New assumption about the shape of the universe

Cosmogonist scientists still do not know the exact answer to the question about the shape of the Universe. As, indeed, to questions about its finitude-infinity or closedness-openness. Many cosmogonists are united by the Big Bang hypothesis, which in a simplified presentation looks like this.

The Big Bang: how it all began...

Before the Big Bang, there were no concepts of “here” and “there”, “before” and “after”. All the matter of the world was concentrated at one point with practically zero size and, accordingly, almost infinite density. Time did not exist either, because at the point itself nothing happened, and beyond its boundaries nothing existed and, therefore, could not happen.

Then, for some reason, the point (it is also called a “cosmic egg”) exploded. The newborn matter quickly, at the speed of light, poured into the surrounding “nothing”. Energy and forces appeared - nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational. Time appeared and began to flow.

Matter swirled into spirals of nebulae. Stars appeared, and then planets. Billions of years later, on the third planet, an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill yellow dwarf on the periphery of an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill spiral galaxy, the first protobacteria crawled out of the primordial ocean onto land.

And a billion years later, the descendants of this protobacterium began to rack their brains over various cosmogonic questions.

The universe is great but finite

The Big Bang hypothesis puts the age of the Universe at 15 (approximately!) billion years. If the hypothesis is incorrect, then the age estimate is incorrect. Maybe there was no explosion, and the Universe has always existed?

But if the hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the question about the size of the Universe becomes clear. If it is true, every schoolchild can easily calculate the size of the Universe.

In fact, you just need to multiply the time (15 billion years) by the speed of matter expansion. That is, at the speed of light - 300,000 kilometers per second. Most likely, this speed becomes somewhat less over the years, but for simplicity of calculation we will consider it constant.

Multiplied? Yes, it turned out to be a huge number, with many zeros... but still not infinite. Conclusion: The Universe is great, but finite. And therefore, it must have not only size, but also shape.

And this is where the fun begins.

The universe can be the most different forms: flat, open or closed

It is most logical and simplest to assume that the Universe has the shape of a sphere. In fact, if matter scatters from a single center at a constant speed, then what could it be if not a sphere? But if the speed is not constant and the Universe is not closed and homogeneous, then it can be any shape. For example, a straight or curved four-dimensional plane. In this case, the Universe is not closed, eternal and infinite.

Scientists are trying to obtain information about the shape of the Universe by studying the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation. The beginning of all beginnings, or the Big Bang, was accompanied by the release of not only matter, but also radiation. This one has electromagnetic radiation, called the relict radiation, has its own, unchanging physical characteristics that allow astrophysicists to distinguish it from the vast variety of other “cosmic rays”. It is believed that cosmic microwave background radiation still uniformly fills the Universe. Its existence was experimentally confirmed in 1965.

Is the universe shaped like a bottle?

This is what a Klein bottle looks like (closed one-sided surface)

While studying cosmic microwave background radiation, Soviet scientist D.D. Back in the middle of the last century, Ivanenko put forward the assumption that the Universe, firstly, is closed, and secondly, does not everywhere obey the laws of Euclidean geometry. Not conforming to Euclidean geometry means that somewhere there are places where parallel lines intersect and even flow into one another. The closedness of the Universe means that it may be “closed on itself”: having set off on a journey from one point (say, from planet Earth) and moving, as it seems to us, strictly in a straight line, we will eventually find ourselves there, on Earth - although after a very long time a large number of years.

Indirect confirmation of D.D.’s theory Ivanenko and his followers were received in 2001. The American space probe WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) transmitted to Earth data on fluctuations (changes, fluctuations) in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Astrophysicists were interested in the size and nature of the distribution of these fluctuations. Computer modeling was carried out, showing that such a nature of fluctuations can be observed only if the Universe is limited and closed on itself.

Even a ray of light, propagating in space, must return to its starting point after a certain (long) period of time. This means that astronomers on Earth can, for example, observe the same galaxy in different parts of the sky, and even from different sides!

If the WMAP data is confirmed, our view of the Universe will change greatly. Firstly, it will be relatively small - no more than 10 billion light years in diameter. Secondly, its shape may be a torus (donut), or even something completely exotic, for example, a Klein bottle closed on itself.

In addition, this will mean that we will be able to observe the entire Universe and make sure that the same physical laws apply everywhere.

NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE

Question about the shape of the universe. – History of the issue. – Geometric and physical space. – The doubtfulness of their identification. – The fourth coordinate of physical space. – The relationship of physical sciences to mathematics. – Old and new physics. – Basic principles of old physics. – Space taken separately from time. – The principle of unity of laws. - Aristotle's principle. – Uncertain quantities of old physics. – A method of division used instead of definition. – Organic and inorganic matter. – Elements. – Molecular movement. - Brownian motion. – The principle of conservation of matter. – Relativity of motion. – Measurements of quantities. – Absolute units of measurement. – The law of universal gravitation. – Action at a distance. - Ether. – Hypotheses about the nature of light. – Michelson-Morley experiment. – The speed of light as the limiting speed. – Lorentz transformations. – Quantum theory. - The weight of light. – Mathematical physics. – Einstein’s theory. – Compression of moving bodies. – Special and general principles relativity. – Four-dimensional continuum. – Geometry, corrected and supplemented according to Einstein. – The relation of the theory of relativity to experience. - “The Clam” by Einstein. – Finite space. – Two-dimensional spherical space. – Eddington on space. – On the study of the structure of radiant energy. – Old physics and new physics.

In any attempt to study the world and nature, a person inevitably finds himself face to face with a number of questions to which he is not able to give direct answers. However, the entire further process of his thinking about the world, and therefore about himself, depends on whether he recognizes or does not recognize these questions, how he formulates them, and how he treats them.

Here are the most important of these questions:

What shape does the world have?

What is the world: chaos or system?

Did the world arise by chance or was it created according to some plan?

And although this may seem strange at first glance, one or another solution to the first question, i.e. question about the shape of the world, the actual predetermines the possible answers to other questions - the second and third.

If questions about whether the world is a chaos or a system, whether it arose by chance or was created according to a plan, are resolved without first determining the form of the world and do not follow from such a determination, then such decisions are unconvincing, require “faith” and are not able to satisfy the human mind . Only when the answers to these questions follow from the definition of the form of the world do they turn out to be sufficiently accurate and definite.

It is not difficult to prove that the currently dominant general philosophy life is based on solutions to these three fundamental questions that would have been considered scientific in the 19th century; and the discoveries of the 20th and even the end of the 19th centuries have still not influenced ordinary thought or have influenced it very little. It is also not difficult to prove that all further questions about the world, the formulation and development of which constitute the subject of scientific, philosophical and religious thought, arise from these three fundamental questions.

But, despite its paramount importance, the question of the form of the world relatively rarely arose independently; usually it was included in other problems - cosmological, cosmogonic, astronomical, geometric, physical, etc. The average person would be quite surprised if he were told that the world could have some form. For him world has no form.

However, in order to understand the world, it is necessary to be able to construct some model of the universe, even if imperfect. Such a model of the world, such a model of the universe, cannot be built without a certain concept of the shape of the universe. To make a model of a house, you need to know the shape of the house; to make a model of an apple, you need to know the shape of the apple. Therefore, before moving on to the principles on which a new model of the universe can be built, it is necessary to consider, at least in the form of a brief summary, the history of the question of the shape of the universe, the current state of this question in science, as well as the “models” that have been built before recent times.

The ancient and medieval cosmogonic and cosmological concepts of exoteric systems (which alone are known to science) were never particularly clear or interesting. Moreover, the universe they depicted was a very small universe, much smaller than the present one. astronomical world. So I won't talk about them.

Our study of different views on the question of the shape of the world will begin from the moment when astronomical and physical-mechanical systems abandoned the idea of ​​the Earth as the center of the world. The period under study covers several centuries. But in fact, we will only deal with the last century mainly, the period from the end of the first quarter of the 19th century.

By that time, the sciences studying the natural world had long been divided: their relationship after the division was the same as it is now, at least as it was until recently.

Physics studied the phenomena of matter around us.

Astronomy – the movement of “celestial bodies”.

Chemistry tried to penetrate the secrets of the structure and composition of matter.

These three physical sciences based their concepts of the shape of the world solely on Euclid's geometry. Geometric space was taken to be physical space, and no distinction was made between them; space was considered separately from matter, just as a box and its position can be considered independently of its contents.

Space was understood as an “infinite sphere”. The infinite sphere was geometrically determined only by the center, i.e. any point and three radii emanating from this point, perpendicular to each other. And the infinite sphere was considered to be completely similar in all respects and physical properties finite, limited sphere.

The question of the discrepancy between geometric, Euclidean three-dimensional space, infinite or finite, on the one hand, and physical space, on the other, arose very rarely and did not impede the development of physics in those directions that were possible for it.

Only at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century did the idea of ​​their possible inconsistency, doubt about the correctness of identifying physical space with geometric space, become urgent; Moreover, it was impossible to ignore them in silence at the end of the 19th century.

These doubts arose, firstly, due to attempts to revise the geometric foundations, i.e. or prove Euclid's axioms, or establish their inconsistency; secondly, thanks to the very development of physics, more precisely mechanics, that part of physics that is occupied with movement; for its development led to the conviction that physical space cannot be located in geometric space, that physical space constantly goes beyond the limits of geometric space. It was possible to mistake geometric space for physical space only by turning a blind eye to the fact that geometric space is motionless, that it does not contain time, necessary for movement, that the calculation of any figure resulting from movement, such as a screw, for example, already requires four coordinates.

