Big Bang

A group of artists that I once knew asked a celebrated art critic, ‘How do you become famous?’

His answer was quite enlightening.

‘Do something absolutely outrageous, get your jargon right and present it to the world with a straight face and enthusiasm!’

Good advice. All five of the artists concerned are now relatively famous and living well.

Amongst the scientists examining the universe, we have a similar situation. Not that I am suggesting that all astrophysicists are charlatans or all are motivated by the idea of becoming famous, but there is certainly a tinge of this among many of them. The problem is, once a new theory has been propounded, no matter how outlandish, scientists all over the world seize on the idea and worry it to death. In many instances, they manage to persuade governments to part with enormous sums of money in the name of ‘research’.

I recently read an article in the New Scientist (#2439) which makes some pretty extravagant claims and some memorable quotes. E.g. ‘Was the Big Bang the start of everything? Far from it, it may merely have been a portal from a looking-glass universe.’

Smolin, the propounder of this theory states that on the other side of the big bang, there was a universe that was completely inside out, and 14 billion years ago, all matter passed through a single dimensional point to create the current universe.

A few years ago, I helped my father, who was an eminent nuclear physicist, put different numerical values to some of the components of Einstein’s original equations, and from the results, draw a series of graphs. Looking at the results, it struck me that these graphs were incomplete and only had values on the positive side of the zero axis, so on my suggestion, we continued by adding negative values to the equations and plotting the results. They worked equally well with these values and produced some beautiful double-sided graphs. However, we did not conclude from this that the universe was inverted, upside down, inside out or was a mirror image, or that matter had crawled through a dimensionless point on the other side of the zero axis.

It would be like saying that the world was completely backward before the time of Christ, because that is where our calendar started. Despite the ability of mathematicians, in the real world that did not happen.

There is a belief that there is an afterglow to the original Big Bang, and this can be detected by looking back into space from whence we came. Presuming that we all originated from the same source, how did we get 14 billion light years ahead of this radiation? Not unless the matter that forms our galaxy sped away from the centre at some speed considerably greater than the speed of light and we have now slowed down allowing this background radiation, which is travelling at the speed of light, to catch up with us. Either Einstein, or someone else, must have got it wrong. Maybe we are just hearing the sea in a seashell?

Two other significant quotes from the same article say, ‘While Relativity can give us a comprehensive account of our cosmic beginnings, it cannot tell us what caused the Big Bang to happen.’

And, ‘When it comes to the very small – the realms of atoms and electrons and quarks – quantum mechanics reigns. Both theories allow physicists to understand the world before them, but there is a catch – they completely contradict one another in their descriptions of the basic structure of space. Most of these problems lie around the ‘singularity’ when all matter was at this theoretical non-dimensional point.’

A New Theory of Creation

Because there is no plausible explanation of why, after having achieved the massive density and gravitational pull, the dimensionless spot containing all matter should have gone bang in the first place, scientists have come up with some extraordinary reasons, which include space warps and branes. (Membranes on which the three dimensional matter of the universe lives on the surface of a membrane in another dimension. These branes float in this other dimension a microscopic distance apart and every trillion years or so, they collide, causing what we know as a Big Bang) This theory is supposed to solve some of the problems surrounding the ‘singularity’ and the ‘inflation’ period – those first microseconds after the Bang. However, believe what you may, but these theories fall short in explaining the situation we now find ourselves in, with an abundance of heavy elements throughout the Universe. Apart from some atomic enhancements, like the alchemists of old, modern scientists have been unable to combine any two separate elements into a single other element, yet this is exactly what they surmised happened at the time. The mathematical proofs are all open to question, and many of them, I believe, are more a matter of looking for support for a theory rather than as a result of examining the facts. I feel, that in compounding these equations, like any good accountant can tell you, the answer can be whatever you want it to be.

One should not be confused or overawed by mathematics. Mathematics is merely another way of expressing and examining ideas. A tool, basically. I personally believe that it is a subset of language, and if English is your native tongue, it is a subset of that language!

But even more radical, I believe that the idea that the entire Universe had it’s creation in a Big Bang is a scientific myth.

There is a much more logical and reasonable explanation of our origins, and one which conforms with known and provable physics. Neither does it contradict Einstein or the quantum mechanics, and here at least, they are compatible.

The Crystallization Model.

This model starts long before the traditional Bang.

The most fundamental and possibly the most difficult concept to grasp is that matter never had a beginning. It was just simply ‘always there.’ Beyond infinity in a negative time direction it existed. No beginning and probably, no end. All we have experienced in the last fourteen billion years or so, is a rearrangement of this original matter.

Before the beginning of our perception of time, there was probably just gas and dust, evenly dispersed throughout the entire reaches of space, all in equilibrium, just existing as it always had done. After about the third infinity, a sudden momentous event took place. A tiny fluctuation in a gravitational force, perhaps, but something caused an particle to move!

That’s all it took – one atom, or a molecule, or a small particle of dust to move. From that instance, the entire equilibrium of space was destroyed. The effect would be like scratching a sheet of toughened glass with a diamond. It doesn’t just leave a mark, all the internal stresses are released and in an instant, the entire sheet shatters into a myriad of small pieces. This, I believe, is what happened in space. It crystallized in the same manner that the sheet of toughened glass would.

That was the beginning of time.

