The Nothing Universe
By Dennis James Huff
Introduction
In this paper, I will discuss and provide logical evidence for a new theory of how the universe began. One that is supported by all of the evidence in support of the Big Bang Theory. This theory is called, "Nothing Universe" theory. During my years of education, I learned the three most popular theories of the day. The most popular of which was, and still is, the Big Bang Theory. The only credit I can bring myself to give the Big Bang Theory is that it is a possibility. I do not make that statement lightly, I have pondered and followed the Big Bang theory for many years. What keeps the Big Bang Theory alive is the scientific evidence that points to it as the most plausible explanation. The question that needs to be considered is, "Is it logically plausible, or plausible for lack of a better theory?" Just as forensic evidence can sometimes point to the wrong suspect, so to can scientific evidence. Just as I am sure there are more than a few innocent men and women in prison, I am also sure that there is a theory or two that remain popular today, simply based upon good research attributed to the wrong conclusions. The one sticking point for me with the Big Bang Theory is the "Before Period". What existed before the singularity exploded? If it were not for that sticking point, I would have had an easier time accepting the Big Bang Theory; and the "Nothing Universe" theory would not exist. The Oscillating Universe theory is nice, but it has the same problem; assuming there ever actually was a beginning. If the universe has always existed then it is a plausible theory. However; I find it difficult to believe, because something would have had to set this never ending loop in motion. This is not necessarily a true statement. I have a hard time conceiving of how the universe could expand and contract continuously without having been set in motion at some point in the past. This notion points to a beginning at some point in the past. The same holds true for the Steady State Universe theory. The notion that the universe has always existed and will always exist the way it has for all eternity is also a difficult thing to conceive. The big problem with this theory is that we know the universe is not unchanging. It is expanding and continuously changing on a daily basis. Some have suggested that although it is expanding the overall picture remains the same. I disagree, stars are born and die, objects collide, are sucked into black holes, etc. We live in a very active and continuously changing universe. I will provide an in depth overview of all three currently accepted theories followed by "Nothing Universe" theory. I will also provide a brief discussion of God, simply because I believe that the subject cannot be discounted...irregardless of how unlikely the existence of one may be. I know that God is a subject that many people may not want to touch upon. I believe that when considering the beginning of all things the subject must, at the very least, be briefly covered.
What I am about to propose in this paper is an idea that I have considered for many years. It is a theory that I believe in, and has helped me come to a better understanding of our universe. I have spent roughly 15 years considering, and developing this theory. It goes beyond the sticking point of, "the Before Period". The time before the singularity or the existence of a God. In my opinion there are only two current theories that make sense. There is the "Nothing Universe" theory, and there is the theory of God. The God concept does still suffer from the "Before" problem, but that could just be by design. No matter how hard I rack my brain I just cannot come to any other conclusions. Either the Nothing theory is correct, the correct theory has not been written, or God is responsible for everything. I will also explain this point further. I will do this by outlining a plausible argument for the existence of a god, and why it is so difficult for science to ever destroy the notion of a God. I do not believe fully in a God myself, but the nature of a God makes it virtually impossible to discount its existence entirely. These were the choices I gave myself, and for now I am going to stick with my conclusions. My goal now is to share my theory with the world, and try to provide a full and in depth understanding of this new theory. I believe that this theory neatly ties together all of the lose ends of existence. With a clear understanding of our beginnings, we will be able to gain full insight into the inner workings of our reality. I would also like to say, "Pride of Authorship". Keep this in mind as you read this paper. New ideas are not readily or easily accepted due to many factors. Pride of Authorship simply put is; outright refusal to believe in a new idea or topic if it threatens an individuals current body of work or belief structure. Denial of a new idea based upon human emotions is not a good way to approach any topic. I simply would like my ideas to be considered, as I have considered other's ideas and works. I would also like to add that the earth was once flat, ether was responsible for fire, and plate tectonics was an absurd concept. "Nothing Universe" theory may also appear to be an absurd concept, however; I am not seeking belief. I am only seeking consideration.
The Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre. He formulated his theory based upon observations of the structure of the universe and from the theoretical considerations at the time. Doppler shift was one of those observations, first measured in 1912 by Visto Slipher. He observed that galaxies appeared to be moving away from the earth. The result was "Doppler shift". As the objects move away from us, varying wavelengths become elongated and reach us as red light. It is how we know our universe is expanding. Lemaitre considered "Doppler Shift" and in 1931 concluded that if the universe is expanding today then it would be logical to assume that the universe was once very small. You could reverse the expansion until you reached a "primeval atom". This atom has come to be known as the singularity. As we approach this time in the past the current laws of physics cease to exist the farther back we go. If we were to get as close as possible to this singularity then our laws of physics hold true. When we reach that moment, we reach a point where nothing but the singularity exists. From this point onward the traditional laws of physics do not apply. I believe this point is termed as the "Planck Epoch". Once the singularity is reached the consensus is that we would perceive an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of pure energy. No one can necessarily explain what existed beyond the boundaries of this singularity. Many believe that nothing existed, but the singularity. We also cannot go anywhere beyond the point of its existence. We do not know where the singularity came from, and we do not know if anything existed before it. The popular view is:
that there was nothing before the singularity
the singularity came into existence
the singularity then expanded instantaneously
This is a very important point to consider. Many assume from the title of the theory that the universe began in an explosion. That may have been the belief in the past, but not today. Many tend to view the "Big Bang" as a sudden expansion of the singularity and not an explosion. Imagine a perfect circle on a piece of paper with an 8 inch diameter. Now imagine that this circle expanded outward in an instant to a diameter of 80 inches. This would represent how the universe began. The singularity expanded to create our current universe. Since we know that the universe is still expanding today; one could assume that the big bang is still taking place today. It could also be that the expansion of space has stopped, but the momentum of material has not. We could also assume that it is slowing down, but recent observations appear to show that the expansion is speeding up, and not slowing down.
The two biggest discoveries that have given strength to this theory is that the universe is expanding, and that background radiation exists all around us. This background radiation (cosmic background radiation) is thought to be evidence of a great explosion/expansion, lending support to the Big Bang theory. Other supporting evidence has been discovered, such as;
the abundance of simple elements in the universe, namely hydrogen and helium.
the evolution and distribution of matter in our universe
That is not much of a list, but these two ideas and the two mentioned previously seem to be the major supporting topics for the Big Bang theory. Much more work has been done where the conclusions fit into the framework of a big bang universe. This work does not directly prove the big bang, it simply is proven to be so, and also happens to not contradict the big bang. For example, I want to find out how an object appears on a kitchen table. In this instance the object is a glass. Assuming a glass will appear again at some point in the future, I wait around. Eventually, I observe that a person enters the room and places a glass on the table. Now I know how the glass came to be on the table. Now, lets assume there is also a popular theory that we live on a planet. The discovery of how the glass came to be where it was has nothing to do with the theory that we live on a planet. Since the appearance of the glass happened on this planet, it fits nicely with that theory of a planet, but we set out to prove how a glass came to be at that location. We proved that hypothesis without threatening our planet theory. This is an over simplified explanation for a not so simple topic.
Let us consider the evidence for the big bang theory. We know that a bulk of our universe is composed of simple matter such as hydrogen and helium. The majority of our periodic table of elements is composed of elements that make up a very small percentage of our universe. This is because more complex elements must be formed within a high energy environment, in this case a star. The evolution of elements in our universe would look like this;
Protons and electrons came together to form hydrogen
Hydrogen gathered into large clouds of hydrogen
eventually this hydrogen compressed until stars are formed
in these stars hydrogen is fused to form helium
the high temperatures in stars provide a place for more complex elements to be formed
a star dies, explodes, elements are scattered and new stars are born from this cloud
now we have elements to form not only gas giants, but rocky planets as well
This is a simplistic view, but paints a clear picture of how matter evolved from the beginning to today. The universe is estimated to be around 15 billion years old, which is plenty of time for elements to evolve. Especially when you consider that it only took life 3 billion years to get us here. That is only a fifth of our universes existence. The other 4 fifths was used in the creation of stars, death, and evolution of elements to bring us to a point where the elements could begin a new evolution. The evolution of life on Earth and perhaps other planets.
Cosmic Background radiation has been witnessed by all of us who have ever listened to an off air radio station, or watched an off air television station. The hissing sound that you hear on the radio is caused by background radiation, and likewise with the fuzz on your off air television screen. It was actually discovered as noise that could not be eliminated during an experiment. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were working for Bell labs in 1964 when they made the discovery. They were using a super sensitive Horn Antenna to detect radio waves that were bouncing of off echo balloon satellites. They had to eliminate all interference, and were successful for the most part. They could not seem to eliminate a low level hissing sound, no matter how hard they tried. This low level hissing sound turned out to be Cosmic background radiation left over from the birth of our universe. This has been hailed as the fingerprint of the Big Bang theory. It points to a massive event that created our universe. An event that released unbelievable amounts of energy. Although that may be true, and we do know of its existence; it is possible that another event could account for background radiation.
