Opening statement
Today, I’m going to indulge in a bit of whimsical speculation on the creation of the universe. As Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time (I paraphrase): Ordinary people shouldn’t be intimidated, by the large number of learned specialists, from wondering and asking questions about the world we live in. I am far from being a learned man, not even having a bachelor’s degree, so I definitely meet Hawking’s criterion.
General outline
I will open with a rambling narrative concerning Ohm’s Law, from which I attempt to segue into another such narrative concerning the Big Bang.
But first, a pun
There is Ohm’s Law, well-known to students of electric circuits. Then there is Om’s Law (that is, God’s Law – Om being another name for God), from which Ohm’s Law is derived. The following brief quote provides some background.
:UNQUOTE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om
Ohm’s Law and Om’s Law, a brief statement
Ohm’s Law can be written: I = V/R
In plain English, that’s “Current equals Voltage divided by Resistance.” However, keep in mind: This only applies in a closed-system known as a “circuit.” A simple circuit would consist of a battery (Voltage source or “causative agent” if you prefer) with a single loop of wire connecting one of its terminals to the other, with a resistor inserted somewhere on that wire. In the example below, that resistor takes the form of a light bulb, which offers resistance (to the flow of current) which in fact helps define the amount of the current flowing through the circuit.
Om’s Law, on the other hand, can be written: E = C/R [note the similarity with Ohm’s Law stated earlier as I = V/R].
In plain English, that’s “Effect equals Cause divided by Resistance.”* Om’s Law seems to transcend Ohm’s Law, since now we’re talking about something of profound interest to scientists and theologians alike: The Great Law of Cause and Effect.
Question to ponder: Does this transcendence include applicability to other-than-closed systems? The ultimate open system would be the universe itself just prior to the Big Bang. Or, maybe, the ultimate closed-system would be the Primordial Atom; the ultimate open system would be everything else which of course is a whole lot of nothing. In this case, Effect can be taken to mean the Big Bang itself, which was Caused by (in my opinion) anti-gravitons which were Resisted by the immense force of gravity itself which served to keep all matter/energy confined to a single point (the so-called Primordial Atom) prior to the beginning of time.
I am impressed by how Resistance must be present in both laws. In fact, the very definition of Effect (or Current) involves Resistance. You cannot have Effect (or Creation itself) without Resistance. That is, the very stuff of any manifested Effect has Resistance integrated within it.
On to the Big Bang
I have profound personal reservations (gut instincts?) about the validity of the Big Bang theory. However, I’ll reserve those comments toward the end of this essay. To start, I’ll quote this from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang :
QUOTE:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, this original state existed approximately 13.7 billion ago, which is considered the age of the Universe and the time the Big Bang occurred. After its initial expansion from a singularity [that is, the Primordial Atom], the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles.
:UNQUOTE.
Now, I’ll re-quote parts of this with my comments interspersed:
QUOTE:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the development of the Universe.
COMMENT:
Assuming that a Big Bang occurred, some are convinced that it was only one of many that took place in a never-ending cycle of initial explosion, expansion, deceleration, collapse, acceleration (in the opposite direction, toward some central, original point), consolidation (as all matter/energy settles at that point), and dormancy (until some cause brings about another explosion). No explanation, however, is offered as to what could have caused the Primordial Atom to explode in the first place.
QUOTE:
According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly.
COMMENT:
I am troubled by the concepts of “hot and dense” as used here.
First I’ll deal with “hot”: How much “heat” there is within a certain volume is just another way of saying how much motion is contained within that volume. The air in a room is considered “hot” if its air molecules are moving around faster than those in a room which is considered “cooler.” In a basic sense, heat = motion. However, if all of the matter/energy (excluding all empty space!) of the entire universe has been fitted into a volume less than the size of an atom, how can anything within that volume move at all?
An article I’ll quote in a bit states that at (about) one-hundredth of a second after the Big Bang, the temperature was about 100 billion degrees Kelvin. Anything I’ve ever read about pre-Big Bang conditions suggests that prior to that explosion, the temperature was even higher. If, though, in the spirit of my last question, motion was not possible prior to the Big Bang, was the temperature in fact zero degrees Kelvin? If so, then the rise (within that first one-hundredth of one second) from zero to 100 billion degrees must be considered at least remarkable. At most? Confusing, in terms of determining how such a monstrous and sudden increase in heat factored into (or helped fuel) the initial expansion itself.