Subsequently, the study of light phenomena, electricity, magnetism, as well as the study of the structure of the atom urgently required an expansion of the concept of space.

The result of even purely geometric speculation regarding the truth or untruth of Euclid's axioms was twofold: on the one hand, the conviction arose that geometry is a purely theoretical science that deals exclusively with axioms and is completely complete; that nothing can be added to it and nothing can be changed in it; that geometry is a science that cannot be applied to all the facts encountered and which turns out to be true only under certain conditions, but within these conditions it is reliable and irreplaceable. On the other hand, there was disappointment in Euclid's geometry, as a result of which there was a desire to rebuild it on a new basis, create a new model, expand geometry and turn it into a physical science that could be applied to all the facts encountered without the need to arrange these facts in an artificial order . The first view of Euclid's geometry was correct, the second was wrong; but we can say that it was the second point of view that triumphed in science, and this significantly slowed down its development. But I will return to this point later.

Kant's ideas about the categories of space and time as categories of perception and thinking were never included in the scientific, i.e. physical thinking, despite later attempts to introduce them into physics. Scientific physical thought developed independently of philosophy and psychology; this thought has always believed that space and time have an objective existence outside of us, due to which it was assumed that it was possible to express their relationship mathematically.

However, the development of mechanics and other physical disciplines led to the need to recognize a fourth coordinate of space in addition to the three fundamental coordinates; length, width and height. The idea of ​​a fourth coordinate, or fourth dimension of space, gradually became more and more inevitable, although for a long time it remained a kind of “taboo”.

The material for creating new hypotheses about space was hidden in the works of mathematicians - Gauss, Lobachevsky, Zaccheri, Boyle and especially Riemann, who already in the fifties of the last century considered the possibility of a completely new understanding of space. No attempts have been made to psychologically study the problem of space and time. The idea of ​​the fourth dimension remained, as it were, under the carpet for a long time. Specialists viewed it as a purely mathematical problem, while non-specialists viewed it as a mystical and occult problem.

But if we do short review the development of scientific thought from the moment this idea appeared at the beginning of the 19th century to the present day, this will help us understand the direction in which this concept can develop; at the same time we will see what it tells us (or can tell us) about the fundamental problem of the form of the world.

The first and most important question that arises here is the question of the relationship of physical science to mathematics. From a generally accepted point of view, it is accepted that mathematics studies quantitative relationships in the same world of things and phenomena that the physical sciences study. Two more provisions follow from this: the first is that every mathematical expression must have a physical equivalent, although in this moment it may not be open yet; and second, that any physical phenomenon can be expressed mathematically.

In fact, none of these provisions have the slightest basis; accepting them as axioms retards the progress of science and thinking precisely along those lines where such progress is most needed. But we'll talk about this later.

In the review of physical sciences that follows, we will focus only on physics. And in physics, we need to pay special attention to mechanics: from approximately the middle of the 18th century, mechanics occupied a dominant position in physics, due to which, until recently, it was considered possible and even probable to find a way to explain all physical phenomena as mechanical phenomena, i.e. phenomena of movement. Some scientists went even further in this direction: not content with the assumption that it was possible to explain physical phenomena as phenomena of movement, they assured that such an explanation had already been found and that it explained not only physical phenomena, but also biological and mental processes.

Currently, physics is often divided into old and new; This division can generally be accepted, but should not be taken too literally.

Now I will try to make a brief overview of the fundamental ideas of old physics, which led to the need to build a “new physics”, which unexpectedly destroyed the old one; and then I will move on to the ideas of new physics, which lead to the possibility of constructing a “new model of the universe” that destroys the new physics in the same way as the new physics destroyed the old.

Old physics lasted until the discovery of the electron. But even the electron was understood by her as existing in the same artificial world, governed by Aristotelian and Newtonian laws, in which she studied visible phenomena; in other words, the electron was perceived as something existing in the same world where our bodies and other objects commensurate with them exist. Physicists did not understand that the electron belongs to another to the world.

Old physics was based on some unshakable foundations. Time and space of old physics had very definite properties. First of all, they could be considered and calculated separately, i.e. as if the position of any thing in space in no way affected or affected its position in time. Further, for everything that exists there was one space in which all phenomena took place. Time was also the same for everything existing in the world; it was always measured on the same scale for everything. In other words, it was considered acceptable for all movements possible in the universe to be measured by one measure.

The cornerstone of understanding the laws of the universe as a whole was Aristotle's principle, which asserted the unity of laws in the universe.