A great deal of research has been done on the subject of the big bang. As with any theory there are some wrinkles that need to be ironed out. All theories have wrinkles and sticking points, some more than others. The Big Bang has remained strong, because it has fewer wrinkles than other proposed theories and hypothesis. This fact coupled with the evidence that has been attributed to it, it will remain the leading theory for some time to come. It is not the first, and will not be the last theory that is held to be true. Even though it may be wrong.
Oscillating Universe Theory
Perhaps the second most believed theory for the beginning of our universe. It was conceived by Alexander Friedman in 1922, and remains fairly intact today. The major sticking point with this theory is the assumption that we live in a closed universe. Presently, most scientist believe that we do not live in a closed universe. I say most, because "I knew a science teacher once who believed that if you had a strong enough telescope you would be able to see the back of your own head!" The easiest way to view this theory is to think of the Big Bang occurring over and over again, each time ending in a big crunch, followed by a big bang. At some point in the past the singularity expanded leading to the creation of the universe. Eventually, the universe began to slow and then contract. Ultimately this universe would end in a big crunch, and then would eventually expand again; leading to a new universe that would end in a big crunch, and so on and so forth. The major reason why this theory was not as accepted as the Big Bang theory is, that many do not see a difference between this theory and the big bang. Why consider the possibility that we are many universes along in the cycle? When we can simply look at this universe, and its beginning and possible end. The conclusion being, that we do not need to focus on a repeating pattern. We may be in the first universe or the 100th in the cycle, it does not matter. What we are interested in is how this universe began, how old it is, and how it will end. This cycle matters to us because we live in it. So, as tempting as it is to consider that this universe is only one in a long line of universes; we have to stay focused on this universe. For this reason, many have chosen to only consider the Big Bang theory. In reality the Big Bang theory would be a subset of the Oscillating Universe Theory.
Steady State Theory
This theory takes a view of the universe as; always having existed, and will always exist. The universe exists today as it did millions, billions, trillions of years ago. There is no beginning, and there is no end. Developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, it was proposed as an alternative to the Big Bang theory. It proposes that new matter is continuously created as the universe expands. This dealt with the notion that our universe was expanding and so new matter would be needed for the universe to remain relatively the same. This theory could not escape observational fact. The universe was changing, was expanding, and there was nothing "steady state" about it.
It was an interesting concept that had its supporters. It still suffers from the same questions that all theories of its kind do. Was there a beginning? Even if the universe has always existed, where did everything come from? How can something have always been when we know that our universe is dominated by beginnings and endings? Conceptually it tried to deal with these questions. We wouldn't have to consider a "before time" if there was no such time. The same can be said for the end. You cannot have one if the universe will never end. Strangely, "We can conceive of an infinity after a beginning, but not an infinity with no beginning that also has an end." Does this arise from our linear habit of thinking?
This concludes the three big theories for the beginning of our universe. The Big Bang is the clear fore runner with the other two only having a minority of supporters left. There are many other lesser known theories out their that can be found with a little research by any interested persons.
The Nothing Universe
This theory is not a well known or accepted theory, because it is a new theory. I call it a theory rather than a hypothesis, because the evidence that exists for the Big Bang theory also supports this theory. That is to say that; "My theory accounts for much of what the big bang theory does, as well as some of what the big bang theory does not account for." If I am articulate enough, I will be able to convey the strengths of this theory, and why it should be considered (at the very least) as a running mate with the Big Bang theory. Perhaps the day will come when the "Nothing Universe" theory will stand alone, but I know how difficult it is to dethrone currently accepted and popularly held beliefs.
