Control Systems & PLC's

Alternate Steady

Some Alternative Cosmologies

A key question in modern cosmology, rarely asked, its answer usually assumed, is whether or not the Big Bang event actually created space and time, as well as producing or providing our supply of matter/energy that we observe all around us. The central foundation of the Big Bang event, apart from the observational evidence of an expanding cosmos, was that the Big Bang event somehow created time and space, out of nothing for apparently no reason, and thus, the often assumed answer is "Yes". But, there's no evidence for this. No laboratory has ever created time and/or space. There's no real even theoretical recipe textbook way of doing this.

 

What if one rejects that premise? So, what if the answer instead is "No"? What if the Big Bang was created out of something, and for a reason? Then it's a whole new ballgame! If time and space pre-existed the Big Bang event, 13.7 billion years ago, then that suggests that because time existed prior to the Big Bang event, that there was a chain of events (a cause) that led up to and included the Big Bang (an effect). In fact, I invoke the principle of causality (cause and effect) which is one of the, if not the, foundation upon which all science is based, to ‘prove' (as far as that's possible, but which is as close to certainty IMHO as makes no odds) that the Big Bang event had a cause. Therefore, there had to have been a before-the-Big-Bang. Hells, bells, even "The Bible" attributes a cause to the origin of the Universe – ‘In the beginning, God created…". Ditto that for all other major religions.

 

Now I realize that the nature or properties of time and space (or space-time post Relativity Theory) are a good deal more complicated than described. In fact, whole books have been devoted to the physics and philosophy of same. But, the key point remains. Can space and time (or space-time) actually be created where no space and time (or space-time) existed previously? If not, then space and time (or space-time) has always existed and therefore the Big Bang took place in existing space and time (or space-time).

 

Faced with a choice between accepting a Big Bang event that had a cause, and a Big Bang event that had no cause, I'll accept the former (hands down) and consign the latter to the fantasy land occupied by such notables as Santa Claus, James Bond, Little Red Riding Hood, Rocky and Bullwinkle, the Tooth Fairy, Harry Potter, the Easter Bunny, assorted elves, goblins and the Loch Ness Monster! Anyone believing that all of time, space, matter and energy, were created out of absolutely nothing, for absolutely no reason, is living in that same fantasy land.

 

Of course one shouldn't be just negative about things. One should try to put forward a constructive alternative(s). If the standard model of the Big Bang event were the only game in town, then this essay would be an exercise in futility. Fortunately for me; unfortunately I guess for proponents of that standard model it's not the only game in town. Here's a list of various alternative cosmologies.

 

1) The Vacuum Energy Model – There are those who claim that empty space has intrinsic properties like the vacuum energy / quantum fluctuations / quantum jitters, and above all ‘dark energy' (which I think, if not identical to, is at least a kissing cousin of the vacuum energy). So, the more space you have (and space is apparently expanding) the more ‘dark energy' and/or vacuum energy you have. Call the Universe a box with sides of one unit length. The volume of the Universe is one cubic unit. Now double the length of the sides to two units. That's an eight-fold increase in volume, hence of activity associated with ‘dark energy' or the vacuum energy. (The mathematics is straight forward: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 cubic unit; 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 cubic units.) Regardless whether of not the ‘dark energy' and/or the vacuum energy is a property of space itself, or manifests itself in some other way, in either case if you have more space you have room for more activity inside your space box. You have more something, so you can apparently get something from nothing, or, in other words, a free lunch! Could the ‘free lunch' be an entire universe?

 

In the infinite beginning there was the vacuum energy, a quantum state where energy can create matter – antimatter particle pairs (even if the matter is just composed of virtual particles) and where the particles then annihilate each other back into pure energy again. The vacuum energy resided in space and time (or space-time, post relativity theory). From the vacuum energy (which again is a quantum phenomenon often termed vacuum or quantum fluctuations or the quantum jitters), at least one macro universe arose. This is theoretically possible – just don't ask me to explain the technical details although I strongly suspect it has an awful lot to do with the quantum mantra that ‘if it's not forbidden, it's compulsory' – at least if you're willing to wait long enough. Of course maybe more than one universe arose from the vacuum energy. The more the merrier!

