This is not unfortunately going to present a brilliant theory on the origins (or maybe the everlasting nature) of the universe.  It is also not going to argue for some Devine origin. The idea of a creator that exists outside the universe, for instance in the ‘everything is a simulation’ postulation, or in most religious origin stories, seems very unlikely.

However the Big Bang Theory has some serious holes, and seems likely to be proven incorrect over time.  It maybe that many cosmologists have followed the basic maths to what appears to be its logical end without stepping back and asking ‘does this make any sense at all?’ In order to do this they have also papered over a number of very significant cracks.

Fully appreciating Neil deGrasse Tyson‘s adage that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us, and that we may just not be smart enough to get it, it seems it should obey some fundamental principles.

Something from Nothing

The idea that subatomic particles continuously pop in and out of existence randomly in a pre-universe empty void is certainly strange (and goes against the principle that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed), but nonetheless does not seem outrageous in a place where the rules of our universe had yet to come into being. 

What is a startling claim is that enough matter to create the entire universe all came into being at the exact same time in a single point in (pre-universe) space. On top of that, if the idea that matter and anti-matter were created at the same time, which mostly destroyed itself, and only a tiny variance in percentage between the two was what made the universe we see, is true, then the amount of stuff created at that time would be orders of magnitude bigger than the already vast universe we inhabit today.

The extrapolation that because the universe appears to be expanding now, then it must have been smaller before, and therefore must have a begun in a singularity seems simplistic and lacking in imagination.

Cracks, meet paper

Cosmic Inflation: The idea that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light is used to explain the observed patterns of universal radiation.  The reasoning that E=mc2 does not apply when universes begin appears to be that it would explain what we see within the overall theory, rather than suggesting that the theory itself is suspect.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are concepts conjured up to explain the apparent increasing rate of the expansion of the universe and the spin rates of galaxies that would otherwise fly apart. For many these seem to be real things that make up some 95% of the matter/energy of the universe. These things therefore just need to be found. More realistically they should be treated as placeholders from which improved theories can be built. Researching them as potential real is surely worthwhile – it may turnout to be true, or it may lead to new discoveries that get nearer the truth. But surely it seems much more likely that there is a fundamental flaw in the theories which require such shenanigans, or a fundamental flaw in the way that the expansion of the universe and spin rates of galaxies are measured – maybe the doppler effect gets weird at universal scales? Is there something ‘basic’ that is taken for granted as being true, which is actually not?

The increasing rate of expansion of the universe itself is really entirely at odds with the idea of a big bang.

The Future of Universal Understanding

Assumptions in this arena are often presented as facts. This is unfortunate, and blocks the way for new and interesting research and development of alternatives

1. Cosmic Background Radiation is the faint remnant glow of the Big Bang. This is not a fact, this is an assumption. The fact is that there is Cosmic Background Radiation, and it is being interpreted as the faint remnant glow of the Big Bang.
2. The universe will end in Big Crunch or a Cold Death. This ‘fact’ is built on the assumption that once the course of the universe is set, then it will never change.

There are lots of theories of multiple universes being put forward. Maybe external pressures of jostling universes cause periods of expansion and contraction of our universe, or maybe universes expand and contact naturally like an organism breathing or tides on a beach being impacted by an external force.

One day, hopefully, the next Einstein will be able to make a leap of thinking that will help explain everything, but it seems clear that trying to expand on current ideas is not going to find the answer.

MT