There are now multiple variations of the Big Bang Theory, which many believe was partially promoted at first for religious reasons, since it was initially proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, and because it somewhat parallels with the Abrahamic creation story, but it essentially states that all matter and energy of the ‘entire’ universe sprang from a super-heated, infinitely dense singularity point, that the ‘whole’ universe could have once fit on the head of a pin, and that the ‘entire’ universe has been ‘simultaneously’ expanding ever since and may or may not contract and return to a singularity point and possibly do this in a cyclical fashion. As a safe measure, mainstream science is now careful to include the phrase “observable known universe” when describing the BB theory, which is a major improvement.
Before I continue, I would first like to provide my definition of the universe to avoid any confusions, because some people’s view of the universe may vary a bit. The term universe, according to its original use, means the totality of all things that exist and is synonymous with the word cosmos. The term multiverse (multiple universes) is relatively new and was popularized by mainstream, modern science as a fix to work around the limited idea of a finite universe. So as I use the term, any and all subsets of the universe may be called parallel worlds, multiworlds, multiverses, subworlds, etc., but in my view, it’s all a part of the one, overall, infinite uni-verse (meaning one song), the whole package, the entire universal set.
For many decades, scientists, along with documentaries on the subject, have always presented the Big Bang event as a kind of origin story, a beginning to everything. Some sources will actually say that all matter and energy in the universe was “created” during the Big Bang or “originated” from the described singularity before the Big Bang occurred. If anyone was to watch any of the old documentaries made during the 80’s and early 90’s about the cosmos and the Big Bang theory, you’ll usually hear the narrator say things like, “It all ‘started’ with a Bang” or “In the beginning” or “the universe is 13.8 billion years old,” implying that the universe did not always exist—certainly not before the Big Bang because there was no “before,” since time did not yet even exist. I have to quickly say, for anyone to claim that there could ever be a state of the universe where time did not exist, to me, is as nonsensical as saying a triangle can exist without angles. In my opinion, the two can never be divorced. They will always go side-by-side. You can’t have one without the other. What they should say is “The ‘observable portion of the universe’ seems to have been much smaller and denser further back in time and leave it at that. But to mentally rewind or reverse-engineer the entire universe (based on the idea that the universe seems to be expanding in all directions) in a non-stop, uninterrupted, continuous way (which nature never does) is almost as bad as me reverse-engineering the growth of a tree back to the moment of its seed and to continue onward with that projection to say it too sprang from a singularity. Yet we know that’s not true. Nature never does anything so uniformly and continuously without some eventual interruption of its processes. Nature always undulates and quavers and has gradations between the extremes. It always has divisions, sectors, shifts, and gradual changes.
Nowadays, many modern scientists are trying to back-peddle this view of an ultimate beginning, because many scientists have collectively caught on that a universe from nothing is nonsensical, even given quantum theory, and that their own sacred law of conservation (that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only changed from one form to another) prohibits it, so there must have always been a universe or something, regardless of how dense or hot or frozen in time it once was. However, there are some who vehemently promote the idea that you can get something from nothing and that the universe can spring from nothing, such as Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, who has personally given many oral presentations on the concept. They use all sorts of fancy impressive terminology and complex explanations to describe it, but I just don’t see it or buy it—not yet.
The main reasons I’ve never believed in any of the traditional mainstream Big Bang theories, even from a very young age, is because I could never help but to believe that the universe is infinite as well as eternal. I believe the universe is infinite for a variety of reasons that would be too long to go into, here and now, within this essay. For now, just know it mainly has to do with my conception and world-view model of the universe.
I believe the universe has always existed and always will, because I could never see how everything could have spontaneously come from nothing (not to suggest the Big Bang theory officially claims it did, because it doesn’t). Fortunately, I’m not alone. Many philosophers as well as scientists have shared that view, all throughout human history. The ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides was one of the first ever known to announce this particular view. He, too, believed that it’s impossible for something to ever come from nothing and for something to ever become nothing. Again, the Big Bang theory doesn’t technically state that all came into existence from nothingness, despite bad documentaries and ill-informed promoters of the theory. It doesn’t explain the ultimate creation of the universe. It only states that the whole universe expanded from somethingness. We have to ask ourselves, how did the somethingness get here? What set the stage to allow such an event to happen? There must have been something that initiated the Big Bang and something that initiated the initiator, and so on, leading to an endless chain of causation. So I concluded many years ago that the universe could not have an ultimate beginning or origin. It has more likely always existed and always will. This, of course, does not necessarily negate the possibility of a Big Bang event, just that the universe doesn’t have an ultimate beginning. So it’s hard for me to see how an infinite eternal universe could have spontaneously sprung from some type of singularity point. Even a cyclical model of the universe that expands and collapses, repeatedly, doesn’t sit well with me (although I do believe the universe is cyclical in many ways), because I don’t see how an infinite universe, the whole thing, could ever be entirely encapsulated on a physical level. I believe it can be encapsulated intellectually and conceptually but not physically. I even believe an infinite series of sub-verses can be encapsulated within any grain of dust or within any subatomic particle, but I don’t believe all copies of the universe can ever be simultaneously encapsulated, not even for the briefest of moments.
