Posts Tagged ‘singularity’

Time to re-think the Big Bang Theory. Why require a singularity?

October 6, 2011

Tonight’s Horizon program gave potted version of Cosmology leading up to the newest clever idea of black flow. When it got to the point of invoking aspects of the Multiverse Theory, I switched off.

The Multiverse and its attendant infinite numbers of realities just seems so circular in its logic. When a theory rebuts all argument by invoking the infinity, you might as well go to Creationism and invoke God.

I haven’t studied cosmological theories in any depth and I’ve no concept of the meaning of the Math, used, but the idiot’s version (i.e. the version meant for me) was full of holes.

I’m OK with the idea of tracking back in time, with the Universe contracting ever smaller but why does it have stop contracting at a singularity?

The notion of a singularity creates, for Cosmologists the first big problem. For some unexplained reason, it is considered impossible for the observed Universe to be so uniform, if it expanded from a singularity.  (The phrase Big Bang gives a misleading view of what happened, relying, as it does,  on our  observations of how fireworks detonate).

To explain this uniformity, the theory of inflation is invoked. I’d liked to have seen how the supporting observations would have been different if we hadn’t invoked a stutter in the universe’s expansion.

Next, we were told that,  alas!, Galaxies didn’t behave properly. A comparison was drawn with the Solar System, where the further out the planet, the greater its linear velocity. Apparently the outer stars should be moving at speeds that would cause them to disintegrate. Why? Not why would they disintegrate but why they have to travel at high speeds.

A bad analogy would be that the Solar System is like 33 rpm LP with the planets as heavy weights on it. Here friction is sufficient to prevent them flying off.

The Galaxy would be a 78 rpm shellac single loaded with sand sized marbles. I.e. a radial restraining force but minimal circumferential forces.

Why do we have to invoke Dark Matter? Not on!  That’s matter that doesn’t really exist but we have to pretend it exists to accept the Solar System model.

Can’t even give a valid suggestion for what the dark matter could actually be made of, so invent Super-Symmetry and 16 new particles that are still just as imaginary.

The moral should be “when you’re in a hole, stop digging”.

Unfortunately! They keep digging and they notice that despite all this alleged Dark Matter the expansion of the Universe is not slowing down. Worse it’s actually accelerating. If matter increases speed then it has more Kinetic Energy and where’s this coming from. We don’t know and can’t explain the source of this energy. Hey! Let’s call it Dark Energy. The Philosophy of the Age seems to be put a label on it and you’ve answered the question.  This is no better than the Fiat Lux answer.

Now someone has suggested that the reason, why we can’t see where this dark energy has come from, is because it is being created by the action of forces from outside the Universe.

The Multiverse has been invoked.

This is not Science, it is Religion.

Let’s go back and stomp on the singularity idea. If we can accept infinities, then why not infinitesmals? Why can’t the Universe have always existed?

If it has always existed then we don’t need inflation.

We can’t solve the three body problem, so why insist that objects on the outer edges of the Galaxy are disobeying the Laws of Physics. Check the mathematical models and maybe get rid of the need for Dark Matter and Super-Symmetry.

If this is done we don’t need to invoke Black Energy or Black Flow and The Multiverse.

The accelerating expansion of the Universe is just an observation, which can be accepted as part of the original “Big Bang”. We don’t really know what Energy is, so what’s the problem with it increasing? For most of us it’s simply an aspect of the application of Forces and all our physics concepts are merely models that we use to explain cause and effect within this minute section of the Universe’s life.

We date the Universe as 14 billion years from the Big Bang but that is based on a  supposition. Actually on two suppositions:  Firstly, that there was a Big Bang and, secondly, that a year has always been a year long. It’d be like an inverse of Zeno’s paradox where the time intervals are getting longer but distance intervals remain constant.

If The Universe has always existed then time itself could be speeding up

My Math isn’t good enough to follow this through but if time units are getting shorter then, that, would affect how we perceive velocity, acceleration, Force and Energy.

 It could, perhaps, explain why the Universe’s expansion seems to be accelerating.

Ok!  this is the idiot’s version but I find it more believable than the Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow theories, which basically boil down to “we haven’t got a clue!”