Zagadnienie wieczności wszechświata a teoria stanu stałego

Abstract

The article presents an attempt of critical analsis of the steady state theory presented by H. Bondi, F. Hoyle and T. Gold. Radically different conception of creation of the matter in the frame of this theory causes a doubt if it is not necessary to modificate or even to refuse proposed up to the present forms of argumentations for the temporal beginning of the Universe. In order to explain this question here one analysed at first the degree of confirmation of the theory and afterwards its philosophical consequences. During 25 years of existence and development of theory it was to be possible to eliminate some solutions, which critically estimated the steady state model of the Universe, only by reason of its supposed contradiction with previously accepted philosophical and methodological assumptions; however empirical basis of theory reduced simultaneously. The revision of scale of distances, the radioastronomical observations, the discovery of quasars and of cosmic microwave background radiation, and last the Geroch's, Hawking's and Penrose's theoretical analyses prove the existence of singular moment in history of the Universe - denying conception autors of the steady state theory. Independently from empirical tests and theoretical analyses some dissolutions of theory seem consequently to lead to an irrationalism; so is with conception of creation of the matter. If the autors of theory expressed merely the opinion that this process cannot be explained with immanent forces of the nature and left the possibility of philosophical analysis which could aim to discovering the reasons of rationality of this process - their conception could be possible to accept. But Hoyle, W.H. Mccrea and Bondi do not undertake a try of causal analysis of creation of matter treating their dissolution as definitive and exclusive and eo ipso consider all causal interpretations of creation as meaningless and unprofitable. Such opinion leads to reproach (setted both by scientists and philosophers) of irrationalism and of acceptance of miraculous phenomena within physical theory. Even if some particular assumptions were modificated (how Hoyle has it done) and some specifical trials of adjustment of theory with natural sciences data were undertaken, it could not be an argument for eternity of the Universe. Fact of eventual stationarity of actual form of the Universe does not imply the eternal existence of matter because the Universe could have the temporal beginning and then could exist as stationar. The actual stationarity does not exclude the possibility of the singular moment in the past. Then the elaboration of a proof that the continuous creation of the matter was enduring from eternity is impossible.