We are all familiar with our human concept of nothing. When a bottle is empty, we say; "Nothing is in the bottle". We know that this is not actually the case. What we are referring to is the fact that what we thought should be in the bottle is no longer there. In order for nothing to truly be in the bottle, the bottle itself would have to contain a vacuum. A vacuum is the complete absence of matter. The only thing that can exist in a vacuum is energy. A vacuum is the true concept of nothing, but it is not the true form of nothing. "What I propose is that our concept of nothing and the true state of nothing are two different things." The true state of nothing is neutrality. A balance between charges in a perfectly arranged atom. This perfect atom I have named the Nothing Atom. (see fig. 1)
Keep in mind that the above figure may not be the exact structure of the nothing atom. It is merely a representation of how the nothing atom could have, or may have existed. The key point to take from this figure is; that the nothing atom was composed of both matter and antimatter. Each was kept from destroying the other by neutrons with the electrons and positrons occupying different orbital lobes. The arrangement of this atom may have been far more complex than this model that I have proposed. I will explain this atom in further detail in a moment. It may also be that these particles did not exist in an atom. Nothing Universe may have been composed of a sea of particles locked together in a way not to destroy one another. Antimatter and matter being separated by neutrons. I take the view point that the Nothing Atom did exist, and will do so in this theory. It is also important to note that this atom is the very existence, structure, and substance of nothing. There was no beginning, because this atom was the actual state of the universe, before the creation of the universe that we know today. When I say that Nothing existed, what I really mean is that nothing but the perfect atom existed. The nothing atom that permeated all of space. In a sense, the universe we live in today represents the very definition of something (existence), while the pre-universe (Nothing Universe) represented the very definition of nothing. Picture these atoms in an arrangement that allowed for as little free space as possible between them, and occupying all of the pre-universe in all directions. Contrary to the Big Bang theory and the singularity, no free energy existed in this Nothing Universe. All energy was contained within this sea of nothing atoms. So, rather than a singularity expanding out into space, we instead have our universe expanding within a pre-universe. A perfect nothing universe. Our universe contains free energy and a ton of space and is bounded by a universe with no free energy and no free space.
The nothing atom that exists beyond our universe is composed of both matter and anti matter particles joined together and separated by neutrons. The nothing atom is composed of the proton, the neutron, the electron, as well as their anti matter counterparts. They are all locked together and kept from destroying each other by neutrons. I do not know the exact arrangement of these particles in this perfect atom, but that is irrelevant. All that is important is the concept that they are all locked together in this one perfect Nothing Atom. The electron and the positron do not annihilate each other, because they occupy different orbital lobes. Again, I do not fully understand the exact arrangement of this atom; only that it existed. Whatever the perfect arrangement is, this perfectly neutral Nothing Atom is the only thing that existed in the pre-universe and composed infinity entirely. There was no motion and therefore no time, but we can use the concept of infinity to give us an idea of the state of the universe up until the point of the event.
So now we have the perfect nothing universe composed entirely of the neutral and perfect Nothing Atom. All energy is locked up tight in the form of particles making up this nothing universe. Trillions. upon trillions, upon trillions, upon trillions, of these atoms. An infinite sea of atoms in which one can fall apart. One of these atoms in a sea of infinity destabilized and led to the "Event" and the creation of our universe. Something had to happen in just one of these perfect Nothing Atoms to cause it to destabilize. Something had to create a destabilization of one of the particles within the atom to lead to an irreversible chain reaction that would lead to the birth of the known universe. I refer to this as the EVENT. This smoking gun could very well be one of the same forces responsible for radioactive decay. I am referring to one of the Quantum forces that dictate how particles behave on a sub atomic level. These are the Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and the Electrostatic Force. A slight shift in one of these forces could have led to the destabilization of one of these perfect Nothing Atoms. The consequence of this was a chain reaction that would create our universe and continue on forever.
