My Big Bang Theory

[Travis Meyers]

Here is My Big Bang Theory. I'm looking for opinions. The questions I'm asking are does this seem correct, is this hypothesis insightful in any way and are there any shortcomings?

 

In the beginning the universe was zero. Meaning it was everything and nothing. It was full of energy and void of energy at the same time. It was backwards in time and forwards in time. The net of all these exactly opposing components is zero. Sometimes zero means nothing and sometimes zero means every possible thing combined to have a net total of zero. The universe was zero for no amount of time since time didn't exist yet. Then there was a nudge. In a perfectly balanced zero there was a discrepancy. Energy appeared into zero.

 

Energy's counterpart is void. Energy is the contraction of zero and void is the expansion of zero. This new energy caused current energies to occupy other energy's void. Two energies can not occupy one void so one energy had to occupy another energy's void. Which caused that energy to occupy it's neighboring energy's void and the cycle continues. This created the coalescence of energy and movement away from the first energy. The coalescence of energy is matter.

 

Matter is two or more energies combined together and surrounded by void. Matter will not coalesce evenly because the first energy had to push a unit of energy in a specific direction. This coalescence continues until matter is separated enough by void until it can not come in contact with zero anymore. Now matter, which is already moving away from the seed, accelerates as it tries to fill this void to achieve balance. When matter started moving time was created, meaning the future position of matter, the past position of matter and the current position of matter. Although time for all matter is relative to itself and not other matter because time is created by movement. If two pieces of matter are moving at the same velocity their time is the same, change any factors and their time is different.

 

Since matter is not evenly distributed in the universe gravity exists because matter has to compete for void with other matter. When matter is surrounded by equal void it does not divert from it's movement away from the first energy. If two pieces of matter are in close proximity to each other both matters want to have equal amounts of void around them. This causes them to combine in order to have the most equal distribution of void around them. This movement of two matters towards each other causes gravity.

 

When two amounts of matter are in close proximity they have to share the same void. This means that on the shared side of the matter less energy is being balanced by void and void is being balanced by less energy. This means that in order for energy to occupy a full void it has to enter a shared void to bump that void into another shared void for both amounts of matter to create a full void. Of course after they've done this they are again sharing the same void and the cycle continues.

 

Furthermore, as all of this matter accelerates away from the first energy, through the void, and comes in contact with zero it should accumulate more energy and create more void. That's how we can know if this is true or not.

 

Let me know what you think. Thanks in advance.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Travis Meyers

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Travis! :) Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

Here is My Big Bang Theory. I'm looking for opinions. The questions I'm asking are does this seem correct, is this hypothesis insightful in any way and are there any shortcomings?

That you are even thinking about the origin of the universe (“cosmogenesis”) shows that you are insightful. :thumbs_up Having insightful ideas doesn’t preclude them from having shortcomings, however, as I think yours do, and will try to explain somewhat below.

 

To start, it’s important to understand that, in science writing, “theory”, “hypothesis”, and “law” means things different than they does in everyday speech, and understand their scientific meaning clearly. There’s much writing of this on the internet and in print, much of it contradictory and wrong, much helpful, much overly complicated and confusing, as well as legitimate variations in meaning within science. I’ll try to hack at this Gordian knot with a brief, limited, personal synopsis:

 

Scientific hypotheses and theories are explanations for observable phenomena. They must be expressed in sufficiently conventional terms that interested people can understand them enough to perform the same experiments to verify of falsify them.

 

The semantic difference between a hypothesis and a theory is somewhat nebulous, but essentially that a hypothesis addresses a single or small collection of phenomena than a theory, and abstracts its explanation little or not at all, where a theory has many abstract principles.

 

A scientific law, AKA law of nature, is a precise observation about phenomena that appears always true. Unlike hypotheses and theories, laws don’t offer explanations, just state how things appear to be. Scientists seek to explain laws with hypotheses and theories.

 

Notice that all of these semantic entities – laws, hypotheses, theories – must be understood by their users in precise technical detail. Obviously, this isn’t the case when a new one is being conceived, or when a student is learning one, which is that’s going on in the vast majority of scientific writing and discussion, even more so at “science for everyone” enthusiast forums like hypography than in professional scientific journals and organizations. So what we’re doing when we discuss a new idea is something along the lines of “presenting a ‘proto-theory’”.

 

A proto-theory may prove to be what Pauli famously called “not only not right, not even wrong” (which many have since rephrased “not even good enough to be wrong”). That is, it may be so unclearly stated people can’t agree what it’s stating, or understand how to perform experiments to test it. When science enthusiast get imaginative with proto-theories, we tend to produce a lot of these. There’s no disgrace in this, as long as we recognize when our proto-theories are “not good enough to be wrong”, and improve them so that are good enough at least to be wrong, or just let them go if that seems hopeless.

 

If we can agree on the meaning of these concepts and ground-rules up front, we can avoid sounding grandious, and silly, and provoking others to call us for sounding that way. In short, accept the “working meta-hypothesis” ;) that we’re were just enjoying discussing a lot of “proto-“ whatever, not for now seriously challenging any scientific mainstreams.

 

To the specifics of your proto-theories, then:

In the beginning the universe was zero. Meaning it was everything and nothing. It was full of energy and void of energy at the same time. It was backwards in time and forwards in time. The net of all these exactly opposing components is zero. Sometimes zero means nothing and sometimes zero means every possible thing combined to have a net total of zero. The universe was zero for no amount of time since time didn't exist yet. Then there was a nudge. In a perfectly balanced zero there was a discrepancy. Energy appeared into zero.

This sounds a lot like a description of vacuum state described by quantum field theory (QFT can be thought of as the most fundamental kind of quantum mechanics, of which more specific theories, such as the famous QED, are special kinds).