As for “dense”: Let’s start with a common definition: Density equals the amount of mass per unit volume. All of the mass of the universe, according to Big Bang theory, resides within a virtual (if not literal) point – that is, a volume less than that of a single atom. It would be tempting to say that that “virtual” point consists of an infinitesimal volume which is occupied by an infinite amount of mass. But neither is true – the amount of mass was never argued to be “infinite” and that volume was defined as a “virtual” point (or by some as a Primordial Atom).
The troubling aspect is that there were two great polarities in existence before the Beginning. There is the space outside this Primordial Atom which has absolutely no matter/energy, and the Primordial Atom which has all the matter/energy and (most importantly) no space within its confines. In effect, space has been squeezed out of this atom’s interior.
How can anyone talk about “density” in such a case? Comparing two volumes, one may be considered denser than another. But within the one and only volume in existence, what can that density be compared to?
QUOTE:
This rapid expansion caused the young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.
COMMENT:
For what it’s worth, in my opinion, what “caused the young Universe to cool” was the inclusion of empty space that was earlier unavailable. This became available in greater amounts as the expansion continued. As for what “resulted in its present continuously expanding state,” cooling had nothing to do with that. We must look elsewhere for some causative agent.
QUOTE:
After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles.
COMMENT:
Over the life of this singularity – prior to the explosion – there was no matter or energy. There was just a concentration of stuff – which I’ll call the Is-ness of the Universe. For without what it Is, the Universe would just be empty space. One might ask: “How does the mere fact that the universe cools dictate what particular forms the Is-ness takes (why protons, electrons, quarks, etc.)?” One might more accurately ask: “How does the mere fact that the Is-ness of the Universe starts to acquire more and more space, which is itself unoccupied by Is-ness, dictate what particular forms the Is-ness takes?”
Time to quote from another source:
QUOTE:
Time ~ 1/100 Second [after the Big Bang]
At this stage the temperature is about 100 billion Kelvin and the density is more than a billion times that of water. The Universe is expanding rapidly and is very hot; it consists of an undifferentiated soup of matter and radiation in thermal equilibrium.
:UNQUOTE.
Now, I’ll re-quote parts of this with my comments interspersed:
QUOTE:
The Universe is expanding rapidly…
COMMENT:
I used to assume this expansion was at or near the speed of light. Now I’m not so sure. The speed of this expansion is determined by two opposite forces, one of which is gravity. Gravity can be so strong, for instance in the case of black holes, that not even light (the fastest moving thing imaginable, with the ultimate escape velocity) can escape. So what could the other force be – in effect the force that tips the balance against the holding power of gravity?
I suggest anti-gravitons. Physics offers no predictions for what phenomenon can arise under the extreme conditions within the Primordial Atom. But, as the old saying goes, “Something has to give.” Come to think of it, why speculate on “conditions within the primordial atom?” More accurate would be, the state or condition (singular) of the Primordial Atom.
QUOTE:
…it consists of an undifferentiated soup of matter and radiation in thermal equilibrium.
COMMENT:
If it’s “undifferentiated,” then how is it a “soup of matter and radiation?” Also, it would help to know the volume occupied by this “soup” – just saying this soup exists within the first hundredth of a second after the Big Bang doesn’t help much in forming a mental picture.
One possible scenario
I don’t believe the entire matter of the universe ever existed within a single point. As the previously existent universe was collapsing, it came close to becoming a single point. However, as matter continued to converge toward that single point, temperatures started rising and (I believe) anti-gravitons came into being. These served to slow down the incoming matter until a state of equilibrium was achieved – the attractive force of gravity being balanced against the repulsive force of newly-created anti-gravitons, which had never existed before.
I can’t even being to speculate on the diameter of this balanced mass, but it was far greater than the diameter of a single atom.