The Event
The event represents the exact moment when the chaos began. I have come up with a theory to explain this based upon the concept of probability. Statistically speaking, one would have to assume that when you are dealing with infinity; the probability of 1 event occurring is 1 in infinity. That is to say that if an event can occur, however improbable; a chance still exists for its occurrence when infinity is taken into consideration. I will now quote one of my former geology professors, Dr. Eastler, because I believe this quote sums up my concept of the event nicely. He said, "It didn't have to happen, but it had to happen." Simply put, it happened because everything exists, and if it didn't happen than we wouldn't be around to know the difference. Since we are here, it is safe to assume that something did happen and the "Event" may have been one of those such things. This Event may have been caused by a shift in one of the Quantum Forces. Once this one neutral Nothing atom destabilized, it set into motion a chain reaction that would lead to the greatest single explosion that will ever occur in the history of reality. During this Event more energy was released than all of the energy currently contained within all of the matter in our universe. Some call it "the Big Bang", I call it; "The Event". (see fig.2)
This is not a singularity exploding into existence, this is an atom setting off a chain reaction in a sea of perfect atoms. It is not only an expansion of space, it is an explosion of space. This reaction is instantaneous and is, I believe; the only event currently occurring in our universe at a speed greater than that of the speed of light. There are a few possibilities to consider for this. The nothing atoms are arranged so closely together that once the chain reaction begins it is instantaneous. This is why we do not see the light emanating from this expansion of our universe. I propose that if we could travel fast enough and far enough out into space we would eventually come to a wall of energy moving away from us. I would call this the "Event Horizon" but that name is already taken so I will refer to it as the "Creation Wave". This wall of energy is the boundary between our universe and the nothing universe. On the other side of this wall of energy is the universe as it existed before the event. An endless sea of perfect nothing atoms awaiting their turn to be annihilated by the impending "Creation Wave". This means that our universe is being born as we speak, and will continue to be born for eternity. This may also explain observations that our universe is not slowing down, but accelerating as it expands outward. The creation wave is essentially pulling the matter behind it outward due to the ongoing expansion, and or the immense gravity of the nothing universe on the other side of the creation wave. Another possibility is that the farther out into space we go, the younger our universe is. This means that the center of our universe is the oldest, while the outer edges are the youngest. Since the creation wave passed through that region of space fairly recently, the outer regions appear to still be accelerating. It may be that the closer we get to the creation wave; matter is flying away from us at greater and greater speeds. This creation wave is a never ending wave of destruction moving away from the center of the known universe at mind boggling speed. This expansion also helps to explain why there is so much empty space out there. The universe we know is expanding outward to fill empty space, where empty space had never existed. A universe full of matter and energy in our universe and matter and energy in the anti universe. That is assuming that an anti-matter universe was created along with the matter universe we live in today. I do consider this possibility. It may also be that matter outnumbered anti matter in the nothing atom, leading to massive explosions of matter anti-matter interactions soon after the event. Eventually matter won out, and anti matter was destroyed leaving us with a matter universe.
I have possibilities to offer as to why we are not blinded by and vaporized by the energy being released by this process. One possibility is that the mass of the nothing universe on the other side of the Creation wave is infinitely great. This causes the light from the event to be bent back towards the nothing universe as the Creation wave moves forward. The second possibility is that the Creation wave is so far away from us now that the light emitted from this event cannot reach our region of space any longer. The only evidence left behind is in the form of Cosmic Background radiation. A third possibility is, that the creation wave is moving so fast; at speeds faster than that of light, that light waves become so elongated that they do not appear in our known spectrum. These incredibly long waves can be found far to the left, on the Electromagnetic Spectrum. These are not radio waves, they are super radio waves. The only real evidence for this event can be found in the form of Cosmic Background Radiation. It is the thumb print of this ultimate atomic explosion. That is not to say that if we develop the capability to look far enough out into space that we may not catch a glimpse or some evidence of this light, but I highly doubt it. We may be able to detect the incredibly long radio waves that may be emanating throughout space. This Creation wave has been traveling outwards at a speed greater than that of the speed of light for well over 15 billion years now. It may not be possible to detect the outer boundary of our universe any longer directly. We may still be able to detect it indirectly. Further supporting evidence for Nothing Universe theory can be found in the evolution of atoms throughout the universe. The closer towards the center of our universe we will find more evolved forms of matter. We should find older stars and celestial bodies. There should be more galaxies and galaxy clusters indicating that this region of space has had longer to go through the processes necessary for these formations. The closer we get to the outer, younger regions of the universe, we should find fewer galaxies and galaxy clusters. That is because this region of space is younger and has not had the time necessary to develop as far along as the older, central region of our universe. One would imagine the center of the universe containing great clusters of galaxies, thinning out the farther away from the central point we move until we reach the large expanses of hydrogen clouds that occupy the outer rim. This, younger region of space would contain hydrogen clouds trillions of light years across. Within these large clouds exists nurseries where young stars are forming and coming to life.