This principle in its modern understanding can be formulated as follows: throughout the universe and in all possible conditions the laws of nature must be the same; in other words, a law established in one place in the universe must also be valid in any other place. On this basis, science, when studying phenomena on Earth and in solar system assumes the existence of identical phenomena on other planets and in other star systems.

This principle, attributed to Aristotle, was never actually understood by him in the sense that it has acquired in our time. Aristotle's universe was very different from how we imagine it now. Human thinking in Aristotle's time was not like human thinking in our time. Many of the fundamental principles and starting points of thought that we consider firmly established, Aristotle still had to prove and establish.

Aristotle sought to establish the principle of the unity of laws, speaking out against superstition, naive magic, belief in miracles, etc. To understand “Aristotle’s principle”, it is necessary to understand that he also had to prove that if all dogs are generally incapable of speaking human language, then one individual dog, say, somewhere on the island of Crete, Also cannot speak; or if trees are not able to move independently at all, then one individual tree Also cannot move – etc.

All this, of course, has long been forgotten; Now the idea of ​​the constancy of all physical concepts, such as motion, speed, force, energy, etc., is reduced to Aristotle’s principle. This means: what was once considered a movement always remains a movement; what was once considered speed is always speed – and can become “infinite speed.”

Reasonable and necessary in its original sense, Aristotle's principle is nothing more than the law of the general consistency of phenomena related to logic. But in its modern understanding, Aristotle's principle is completely erroneous.

Even for the new physics, the concept of infinite speed, which stems solely from the "Aristotelian principle", became impossible; it is necessary to discard this principle before constructing a new model of the universe. I will return to this issue later.

If we talk about physics, we will first of all have to analyze the very definition of this subject. According to school definitions, physics studies “matter in space and the phenomena occurring in this matter.” Here we are immediately faced with the fact that physics operates with uncertain and unknown quantities, which for convenience (or due to the difficulty of definition) it takes as known, even as concepts that do not require definition.

In physics there are formal differences: firstly, “primary” quantities, the idea of ​​which is considered inherent to all people. This is how Khvolson lists these “primary quantities” in his “Physics Course”:

Length– linear, spatial and volumetric, i.e. the length of a segment, the area of ​​some part of the surface and the volume of some part of the space limited by surfaces; Extension is thus a measure of magnitude and distance.

Time.

Speed uniform rectilinear motion.

Naturally, these are just examples, and Khvolson does not insist on the completeness of the list. In fact, such a list is very long: it includes the concepts of space, infinity, matter, motion, mass, etc. In a word, almost all the concepts that physics operates are vague and cannot be defined. Of course, quite often it is not possible to avoid operating with unknown quantities. But the traditional “scientific” method is not to recognize anything unknown, and also to consider “quantities” that cannot be defined as “primary”, the idea of ​​​​which is inherent in every person. The natural result of this approach is that the entire huge edifice of science, erected with enormous difficulties, has become artificial and unreal.

In the definition of physics given above, we encounter two vague concepts: space And matter.

I have already mentioned space on previous pages. As for matter, Khvolson writes:

"The use of the term 'matter' has been limited exclusively to matter which is capable of acting more or less directly upon our senses."

This method of separation, instead of definition, is used in physics wherever definition turns out to be impossible or difficult, i.e. in relation to all fundamental concepts. We'll see this a lot later.

The difference between organic and inorganic matter is due only external signs. The origin of organic matter is considered unknown. The transition from inorganic to organic matter can be observed in the processes of nutrition and growth; it is believed that such a transition takes place only in the presence of already existing organic matter and is accomplished due to its influence. The secret of the first transition remains hidden (Khvolson).

On the other hand, we see that organic matter easily transforms into inorganic matter, losing those indefinite properties that we call life.

Many attempts have been made to consider organic matter as special case inorganic and explain all phenomena occurring in organic matter (i.e., life phenomena) as a combination of physical phenomena. But all these attempts, as well as attempts to artificially create organic matter from inorganic matter, led nowhere. Nevertheless, they left a noticeable imprint on the general philosophical “scientific” understanding of life, from the point of view of which the “artificial creation of life” is recognized as not only possible, but also already partially achieved. Followers of this philosophy believe that the name "organic chemistry", i.e. chemistry, the study of organic matter, has only historical meaning; they define it as “the chemistry of carbon compounds,” although they cannot help but recognize the special position of the chemistry of carbon compounds and its difference from inorganic chemistry.

