THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
The widely accepted deduction by Cosmologists of the inflation rates attributed to the original Universe is analyzed, together with their deduction that ostensibly an infinitesimal Singularity was the point-source ex nihilo – the origin of the entire universe which was contained within it. The origin of the chemical elements is traced and the Standard Model of elementary particle physics is utilized in order to determine the likelihood of the existence of the universe in its present form. The development of consciousness and the scientific human mind is traced in another article which is soon to follow.
Astronomy, astrophysics and their allied sciences theorize the Big Bang occurred almost fourteen billion (1.38×1010) years ago. They have postulated that its origin was a singularity – an infinitesimally tiny spherical object in Quantum space the size of a proton which is only a fraction of the size of an atom, which defies rationale. An atom is approximately 1/16 of 1-trillionth of 1 mile (0.0625×10–12 mile) in dimension and a proton is only about (0.00000625×10–12mile) 1/10,000th of the size of an atom. (see Scientific Notation and Table of Series 2n on attached pdf files).
Cosmology has accepted theories which state that the primal singularity was the universe, which then inflated in a chain reaction of explosive expansion by doubling in size hundreds of times during a very short interval. Here we will assume 257 such increments of spherical divergence, and the Table of Series of 2n illustrates the results of the inflation for analysis and perspective. Ostensibly that original singularity – The Origin – contained all of the potential energies, forces and material then in existence in the form of a primordial plasma soup of pre-subatomic nuclear particles held together by the force of gravity under gigantic pressures and temperatures of billions of degrees. This is currently accepted scientific theory.
Subsequently, as inflation began the existing universe was small enough so that all of its parts were in good thermal contact and what is believed actually triggered the event that caused the sphere to expand was some effect of quantum mechanics which dictates only the probability that certain fluctuations will occur. Eventually an extremely rare fluctuation will occur and perhaps just such a fluctuation set in motion that course of events that led to the expanding universe we now occupy.
The term ‘quantum mechanics’ became utilized in order to attempt to reconcile the laws prevailing in atomic physics with those of classical physics which question why the speed of light is connected with the velocity of motion. The ‘Big Bang’ experienced by the original spherical accretion of material, the infinitesimal singularity, deals with its expansion from a compacted, hotter and enormously dense state into the form we observe now, from a point source to an enormous and vast universe. At such incredible concentrations of energy as existed in the original primordial sphere the laws of physics that governed the behaviour of matter and energy would have been quite different from anything known to modern science.
In order to visualize the magnitude of the inflation consider the analogy of the effects of doubling a length of chain, beginning with the size of one proton of length 0.00000625-12 miles anchored at one end at The Origin. By doubling the length every one second, after 57 seconds it would increase to one mile in length (n = 0 on the Table of 2n) – and continuing…and after another 20 seconds its length would have increased to 1 million miles (1.0×106miles at n=20). Then after a total of only 97 increments of doubling (after 97 seconds) its length would be 1 trillion miles (at n=40 on the Table of Series of 2n). That velocity of expansion far exceeds the speed of light which takes one year to travel 6 trillion (6.0×1012) miles. Although it is a fact that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity states that nothing which is travelling within the universe can move faster than the speed of light travelling within the same universe, Einstein’s theory does not place limits on the rate at which the universe itself can expand.
For inflation to work what is needed is a source of energy which becomes available and then disappears. This energy drives inflation and it is known as a phase transition. The most familiar phase transition occurs when water turns into steam or into ice. As water cools it loses its energy and the temperature drops. When water cools down to zero degrees (Centigrade) it makes a transition into solid ice, but it takes a lot of energy to convert water from solid ice into a liquid, so before ice can form that energy must be released. Once the energy is released and the water becomes frozen solid the ice can also release energy with a further drop in temperature just as with water. At the freezing point itself lots of energy is released while the temperature is unchanged, and a phase transition of this type could have provided the energy that powered the inflation in some way during which the gravitational force became altered and weakened, initiating enormous expansion of the universe as it then existed.
Following the initial expansion – the spherical divergence – the laws of physics were already in effect and the subsequent evolution of the universe involved the force of gravity to attract matter together, the strong nuclear force to hold the nuclei together, the electromagnetic force to keep atoms and molecules together for chemistry to operate and the weak force to make the stars continue to burn. After 257 such increments of doubling in size during expansion the universe would have inflated to the diameter of 1.0×1060 miles (see Table of Series of 2n ). That diameter of the entire “Grand Universe” would be nearly a thousand trillion, trillion, trillion times larger than the presently observable universe which includes only those objects up to the *Comoving Distance of 47 billion (4.7 x1010) light years distant in every direction. That is 28.2×1022miles radius and the diameter of 56.4 x1022 miles, or 564 billion, trillion miles.