Another event occurred at the exact moment that the Creation wave began its long journey outward and forever. At the exact moment the chain reaction began not just one, but two universes may have been created. This is assuming similar amounts of matter/anti-matter and that as soon as the nothing atom separated that its matter anti matter components occupied separate universes. The first universe is the matter universe and the second universe was the anti-matter universe. These two universes exist on two separate planes that I like to refer to as the "Above" and "Below" planes of existence. The "Central Plane" is where the nothing universe existed in one dimension and in perfect harmony. As soon as the Event occurred the majority of anti matter phased into a new dimension, or plane of existence. Similarly all of the matter in our known universe phased into its own plane of existence. I have designated the matter universe as the Above plane, and I have designated the anti-matter universe the Below plane. This is strictly done to provide a view of how these two universes may exist. This may not be, in reality, the true or exact structure. These are two separate universes, one of which is composed of matter, and the other of anti-matter. (see fig. 3)
Another way to possibly picture these two universes as existing simultaneously would be to envision all of the matter arranged the way it is in our matter universe. Then imagine that the anti matter that is arranged in the anti-matter universe occupies the empty pockets of space in our universe. So, if you look out into space now in our universe you will notice that there is a lot of empty space out there. The same is true for the anti matter universe. Matter in one universe occupies the empty space of the other universe and vice versa. We perceive it as empty space, because the other universe exists on a different plane of existence/ a different dimension. This is one other possibility. This model may also help to explain why there is not enough matter to account for gravity. Dark matter has been suggested to attribute for this gravity/visible matter disparity. It may be that even though anti matter exists in another dimension, its gravitational influence may still be felt in our dimension and vice versa.
A link may also exist between these two planes. This link can be found in the form of a black hole. A black holes gravity is so intense that it literally punches a hole into that other dimension. Just as anti matter is spewed out into our matter dimension from a black hole; I believe that matter is spewed forth from the same black hole into anti-matter space. A black hole may represent a bridge between these two dimensions. If you can imagine a matter black hole bridging the gap and creating a wormhole that is linked to its counterpart or anti matter black hole. Perhaps they are one and the same or perhaps they occupy the same space at the same time. These two black holes being linked by a stable wormhole or perhaps black holes are connected to white holes. Perhaps white holes exist in both the matter and anti matter universes as the outlets or the transfer between the two universes. (see fig. 4)
Black holes also share a very common link to the state of the universe in the very beginning and that is its very intense gravitational field. This field exists due to the sheer quantity of matter contained with in a small amount of space. The difference is that there was no free energy in the neutral universe, all energy was locked up in particles contained within the perfect atom. If there were any free space in that neutral universe, no doubt the gravity would be of a strength we have never before witnessed. A super black hole would pale in comparison. Clearly these are possibilities to be considered.
The state of our universe today is that of chaos in an unbalanced universe. The same is true in the anti matter universe, if it exists. The universe that we know today is trying to return to that neutral state. That is why atoms strive for balance. It may also explain why elements seek a lower state of energy. As elements become heavier and heavier, they take on a radioactive nature. Elements such as plutonium and uranium seek a lower energy state by emitting alpha, beta quanta, and gamma rays. An internal or external energy event is all it takes to set radioactive decay into motion. Once it is completed, a lower energy state particle is left behind. The first is referred to as the Parent Nuclide with the lower energy Daughter Nuclide left in its place. Quantum physics governs this process. The three forces that govern the subatomic world are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electrostatic force. One of these forces may have been responsible for the "Event" that was started by the destabilization of one of the perfect Nothing Atoms. The elements that exist today are thanks to this destabilization. Much the same way one of the 3 sub atomic forces are responsible for certain types of radioactive decay. The process would go like this;
One of the 3 quantum forces destabilized 1 nothing atom
energy was released to the surrounding atoms
this energy release led to an infinite and never ending chain reaction
the creation wave continued outward forever
What was left behind were protons, neutrons and electrons in this universe, anti-protons, neutrons, and anti electrons in the anti universe. If an anti universe does not exist than perhaps this region of space is only dominated by matter with other galaxies being composed of anti matter. Our universe would then contain galaxies and galaxy clusters composed of matter, while others are composed of anti-matter. Either way, the evolution of matter would play out the same way. It is reasonable to assume that the laws of physics would remain the same for both a matter or an anti-matter universe. Since anti matter is nothing more than mirror particles with opposite charge. Protons and electrons would come together to form hydrogen. Hydrogen would condense to form stars. Helium and other elements would form in these stars, creating the universe as we see it today. In a sense our elements were the first things that began to evolve in our universe, ultimately leading to the elements necessary for the evolution of life. In this way a clear picture can be drawn with particles forming elements, elements forming planets, and elements combining in a new way and in a new environment to give rise to life. On earth, elements came together to form single celled organisms and from their life evolved.
