No Big Bang?

Isn't it Time to
Question the Big Bang?

Posted on February 2, 2012

Limits: We may not think of gravity as being limited, but it is clear that limits exist for other properties like speed and absolute zero. Why not limits on gravity/mass and temperature?

Multiple Big Bangs: At one time, the model and idea of a ‘Big Bang’ was generally accepted as how the Cosmos was created. It seemed so logical that one could imagine a Singularity expanding, creating the Universe that we presently observe. But recently, I have become skeptical of the single ‘Big Bang’ concept. On the face of it, a limited Universe makes no sense at all. A limited Universe implies that there is an edge or frontier out there – the place where matter ends. A single ‘Big Bang’ also implies that there is a center to the Universe if you assume the great expansion went in all directions. Improved observational abilities underscore the fact that we are continually finding new galaxies at distances once thought impossible. And each discovery of distant galaxies makes the Universe older – if we subscribe to the notion of a single ‘Big Bang’.

The launch and resulting data from the COBE and WMAP satellites fit several models that seemed to confirm the theory of the ‘Big Bang’. But the resulting data from those satellites is just data and can be used to bolster other interpretations as well as the ‘Big Bang’. If the data can be interpreted to fit your theory, then shazam! The theory that produced your model must be right! – Or is it?

A single ‘Big Bang’ is only an assumption. Our Cosmos may be a completely regenerative system. The system regenerates because of the maxims imposed upon it by physics. We have already determined that there is a low temperature limit, and a limit to the physical speed of matter, but what about a high temperature limit? Wouldn’t the speed of light have a limiting effect upon temperature? What if there also exists a limit to mass accumulation? The idea that mass can accumulate indefinitely is also an assumption.

It has been said many times that a black hole’s gravity is so great that light cannot escape. Who came up with that? If the mass is so great that atoms are crushed, then there is no source for light. Atomic fusion is not taking place, and probably the temperature of such a mass would be near absolute zero because gravity has all but stopped any atomic movement.

In the article I wrote several years ago about the beginnings of the Universe, I suggested that matter was just the lower form of energy. Lighter and more energetic sub-atomic particles are the building blocks for the larger and heavier atomic particles such as protons and neutrons - two of the main ingredients of atoms.

In that article, I proposed that the event of the big crunch not only collapsed molecules and atoms but eventually the force of such a gathering of matter would break up the atomic particles into their component parts – the smaller and more energetic sub-atomic particles. These low-mass sub-atomic components were not so influenced by gravity. The breakup of the atom’s building blocks released large amounts of energy and created the great expansion known as the ‘Big Bang’. The overall assumption was that atoms are only stored energy that is irretrievable without the application of enough force to liberate that energy.

The whole idea behind the ‘Big Bang’ was to attach a beginning to the Cosmos. After all, if it’s there, it must have had a beginning – and someday, an end. Oh really? I know it is hard to come to terms with the expression of ‘always has been’ and ‘always will be’, but it looks like the real answer lies in that realm. Stars are engines of entropy. The fusion process that fuels a star merges lighter atoms into less energetic larger atoms. The process continues until the fusion process can no longer overcome gravity and the star collapses in on itself.

The entropic action of stars illustrates how energy gets stored into the various atoms with the larger atoms housing the highest levels of stored energy.

The size of a star depends upon the elements that make it up. Larger elements require much higher pressures and temperatures for the fusion process. Temperature and pressure depends upon the size of the accumulated mass. A body would have to reach the temperature/pressure threshold demanded by its elemental makeup for a body to use those heavier elements as fuel. The elements collectively dictate the terms of fusion with the heavier elements requiring the more extreme values of temperature and pressure.

Release of energy happens with a change of state for the atomic structure of an atom or one of the atoms components. The change of state can either be through atomic bonding, fission, or fusion. The energy given up by the molecular process is less than the energy given up by the fission or fusion process. With each increment in energy release, it takes a corresponding increase in the effort to attain that release. The collapse of a large star may be trigger enough to break down atomic particles causing the energy release responsible for those huge stellar explosions.

Matter accumulation may also be limited by a corresponding increase of gravity. If a mass reaches a given value by matter accumulation, the atomic structure changes enough to release energy in particle streams and energetic waves. This discharge would in fact limit mass to a value that cannot be exceeded. Limits make sense; the speed of light has a limit, so why wouldn’t total mass have a limit?