There are now a lot of respectable scientists who are finally coming forward and admitting that the BB theory “doesn’t hold water,” that there is not enough valid evidence to support it and there never was. For instance, scientists have repeatedly expressed for years now that the red shifts observed in starlight (that give the impression of an expanding universe according to Hubble’s Law) is more likely due to interstellar dust reducing the energy of these observed electromagnetic waves during their long transit through space and not an indicator of an expanding universe. So it would stand to reason that the further something is from an observer the “redder” it would appear, because it would have more dust to pass through. Scientists have also proposed other more valid theories regarding all the background radiation and have expressed it doesn’t necessary prove that there was a Big Bang event, whereby all matter sprang from. More importantly, modern observations of quasar stars seem to prove quite firmly, once and for all, that Hubble’s Law, which states that the further away an object is the faster it’s moving away, has its flaws and is not consistent and can’t be relied on. To learn more about these scientific findings and opinions, watch the videos provided below.
UNIVERSE: The Cosmology Quest PART I
For anyone in a hurry, I suggest watching the above video clip starting at 5:35 to 8:00 (only 3 minutes) and then hopefully later on the whole thing.
UNIVERSE: The Cosmology Quest PART 2
Listen to the part at 19:50 (for at least 5 minutes and then at 24:40)
I also don’t get why the universe was so unevenly distributed if it did come from a singularity point. You would think that such a singularity, as described by the theory, would be perfectly uniform and perfectly symmetrical. If not, why is it asymmetrical? And what caused the first offset in it? This is one of the reasons why I believe there are always antecedents, prior conditions, and external arenas that all things reside in. One could never truly be able to say, “There’s the universe and nothing lies beyond its finite walls or boundaries.”
However, even though I don’t believe in the traditional mainstream Big Bang theory, I do believe big bangs and big crunches, on a more local scale, have and do occur throughout the infinite universe all the time like frothing bubbles within an infinite cosmic bubble bath, where there is a concert of endless spheres of physical reality expanding or exploding as well as contracting or imploding, over and over, in a cyclical fashion. I often think of it as an intricate cosmic conveyor belt, whereby portions of the universe are always growing and expanding and becoming more complex, while other portions are always shrinking, collapsing, and becoming less complex. Things like atoms, molecules, stars and planets are constantly being created or constructed while other parts of the universe are being destroyed or deconstructed. So things expand in a variety of ways and at all possible speeds, relatively speaking. They spring, grow, blossom, and at times even explode to reach their apex, their high cue, their climax, to then reduce, shrink, shrivel up, and ultimately contract. The universe is like one infinite, cosmic garden, laden with an endless number of fruits and berries of all possible colors and sizes that are always blossoming and blooming and coming into fruition as well as in decay or recession. The universe as a whole never does just one or the other, all at once. The totality of it all doesn’t become more ordered, or more complex, or more conscious, or more functional, or more evolved. Overall, it is a conserved system, a perfect balance beam, in every way.
In a sense, we are in a “Singularity” right now, always have been, always will be, but not as mainstream science describes it of course. In my view, it’s an open-ended, differentiated and eternal singularity that always holds all possible attributes and complexities. It is an eternal tapestry that can never be altered or destroyed or improved upon.
Some may suggest I need to abandon the idea that the universe is infinite, since that view doesn’t agree with mainstream science, and accept that it’s finite and has an ‘edge’ to it. I’ve often wondered, if the universe did have an edge, what would future explorers observe if they ever reached its edge? Would they see an eternal empty blackness or would there be some sort of force field that would prevent them from venturing further beyond that boundary? It’s too difficult for me to image–far more difficult for me to image or accept than an infinite universe. Although, in all fairness, both versions are pretty damn weird!
In my opinion, any view of a first time Big Bang theory, whereby the totality of the whole universe sprang from a singularity point of infinite density and where time was born or set forth is extremely outdated and needs to be done away with as soon as possible. I believe it is leading way too many people astray, both scientists and philosophers and all those in between.