Inorganic matter, in turn, is divided into simple and complex (and belongs to the field of chemistry). Complex matter consists of so-called chemical compounds of several simple types matter. Each type of matter can be divided into very small pieces called “particles.” Particle- this is the smallest amount of a given type of matter that is capable of exhibiting at least the main properties of this type. Further subdivisions of matter - the molecule, the atom, the electron - are so small that, taken individually, they no longer possess any material properties, although sufficient attention has never been paid to the latter fact.

According to modern scientific ideas, inorganic matter is composed of 92 elements, or units of simple matter, although not all of them have yet been discovered. There is a hypothesis that the atoms of different elements are nothing more than combinations of a certain number of hydrogen atoms, which in this case is considered the fundamental, primary matter. There are several theories about the possibility or impossibility of the transition of one element to another; in some cases such a transition has been established - which again contradicts the “Aristotelian principle”.

Organic matter, or "carbonaceous compounds", is actually composed of four elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen, as well as minor traces of other elements.

Matter has many properties, such as mass, volume, density, etc., which in most cases can only be determined in their interrelation.

Body temperature is recognized to depend on the movement of molecules. Molecules are believed to be in constant motion; as defined in physics, they continuously collide with each other and fly apart in all directions, and then return back. The more intense their movement, the stronger the shocks during collisions and the higher the body temperature; such a movement is called Brownian.

If such a phenomenon actually occurred, it would mean something like this: several hundred cars moving in different directions across a large city area collide with each other every minute and fly apart in different directions, remaining undamaged.

It's interesting that fast moving the film evokes a similar illusion. Moving objects lose their individuality; they seem to collide with each other and fly off in different directions or pass through each other. The author once saw a film in which the Place de la Concorde in Paris was filmed with cars flying from everywhere and in all sorts of directions. The impression is as if the cars collide forcefully with each other every moment and fly apart, all the time remaining within the area and not leaving it.

Physics does not explain how it can be that material bodies with mass, weight and a very complex structure collide with enormous speed and fly apart without breaking or collapsing.

One of the most important achievements of physics was the establishment of the principle of conservation of matter. This principle consists in the recognition that matter is never, under any physical or chemical conditions, created anew and does not disappear: its total quantity remains unchanged. The subsequently established principles of conservation of energy and conservation of mass are associated with the principle of conservation of matter.

Mechanics is the science of movement physical bodies and about the reasons on which the nature of this movement may depend in certain particular cases (Khvolson).

However, just as in the case of other physical concepts, the movement has no definition in physics. Physics only establishes the properties of motion: duration, speed, direction, without which any phenomenon cannot be called moving.

The separation (and sometimes definition) of the above-mentioned properties replaces the definitions of movement, and the established characteristics are related to the movement itself. Thus, movement is divided into rectilinear and curvilinear, continuous and intermittent, accelerated and slow, uniform and uneven.

The establishment of the principle of relativity of motion led to a whole series of conclusions; The question arose: if the movement of a material point can be determined only by its position relative to other bodies and points, how to determine this movement in the case when other bodies and points are also moving? This question became especially complex when it was established (not just philosophically, in the sense of Heraclitus’s panta ret, but quite scientifically, with calculations and diagrams) that there is nothing motionless in the universe, that everything without exception moves in one way or another, that one movement can establish only relative to another. At the same time, cases of apparent immobility were also established. Thus, it turned out that the individual components of a uniformly moving system of bodies maintain the same position in relation to each other, as if the entire system were motionless. Thus, objects inside a fast-moving carriage behave in exactly the same way as if the carriage were stationary. In the case of two or more moving systems, for example, in the case of two trains that run on different tracks in the same or opposite directions, it turns out that their relative speed is equal to the difference between the speeds or their sum depending on the direction of movement. So, two trains moving towards each other will approach each other at a speed equal to the amount their speeds. For one train to overtake another, the second train will move in the opposite direction of its own, at a speed equal to the difference between the speeds of the trains. What is usually called the speed of a train is the speed attributed to the train as it moves between two objects which are stationary to it, for example, between two stations, etc.

The study of motion in general, and oscillatory and wave motion in particular, had a huge influence on the development of physics. In the wave movement they saw a universal principle; Attempts were made to reduce all physical phenomena to oscillatory motion.

One of the fundamental methods of physics is the method of measuring quantities.

The measurement of quantities is based on certain principles; the most important of them is the principle of homogeneity, namely: quantities belonging to the same order and differing from each other only in quantitative terms are called homogeneous quantities; it is considered possible to compare them and measure one in relation to the other. As for quantities of different orders, it is considered impossible to measure one of them in relation to the other.

Unfortunately, as mentioned above, in physics only a few quantities are determined; Usually definitions are replaced by names.