 

In some quantum cosmogenesis model (I’m reluctant to use “hypothesis” here, as it’s very uncertain if an experiment ), the “nudge” you speak of, Travis, is statistical in nature – to quote Edward Tyron “"the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.” (for more, see this 1994 Harper’s magazine article.

 

When I first encountered these “quantum nothing cosmogonies”, in the early 1980s, I hunted for more about them, both in specialist and popular literature. To my initial and many-year continuing surprise, there isn’t much. Eventually, I came to the realization that, though “why there’s something rather than nothing” is an attention compelling philosophical question, it attracts limited scientific interest.

 

I think this is because it’s hard to imagine making experimentally testable theories/hypotheses from these models. Information about the actual time before the Big Bang is practically if not in principle impossible to get. It’s hard to imagine experimentally testing such a theory by recreating an large, isolated, pre-big bang vacuum state “in the lab”. Even if it can be done, the value of confirming such a hypothesis – its usefulness in creating new theories with practical applications – is hard to imagine. To the best I’ve been able to glean, the major kinds of theorists interested in QNCs are:

• Brane theorists, who seek to falsify simple QNCs because they contradict brane-collision cosmogenesis models
  
• Quantum gravity theorists, because, in addition to explaining “where everything came from”, QNC models make specific technical predictions about gravitation that can better constrain their theories.
  

None of these disciplines appear to have had breakthrough ideas sparking heightened interest in QNCs.

 

Energy's counterpart is void. Energy is the contraction of zero and void is the expansion of zero. This new energy caused current energies to occupy other energy's void. Two energies can not occupy one void so one energy had to occupy another energy's void. Which caused that energy to occupy it's neighboring energy's void and the cycle continues. This created the coalescence of energy and movement away from the first energy. The coalescence of energy is matter.

 

Matter is two or more energies combined together and surrounded by void. Matter will not coalesce evenly because the first energy had to push a unit of energy in a specific direction. This coalescence continues until matter is separated enough by void until it can not come in contact with zero anymore. Now matter, which is already moving away from the seed, accelerates as it tries to fill this void to achieve balance.

You’re saying this in a way so unlike usual scientific writing I can only guess at what you mean, combining the physical term “energy” (the potential of mechanical work) with the purely mathematical one “zero” and the common literary ones “void”, “seed”, and “balance”. Also, you seem to me using “occupy”, “movement” and “balance” in a metaphorical way, which, since these are very common, precisely defined physics terms, can be confusing.

 

Here, you seem to be describing not the “before the beginning” cosmogenesis event, but the period shortly following it. In this domain, the mainstream consensus big bang model decades of theoretical imagination, rigorous work, brute-force computer exploring and modeling, and theoretical prediction/experimental confirmation seems to me so successful that any alternative needs to be very well-worked out before its worth much consideration.

 

I also think it’s essential that people enthusiastic about proto-theories aiming to discard most or all conventional theory apply equal enthusiasm to deeply understanding mainstream theory. Unfortunately, mastering existing theory is much more work than imagining new proto-theory – as the saying goes, science is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. Another much less well-known aphorism, originally applied to artists rather than scientists, but I think equally appropriate, is “originality is the downfall of many artists” (I wish I could track down the source of this reference – every web search I’ve tried concludes that I am, but I’m certain I learned it in a high school art appreciation class, and fairly certain it was from a printed text, not a teacher’s original idea) From my personal experience as a “recovering originality junky”, I feel I know this peril: the feeling that, having failed to deliver our fondest dreams of the fruits of science, any truly originally, different scientific direction must be preferable to the old ones. Appealing as this feeling is, it’s not rational, nor scientific.

 

When matter started moving time was created, meaning the future position of matter, the past position of matter and the current position of matter. Although time for all matter is relative to itself and not other matter because time is created by movement. If two pieces of matter are moving at the same velocity their time is the same, change any factors and their time is different.

This appears to be just an informal description of a prediction of Special Relativity. Am I missing something?

 

Since matter is not evenly distributed in the universe gravity exists because matter has to compete for void with other matter. When matter is surrounded by equal void it does not divert from it's movement away from the first energy. If two pieces of matter are in close proximity to each other both matters want to have equal amounts of void around them. This causes them to combine in order to have the most equal distribution of void around them. This movement of two matters towards each other causes gravity.

This is a pleasingly simple idea, but with physics ideas, as the saying goes, the devil’s in the details. In this case, the details are getting your proto-theory to agree with observation. An obvious starting place making a model based on its principles that agrees, at least approximately, with those of one based on the law of universal gravitation,

 

[math]F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/math]

 

Have you written such a model, Travis? If you haven’t, I recommend you do immediately. We have the great advantage, these days, of very cheap, very easily programmable computers, allowing writing and testing such models easily. If you don’t know how to write simple computer programs of this kind, say so – I and others here at hypography do, and often enjoy the work.

 

There have been several pleasingly simple theories of gravity, notably the corpuscular theory, suggested by Newton and developed by Fatio and later Le Sage from about 1690 to 1750, which failed to be usable to make models that agreed with observation.

 

When two amounts of matter are in close proximity they have to share the same void. This means that on the shared side of the matter less energy is being balanced by void and void is being balanced by less energy.

I think you’re describing a proto-theory for how bodies with mass interact non-gravitationally.

 

As above, I’d have to see this described explicitly enough to model it to make much sense of it.

 

Since quantum mechanics is, in every experimentally tested way, perfect in modeling the non-gravitational interaction of bodies with mass, unless a new model could make the same predictions with greatly reduced computational requirements and/or eliminating the need for renormalization and perturbation calculations, I see no usefulness in completely replacing it with another theory, as you seem to be proposing.