We’re still left wondering, though, what caused the Big Bang itself. If gravitons and anti-gravitons were in perfect equilibrium, what could have caused the primordial explosion? Could it be that these two “particle types” mutally annihilated, leaving the Primordial Atom totally stripped of the attraction of gravity and the repulsion of anti-gravity? Perhaps the annihilation wasn’t perfectly mutual – that is, perhaps gravity completely died out but a vestige of anti-gravity remained (enough to propel the Is-ness outward). As temperatures cooled, that might have allowed gravitons to come back into existence and caused the (eventually complete) death of the anti-gravitons.
Field effects outside the Primordial Atom
Field effects permeate the entire universe, ranging from the effects of gravity to those of magnetism. To illustrate, if you hold a bar magnet, it has a north pole and a south pole and resulting field effects. These are noticed if a small piece of iron enters that field and is attracted to the body of the magnet. However, my sense is that there was no field whatsoever outside the boundaries of the primordial atom. Not even a gravitational field.
Another expansionist possibility
As matter from a previously-existing universe collapsed to become the Primordial Atom, maybe the creation of anti-gravitons wouldn’t be necessary to explain the Big Bang. As matter continued to try to collapse toward a single point, it obviously couldn’t overcome gravity to explode outward. But maybe it exploded inward, in a manner of speaking. Think of it this way: The conditions at the dead center of the Primordial Atom could have forced open a gate-way to another (empty) universe into which the concentrated Is-ness of this universe tried to drain.
In that empty universe (another set of dimensions), the effect of gravity would be reversed. That is, what in this universe serves to attract (gravitons – that is, the force of gravity itself) would, after being drained into the other universe, serve to repel. And that could only happen if the empty space in Universe B had something about it that would impart such a repelling characteristic to the newly-introduced Is-ness.
Picture this: an elastic (though very short) string which is the matter in Universe A poring through the gateway into Universe B. With one foot in each universe, so to speak, this string would be possessed of the characteristics of both gravity and anti-gravity, depending on which part was in which universe. After Universe A was drained of all its matter, which would then reside in Universe B, gravitons would pop into existence and serve to slow down the expansion now witnessed in Universe B. The key factor might be that neither gravitons, anti-gravitons nor any other type of particle could exist as the elastic string extrudes through the gateway.
I had an interesting vision about what this transfer of Is-ness from Universe A to Universe B might look like. An observer in Universe A would see the Primordial Atom’s matter/energy draining, from a single point of a gateway, into Universe B. But what would an observer in Universe B see (again, a place with no matter whatsoever)?
Imagine a spherical volume of space containing nothing one moment. At the next moment, as soon as Is-ness starts to drain from Universe A, the observer wouldn’t see that Is-ness pouring forth from a gateway which is, for all intents and purposes, a single point. He would see the opposite. That is, from every direction a fixed and very great distance from an imaginary center, that Is-ness would pour in – that is, would converge from afar toward a central, unoccupied point in space.
My personal view
I do not believe in the Big Bang theory or any of its derivatives – for instance, the Oscillating Theory. I do believe the universe has always existed and that matter/energy within it pops into existence and out of existence on a continuing basis (or, as the Buddha would have said, “when causes and conditions arise”). But that doesn’t mean I believe a Volkswagen could suddenly pop out of existence before my very eyes. This popping into and out of existence happens on a micro scale.
We’re quite proud of ourselves to have finally(?) discovered, back in 1931, that the entire universe started with all of its matter/energy concentrated into a single point. Which, by the way, no one to date has managed to figure out how it managed to explode. The problem, though, is a matter of observability. In short, we’re simply too small to observe enough of the universe (which is so vast) to draw any meaningful conclusions. Try as we might, we’re stuck with this limitation.
But there is a way around this. The closer we come to Enlightenment, the closer we come to melding our minds with (what might be called) the larger, universal intelligence. It’s only because we’re separate from this that we fall victim to the boundaries and limitations imposed by our mortal bodies and chemical minds (that is, imposed by our karma). I now understand why the ancients who preceded the existence of our planet abandoned technology and scientific inquiry. They didn’t need more powerful telescopes and atom smashers to find the God Particle. Their meditation alone served to give them the answers they already knew, deep down inside.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I can’t remember the exact source of this quote:
“Effect equals Cause divided by Resistance.”
But I do remember it was in a textbook I had to read when I was a student at DeVry Tech in Chicago. That was 30 years ago, and that simple statement stuck in my mind in a very deeply felt way.”
No comments:
Post a Comment