Human beings are an interesting bunch. They see a problem, try to solve it and then proceed to replicate that problem. In the Western world, emerging scientists saw the Catholic Church as an obstacle on their path, a negative force forcing them not to use their minds to understand phenomena but instead abide by the mostly irrational theology of the church. The church punished those who disagreed with its teachings, such as burn Bruno Giordano on the stakes and imprisoning Galileo (and would have killed him if he had not recanted his perception that the sun is the center of our solar system). The church wanted folks to believe that the earth is the center of the universe for that fits its narrative that God created man special and placed him in a special place, planet earth.
The emerging scientists struggled with the church and by the nineteenth century pretty much won the fight. Today, people see science as the better explanation of phenomena and whatever the church says about reality is seen as quaint rubbish meant for weak minds. Scientists have won the day and their methodological approach to understanding phenomena rules the Western world and increasingly the entire world.
Scientific methodology (Popper, 1934, 1963) is not what it explains but an approach to how to explain what it explains. What science says about anything is not the truth about that thing; what science means is that it follows a certain method in saying anything about things.
Science accepts conclusions based on observation, what we can see with our eyes, empiricism, experiment on, prove to be there, and hopefully do so in laboratories. If we cannot prove any hypothesis science does not accept it as a working truth until it is disproved.
Karl Popper (1959) added the notion that a scientific idea must be falsifiable, refutable or else it is not scientific. For example, if you say that there is God there is no way to prove or not prove it so it is not a scientific idea. But if you say that an atom is composed of elections and a nucleus that has protons and neutrons we can prove or refute that idea (by splitting the atom).
Apparently, many scientists have forgotten that science is not what it says about something but the manner it reaches its conclusion. Thus, these days some confused so-called scientists now embark on telling the people that what they said about the origin of the universe is the truth.
If you dare question what they said they tell you that your questions are not scientific and should not even be asked. Indeed, they ask you how you dare question their conclusions about the origin of the universe. As it were, they now see themselves as god and see the rest of humanity as nobodies who dare not question their views on reality.
This situation is truly amazing seeing that cosmology and astrophysics actually has not answered many questions about the origin of the universe, certainly not conclusively and to most people’s satisfaction (Greene, 2000; 2005).
Consider this question: where did the universe come from? Standard answer: the Big Bang (Farrell, 2005). Where did the big bang come from? Out of nowhere a particle, the size of a pin’s head emerged, got hot and exploded. Where did it emerge from? What made it hot? What existed from which the particle came into being?
We are told that something came from nowhere, exploded and is expanding. Where is the universe expanding to? Is there a preexisting vacuum it is expanding to?
The proponents of this hypothesis tell us that nothing exists outside the space and time invented by the big bang; the universe is creating where it is expanding to! They use the balloon analogy to explain how clustered dots on a deflated balloon separate from each other when the balloon is inflated with air. If you inflate a balloon it expands. They think that this childish attempt at explanation makes sense. The balloon expands to a preexisting space. If the balloon is hemmed in by walls it cannot expand. The balloon expands into an already existing vacuum (Barrow, 1994).
Is there a wall that the universe is pushing back? What lays beyond the wall it is pushing back?
Is the universe expanding into nothing? What exactly is nothing? Nothingness means no particular thing. No particular thing means everything. So, is the universe expanding to nothing hence to everything? What does that mean?
If the universe is expanding and the law of gravity tells us that there is a force that pulls things back to it, why did gravity not pull the exploded singularity, the particles that emerged from the Big bang to singularity? This is a problem.
To solve the problem Alan Guth (1998) posited a hypotheses called inflation; it says that the early universe expanded at a velocity greater than what Einstein told us is the limit of speed, the speed of light (186, 000 miles per second). Has Alan Guth shown an instance where something actually travelled more than the speed of light?
Did Alan Guth solve the why did the early universe not collapse back to itself question? He did not; he merely presented an interesting hypothesis to seem to solve a problem folks perceived with the big bang hypothesis.