Limitations for Gravity: Does gravity have a limitation? Even if you are an ardent disciple of the ‘Big Bang’ you will have to acknowledge that the Singularity represents the maximum statement possible for gravity, but gravity could not maintain the total mass of the Universe. That idea alone answers the question if mass is limited or not. The proposal I have presented here localizes the phenomenon of mass limitation and raises the question as to whether or not the Universe may be constantly renewing itself.

Further Study: Some of this article is only deductive reasoning on my part, but all of it based upon factual information. If you have an interest in the Cosmos, there is a lot of both lay and technical information on the Web. A lot of the information is speculative like this one - and a lot of it broken down into theories with associated math proofs. Whatever your level, there are good articles that will stimulate your curiosity and imagination. Happy reading!

Computer Modeling: Computer models are useful tools but they have a failing fault – they are goal oriented. I have personally done a lot of computer modeling and can assure you that the model’s result is never more than a tweak of the variables away. In my case, the models were predictions about stock equities. The goal of the models was to predict a stock’s value based upon the stock’s past behavior. I found out very quickly that stocks react to events differently. Each event that could influence a stock’s value was assigned a variable that could be adjusted to conform to its degree of influence. After tweaking the variables so that the result agreed with a stock’s current status, my model tried to predict future valuations. It should have been easy to foretell what would happen next with some reliability. The only thing I learned with certainty was that my trying to anticipate the future was not a talent I could brag about. My models, no matter how convincing, did not overcome what reality dealt me time after time. The result – I’m not rich.

So, scientists build computer models to comport with or prove their ideas. Scientists construct their models of the Universe using current understandings. If the scientist believes in the ‘Big Bang’ and wants to model the expansion of the known universe back to the singularity, then the model will yield corresponding results that will appear to confirm that there was a singularity. Modeling the past is trickier than predicting the future because there is no way to actually prove the past.

When the concept of what we believe about the historical condition of the Universe is represented by the letter “A” and the current Universe is represented by the letter “N”, our computer model may follow a course that arrives at “N”. But such a model is pre-programmed to arrive at the present and may even follow a mathematically correct path. The present and calculated ideas are all we have to work with. So our model must work from the present even if it starts at the beginning. The model will often yield the necessary conditions that are needed to arrive at “N”. When the model starts with “A” or the beginning, it has to arrive at “N”, the present. To insure that the model arrives at the present, the modeler has to insert the criteria necessary for the model to arrive at the present or “N”.

Predicting stocks was more reliable as a modeling subject because there is at least a known historic trail to use as a guide. But modeling the Cosmos is more difficult because the historic “knowns” are few. When sequences determine that a sequence is mathematically correct, it is only correct for a single possibility and is not necessarily the actual sequence that produced the end result we see today. For instance, if I write down 2 integers that add up to the number 8, there are 5 possible solutions to the integer pair and all of them mathematically correct. The best a person can do to determine which two integers I used to make 8 without any additional information would be to guess. There are five possibilities: 0+8, 1+7, 2+6, 3+5, and 4+4, all mathematically correct. Eight is a very small number, so the odds of getting it right are one in five. But deciding the path taken from a theoretical historical point of the known Universe to the present could be any one of literally billions of mathematically correct sequences – the sequence identified by the model only represents one of them. Then there is the problem with the theorized historical assumption. At best, it can only be an educated guess.

But what if the model isn’t correct? Would our math be deterministic about the model? Maybe but more than likely, the math sequence used is designed for the model. But math is an absolute and can give correct results even though it is operating on a false premise. Assume you are climbing a hill that you think is Pike’s Peak in Colorado. The math works as predicted, the air pressure is following the altitude calculations perfectly, the air is getting thinner as predicted, the tree line stops where it is supposed to – the only problem is that when you look back you can see where you crossed over to an adjoining mountain and are no longer on Pike’s Peak. The math about the climb is still accurate, all expectations were being satisfied, but you are not where you thought you were. And even if you had not strayed, there would still have been many paths to the top of the mountain, each with its very different views and experiences.

A Singularity is an assumption that can be used to build a computer model. The model, using the best information available assumes a grand expansion. The model will take that information and wind time back until the desired singularity manifests itself as if the ‘Big Bang’ was fact. But remember, we can model just about anything that we can dream up, fact or not.

This is to make you aware of and a bit skeptical of computer models. Some are very good, while others make broad assumptions that only appear reasonable.

Cheers,
-Robert-

Robert welcomes your comment to this or any other of my commentaries.

-Privacy Policy-

Robfg.com does not share any personal information about its readers. Email addresses, or other personal information is strictly confidential.

Unique Visitors