And so the Cosmologists deduced that the original singularity was the size of a proton – almost zero in size, only 1/10,000th of the size of an atom – in order for it to have only reached 564 billion, trillion miles diameter following hundreds of increments of inflation.
And so the Cosmologists deduced that the original singularity was the size of a proton – almost zero in size, only 1/10,000th of the size of an atom – in order for it to have only reached 564 billion, trillion miles diameter following hundreds of increments of inflation. Theoretically 47 billion light years – the Comoving Distance – is all that is presently observable because the light from any objects further away, due to the spherical divergence and the curvature of space, cannot reach modern instruments of observation because those objects are beyond the horizon as it were. The universe may be much larger but it remains out of range of detection. Scientists‘s deduction that the dimensions of The Origin (the original quantum sphere – the singularity the size of a proton) were far smaller than one atom – less than 1/10,000th of the atom in diameter – defies rationale, but assuming just for this discussion that they are correct then after doubling 13 times the singularity would have expanded to barely the size of a single atom – one atomic diameter – and continued to rapidly inflate.
In review, if we began with the original diameter of the size of a proton, once the expansion commenced and the singularity rapidly inflated it doubled 57 times incrementally in diameter until it reached one mile in diameter at n=0, as illustrated in the Table of series 2n, from 21=2, 22= 4, 23= 8… continuing in rapid succession of increments in a chain reaction until the 257th incremental doubling, at 2n=2200, then the entire “Grand universe” would have expanded to 1.0×1060 miles in diameter, which is astronomically larger than the diameter of the known universe, 5.64×1023 miles. As the enormous inflation – the spherical divergence – occurred during the doubling increments, the Table of series 2n illustrates that the diameter of the universe expanded by a factor of one million for each twenty increments of expansion as described.
The difference in magnitude between 5.64 x1023 miles (the observable universe) and 1.0×1060 miles (the diameter of the estimated entire “Grand Universe”) is enormous – enough so that the diameter of the observable universe would have to be doubled in size another one hundred times in order to reach the proportions of the entire (Grand) universe as it would have existed following 257 such increments of doubling. This does not appear at all likely but Cosmologists are adamant that the singularity expanded hundreds of times in a fraction of a second when the Big Bang occurred in order for it to have expanded to the size of the observed universe.
However, if we suppose that The Origin was actually the size of an average sun or a Black Hole, then it could have been about one million (1.0×106) miles in diameter to begin and after 20 increments of expansion it would have reached 1 trillion miles (1.0×1012) miles; After 40 increments of expansion it would have reached 1.0×1018 miles; and after 60 increments it would have reached 1.0×1024 miles in diameter which is slightly larger than the diameter of the observed universe which is 5.64×1023 miles. Since Cosmologists declare that the universe is still inflating at varying rates and the current diameter of the observable universe is known to be about 5.64 x1023 miles it appears reasonably likely that, were its original diameter one million miles, the universe would have initially only expanded about 60 increments of spherical divergence instead of inflating hundreds of times in the first fraction of a second during a Big Bang.
At this point it seems logical to question the accepted theories of cosmological science pertaining to the size of the original singularity and the rate of its subsequent inflation. By disengaging itself from observation and technology the deductive method has repeatedly proven itself utterly sterile. No new discovery can be made from deduction alone, and in fact since the perfection of their existing theory is proven by logic any observations that contradict it are automatically rejected. This has occurred in cosmology and in fundamental physics. Whenever the deductive method dominates, science stagnates and threatens to stifle technology and the advance of society in general as occurred in the Middle Ages with Galileo, Leonardo and Kepler, all of whose methods were observational and inductive.
If scientists ignore observation, as particle physicists do when they ignore the negative results of proton decay, they are returning to old methods. If observation is the key criterion then neither the Big Bang nor the GUT’s (Grand Unified Theories) are valid. GUT’s postulate imaginary particles like axions which allegedly fill the universe with Dark Matter. No GUT’s means no Dark Matter and no Big Bang. Conversely, the Big Bang supplies GUT’s with the extreme energies required for their theoretical symmetry and many of their hypothetical particles. The two sets of theories rely on each other for confirmation, which is a form of cosmic circular reasoning. The experimental tests that judge either theory invalidate both of them. What is true for GUT’s is even more so for the same ever-increasing flood of particles, the unstable collection of theoretical debris produced from particle accelerators colliding nuclei with increasing energy – the Muons, the Pions, and the Mesons and Baryons assumed to be made up of smaller particles called “Quarks”. But no matter how hard the accelerators smash protons against each other no quarks have yet been observed. So then the theorists reason that there is a force between quarks which actually increases with distance – a confining force that never releases quarks.