Physics teaches that the Big Bang (Drees, 1990) should have produced the same amount of matter and anti-matter (quarks and anti-quarks, protons and anti-protons, neutrons and anti-neutrons, electrons and anti-electrons/positrons). The equal amount of matter and anti-matter would have clashed and destroyed each other and the universe would revert to pure radiation. Why didn’t this happen?
Someone came up with the idea that for every one billion particles of anti-matter invented a billion and one particle of matter was invented, so that when both clashed and destroyed themselves some matter remained to continue the evolution of the universe into matter based universe.
Is this a satisfactory answer or mere conjecture meant to fudge perceived shortcoming in the Big bang hypothesis?
In Genesis of the Christian Bible we are told that there is God (a preexisting force) and that he conjured the universe out of nothing. This story, at least, accepts that something existed before the universe came into being. We can then ask what existed before God.
Saint Augustine (1974) told us (City of God, Confessions) that God created the universe out of nothing, what is nothing?
Apparently, what scientists did was extrapolating from the Christian hypothesis on the origin of the universe (as from nothing) and gave it scientific fine tuning!
Interestingly, it was a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaitre (Lemaitre, 1931) who first floated the idea of the universe beginning in a cosmic egg; he built on Alexander Friedmann’s notion that the universe is expanding as predicted by Einstein’s General relativity Theory (Mather, 1996) and Edwin Hubble’s apparent discovery (redshift) that the universe is, in fact, expanding. Lemaitre reasons that if the universe is expanding it must have begun in one spot. George Gamow (1948) expanded on the notion that the universe began in one spot.
The idea of origin in one spot is not the only possible inference one can draw from an expanding universe, Fred Hoyle’s steady state hypothesis (Hoyle, 1946) posits an already existing universe with a propensity for expansion.
Those who hold unto the Big Bang hypothesis believe that they have made their case by the accidental discovery by Robert Wilson and Arnold Penzias (Feynman, 1995) of what they called cosmic microwave background radiation. The idea is that after the Big Bang particles came into being. The particles formed quarks which formed protons and neutrons; electrons formed directly from photons.
Protons and neutrons formed nuclei of atoms. The early universe was plasma, dense nuclei, electrons and photons.
400,000 years later nuclei captured electrons to form hydrogen and helium atoms. This led to light escaping from the earlier dense plasma. That light that escaped when atoms were formed is supposed to be the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation that Wilson and Penzias discovered in 1965. This is supposed to be demonstrative proof that the universe began 13. 7 billion years ago in a big bang.
The Cosmic microwave background radiation that, apparently, is everywhere in space, could be the afterglow of expanding galaxies, or exploded stars or the result of other causes (Fixsen, 2009).
Aristotle talked about the chain of causation and as he went on and on talking about things causing things at some point ended the chain of causation and told us that there is an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. Obviously, this is a silly way of ending an argument; he should have said that if we continue the chain of causation we run into infinite chain of causation. What is wrong with infinite chain of causation, why arbitrarily end causation?
The question of origin of the universe has not been satisfactorily answered and must be answered or scientists must shut up and stop shouting people down with their fairy tales about the origin of the universe. What existed before the Big Bang (Kennedy, 2007)?
The question of how the universe would end also has not been satisfactorily answered. At present we are told that the universe is expanding and at some point the galaxies would be so far separated from each other that individual stars lose heat and die. Eventually, we are told that all the stars and planets would die from heat loss (Big Chill). The universe would become an empty cold place.
(In the past there was an alternative explanation called the Big Crunch; it envisaged the expanding universe stopping its expansion and collapsing back to itself. Perhaps, upon crushing all matter into a singularity another universe would emerge. This is the Rebound hypothesis; it posits eternal recurrent expansion and collapse and emergence of new universe from the same material (Than, 2006).
According to the Big Chill scenario, the dead universe would have empty space, a void. Why should space invented by the big bang survive it? If the big bang created space, time and matter it would stand to reason that space would end with the end of matter.