But since errors in naming can always occur and qualitatively different quantities receive the same names, and vice versa, qualitatively identical quantities will be named differently, physical quantities turn out to be unreliable. This is especially true since the influence of Aristotle’s principle is felt here, i.e. a quantity once recognized as a quantity of a certain order always remained a quantity of that order. Different forms of energy flowed into one another, matter passed from one state to another; but space (or part of space) always remained space, time - time, movement always remained movement, speed - speed, etc.

Continuing to consider the measurement of quantities, it is necessary to point out that the units of measurement used in physics are quite random and are not related to the quantities being measured. Units of measurement have only one common property- All of them from somewhere borrowed. Never before has the most characteristic property of a given quantity been taken as its measure.

The artificiality of measures in physics, of course, is no secret to anyone, and the understanding of this artificiality is associated, for example, with attempts to establish a unit of length part of the meridian. Naturally, these attempts do not change anything; whether to take as a unit of measurement some part of the human body, the “foot,” or a part of the meridian, the “meter,” both are equally arbitrary. But in reality things contain their own measures; and to find them means to understand the world. Physics only vaguely guesses about this, but so far has not even come close to such measures.

In 1900, prof. Planck created a system of “absolute units”, which was based on “universal constants”, namely: the first - the speed of light in vacuum; the second is the gravitational constant; the third is a constant value that plays an important role in thermodynamics (energy divided by temperature); the fourth is a constant quantity called “action” (energy times time), which represents the smallest possible amount of work, its “atom.”

Using these quantities, Planck received a system of units, which he considers absolute and completely independent of the arbitrary decisions of man; he takes his system for natural. Planck argues that these quantities retain their natural meaning as long as the law of universal gravitation, the speed of light in a vacuum, and the two basic principles of thermodynamics remain unchanged; they will be the same for everyone intelligent beings for any determination methods.

However, the law of universal gravitation and the law of the propagation of light in a vacuum are two of the weakest points in physics, since in fact they are not at all what they are taken to be. Therefore, the entire system of measures proposed by Planck is very unreliable. What is interesting here is not so much the result as the principle itself, i.e. recognition of the need to find natural measures of things.

The law of universal gravitation was formulated by Newton in his book "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", which was published in London in 1687. This law has been known from the very beginning in two formulations: scientific and popular.

The scientific formulation is:

Phenomena are observed between two bodies in space, which can be described, assuming that two bodies attract each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Here's a popular formulation:

Two bodies attract each other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

In the second formulation, it is completely forgotten that the force of attraction is a fictitious quantity, adopted only for the convenience of describing phenomena. AND force of gravity is considered to really exist, both between the Sun and the Earth, and between the Earth and a thrown stone.

(Last electromagnetic theory gravitational fields dogmatizes second point of view.)

Prof. Khvolson writes in his “Physics Course”:

The colossal development of celestial mechanics, based entirely on the law of universal gravitation, recognized as a fact, made scientists forget the purely descriptive nature of this law and see in it the final formulation of a truly existing physical phenomenon.

What is especially important about Newton's law is that it provides a very simple mathematical formula that can be applied throughout the universe and on the basis of which any movement, including the movement of planets and celestial bodies, can be calculated with amazing accuracy. Of course, Newton never claimed that he was expressing the fact of the actual attraction of bodies towards each other; Nor did he determine Why they attract each other and whereby.

How can the Sun influence the Earth's movement through empty space? How do we generally understand the possibility of action through empty space? The law of gravitation does not answer this question, and Newton himself fully understood this. Both he and his contemporaries Huygens and Leibniz warned against attempts to see in Newton's law a solution to the problem of action through empty space; for them this law was simple formula for calculations. However, the enormous advances in physics and astronomy made possible by the use of Newton's law have caused scientists to forget these caveats; and gradually the opinion became stronger that Newton discovered the force of gravity.

Khvolson writes in his “Physics Course”:

The term "action at a distance" denotes one of the most harmful doctrines that ever arose in physics and retarded its progress; This doctrine allows for the possibility of an instantaneous impact of one object on another, located at such a distance from it that their direct contact is impossible.

In the first half of the 19th century, the idea of ​​action at a distance reigned supreme in science. Faraday was the first to point out the inadmissibility of the influence of a body on a certain point at which this body is not located, without intermediate environment. Leaving aside the question of universal gravitation, he paid special attention to the phenomena of electricity and magnetism and pointed out the extremely important role in these phenomena of the “intermediate medium”, which fills the space between bodies, as if acting directly on each other.

Currently, the belief that action at a distance is inadmissible in any sphere of physical phenomena has received universal recognition.

However, old physics was able to discard action at a distance only after it accepted the hypothesis universal environment, or ether. This hypothesis turned out to be necessary for the theory of light and electrical phenomena, as they were understood by old physics.