Then they deduced that in some particles all the quarks will spin the same way and therefore are indistinguishable, which violates a fundamental postulate of field theory – hence a new property, arbitrarily named “colour”. Each quark came either as red, blue or green. So, when the three quarks were then given additional qualities named “up”, “down” and “strange” it resulted in nine types of quarks. More was still to come – newer particles kept appearing so new quarks were needed and a “charm” quark and a “beauty” quark were added to the expanding collection. More neutrinos showed up among the leptons – a Muon and a new, massive Lepton called the Taun. To explain the nature of the strong and weak forces even more particles were necessary so a theory called Quantum Chromo-dynamics (QCD) was developed postulating Gluons, also never observed, to carry the strong force. Another theory called the Electroweak Theory described the weak field as merging with electromagnetism at high energy. It required two more particles…lately they have deduced the existence of “Higgs Boson”
Some crucial observations have flatly contradicted the deductions and predictions of the Big Bang theory. In 1986 astronomers discovered that there are huge agglomerations of galaxies over one billion light years across. Such enormous clusters of matter must have taken over a hundred billion years to form, so the deduction of a Big Bang is questioned by the existence of those ancient super-clusters of galaxies each containing millions of trillions of stars. Those tremendous stretching vistas of matter, whose reality was confirmed during 1990, also refute a basic premise of the Big Bang – namely that the universe was at its origin perfectly smooth and homogeneous. Theorists admit that there is no way to get from the perfect universe of the Big Bang to the imperfect, inhomogeneous universe we now observe.
Other conflicts with observations have emerged. Using powerful new instruments some astronomers around the world have discovered extremely old galaxies that perhaps formed long before the Big Bang universe could have cooled sufficiently. Despite all of this Cosmologists have remained obdurate in their deductions of the Big Bang theory although the observations were announced in the most prominent journals. In some cases the observers are among the most respected astronomers in the world. Nevertheless, cosmologists have with few exceptions either dismissed the observations as faulty or have insisted that minor modifications of their Big Bang theory will reconcile any apparent contradictions. And so those Cosmologist’s claims to create scientific truth such as String Theory by pure reason – by deduction – seem absurd. Unfortunately they have a very high profile in the news media and it is their methods that is representative of science to the general public.
The idea that the universe originated ex nihilo from virtually nothing in a single cataclysmic explosion almost fourteen billion years ago has become the foundation not only of modern astronomy but also of all of the current theories of matter and energy, even though the universe is clearly far too small to have doubled in size hundreds of times from a single explosion of a subatomic-sized singularity fourteen billion years ago. More billions of dollars are being spent on even bigger and better particle accelerators in determined, almost desperate, efforts to substantiate their deductions about Dark Matter. Recent findings have indicated that the visible baryonic matter makes up only about 5 percent of the universe and that the remainder of the universe material is invisible Dark Matter which is another type of matter which accounts for about 27 percent of the universe. The remainder is a component that consists of formless energy. This implies that two-thirds of the universe has no substance.
If the universe did have intelligent design then science, which vehemently rejects such mystical origins, is forced to invent some way to explain those effects it can observe by making deductions about causes which it cannot observe. There are dimensions other than the four we can observe with our material senses and instruments – the three spatial dimensions and the accepted dimension of time – however there may be other dimensions of which we are utterly ignorant. There are known “knowns” and also things which we know are unknowns, but there are also unknowns of which we are unaware, and additional dimensions belong in that category. Were the material universe to have come into existence in space from origins in another, unknown dimension it would quite naturally have seemed to the scientific human intellect to have exploded into existence when it abruptly appeared. But of course science cannot tolerate such so-called mystical origins so it had to postulate a theory to explain everything, or even postulate multiple universes existing in other dimensions, or a theory which demanded a singularity as the origin – something even smaller than a proton as has been described. There will no doubt be other remarkable developments to come in support of the demands of the Big Bang Theory of the origins of the material universe.
When one carefully investigates the composition of the universe the odds against its existence are truly tremendous – almost unbelievable. According to the standard model of elementary particle physics the masses of the proton, neutron and electron are set by completely independent parameters. Nuclei can only be stable within a very narrow range of values for the mass of the neutron and electron, and since stars cannot ignite if there are not stable nuclei only those possible universes which contain stable nuclei may contain stars. Furthermore, there are other parameters which must be attuned if there are to be stars. For instance there is the mass of the neutrino – it requires a minor adjustment of the Standard Model – it is no more than one hundred thousandth (1×10-5) of the mass of the electron.