It takes large amounts of energy to create the higher elements on the periodic table of elements. Elements continuously seek a lower energy state. The lowest energy state for any element is the proton and the electron. Yes, hydrogen. These components were once locked up as part of the nothing atom. Since we know that hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in the universe than it is safe to assume that large amounts of energy were needed to lead to the creation of the higher elements. Why then do we assume that a particle created and then detected in a lab existed in the beginning of the universe? Yes, they exist, but not necessarily independent of the Nothing Atom. The big bang theory supposes that a singularity existed. This singularity was nothing but pure energy and it was soon after the expansion that these exotic particles existed and disappeared as the universe cooled. That is one possible view. Another view may be that, the universe was very cold in the beginning. All free energy was locked up tight, and these exotic particles only existed as the subatomic constituents of the particles that made up the Nothing Atom. If they exist today we may find them emanating from stars or other high energy events taking place in our universe. Somewhere, where sufficient energy is available to create these exotic particles. The possibility remains that the particles we create in a lab does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that they existed during the birth of our universe. We know of their existence because we create and observe them in a lab. We as human beings have created many things that did not exist until we arranged their elements to make them so. Wood has always existed in the form of trees, but it took humans to create a log cabin. We know that subatomic particles exist, but because we detected them in a particle experiment. We know they exist, because we know that protons, electrons, and neutrons have smaller constituent parts. I maintain that every exotic particle we have detected can exist, and may exist, just may not have existed in the beginning of our universe as free sub atomic particles. The subatomic particles that did exist were locked up in the nothing atom in the form of matter and anti matter. The fact that we detect them in a particle accelerator may be due to nothing more than the fact that they can exist independently, and we provide the environment to create them for detection. Subatomic particles in the beginning of our universe were locked up in the perfect Nothing Atom.
Why God can neither be proven or disprove
I myself do not personally believe in God, but I know the possibility will always remain, regardless of how illogical it may seem. If a god is an all knowing and all powerful being than it is reasonable to assume that it could foresee the current debates of today. If faith is as important as it is supposed to be then it would also be reasonable to assume that any God would want to set things up the way they are today to test that faith. A God may set the universe up so that the evidence to the contrary of its existence would be overwhelming. This would require an extreme amount of faith from any believer of that God. Some would call it blind faith, the reality is that faith is what it is. There is no concrete evidence for such a God's existence. Some may point to the bible or other piece of ancient work, but I would like to ask why Greek gods are relegated to mythology when plenty of ancient writings exist of them? Just as the Big Bang theory is the most popular theory while other theories exist, the same can be said for Christianity, and the Islamic religions. They are the most popularly held theories while other theories of religion exist as well.
It does not matter what evidence a scientist points to as evidence against religion. The fact remains that a God may have set the universe up exactly the way it is to test Faith. A God could have created the fossil record, plate tectonics, carbon dating, red shift, and a whole host of other popular scientific evidences against religion. Heck, a god could have created the universe at this very instant and we would never know it. All of our history having been planted as memories upon our creation. It may also very well be that these same scientific discoveries are nothing more the the discovery of how a God designed and set up the Universe. This is the major dilemma that science faces and will never truly be able to overcome. The same type of argument can be made for religion against science. Since there is no solid or concrete evidence for the existence of a God. Scientists can point to the fossil record, carbon dating, etc and we go round and round. This argument between God and science will forever remain as a stalemate. Neither side can entirely prove or disprove the others arguments.
Conclusions
I cannot say that the universe will never return to the neutral state of the nothing universe. The fact remains that 15 billion years may only be a split second after the "Event" on a universal time scale. We may still be witnessing the very early stages of our universes existence. Perhaps one day events will take place in the universe to allow for a pocket of nothing material or neutral matter to form. Perhaps it will grow slowly over time, creating a new neutral universe inside of an ever expanding universe, surrounded by the first neutral universe. Perhaps this wave of balance and chaos has been going on for some time, and the space that we are familiar with exists between one of these waves. This would be Oscillating Universe application of the Nothing Universe theory. The whole of existence is balanced as pockets of nothing matter within our universe which is growing within the first nothing universe. These processes taking place on such a scale that we cannot even begin to comprehend the amount of time we are dealing with. I personally believe that we are living in the first universe and the only one that will exist. Why deal with Oscillation in this case, when we didn't with the Big Bang? The matter and anti matter universes possibly existing on separate planes, exchanging matter and anti matter with one another through various processes such as black holes. I cannot conceive of this universe ever returning to a balanced neutral nothing universe again. My belief is that we live in this infant universe, the first to exist in infinity, and will exist in infinity from this point on.