What exactly would make an empty universe continue to expand? If you remove matter and energy from the universe would it continue expanding? What force would push it to expand and expand to where? It does not make sense!
And why would the universe become cold? The idea of cold presupposes hot; without the one the other cannot be conceptualized and cannot exist. If there is no hot there is no cold, just as if there is no darkness there is no light (although darkness might be hidden light).
Astrophysics has really not said anything convincing about the origin and future of the universe. What it calls its standard version of how the universe came into being is a mythology, a story of creation not science. It merely borrowed from the discoveries physicists and chemists made on the composition of the atom (beginning with J.J Thompson’s (1901) discovery of the electron in 1897, Ernest Rutherford’s discovery of the proton in 1911 and James Chadwick’s (Chadwick, 1935) discovery of the neutron in 1932) and used those and other aspects of quantum mechanics to seem to have explained the origin of the universe.
Its conjecture goes like this. If the atom is composed of electrons, protons and neutrons, and protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, which are composed of photons, you conjecture on how those came into being and the result is saying that they began in a big bang and wham you have a seeming rational theory of the origin of the universe.
I am interested in the origin of the universe, the origin of humanity and the origin of the self-called me; I must have satisfactory answers to my questions on how things originated and not accept the voodoo science propagated by astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists. I don’t intend to be deceived by the quacks and false prophets of science.
Before we proceed let me provide a somewhat systemized summary of how the origin of the universe is conceptualized by contemporary Western cosmology. This is literature review of sorts and may be boring to you if you already understand the subject; bear with me for it is necessary that I summarize the sequence of events that supposedly brought our universe into being. I am criticizing these events and it is necessary for us to understand what I am criticizing.
THE BIG BANG HYPOTHESIS
In 1896 Becquerel and later Pierre and Maria Curie showed how nuclei decay into other forms of atoms, releasing the various forms of radiation, Alpha, Beta and Gama (Becquerel, 1995, Curie, 1934).
In 1905 Albert Einstein posited his special theory of relativity. In 1916 he expanded that theory to General Theory of Relativity (I will not attempt to explain what it is here for that is another paper). In 1919 Eddington and his team observing an eclipse in West Africa appeared to have verified Einstein’s theory that space and time are one continuum and are curved, bent by gravitation (Eddington, 1931).
In 1922 the Russian mathematician, Alexander Friedmann playing with the equations of General Relativity said that it predicts that the universe must be expanding. This is mere mathematical inference. It needed observational proof to be taken seriously.
The American attorney turned astronomer, Edwin Hubble in the late 1920s said that using his telescopes he has verified that the galaxies are moving away from each other and by implication that the universe is expanding.
If the universe is expanding it follows that at one point it must have been in one place. Thus, the Belgium priest mathematician, Georges Lemaitre hypothesized that the universe must have begun in one spot; a cosmic egg shattered and produced an expanding universe.
In the 1940s the Russian mathematician- physicist George Gamow building on what was then known about light spectral (if you take light from a star and shine it through a spectrometer the light splits into different colors, each color indicating an element, thus we can infer the elements in a star by doing so) argued that all elements can be regressed to one element, hydrogen.
You can reduce all the elements in the universe to hydrogen. Therefore, all 92 elements on chemistry’s periodic table must have emanated from hydrogen. In effect, all things emanate from hydrogen; hydrogen came from protons and electrons which came from quarks which came from photons and which came from the initial big bang explosion.
Fred Hoyle’s (1948) study of nucleosynthesis inside the core of stars showed how hydrogen atoms fuse into helium and release heat and light (which work their way from the core of stars to the surface and escape as the light we associate with stars). We now know quite a bit about nucleosynthesis; we know how hydrogen is fused into helium and how over time stars fuse helium to other elements, such as carbon and later to oxygen. Old stars exhaust their hydrogen supply and begin fusing helium into other elements. When the fusion process reaches iron the star begins its death and dying process. It expands and becomes hot (red giant) and eventually explodes in supernova.