In the 18th century, light phenomena were explained by the radiation hypothesis put forward in 1704 by Newton. This hypothesis assumed that luminous bodies emit tiny particles of a special light substance in all directions, which spread through space at enormous speed and, upon entering the eye, cause a sensation of light in it. In this hypothesis Newton developed the ideas of the ancients; Plato, for example, often uses the expression: “light filled my eyes.”

Later, mainly in the 19th century, when the attention of researchers turned to those consequences of light phenomena that cannot be explained by the radiation hypothesis, another hypothesis became widespread, namely, the hypothesis of wave oscillations of the ether. It was first put forward by the Dutch physicist Huygens in 1690, but was not accepted by science for a long time. Subsequently, diffraction research did tip the scales in favor of the light-wave hypothesis and against the radiation hypothesis; and subsequent works of physicists in the field of polarization of light won this hypothesis universal recognition.

In the wave hypothesis, light phenomena are explained by analogy with sound phenomena. Just as sound is the result of vibrations of particles of a sounding body and spreads due to vibrations of particles of air or other elastic medium, so, according to this hypothesis, light is the result of vibrations of the molecules of a luminous body, and its distribution occurs due to vibrations of extremely elastic ether, filling both interstellar , and intermolecular spaces.

In the 19th century, the theory of oscillations gradually became the basis of all physics. Electricity, magnetism, heat, light, even thinking And life(though purely dialectically) was explained from the point of view of the theory of oscillations. It cannot be denied that for the phenomena of light and electromagnetism, the theory of oscillations provided very convenient and simple formulas for calculations. A number of brilliant discoveries and inventions have been made based on the theory of oscillations.

But the theory of oscillations required ether. The ether hypothesis arose to explain the most diverse phenomena, and therefore the ether acquired rather strange and contradictory properties. He is omnipresent; it fills the entire universe, permeates all its points, all atoms and interatomic spaces. It is continuous and has absolute elasticity; however, it is so rarefied, thin and permeable that all terrestrial and celestial bodies pass through it without experiencing noticeable opposition to their movement. Its rarefaction is so great that if the ether condensed into liquid, its entire mass within the Milky Way would fit into one cubic centimeter.

At the same time, Sir Oliver Lodge believes that the density of the ether is billion times the density of water. From this point of view, the world appears to consist of a solid substance - "ether" - which is millions of times denser than diamond; and the matter known to us, even the densest, is only empty space, bubbles in the mass of ether.

Many attempts have been made to prove the existence of the ether or to discover facts confirming its existence.

Thus, it was assumed that the existence of the ether could be established if it could be proven that some ray of light, moving faster than another ray of light, changes its characteristics in a certain way.

The following fact is known: the pitch of a sound increases or decreases depending on whether the listener approaches or moves away from its source. This is the so-called Doppler principle; theoretically it was considered applicable to light. It means that a rapidly approaching or receding object should change its color - just as the whistle of an approaching or receding locomotive changes its pitch. But due to the special structure of the eye and the speed of its perception, it is impossible to expect the eye to notice a change in color, even if it actually occurs.

To establish the fact of a color change, it was necessary to use a spectroscope, i.e. spread out the beam of light and observe each color separately. But these experiments did not give positive results, so it was not possible to prove the existence of the ether with their help.

And so, in order to once and for all resolve the question of whether ether exists or not, American scientists Michelson and Morley in the mid-80s of the last century undertook a series of experiments with a device of their own invention.

The device was placed on a stone slab mounted on a wooden float, which rotated in a vessel with mercury and made one revolution in six minutes. A beam of light from a special lamp fell on mirrors attached to a rotating float; this light partly passed through them, and partly was reflected by them, with one half of the rays going in the direction of the Earth’s movement, and the other at right angles to it. This means that, in accordance with the experimental plan, half of the beam moved with normal speed light, and the other half at the speed of light plus speed of rotation of the Earth. Again, according to the design of the experiment, when the split beam was combined, certain light phenomena were to be detected, arising from differences in speed and showing relative motion between the earth and the ether. Thus, it would be possible to indirectly prove the existence of the ether.

Observations were made over a long period of time, both during the day and at night; but it was not possible to detect any phenomena confirming the existence of the ether.

From the point of view of the original task, it was necessary to admit that the experiment ended in failure. However, he discovered another phenomenon (much more important than the one he was trying to establish), namely: it is impossible to increase the speed of light. A ray of light moving with the Earth was no different from a ray of light moving at right angles to the Earth's orbital motion.

I had to admit as law that the speed of light is a constant and maximum value, which cannot be increased. This, in turn, explained why the Doppler principle does not apply to the phenomena of light. In addition, it was found that the general law of addition of velocities, which is the basis of mechanics, is not applicable to the speed of light.