While analyzing the physical constants that must be finely tuned for the universe to contain stars we must ask why is the universe large enough to accommodate all of the stars and why does the universe exist for many billions of years – long enough for stars to form. The parameter which determines this is extremely tiny – it is the Cosmological Constant which must be no larger than 10-40 in order for the universe to exist long enough for stars to form. There are more interactions to consider. Besides gravity there are also electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos have a very large range of masses and each one interacts with a different combination of the four forces. How probable is it that a universe created by random selection of these parameters will contain stars?
In order to calculate the probability that a universe with randomly combined values of the parameters of the standard model will have stars that exist for billions of years we start with the six masses involved with the Plank Mass – the masses of the four stable particles and the masses associated with the Cosmological Constant. We must consider their ratios to find the probability. The Plank mass is the basic unit of mass in the quantum theory of gravity, equal to about 1019 times the mass of the proton. This mass is the largest and this should therefore be held fixed and the others should be expressed in terms of units of that mass. Then each of the masses of the others will be some number between zero and one and those should be chosen randomly.
The life of stars depends upon the ratio of the proton to the Plank mass, and that they exist for more than a billion years requires that this ratio be less than 10-19. This means that the probability for this to occur is therefore one part in 1019. In order for there to be many nuclei the neutron must have about the same mass as the proton while the electron must have a mass on the order of a thousand times smaller(10-3). The accuracy to which the neutron mass must closely approximate that of the proton is that of a few electron masses. So this means that the masses of the electron and neutron must come out to within an accuracy of about 10–22 in Plank units. The same holds for the neutrinos. The probability for this to occur with the three random selections is 10-22 cubed, which equals one chance in 1066.
Together with the probability that the proton mass comes out no larger than it is results in a probability of one part in 1085. So in order for the universe to survive at least until the time of the formation of galaxies the Cosmological Constant must be less than 10-60. The probability of randomly achieving this value is one in 1060, and integrating this with the previous results yields a probability of one part in 10145. Then, the ratio of the strong nuclear force interaction and the ratio of the weak and the electromagnetic interactions are each about one part in 100 (102) in comparison. This multiplies the above probability by 104, which yields the cumulative result of 10149.
Finally we must consider the ranges of these forces. The largest is that of electricity which is at least equal to the radius of the universe. The ratio of the radius of the nuclei, which is the range of the two nuclear interactions, to the radius of the universe, is at maximum 10-40. The probability to achieve two such tiny ratios randomly is thus one part in 1080. When we combine this result with the previous results we reach the inevitable conclusion that the probability for the universe to have turned out as ours has with stars lasting billions of years and with nuclear and atomic physics like ours has, were the parameters of the Standard Model selected randomly, is at most only one part in 10229.
To state that gigantic is infinitesimal when compared with the enormity of the number 10229 is not very descriptive of how truly great this number is in describing the odds against the universe existing in its present state. Just by way of comparison the number one trillion (1×1012) is the number of seconds of time elapsed in approximately 30 thousand (3×104) years and the number 6 trillion (6×1012 ) is the number of miles which light traverses in one year. So how did something so remotely unlikely turn out to be the just the case? Luck will most certainly not suffice at those odds. Rational explanation of how something so remotely unlikely occurred is needed. Albert Einstein must have been referring to this when he made his remark “…God does not play dice with the Universe”.
It strains credulity that mathematical consistency could be the sole reason for the parameters to have the extraordinarily unlikely combinations of values that resulted in a universe with stars and life. If a theory were found with the hypothesis that there is only a single, unique mathematically consistent theory of the whole universe – A Theory of Everything – then we would have no other choice but to accept such an explanation but is that not a form of mysticism? If we turn towards some version of an ‘anthropic principle’ and the belief that Deity created the universe in precisely this way this makes the answers to the scientific questions dependent upon a faith about something outside the realm of rationality which is also mysticism, which science rejects. So, the best hope of science for a complete and rational understanding of the universe that does not rely on faith or mysticism is that the parameters actually changed over time according to some unknown physical process which just happened to occur in the past. Perhaps this is what so frustrated Einstein in his elusive search for a Unified Theory which explains the existence of the physical universe.
The prevailing view of all of those following generations of scientists who are skeptical of an intelligent and elegant design of the universe is that everything in the universe is just material atoms and mysterious Dark Matter and the void and that the material universe is accidental.
Click for: TABLE of SCIENTIFIC NOTATION
Click for: TABLE 2n
This website is at: https://coronalongreach.wordpress.com