The Fundamental Cosmological Flaw.

[clinkernace]

Monotheistic religions have long assumed that the universe began with a single entity, a God manifesting all known forces, who, after an infinite span of existence, spontaneously decided to create a universe, from nothing.

 

Then Big Bang theory appeared, proposing that a cosmic micropea (later morphed into a physical singularity) had always existed, and spontaneously blew up to create our universe.

 

These ideas are functionally identical. Both attribute the beginnings to something which cannot be empirically verified, and which acted seemingly without an external cause.

 

Both are apparently simple concepts about extremely complex entities. God is a complex, unknowable being manifesting all knowledge. The micropea/singularity contained all the mass-energy in the universe and the laws of physics tying them together.

 

Yet we live in a cause-effect universe that seems to require the interaction between two components in order to cause a physical "event." I propose to extend this real, scientific observation-- that at least two things, each manifesting opposing forces, are required to cause all events-- including that which brought the universe into existence.

 

Both of these primeval things, or substances, or manifolds must still exist and are therefore available for empirical scrutiny. One of them has been recently discovered.

 

Dark energy is actually a raw, unstructured manifold composed of the stuff from which all known physical structures are formed. It is subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics and manifests only one natural force, as described by the 2nd Law.

 

I've named the other primeval component "aeon." It has not been formally discovered, so, unlike dark energy, its boundary conditions are unknown. However, if aeon is to interact with dark energy it must be able to exert a counterforce to the 2nd Law.

 

I envision a primeval event, a subtle little brush between colliding manifolds which had the ultimate effect of digitizing parts of each. Imagine a digitized, separated lump of aeon (a beon, of course) acting upon conventional energy forms like a Maxwellian demon.

[Rade]

How about the possibility that our universe began as an interaction of two condensed masses of previous universes, one matter and one antimatter. This hypothesis would assume that any universe must at some point condense to a singularity, either one composed of matter or antimatter. Consider if two such condensed singularities, one of matter and one of antimatter interacted...what would be the outcome ? I suggest the resulting reaction would meet your criteria that sufficient energy be released to form our universe, it would meet the suggestion that both components of the two original condensed masses be present in our current universe (matter and antimatter), and it would allow for the formation of dark energy and dark matter as the consequence of a secondary interaction between asymmetrical masses of primary substance of matter and antimatter clusters, which via law of conservation of energy would form stable coexistence due to gravity+antigravity interactions and time translation symmetry of matter moving to future moment within time and simultaneously antimatter moving to past moment within time. So, I see no need for new terms aeon and beon, which add a layer of concept complexity, just use matter and antimatter (concepts well known) and you have your two primeval things that are the origin of our universe, and that explain why there is much dark energy and matter present.

[clinkernace]

How about the possibility that our universe began as an interaction of two condensed masses of previous universes, one matter and one antimatter. This hypothesis would assume that any universe must at some point condense to a singularity, either one composed of matter or antimatter. Consider if two such condensed singularities, one of matter and one of antimatter interacted...what would be the outcome ? I suggest the resulting reaction would meet your criteria that sufficient energy be released to form our universe, it would meet the suggestion that both components of the two original condensed masses be present in our current universe (matter and antimatter), and it would allow for the formation of dark energy and dark matter as the consequence of a secondary interaction between asymmetrical masses of primary substance of matter and antimatter clusters, which via law of conservation of energy would form stable coexistence due to gravity+antigravity interactions and time translation symmetry of matter moving to future moment within time and simultaneously antimatter moving to past moment within time. So, I see no need for new terms aeon and beon, which add a layer of concept complexity, just use matter and antimatter (concepts well known) and you have your two primeval things that are the origin of our universe, and that explain why there is much dark energy and matter present.

 

Rade,

 

Thank you for contributing your thoughts on this subject.

 

I find several problems with them, based upon my belief that simplicity is important, as per the principle of Occam's Razor.

 

The first problem is that like modern day cosmologists, you are happy to push the problem back in time. Where did the original universes come from? What are their properties, such that they condense into your singularities? If you do not answer that, you have answered nothing, concealing the real beginnings behind a magical mystery screen. I realize that you are following in the footsteps of speculative cosmological theorists, the Dr. Caca's of documentary TV science. Methinks that you are following footsteps that lead in a circle.

 

Secondly, as I explained in my OP, a physical singularity of the sort you propose still contains the complex content of the original universes. But why are we even discussing this? Physical singularities are not real-- they are mere intellectual contrivances invented to buffalo the non-science masses who pay for grants and such, so that cosmologists can appear to be coming up with useful concepts.

 

While your idea does address my proposal that two things must interact to begin the universe, it does not address the question of simplicity.

 

By simplicity, I mean absolute simplicity. Envision the stuff of the universe as being an infinite but bounded expanse of completely unformed dark energy. It needs only a few properties-- Existence (The First Law of Thermodynamics), a single force (The Second Law) and some boundary conditions. One of these is the Third Law of Thermodynamics, the 0K temperature limit.

 

This Dark Energy expanse would seem to need to exist as a manifold in a super-space containing at least one higher dimension, a 4-D space. Therefore the Dark Energy manifold must contain one other boundary condition that defines its relationship to that 4D space.

 

This initial Dark Energy space is initially unformed, unstructured. That is another aspect of its inherent simplicity.

 

My secondary concept, the notion of Aeon, is similarly simple. I propose that it has a complementary set of properties. One of these is existence, of course, but I am not smart enough to formulate it mathematically. The other, as mentioned earlier, is that it also manifests but a single force, which is to freely violate the Second Law.

 

Unfortunately, I have no idea what other properties Aeon must have, and even if I did I'm not mathematically proficient enough to formulate them. This is a theoretical area in which outside contributions are needed, and that is why I'm working this forum.

 

If you actually read what I write here, while the terms Aeon and Beon are not part of the current cosmological lexicon, they are names for extremely simple concepts. I use new words because I am referring to entirely new concepts. That the words are new and the concepts different from those to which you are accustomed does not make them complex.

 

These ideas are not isolated. They are the initial hypotheses that form the basis for a simple, yet extensive theory that explains many questions that remain unaddressed by theories such as yours. These include a new creator-concept, a theory of evolution that actually fits the facts, a unique explanation for human consciousness, and other ideas that will boggle your mind if I try to express them here.

 

Finally, I must point out that my brief introduction to these ideas was merely an introduction. I will try to explain them further on this forum if there seems to be any interest. In the meantime, my book does a pretty fair job of it.