Friday, April 24, 2015

THE BIG BANG MYTH . . . EXPLODED!

WAS THERE A BIG BANG?
Was there actually a big bang? In a word: NO. In the so-called ‘big bang theory’ of the current widely accepted paradigmatic model, the origin event was neither big, nor a bang. It was exceedingly small relative to the size of today’s universe, certainly smaller than a hydrogen atom, a proton, or an up-quark. So one might call it a sub-quark spark! Also, there could be no ‘bang’, since there was no medium through which sound waves could travel, and, presumably, no ear to hear it.

The acceptance of the idea of a big bang expanding universe stems from astronomer Edwin Hubble’s discovery of red shifts in the wave lengths of light coming from distant stars; the farther away the star, the greater the shift; suggesting an expanding universe. It was just one easy step of logic (as it turns out, an incorrect step) to run the clock backward to a smaller and smaller universe, all the way to a ‘singularity’, a point that must have ‘exploded’ into the 13.7 billion year old expanding universe we appear to have today.

Why do I say that this simple concept, which quickly caught on in the imagination of the general public, is incorrect? Because it didn’t take physicists and cosmologists long to discover that there was a problem with it. Calculating the age of the universe based on the current expansion rate, they found an impossible contradiction: Some stars were older than the universe! This would indicate that the big bang explosion was not the beginning of the universe. MIT theoretical physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth solved the problem by proposing that there was a period of rapid expansion, or inflation in the beginning, during which the universe expanded at a rate much faster than the speed of light. That works. I’ve done the calculations myself, verifying it from more than one perspective. That makes it very convincing.

The drive-by thinker might say: ‘O.K., what was there before the big-bang expanding universe?’ smugly thinking he had posed a mind-blowing question. The answer, however, is quite simple: There was nothing! If there was a ‘big bang’ (sub-quark spark) matter, energy, time and space all originated there. The question of what existed before the origin event, whatever it was, is a meaningless question leading to an ‘infinite regress’, the mother of all contradictions. End of story!

Well, no, not quite. The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption that there could be nothing rather than something. The Calculus of Distinctions reveals something quite amazing: If mass and energy are quantized, as Planck discovered they are, there is either something or nothing, not both! I think we’ll all agree that there is something. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be writing this, and you wouldn’t be reading it. Therefore, there is no such thing as nothing. This is consistent with one of the most basic and well-known laws of physics: the conservation of mass and energy. The substance of reality is neither created nor destroyed. There is no absolute beginning or end, only change. Even if all the mass and energy in the universe eventually spreads out to the bland state of maximum entropy, something still exists.

But, wait! The ‘big bang’ (sub-quark spark) theory says nothing existed before the explosive event creating the physical universe! But there’s no such thing as nothing. What does this mean? It means that there never actually was a big bang. The big-bang-expanding universe is an illusion; a very persistent one, that looks the same from any point in the universe, but nevertheless, an illusion!
Incidentally, I applied the Calculus of Distinctions to the big bang theory in 1989 and reached this same conclusion. I published the details in my second book “Infinite Continuity” in 1990.


Reference: E.R. Close, 1990, Infinite Continuity, Part III Section 1.4, pp. 127 – 138.

Watch for new videos  with and without detailed math, explaining the Close-Neppe Theory of everything.

1 comment:

  1. My understanding is that light is not visible in free space either. That may be opposed to the finding that some stars appear to be older than the known universe. How does one know what/which starlight is being measured?

    ReplyDelete