News Stories

Science Suggests That The Universe "Shouldn't Really Exist"

The unfathomable mystery of how this Universe was brought forth into being has preoccupied the mind of Man since he became cognisant of his own existence. Latterly, Science has been able to provide the likely cosmic nuts and bolts of the process, with the most widely accepted concept being known as the "Big Bang" theory.
Though the name implies a huge detonation, the "Big Bang" was more of an expansion than an explosion, an expansion that is still continuing today, but recent research suggests that if this type of event had indeed created the Universe then, theoretically, it should not exist at all.

The question has now evolved from "How was the Universe formed?" into "How does it exist at all?"as simulations conducted by a new study now indicate that the universe should have collapsed almost immediately after the Big Bang occurred.

"During the early universe, we expected cosmic inflation — this is a rapid expansion of the universe right after the Big Bang," said study co-author Robert Hogan, a doctoral candidate in physics at King's College in London. "This expansion causes lots of stuff to shake around, and if we shake it too much, we could go into this new energy space, which could cause the universe to collapse."

During the process of cosmic inflation space-time is pushed out of shape creating gravitational waves that contorted the radiation that passed through the universe. These waves have been detected by the BICEP2 telescope near the South Pole, but the theory of cosmic inflation is far from proven and some suggest that the telescope is merely detecting signals from cosmic dust floating throughout space.

In the new study, Hogan and his colleague at King's college, fellow physicist Malcom Fairbairn, tried to illustrate how cosmic inflation might work to create the universe after the Big Bang scenario. They used a model based around the properties of the Higgs boson particle, a newcomer on the quantum block that is a manifestation of the Higgs field energy field that pervades throughout the universe and which potentially explains how other particles gain mass, along with the measurement of the original gravitational waves from cosmic inflation.

The results were not quite what they were expecting. The newly formed universe should have been subjected to powerful shakes that would have destabilized the Higgs field, downgrading the energy levels until the it inevitably imploded and collapsed.

But if this model is correct, then what happened to circumvent the inevitable collapse and allow the universe to remain?

"We are here talking about it," Hogan told Live Science. "That means we have to extend our theories to explain why this didn't happen.

"The generic expectation is that there must be some new physics that we haven't put in our theories yet, because we haven't been able to discover them," he added.

Since the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle a couple of years ago, there have been numerous hypotheses that have deemed it an unstable influence that could eventually lead to the cataclysmic demise of the cosmos in a few billion years. The mass of the Higgs boson, which is approximately 126 times that of the proton, puts it right on the outer limits of universal stability. If it was a fraction lighter then things would get a little more unstable; a little heavier, and the Higgs field would be a solid as a rock.

"This calculation tells you that many tens of billions of years from now there'll be a catastrophe," explained Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. "It may be the universe we live in is inherently unstable, and at some point billions of years from now it's all going to get wiped out."

Of course, the "Big Bang" theory is not the only theory to explain the birth of our Universe, it is merely the most popular.
Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

It could be that scientists do not yet understand the level of physics that brought the cosmos into being, and such scientific uncertainties inevitably re-introduce a higher power into the creation equation, as indicated in most of the world's religions.

So perhaps we should again be asking not "What?" created the universe, but "Who?".

Your theories, as always, are welcomed here at The Edge of the World - subscribe today to leave your valued comments.

My approach is more metaphysical/philosophical as explained to me by a "being". Consciousness is the fabric of the universes. Origin unknown to me & I suspect the "being" communicating with me. Consciousness seeks to expand and so creates containers to hold bits of itself. The purpose of this is for the containers to garner experiences which are returned /feed the fabric of consciousness upon the dissolution of the container. Whole or bits of the consciousness formerly in a container may "spark" again into a new container, but their experiences garnered in their former container remain a permanent part of the fabric of consciousness, thus the universes are ever expanding.

I protested that the sum of experiences of all living creatures wouldn't be enough to expand the universes. For this remark I received the suggestion of a smile and the reply that stars and planets that have promoted life also have a band of consciousness and upon their dissolution feed the fabric with billions of years of experiences.

Is expansion limitless - have collapses occurred in the past & may occur again?

Energies that exist in the Universe are very well defined, occupying specific niches. If all the energy in the Universe was abruptly brought together, it would terminate the presence of the Universe in an instant flourish. The Universe has "taken the slow road" back to the void from which it sprang. This means that objects tend to persist in their places, and that the neutralization of energies ultimately takes time. Why atoms are so well defined is a poser, and this fact speaks to the apparent random genesis of our Universe. Not that intelligent design is necessary true, but it is odd that the Universe is taking the slow road. This is not beyond the realm of chance, however.

Once again, a "God of the gaps" concept surfaces when information is lacking. But is a God responsible in this case? Certainly, a slow road seems to have obvious utility for life forms, allowing them to live sustainable and productive lives without the threat of imminent Universal annihilation.

Scientific knowledge about the universe is far too limited even to begin trying to explain how the universe came into being. An example is the "Big Bang" theory, which depends on the unproven proposition that the speed of light remains constant over vast reaches of time and space. (This has to do with the “Red Shift” in the light from distant galaxies that supposedly indicate that the universe is expanding.)

Even if true, the Big Bang theory explains almost nothing. Key questions are why and how did this enormous ball of matter-energy come into existence before the Big Bang? Saying that the Big Bang explains everything about the creation of the universe is almost as ludicrous as the old saying that the Earth is flat and is supported by a giant turtle. At least that ancient theory was colorful.

We might as well admit that no one has the slightest idea of how the universe came into being. At least that statement would be truthful, even though not very enlightening.

Science needs the validation of numerous experiments to prove their Big Bang theory. That requires facts, not just assumptions. Can you imagine having someone follow a beam of light for a billion years to verify that its speed doesn’t change? That validation ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, for sure.

Regarding red and blue shifts, this is perhaps evidence that light occupies naturally a very narrow band. Light is stubborn, and wants to stay at a specific, constant speed. Unless consciousness causes it to dance (and go into superposition, or un-position).

One interpretation of the slit experiment is that adding an extra slit causes light to move into superposition. Applying un-position to light by way of an extra slit moves it out of it's local positioning and into a broader perspective. Consciousness, by intent of an extra slit, moves it into superposition. Consciousness can also move the light back into position by observing it as it moves through the two slits, the wave interference pattern is then gone. Of course, this does not work so well with larger objects, the quantum world is more malleable at its small scale.

The role of consciousness in superposition is only hinted at in Science. When energies of local positions and of opposite polarities are brought together, they dance into the superposition zone, moving into unposition. Some refer to this as energy space, but it can also be envisioned as a neutrality matrix. Yin and Yang cooperate to bring about a vibrational expansion.

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now