By Dwight Owen Schweitzer
Posted on the 9th of June, 2008
When I was a student in college, one of my majors was philosophy and in my senior year I found myself taking a graduate level course in cosmology. For the first three weeks I sat there having attempted to do my homework for each class while in complete and utter ignorance of just what the hell the course was all about, and I really wasn’t all that dumb or they wouldn’t have let me in there in the first place. Well to make a long story short sometime during the third week it all came together in my mind and I began to cry…not bawl mind you, just tears rolling down my cheeks as the enormity of that understanding overwhelmed me. I have had an interest in theoretical physics ever since, so it is not surprising at least to me, that I am continually brought back to the most fundamental question that faces those who try to explain the universe, its’ origins and its’ future.
What has always puzzled me about the ‘big bang’ theory is that it requires the adherents to accept the premise that the universe had a beginning which to me at least, defies common sense as I am continually asking myself what was there before the beginning to make a beginning. Added to that is the apparent consensus that not only is the universe expanding but that the velocity of the objects radiating out from the presumed epicenter of the big bang are in fact accelerating, when common sense would dictate that they should be slowing down.
Add to this the generally accepted theory that stars have a life cycle that ends in their becoming what is known as a black hole, the physical counterpart of a celestial ‘vacuum cleaner’ which has a gravitational pull so strong that it can alter the path of light and are only visible by the effect that black holes have on the things that we can see that have come within its’ gravitational pull.
So taking all of this in, and assuming it is all true, what, I asked myself, explains all the seemingly incomprehensible and contradictory data and a thought came to me that I am not smart enough or at least well enough educated to debunk so I thought I would write it all down and wait for someone who is in the know to a degree that I am not, to explain to me why this is all nonsense, but here is my ‘theory’ to explain the universe as we have come to know it, understand it, and explain it.
First of all, I believe that there was a big bang from what is called a singularity and that it can be measured to a point back in time but I suspect that the measurement is predicated upon backtracking in time form the farthest point in the universe that we can ascertain and then trying to figure out how long it would have taken to get from the epicenter of the big bang to there. I suspect that the universe is in fact considerably larger and the age from the big bang considerably longer in that the life of the universe is cyclical, not linear.
That is to say that it goes from one big bang to the next in a never ending ebb and flow of matter and energy and that beyond the area where we think the universe ends are all of those stars that left the big bang first and went through their life cycle to become black holes and therefore they are not visible or even ascertainable except as an explanation for the increasing velocity of the expansion of the known universe. If we assume that the boundary of the ‘known universe’ is ringed by black holes which due to their mass, are exerting a pull on the known universe we at least have an explanation for the fact that the universe is accelerating when it should be slowing down.
If we accept that the ultimate fate of every star is to become a black hole and see planets as simply the detritus of star making. The non ‘star stuff’ in the universe is insignificant when compared to the stars that are known to exist and are simply the ‘dust’ that will get swept up when the universe has burned itself out, becomming an infinity of black holes whose increasing gravitational pull will result in their coalescing into each other. I suspect this is what will (and has) happened when all the stars in the universe have burned themselves out and we are in a universe full of black holes that, like drops of water in a rain storm, begin consolidating themselves.
Common sense tells me that their increasing gravitational pull will cause them to draw together like the elastic of a child’s’ toy that has run its full length and then recoils. In that process as the ratio of black holes begins to exceed the number of star systems the increasing velocity of the results of the big bang can be explained if we accept that the first galaxies have already died at the fringes of the universe and are beginning to exert their gravitational pull on the ones left until such time as the black holes consolidate to form another singularity and the process begins all over again.
While I have never heard what the physicists think happens when one black hole confronts another I have to assume that matter becomes continually more compressed to the point where it cannot compress any further and the particles so compressed simply burst like a water balloon in a child’s squeeze and as a result another big bang occurs and so the process of the birth life and death of stars goes on to infinity. This makes all the more sense to me as I accept (and who am I not to) that Einstein was correct in positing that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but simply is found in either the form of mass or energy. The process of fission and fusion is not random or arbitrary but that fission precedes fusion and that fusion is the by product of black holes that continually compress matter until it fuses into smaller and smaller and infinitely more dense material until fission again causes it to go…..BANG.
If this idea, I hate to think it rises to the level of ‘theory’ has any validity at all, it at least explains what we do know in a coherent way although it does put a crimp in the creationist theory of things. Thinking rationally, I cannot help but ask if our universe was created who or what was there to do it and if we can accept the existence of a creation then the creator needed to be created on infinitum or there is a case to be made for a cyclical process to explain the creation of our present universe.