Immediately, atoms, dust, molecules started to move towards each other and began to form clusters. The increased gravitational influence of these clusters would gather more material and larger bodies would start to be formed. But unlike the Big Bang principle, there was not a single central unit, but rather, like the sheet of fractured glass, masses of these new bodies scattered throughout the entire universe. Eventually, giant black holes, gathering in the dust and particles from blocks of space about 400 million light years across. Billions of them. Almost the same number as there are galaxies!

These black holes were the foundation of all the galaxies currently in the universe.

But how does a black holes convert to a galaxy?

Due to the addition of material, the internal pressures inside these black holes increase and so also does the temperature. However, these are not the small sized bodies or dimensionless point described in the classic Big Bang model, but by comparison, large entities. And like all large bodies, the pressure of gravity is greatest at the centre, and thus also the temperature. (The Earth itself is a typical example of temperature gradation from the centre to the surface.) As the heat increases, matter transforms from solid to liquid, and then to gas, and when a temperature of 10(to the of) 10 Kelvins is reached, the structure of matter itself starts to break down into its components of electrons, protons and neutrons.

At 10 (to the power of) 16 Kelvins, matter and energy become interchangeable and a conversion begins to take place.

It is converted at the rate of e=mc2 to quote a famous equation. The massive scale of energy released by this sudden conversion is far greater than the relatively weak attractive force of gravity. There is also the probability that the gravitational pull of the resulting energy is considerably less than that of the matter it was generated from.

This being so, then we have a situation where the body is now losing gravitational pull, and gaining massive energy inside a dense outer shell of heavy matter. One of the forms of energy being created by this transformation is heat, and this will have the effect of rapidly transforming more of the surrounding matter into energy. A nuclear chain reaction is inevitable, as also is the result — BANG!

However, unlike the immense heat calculated to be in the standard Big Bang model, the temperatures in this model are a great deal lower. Low enough to leave an enormous amount of unconverted matter in the form of protons, neutrons, electrons and heavy nuclei existing in the cooler outer shell of the black hole. After the bang, this is what would form most of the heavier elements we are currently familiar with. The hotter central part would then immediately start to cool once the gravitational pull had gone and the initial explosive force scattered the basic components. This would then form the hydrogen clouds we associate with galaxies on which the newly formed stars feed. Also, one of the major thing produced in any explosion is dust, and this is again adds to the fuel that the larger bodies would feed on. It could almost be considered axiomatic that the more detectable dust there is in a galaxy, the younger that galaxy is.

Observation of the shapes of most known galaxies point to the probability that they were all created individually in this way. Most of them, including our own, appear to be the result of a large explosion in a rapidly spinning body. Also, because of differing densities of dust and other matter in space, and different rates of collecting and achieving this explosive critical mass, not all galaxies would be created simultaneously.

If time were to be compressed into a single day, a God’s-eye-view of space would be like a giant fireworks display.

This would explain two other major problems that have troubled scientists. Firstly, the background radiation. This is omni-directional and they have tried to equate it to an ‘echo’ or residual radiation from the original Big Bang – not very successfully, I’m afraid. Firstly, to have an echo, there must be something there to reflect whatever it is, but there is no solid edge to space for this to be reflected from, so how can it be an echo? If it is residual radiation from the initial explosion, it actually defies logic. Try to imagine hearing an explosion the day after it happened, let alone 14 billion years later! With my theory, the background noise has been created at different periods and in different directions as the new galaxies are formed from exploding Black Holes. Light is just reaching us now from galaxies detected by the Hubble telescope at 13.6 billion years distance. This is within 500 million years of the creation of the universe, according to the Big Bang theory, but in that time, the galaxy has formed and stared emitting light in our direction. As this is not the first light emitted, just how long have these galaxies been there? Possibly BEFORE the Big bang was supposed to have happened? They also state that this is not the outer edge of space but merely the limit of the telescope.

This would also explain the second problem of the apparent expansion of the universe. I would contend that this is not a continuing expansion from the infinitesimal point that we are detecting, but a much closer event. Each black hole that explodes creates an outward pressure on all surrounding galaxies etc., and would force them apart. In doing so, the whole of space would expand to accommodate this new galactic arrival and would give the impression to an observer locked into a particularly small part of the system that space was expanding outwards. This can be seen like frogspawn, as each cell within the mass grows, it forces the surrounding total mass to expand to accommodate it.

This is obviously a very simplistic and graphic account of the creation of the Universe, but I feel it is far more correct and logical than the existing one, and does not create some of the more esoteric problems associated with the singularity theory. The maths can follow later.

As all black holes do not reach this critical explosive mass simultaneously, this would explain why we are still receiving the ‘snow’ on blank television screens that scientists associate (wrongly) with the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang. And this process is probably continuing one. Some Black holes may never achieve this critical mass, while others could achieve this in a matter of a short astronomical time frame from now. One day, the inhabitants of this galaxy may experience the effects of another Big Bang heading towards us from a completely different direction!

*Pic: The following image is from NASA: These are the furthest distance objects ever observed.

Caption and rings are my own. On the right is an unidentified object, which I believe would fit the theory of an embryonic galaxy with a large dust inclusion. It is flat, due to the high rotational speed of the exploding black hole that formed it, rather similar to our own galaxy with its ‘Milky Way’.