How did it all start?

Different theories about the beginning of the universe

The myth of Genesis, like other creation myths in different cultures and religions, describe the creation of the world in different ways. It turns out that this question has occupied the human race since the beginning of time, but with regard to each story we can ask how the materials that participated in the creation process were created, and more than that - how was the Creator created? Contrary to these myths, cosmology and astrophysics accurately describe the evolution process of the universe, but only from the beginning. Scientists usually do not address the question of what preceded this, because if there is no universe - there is no space and no time either. The beginning of the universe and the various physical explanations regarding it are intertwined in many science fiction works, therefore it is appropriate that we explain to ourselves the ideas involved in this puzzle.

There are several possible scenarios for the end of the universe, but a beginning, at least that of our universe - there is only one. As we know, the universe began with what is known as the Big Bang - which happened about 15 billion years ago. The beginning was a point of dimensionless energy, for through different phases of energy, particles, physical forces, the formation of chemical elements and the crystallization of clusters of matter that constituted the raw material for the various structures in the universe. All this in a continuous process of expansion, or better to say swelling - a process that continues to this day and will continue in the future as well. This process is manifested today in the fact that the clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other, a sign that they once came from a single point. This observed fact supports the Big Bang theory, but it is not the only proof of it.

Is the universe infinite?

Another theory (which did not accept the big bang idea), claimed that the universe has always existed and that the average density of the mass in the universe does not change; The galaxies are indeed moving away from each other, but what happens is that new matter is created in the gaps created in the universe. By the way, physics accepts that mass is created from nothing, because the total mass is zeroed out with the negative gravitational energy of that mass. The evolution of the universe according to the big bang theory also includes the process of formation of mass/energy, so that the fact of the formation of matter and energy, out of nothing, should not be seen as a refutation.

The theory that denies the big bang is not accepted by physicists today. However, one must understand the reason why most physicists, including Einstein and Eddington, tended to assume that the universe is infinite in space-time. A beginning that cannot be explored beyond it, and more than that - a beginning of a tiny point with a tremendous energy density that the known laws of physics cannot deal with, was laughable in the eyes of philosophers and physicists.

The evidence for the Big Bang

? The galaxy clusters are moving away from each other; The light absorbed by them is redshifted by the Doppler effect, just as a horn moves away - its pitch decreases. The offset is greater the farther away the galaxies are, because we are viewing the past - before the speed slowed down.

? The more distant the galaxy clusters are, the denser they are - meaning that in the past they were closer (we see them now as they were in the past).

? If the universe was not expanding - the night sky would have to be illuminated with more precious light than the sum of the lighting of all the stars (this claim is known as the Olvers paradox - after the astronomer who raised it).

? Cosmic background radiation - uniform and homogeneous radiation in microwaves from all directions in space, which was predicted in advance, as a necessary result of the big bang, over fifty years ago, and was discovered in practice and by chance over thirty years ago, by communications personnel who dealt with microwave communication dishes and discovered uniform noise radiation explained

? The distribution of the elements in the universe (about 75% hydrogen, about 25% helium and the other elements about XNUMX percent), is explained precisely according to the description of the physical processes that occurred immediately after the big bang.

? The big bang is also a direct result of general relativity. Einstein, who as mentioned did not accept the idea of ​​the expansion of the universe at the time, added to his equation what he called a "cosmological constant", to describe an infinite and homogeneous universe in space and time (by the way, this addition was wrong not only from a material point of view, but also from a mathematical point of view, to teach you that even geniuses can make mistakes, but They admit a mistake after it becomes clear to them).

? Even according to Newtonian physics it is possible to understand that the universe cannot be static because if it is - the mutual attraction between its components will lead to its collapse, even if it is infinite and therefore the attraction from all directions is balanced - very small disturbances are enough to cause local collapses of galaxy clusters.

The pulsating universe

The pulsing universe idea says that before the big bang, there was a big collapse and before that a big bang and so on ad infinitum. The universe is currently expanding, but there will come a time in tens of billions of years, when the expansion will stop due to the attraction between the elements of the universe and then contraction will begin. The contraction will end at one point and then there will be a bang again. Symmetry and periodicity are considered elegant in physics, but even this explanation raises the question of how it all began. In this context it is worth noting that there is no proof that the universe will shrink again. This problem is known as closed universe versus open universe. It is absolutely possible that the universe will continue to expand forever and then everything in it will cool down and of course the life that will be in it (if there will be any), will become extinct. Which of the two scenarios will happen? It depends on the exact amount of matter in the universe. The quantity as it is known to us today, is on the threshold between the two possibilities.

A technological product of another universe

Recently we have published an idea that our universe evolved from a black hole created under the appropriate conditions in the laboratory of a technological culture in another universe. Stephen Hawking explained to us a long time ago, restoration can be created from a black hole. Each mass distorts the surrounding space. A demonstration at the two-dimensional level depicts a dumbbell resting on a flexible sheet. A black hole has such a high mass density that the curvature of space it creates - causes it to go outside our universe. Under the right conditions, such a black hole can create a new universe. This means - and it doesn't matter if the hole is artificial or not - new restorations are created from one another. But again - how did it all start?

Multiple universes

Our universe is three-dimensional, bound by its own gravity into a four-dimensional sphere, just as a plane becomes the shell of a sphere. Therefore, many other universes can exist outside our universe when we have no possibility to observe or notice them, because they are outside the space of our universe. This conception of universes corresponds to various philosophical and physical conceptions. Let's just mention that time travel corresponds according to a certain concept, to moving to another universe and this is an idea that found its expression in many science fiction stories.

Why is it impossible to understand the beginning?

Any description of the beginning of the universe, the big bang, a pulsating universe, a superuniverse that includes many universes - they all push the problem of the beginning back, or take it out of the limits of our investigation and thinking, or claim infinity. We are unable to grasp the meaning of infinity even though it is a good excuse for the problem of the beginning. The concept of space-time is also difficult to grasp and it is possible that this is where our inability to solve the problem of the beginning lies.

Stephen Hawking claims that space and time are finite, but limitless. We perceive real time, but the real time that rules the universe is virtual time (the root of a negative number). In real time there is a singular point of beginning, but in simulated time it is a point as all points and therefore there is no talk at all of a beginning, of creation, or of a creator. We do not properly grasp the concept of time - not even real time - let alone virtual time. Let's not forget that time is a dimension like the other dimensions of space and we live in a four dimensional universe (at least; the others are not reflected at the macro level), but are only able to move in three of them.

General relativity and quantum mechanics today describe the universe and its beginning in the big bang, in the best possible way, but they do not agree with each other at all. In our search for a unified Torah that will explain the entire universe, and the beginning of beginnings, we must remember that we ourselves are part of the universe and we are trying to solve a problem that we ourselves are a part of... and who says that the laws of the universe allow us to solve this problem correctly or at all... You may think that it is none of our business to investigate The beginning, since this has no impact on the forces operating in the universe today, but if we manage to get down to the study of the beginning, we will also arrive at the unified theory that we so strive for - or vice versa - the unified theory will explain the beginning to us.