 

2) The Big Crunch/Cyclic Model – Most of the standard Big Bang texts deal with the question of what would happen if our Universe's expansion rate slowed, stopped, and reversed direction (under the attraction of gravity), ultimately contracting in what's called a "Big Crunch". The idea is that the Big Crunch would result in another Big Bang and the cycle (BB – BC – BB – BC, etc.) would repeat endlessly. However, since it looks extremely likely that our Universe will never slow, stop, and reverse, it's a moot point. However, if there's a Multiverse, then perhaps some other universe did undergo a Big Crunch turning into the Mother of all Black Holes and singularities in the process, so warping the fabric of space and time that the contents of that universe spewed out and became our Big Bang event and hence our Universe.  

 

3) String Theory's Colliding Membranes Model – Despite my bucketing string theory for having lacked the ability (to date) to put experimental runs on the board, the mathematics can easily come up with a quantum theory of gravity, a key to understanding what happened before our Big Bang event. The basic idea is that string theory predicts the existence of branes (short for membranes) separated by something called "the bulk", all existing in higher dimension space-time. If two of these branes (or braneworlds) collide, and our Universe is one of those braneworlds by the way, then that event mirrors what we observe as the Big Bang. The branes would collide, separate and re-collide at regular intervals, a sort of variation on the cyclic universe theme.

 

4) The Dual Matter/Antimatter Model – Nobel Laureate physicist, the late Richard Feynman, proposed that antimatter was the same as normal matter, but matter traveling backwards in time. To the best of my knowledge, not having seen the proposal anywhere else – yet – I did an extreme extrapolation of that to suggest that, because the standard Big Bang event model predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created at that event, that in fact the Big Bang created two universes – ours of normal matter going forward in time; another equal but opposite universe going backwards in time (from our point of view) and composed of what we call antimatter.

 

5) The Multiverse Model(s) – For reasons way too numerous to mention, one of the current in-topics in cosmology is whether or not our Universe is unique, or one of many, and there are in fact many theoretical roads which lead to a Multiverse. I sum it up this way – if Mother Nature can create one universe (ours), she can create more than one. It is getting to the point by the way, where the evolution of the concept of a Multiverse, or parallel universes or alternative universes has passed from sci-fi through to not just scientific speculation but to the point of becoming nearly a scientific/cosmological requirement.

 

6) The Steady State/Quasi-Steady State Model – The original Steady State cosmology, proposed by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, was once a serious rival to the Big Bang cosmology. It suggested that our Universe has always existed and will always exist and wouldn't change in its overall appearance. The way that was accomplished was to suggest that as the Universe expanded and stuff got diluted, new stuff was being ever created and thus the density of the Universe never changed. However, the Steady State theory has gone the way of the dodo because it failed various observational tests. In particular, the original Steady State theory failed to predict the cosmic microwave background radiation, and couldn't actually explain it. However, Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant V. Narlikar have proposed a modified version, which they term the "quasi-steady-state-cosmology". Unfortunately, Sir Fred passed away before the layman's text was published.

 

Casting one's fate into the wind could the original Steady State theory and the Big Bang theory both be right? Not in our Universe, as one, the Steady State, has no beginning, and one, the Big Bang does (even if both may have no end – at least they are compatible that way). But, if you scale a Steady State universe up – super-size it – then you could have Big Bangs inside the super-sized Steady State. These Big Bangs replace the creation of bits of matter in the original scaled down Steady State. Of course we're in one of those Big Bang bits contained in a larger super-sized Steady State universe.

 

Going one weird step further, in a similar way, of our Universe on a micro scale produces all these virtual particles via the vacuum energy which pop into and out of existence, in a super-sized universe, the equivalent might be Big Bangs yielding to Big Crunches – an equivalent of particles coming into existence and popping out of existence.

 

So you see, there really are lots of alternatives to, or variations on, the standard Big Bang cosmological model, and many propose, indeed require, a before-the-Big-Bang scenario.

 

You'll note that I never said there wasn't a Big Bang event, it just wasn't IMHO 1) a quantum event, and that 2) it occurred in existing space and time, just like every other happening you've ever learned about, witnessed, studied in depth or otherwise experienced in one way or another.

About the Author

Science librarian; retired.

What's a good running routine to lose weight?

I'm trying to lose weight, and I have a hard time keeping a steady running regimine although when I do I know I lose a little weight, I just need a routine to stick to. Like, walk (3mph) for 5 minutes and run (?mph?) for 10 or so? Would that work? And just keep alternating until I reach like 4-5 miles a day? Any advice is welcome, thanks.(:

Couch-to-5k is a good program to start with.

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml

Aretha Franklin's Rock Steady (Alternate Version, Quadraphonic Sound)