,
the one that provides an ideal thermal conditions on Earth. Or remarkable
coincidences in microcosm, where the fundamental particles are able to get
together and become an atom. Or the life on Earth itself. All of these coincidences
seem impossible if the Universe is one and only, but they are quite probable in
our model, when the number of tries is infinite and all the necessary
conditions (accidental events), for example, for life on Earth, will eventually
happen in “some” of the numerous Universes.
The mathematicians say, probability of these events
is unlike, but the number of tries being infinite, these coincidences are still
taking place, and our life is the best proof to that. The concept of “some”
also has to be refined. The fact that the number of tries is infinite only
tells us that the Universes identical to ours may appear rarely[1].
The life around us is organized in a way that helps
us think that everything around us has the beginning and the end. Every thing,
from atom to expanding distant galaxies that were a part of the Big Bang, once
was an entity. This approach is sure to provoke certain questions. What was
before the Big Bang that sort of started everything? Who kicked this whole
thing into gear? What will happen in the end? The answers to all these
questions can be “hidden” behind the canvas portraying our model of continuous
Universes chain. And everything was the same before the Big Bang. No-one
started this mechanism because the process had no beginning. And nothing
happens in the end, because there is no end in infinite event chain, as it has not
been stopping. It’s like being inside a torus ring or a Moebius band, we always
seem to be “right in the middle” of infinity. And this infinity goes both ways.
In our case, no matter where we go in search for the beginning or the end, we
always will observe the same continuous sequence of periodically repeating
events, sometimes quite different, and sometimes almost identical, without the beginning
or the end, both in time and in space. One Universe may show us a string of
events already known to us, and we won’t be able to understand whether we have
come back to our own Universe, or just found one that is similar to it. Let’s
not forget that we consider an event of breaking though the border of our Universe
to check this hypothesis impossible.
But nevertheless let us pass on to the model where
our idea of infinite sequence of Universes is possible. Surely this model
should not contradict with the observable data. Theoretically, it should just
give explanations to some phenomena, which is still incomprehensible for us
today. We consider it is impossible for “something” to evolve from “nothing”;
and we think that our Universe, as well as all the other “evolving” or “dying”
Universes, populated with sapient creatures or without any signs of life
whatsoever, are surrounded by a super dense matter[2].
This Supermatter can probably be a place for emerging several Universes in
different places. I.e. our infinite sequence of Universes is boosted up with a
possibility of other Universes emerging in parallel in other areas of
Supermatter. So if we turn back to our sequential time travel in search of
Universes similar to ours, we would be able to search “simultaneously” in other
areas of Supermatter. I.e. Universes
similar to ours can be both simultaneous and sequential in time. But all the
Universes will be sequential for the observer, for there is a finite speed of
getting to the simultaneous Universe. Let us assume that by marking somehow our
Universe we pass it by, than skip great areas of Supermatter and a vast number
of non-similar Universes and end up in a similar Universe, we cannot guarantee
that it is simultaneous with our own marked Universe.
Supermatter size is enormous, but is finite (respectively,
the existence of vast, but finite number of “simultaneous” Universes is
possible), its borders aren’t reachable. It is concerned not only with the
scale of the Supermatter, but also with the fact that a great force acting on
the notional border of the Supermatter will not allow you to escape it, you
will only be able to move along its notional border. Once again, due to
philosophical meaning of the fact that our model has a continuous succession of
events, endlessly repeating themselves both in time and space, the following
questions become irrelevant: What was before and what will be after that? Who,
where and when started this mechanism?
Our model is not singular, for our Universe did not
form out of nothing (and not from singularity), but as a result of a
microscopic explosion in the Supermatter itself, and forms a cavity (lacuna)
inside it. The so-called Big Bang in our Universe is just a Tiny Little Bang in
Supermatter. Talking about this explosion, we rely upon the traditional image
of the Universe emerging: enormous energy release in a tiny lapse of time and
in relatively small space, though you cannot exclude a possibility when this event
was similar to a tear in Supermatter, occurring without great energy release in
a relatively big space (on a Universal scale).
We believe that after this Supermatter bang a cavity
was formed that is now called our Universe. And we assume that it was not only
filled with radiation, but also with “shards” or rather “blobs” of Supermatter.
The enormous black holes in galaxy centers are supposedly formed of these blobs
of Supermatter. By the way, the observations show that there were more black
holes at the beginning of the Universe. This can be explained by the supermassive
black holes gradually assimilating many smaller “blobs” of Supermatter. We
assume that the Supermatter surrounded by equally superdense matter is in the
same phase state as the big black holes matter, but we cannot say for sure (our
doubts are associated, e.g. with the fact that gas can be liquid or gaseous
depending on pressure and temperature). At the moment it can be both the
expanding phase and the collapsing phase of the Universe. But our Universe will
end in collapse stage. Most probably, the size of Universe, as well as the time
of its existence from emerging to collapse, is determined by the energy of the
Big Bang. We suppose that increasing speed of remote galaxies both at the expansion
and at the collapse phases of the Universe, is not related to dark energy, but
rather is a result of interaction with Supermatter. It is also the cause why it
will always seem for us that the Universe is expanding, even when it is
collapsing. We make a conservative assumption that the Supermatter interacts by
means of another force field, different from electromagnetic, weak, strong and
already known to us gravitational interaction. Our conservative assumption is
associated with existence of the extreme Supermatter characteristics and with
known to science unification of interactions at extremely high energy
densities. Speaking of Supermatter not having any limits we imply that its
field lines of force are closing on itself. We assume that the cause of the black
hole explosion is analogous to the Big Bang that was the initial cause for
emerging of our Universe and all the other Universes. The causes why we can’t
see the Supermatter or the black holes are identical and related to the fact
that even light cannot escape their force field. Our position against the
Supermatter allows us to observe around about 13.7 billion light years across
the Universe and is defined by theoretically possible equipment resolution and
the distance at which the light still can be “released” by the Supermatter.
I.e. the size of our Universe equals the sum of observable distance of 13.7
billion light years and distance at which the light cannot be “released” by the
Supermatter, at the latter distance can be very substantial. We are surrounded
by the Supermatter, which means that we exist in a field of forces created by
its matter. We haven’t analyzed the influence of this force field on our
Universe yet. We assume that by understanding the interaction of Supermatter
force field with the Universe matter and with possibly different matter of the
black holes, we will be able to explain the observed phenomena, even without
the dark matter concept.
