Mendacious Math

Questions have always surrounded the notion of a Big Bang. The idea that such a “bang” occurred in the distant past is suggested by two primary pieces of evidence, the red shift we see in light from other galaxies (indicating an expanding universe), and a background radiation supposedly left over from the Big Bang explosion.

But the Big Bang is only one possible explanation of the evidence, and it may be – nay, most likely is – wrong. The most prevalent objection arises out of the notion of a “singularity,” which is the technical name for the small kernel of matter/energy that existed as “all there is” just before the Big Bang. But quantum theory suggests – beyond doubt – that if the state of “singularity” were ever reached, the result would not be a Big Bang but a Big Nothing. Nevertheless, the Big Bang theory has not gone away. It has morphed into more and more complex theories, nearly all of which are purely mathematical.

A year ago, on the invisible pages of the blog that exists in my mind, I described a logical error that I have since named, "mathematical extension beyond the known."

Let me describe that error.

We have a generally accepted theory, say, the Big Bang. But when we apply the mathematics to the theory, and base our mathematics on what has been observed and tested, we see that the theory will not hold water. But because we can conceive of no new theory to replace the Big Bang, we "extend" the mathematics "beyond the known." For example, (and here I am using the only example that comes to mind) we keep increasing the number of dimensions of space until the formula works. Hence, string theory with 1 dimension of time and 10 dimensions of space (7 of which are beyond, not only the known, but also the knowable). Now the Big Bang theory "holds water."

But then along comes a smartass new idea called "dark energy/matter" that explains the missing mass in the universe. But this stuff is also "beyond the known" and (so far) beyond the knowable. (By known and knowable I refer only to the criteria for knowing accepted by science, that is, objects subject to detection by the senses or that can be directly inferred. "Forces" are not detected, only inferred.)

Next comes a piece of known and knowable data that suggests the universe is not only expanding, but that at its farther reaches, the rate of expansion is actually accelerating. This "known data" contradicts the Big Bang theory even more fundamentally than the quantum equations, since no one (so far) knows exactly why those equations work, but nearly everyone knows that for acceleration to occur a force must be currently applied. But the Big Bang occurred in the distant past and cannot possibly account for the current force that's causing the acceleration.

Then comes an even smarter-ass amateur cosmologist (your favorite Mouse) who puts 3 and 0 together and gets 4.

Perhaps, he says, the expansion has always been an effect of the simplest of all forces, gas compression, where the "gas" is that unknown and unknowable (maybe) stuff called dark energy/matter (hereafter D(em)). Maybe the universe as we know it (which may be only a remote corner of the infinite universe as God knows it) pulses back-and-forth, contracting by gravitational force until a point (X) is reached where the force of gas compression causes the shrinkage to reverse. The result would be that, during the period of reversal, the universe would be expanding. But now, with the reality of D(em) assumed, the universe NEVER SHRINKS TO THE LEVEL OF A SINGULARITY BUT REACHES POINT X (BELOW ZERO BALANCE) LONG BEFORE THE DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF "TOO MUCH MASS" CAN TAKE EFFECT. That is, the universe (as we know it) becomes an eternally pulsating object. We are currently observing it in its accelerating phase.

If there is a problem with this idea it's that "zero balance point.” We can imagine that the momentum of the shrinking universe would carry the shrinkage beyond the point where expansion should begin to occur. But sooner or later, the shrinkage must stop (at point X), the universe's "movement" pause, and expansion begin. In a normal system of this sort, the periodicity of the cycles should get shorter and shorter as the "friction" within which the environment is happening causes the effects of the applied forces to attenuate. The universe should come to a virtual and permanent stop on or about point X.

So . . . if the universe is in fact infinite (as can be inferred from this theory) then why hasn't point X been reached at some time in the distant past?

A couple of "bad" answers and one live one come to mind.

First, there is the metaphysical assumption that without an observer to witness its passing, time would not exist. Consequently, the infinity of the past (where presumably no observer existed) would not be bound by the 4th dimension, time. BUT . . . in quantum theory every particle interaction is an "observer event," that is, every particle is an "observer." If that idea is correct (and I am absolutely sure it is), then if there were in the past any two particles, there was time. End of that theoretical explanation.

Second, there is the possibility that at the D(em) level (where zero mass is the norm) friction does not occur. But if that's the case, then the whole theory is shot to hell since the forces of gas compression relate to the same natural causes that determine the reality of friction. If friction goes away, so does gas compression.

Third, there is the possibility that in addition to its eternal pulsing, the universe as we know it -- the one with galaxies and space between them filled with D(em) -- changes its form. D(em) somehow coagulates into masses greater than zero. Stars and galaxies appear and thus THE GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT AND THE GAS COMPRESSION EFFECT BECOME UNSTABLE IN RELATION TO THEMSELVES. That is, something that is not gravitationally reactive (zero mass objects) become gravitational bodies. The pulsations of the universe, responding to changes in the forces at work inside the system, would thus become irregular. The zero point would move with each cyclic pulsation, and thus would never be reached.

The only objection I see to the third explanation is this: How do zero mass "objects" become massive? What causes could possibly occur in an absolutely smooth and imperturbable universe? A possible answer to that question can perhaps be found in the "local universe" idea. The force that causes change "here" would thus come from somewhere not "here," that is, from some other universe that may or may not be of the same kind as this universe.

But that is a pure metaphysical answer that should be resisted by all sane people . . . where "sane" means, that state of being in which the known and knowable is the only reality, a neurosis dreamed up by God to keep us in our place.

But then, I'm sure you see the traps in that idea.