In his book on relativity, Prof. Einstein explains that if we imagine a train traveling at a speed of 30 km per second, i.e. with the speed of the Earth’s movement, and the light beam will catch up or meet it, then the addition of velocities will not occur in this case. The speed of light will not increase by adding the speed of the train to it, and will not decrease by subtracting the speed of the train from it.

At the same time, it was determined that no existing instruments or surveillance means could intercept a moving beam. In other words, it is impossible to catch the end of a beam that has not yet reached its destination. Theoretically, we can talk about rays that have not yet reached a certain point; but in practice we are not able to observe them. Consequently, for us with our means of observation, the propagation of light is instantaneous.

At the same time, physicists who analyzed the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment explained its failure by the presence of new and unknown phenomena generated by high speeds.

The first attempts to resolve this issue were made by Lorenz and Fitzgerald. The experience could not have gone well, - this is how Lorentz formulated his provisions, - for every body moving in the ether, itself undergoes deformation, namely: it contracts in the direction of movement (for an observer at rest). Basing his reasoning on the fundamental laws of mechanics and physics, Lorentz, using a series of mathematical constructions showed that Michelson and Morley's setup was subject to contraction, and that the size of this contraction was just such as to balance the displacement of the light waves, which corresponded to their direction in space, and that this canceled out the differences in the speed of the two rays.

Lorentz's conclusions about the supposed displacement and contraction of a moving body, in turn, gave rise to many explanations; one of them was put forward in terms of Einstein's special principle of relativity. But this is already the area of ​​​​new physics.

Old physics was inextricably linked with the theory of oscillations.

The new theory that arose to replace the old theory of oscillations was the theory of the corpuscular structure of light and electricity, considered as independently existing matter consisting of quanta.

This new teaching, says Khvolson, means a return to Newton’s theory of radiation, although in a significantly modified version. It is still far from complete, and its most important part, the concept quantum, still remains undetermined. What a quantum is, new physics cannot determine.

The theory of the corpuscular structure of light and electricity completely changed the views on electricity and light phenomena. Science has stopped seeing main reason electrical phenomena in special states of the ether and returned to the old theory, according to which electricity is a special substance with real existence.

The same thing happened with light. According to modern theories, light is a stream of tiny particles rushing through space at a speed of 300,000 km per second. These are not Newtonian corpuscles, but a special kind matter-energy, created by electromagnetic vortices.

The materiality of the light flux was established in the experiments of Moscow professor Lebedev. Lebedev proved that light has weight, i.e. falling on bodies, it exerts mechanical pressure on them. It is characteristic that, starting his experiments to determine light pressure, Lebedev proceeded from the theory of ether vibrations. This case shows how old physics has refuted itself.

Lebedev's discovery turned out to be very important for astronomy; it explained, for example, some phenomena observed during the passage of the tail of a comet near the Sun. But it acquired particular importance for physics, since it provided new arguments in favor of the unity of the structure of radiant energy.

The inability to prove the existence of the ether, the establishment of the absolute and constant speed of light, new theories of light and electricity and, above all, the study of the structure of the atom - all this pointed to the most interesting lines of development of new physics.

From this direction of physics, another discipline of new physics developed, called mathematical physics. According to the definition given to it, mathematical physics begins with some fact, confirmed by experience and expressing some ordered connection between phenomena. She puts this connection into a mathematical form, after which she, as it were, moves into pure mathematics and begins to explore, with the help of mathematical analysis, the consequences that follow from the main provisions (Khvolson).

Thus, it seems that the success or failure of the conclusions of mathematical physics depends on three factors: first, on the correctness or incorrectness of the definition of the initial fact; secondly, on the correctness of its mathematical expression; and thirdly, on the accuracy of subsequent mathematical analysis.

There was a time when the importance of mathematical physics was greatly exaggerated, writes Khvolson. – It was expected that it was mathematical physics that would determine the fundamental course in the development of physics, but this did not happen. There are many significant errors in the conclusions of mathematical physics. Firstly, they coincide with the results of direct observation, usually only to a first, rough approximation. The reason for this is that the premises of mathematical physics can be considered sufficiently accurate only within the narrowest limits; Moreover, these premises do not take into account a whole series of accompanying circumstances, the influence of which, outside these narrow premises, cannot be neglected. Therefore, the conclusions of mathematical physics relate only to ideal cases, which cannot be realized in practice and which are often very far from reality.

To this it must be added that the methods of mathematical physics make it possible to solve special problems only in the simplest cases. But practical physics is not able to limit itself to such cases; Every now and then she has to face problems that mathematical physics cannot solve. Moreover, the results of the conclusions of mathematical physics can be so complex that their practical application turns out to be impossible.

TIPS OF THE UNIVERSE From the book Vaccination against stress [How to become the master of your life] author Sinelnikov Valery