As I stated before though, you can never rule out possibilities. The possibility that matter in our universe will begin to collapse in on itself may occur at some distant point in the future. If the Creation wave gets far enough away from the center of the universe then perhaps its gravitational influence will drop below that of the influence of near by galaxies and all matter in between. The universe could then begin to collapse in on itself, reform the neutral universe and the the event would occur at some point in an even more distant and mind boggling future. Like I said, I envision our universe as expanding inside of the neutral (Nothing) universe. At the same time the anti matter universe is doing the same thing on its own plane of existence, if it exists. Two universe, one to represent the matter universe that we live in, and the other in the anti matter universe. One would have to assume that the laws of physics would exist in much the same way in both universes. I assume it does based on the fact that anti matter should interact much the same way that matter does in our universe.
This is my working theory of the beginning of the universe. It is not concrete, but represents what may have been the state of the universe before the beginning. As with the Big Bang theory, it can be and may be improved upon as time goes on. I also believe that the same evidence that may serve to prove the Big Bang theory may also serve to prove my hypothesis. The evidence is not wrong, they are scientific methods that have been conducted over and over only to come to the same conclusion. The evidence is entirely correct; I maintain that the conclusion that the evidence is attributed to is wrong. Cosmic Background Radiation would be expected in the Nothing Universe Theory. This large explosion of our universe within the nothing universe would leave this background radiation behind. The fact that the universe is still expanding today also fits within my Nothing Universe model. It also provides a possible explanation for why our universe is accelerating outward and not slowing down. Since the reaction is still occurring in the farthest reaches of space, the center of our universe would be moving slower than the outer reaches of our universe. So, when we look further out the faster things are moving outward. The Nothing Universe also accounts for the distribution of elements in our universe. After the event we were left with large quantities of protons and electrons. These particles came together to form hydrogen. Hydrogen formed stars and gave rise to helium, the second most abundant element in our universe. Finally, the evolution and distribution of matter can also be accounted for by the Nothing Universe theory. Large clouds of hydrogen came together to form stars. Helium and higher elements are formed. All the while these stars a clustered together into galaxies based upon distance and distribution. Given enough time we end up with our current state of the universe. THE BIG BANG THEORY IS ACCEPTED BASED UPON CRITERIA THAT I HAVE OUTLINED AND SHOWN TO ALSO SUPPORT THE NOTHING UNIVERSE THEORY. The only logical conclusion would be that it, at the very least; be allowed to stand on equal ground with the Big Bang Theory.
Possibilities
Throughout this paper I put forth many possibilities as to how events may have played out when the universe was created according to Nothing Universe Theory. I have done so, because it would be irresponsible for me to present only one concrete set of events. Room must be left when considering a theory that deals with the creation of the Universe. In the case of Nothing Theory I had to first consider the overall sequence of events, and then try to convey how those events played out. Along with this, I had to also consider all of the many possibilities that may have taken place during each critical step in the theory. I believe that I have done so while still conveying the overall theme of the theory. That being said the following is the outline, as I see it, for the Nothing Universe Theory. Possibilities not included.
The Nothing Universe exists composed entirely of Nothing Atoms. No free energy exists in this Nothing Universe, and free space is limited to the micro spaces between the arrangement of this sea of atoms.
One of the three sub atomic forces (Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Electrostatic) shifted and destabilized one Nothing Atom. This destabilization caused the Event and led to the Creation Wave. The creation wave is a wall of energy expanding outward from the point of the Event and is traveling faster than the speed of light.
Matter particles remained in our universe while anti matter particles entered the anti matter universe. These are two dimensions that now exist after only one dimension had previously existed.
Protons and electrons came together to form hydrogen.
Hydrogen compressed to form stars. Within these stars other elements were made in smaller quantities. Over time these higher energy elements formed the planets, moons, comets, and other non star objects in our universe.
Galaxies form and within these galaxies solar systems form, and within one of these solar systems the earth was forming. On this planet amino acids formed protein, eventually leading to the first simple cells. From their life continued to evolve.
Fast forward 3.3 billion years and we have life as it exists today. Life that exists within a universe that sprang forth from the Nothing Universe.
Dennis James Huff 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment