Origin of the Universe
Big Bang Theory
Improved, Logical, Complies with Science Laws
A Continuous, Dribbling, ‘Little Bang’ sort of Effect
Cosmogony - Cosmology
The most popular theory regarding the origin of the Universe is commonly called the “Big Bang”. It was
developed with essentially total disrespect for accepted laws of science! Specifically, it speculates that at one
instant, there was NOTHING, no energy and no material objects, and then an instant later, ALL of the energy in the
entire Universe suddenly existed and then an instant later, all the matter in the entire Universe came into existence!
Further, the Big Bang claims generally say that the entirety of the Universe then wildly 'exploded' to much of its
current size before the next second had passed! But there are BASIC laws of science such as the Conservation of
Energy and the Conservation of Energy and Newton's Laws of Motion, that would have to be wildly violated if such
a story of the Big Bang had actually occurred.
The ENTIRE basis for the Big Bang theory has always been entirely mathematical, with absolutely no
consideration of any physical reality! And some speculative ASSUMPTIONS were made in order to do that
math! Around 1915, Einstein developed a set of immensely complex equations as the Field Equations of his
General Relativity. The set of those ten tensor calculus equations are SO complex that, as of yet, 2014, nearly
one hundred years later, NO ONE has yet completely mathematically solved them! However, beginning about
1960, mathematicians have MADE SPECULATIVE ASSUMPTIONS that then enabled them to arrive at
solutions to the Field Equations. The math is all so esoteric that mathematicians cannot even agree whether the
assumptions were valid or not, but that 'little detail' is always overlooked and the 'solutions' are generally just
accepted as being true!
Note that ALL basis in actual physical reality was abandoned, and even the mathematics has been potentially
damaged by a variety of weak assumptions. Critics of the Big Bang Theory, including me, find this to be logical
'sloppiness' which is unacceptable.
There are so many wild speculations that have been built on top of OTHER wild assumptions that many modern
Physicists no longer even believe in actual logic or facts! Even as a kid, in 1960, I saw this as 'selling out' almost
everything in the REAL Universe and in REAL science! The argument presented here does NOT require such
speculative assumptions. No 26 dimensions or even 11 or 10, only the FOUR dimensions that science has long been
comfortable with, three space dimensions (X, Y and Z) and time. There is no need for believing in Dark Matter or
Dark Energy in order to try to justify exotic assumptions. No believing that there are billions of Universes, although
this argument seems to require FOUR "Universes" in order to ensure that the Conservation of Mass and
Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum are always true. There is no need to speculate that
the Laws of Nature for LARGE environments such as galaxies are totally different than those for SMALL
environments such as in atomic nuclei. This argument seems to indicate that the Laws of Nature are the SAME,
absolutely everywhere! There ARE NO billions of Universes which each have their own Laws of Nature!
It is hilarious that since modern Physicists cannot find justification for all the dimensions they feel they have to
claim exist, they decide to claim that many of their speculative dimensions are 'curled up' into dimensions that they
cannot deny exist! There is no need for sub-sub-microscopic 'strings' or 'super strings' or 'branes' , which are all
conceded to be so impossibly small that they could never be experimentally detected. What is the point of claiming
some exotic theory which can never be confirmed or denied?
There have been many speculations regarding the origin of the Universe, with the most popular one today being a
Big Bang. A respected scientist, Fred Hoyle, AS AN INSULT, who saw that most of logic had been entirely
discarded to come up with that concept, created that name. All of those such creation ideas seem to stretch logic and
credulity beyond limits! Concepts that had been considered absolute in Physics, such as the Conservation of
Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum and the Conservation of Mass, were claimed to no longer
apply, when the authors of such creative ideas could not figure out how they could still apply! Much of the
basis of what Physics was built on was thrown away, in trying to find an explanation for how and why the Universe
exists.
In addition, the ACTUAL beginning of the Universe is still always neglected in speculations such as the Big
Bang. The mathematicians who promote such ideas all START their descriptions a tiny fraction of a second
AFTER the actual creation, often 10-35 second later! Again, they totally abandon any actual physical reality, and
generally ASSUME that the ENTIRE CONTENTS OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE existed within a single
microscopically tiny spot. They then claim a spectacular expansion (such as the Inflation Theory) (of an outrageous
factor of 1050) occurred in an astoundingly brief time (such as 10 -32 second). They simply then claim that the
known laws of Physics could not apply during such (silly) wild expansion, which is their basis for discarding all of
physical reality!
No physical reality is even considered in trying to claim that the entirety of the Universe could have expanded by a
factor of 1050 in such an astoundingly brief time of 10 -32 second. They totally neglect reality concepts such as
ACCELERATION in such speculations!
Even Einstein himself made a huge mathematical blunder in trying to deal with the complexity of the math, when he
proposed a 'cosmological constant', which Einstein later called the biggest mistake of his life! Many assumptions
made by other mathematicians have been equally questionable.
There seems little doubt that an entirely DIFFERENT explanation is far more
logical, and it does NOT require any bizarre abandonment of trusted
scientific laws! It actually involves an essentially continuous Big Bang sort of effect! But not a
spectacular disruptive effect, but a constant dribbling of new energy and matter in our Universe. NOT all in
some speculated micro-fraction of a second but CONTINUOUSLY over potentially billions of years! And
always totally complying with all known laws of physical reality!
Physics KNOWS that it is possible to take two beams of energy (light) and aim them exactly at each other. IF the
two beams are at exactly the same frequency (and therefore wavelength), and IF the two beams have exactly
opposite PHASE, they will CANCEL each other and the result is that they will suddenly both cease to exist and
NOTHING is left. In Physics, this is called Destructive Interference. You have seen (and heard) examples of this
many times. In a smooth pond where you throw two small rocks in, they each cause waves to form in the water,
which travel (propagate) outward. When those waves encounter each other, you may have noticed that sometimes
they ADD and create even taller waves (Constructive Interference) and at other times they seem to cancel each other
out and the water momentarily seems calm. In fact, you may have seen exhibits in Science Museums where a
long wave tank generates water waves at both ends, and when the timing is adjusted right, in the middle of
the tank, there are no waves, because they have Destructively Interfered with each other.
If you play a guitar, you know that at the exact center of a string, it is possible to see that the string is not vibrating
there, which is called a NODE. There are identical waves traveling in both directions in the string, due to the waves
bouncing back off the fixed ends of the string, and that Destructive Interference can occur at the Node.
So Destructive Interference is a reliable FACT of Physics.
In Nuclear Physics, nearly all processes are recognized to be able to occur in opposite directions. For example, a
neutron CAN break apart into a proton and an electron, but also a proton and an electron can fuse together to form a
neutron.
I am convinced that these two basic and accepted Laws of Physics occurred as the first step in the creation of
the Universe.
First Stage of this Process
Specifically, beginning with absolutely NOTHING, there were two streams of ENERGY which came
into existence, which were propagated in EXACTLY opposite directions and necessarily exactly out of phase,
and necessarily having exactly identical frequency and wavelength. The two beams of energy are absolutely
identical but they are also exactly out of phase with each other. At all instants, if all the energy in those two
beams is added together, they always total exactly zero energy, due to Conservation of Energy. One of these
two powerful beams of energy headed AWAY from where our Universe would eventually arise, so it CAN never be
detected from within our Universe! The other of these two powerful beams of energy came TOWARD where our
Universe would arise, and in fact the energy beam later did a second Stage to separate into particles and antiparticles.
As a future consequence of this, if and when these two energy beams will ever encounter each other again, they will
simply Destructively Interfere with each other and DISAPPEAR! (and in that event, our entire Universe would cease
to exist!)
But these are not instantaneous PULSES of energy but PERSISTENT beams of energy. The comment just
made, of our Universe 'ceasing to exist' would only occur INCREMENTALLY, possibly over an interval of billions
of years, where our Universe might GRADUALLY disappear from existence, a speck at a time!
There is no reason to believe that 'our' energy beam has YET ceased to be persistently being created! In other
words, instead of an INSTANTANEOUS Big Bang, we are describing here a PERSISTENT FORMATION,
which may still be occurring after 13.8 billion years of previous formation! Has it already stopped? No one
knows. Will such persistent formation continue for another billion years or a hundred billion years? No one knows.
IF the persistent formation had only occurred for, say, one billion years, and then stopped being created, then the
AVAILABLE ENERGY WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE might now be constant, in other words, a Conservation of
Energy. (We must remember that there would necessarily have to be ANOTHER Universe that we could never
detect or see or visit, which contains the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of anti-energy in it! Conservation of Energy
always applies on a larger scale.) However, if such a persistent formation is still continuing today, then the
Gross amount of Energy in our Universe might be still be increasing, today. (Note that this again would require
the exact same amount of new anti-energy be appearing in some other Universe somewhere, but out-of-phase with
our energy, so that Conservation of Energy always applies. Also, IF the persistent formation had ceased some time
back, and we happened to have proceeded to a much later time when the two initial energy beams have already
begun to collide, (and the Universe is therefore already gradually disappearing away!) then the Gross amount of
energy in our Universe might now be decreasing.
It is not clear if there could be any way to discern between these three possibilities regarding our situation in our
entire Universe(s). All three situations are technically the same, with the only difference being just WHEN we are in
the process. Energy might be still increasing (1) creation of energy (or technically, Constructive Interference with a
forever unseen other Universe); (2) there might be stability of Gross energy; or (3) Destructive Interference of the
energy canceling out of existence [always exactly matching the total quantities of out-of-phase energy in some other
Universe(s)]. We tend to assume that we exist during (2). In principle, the three main stages might even sort of
'overlap' where 'new energy' might still be appearing in our Universe while at some other location, 'old energy' might
be being destructively cancelled out with out-of-phase anti-energy from outside of OUR Universe! No one knows
and it is hard to see how anyone in our Universe can or will ever know!
The two initial beams of energy might be described in an unusual way, for the following portions of this
argument, which we might call Energy and Anti-Energy. This is NOT describing anything goofy such as Dark
Energy, but simply referring to a different energy beam which just happens to be exactly out-of-phase with our
energy.
There is NOTHING peculiar about this process, and Research scientists do experiments every day where this
sort of ANNIHILATION is seen to occur. There is a famous experiment called a Double Slit experiment, where
monochromatic light is created and sent through two separate slits, and then a screen behind the slits is examined.
Very obvious INTERFERENCE PATTERNS are seen, where in some places, the screen is absolutely dark. If
EITHER slit is blocked, the entire screen is illuminated, which proves that the dark areas ARE caused by
Destructive Interference of the two identical light beams.
An important aspect of the Energy and Anti-Energy beams is that they necessarily must be absolutely and perfectly
identical to each other, but where they are headed outward in exactly opposite directions such that they can never
encounter each other, but where imperfections in the two beams are also identical, except for being upside-down and
backwards from each other. THIS is required to Conserve Energy, in all three dimensions. A portion of the Energy
beam which has a frequency that is 3% lower and is directed in a direction which is one degree to the left, is
necessarily therefore matched by a portion of the Anti-Energy beam which has that identical frequency but which is
headed outward in a direction which is one degree to the right of the main beam.
This is standard radiation analysis logic.
The Energy beam (that WE care about!) is therefore a very complex collection of Energy beams that are generally
headed out to what we might say is to the West. The Anti-Energy beam is therefore a complex beam of outgoing
radiation that is generally headed toward the East. This indicates that the two beams will NOT encounter each other,
possibly forever but certainly for a VERY long time! We shall now ignore the Anti-Energy beam for a while.
Second Stage of the Process
Physics has long known that it is possible to allow an electron and something which is called an anti-electron (or
positron) to collide, and when they do, they cease to exist as particles, having mutually annihilated each other (BUT
they create a very precise amount of energy in the process). Similar experiments are done every day where protons
and anti-protons mutually annihilate, and neutrons and anti-neutrons mutually annihilate. In each case, the particles
vanish but a very precise amount of ENERGY now exists, as radiation, or Energy.
Again, many Physics experiments show that a beam of radiation that happens to have a specific amount of energy
available, can and does spontaneously CREATE an electron-positron pair, or if more energy is available, a protonanti-proton pair can form. This has been confirmed experimentally for EVERY nuclear particle. These are mundane
experiments for Graduate Physics students!
Considering our Original beam of Energy, it seems likely that countless particle pairs would be created. Again, the
two created particles necessarily have EXACTLY the same mass and velocity (kinetic energy) and they must leave
in EXACTLY opposite directions. But the point here is that we now have PARTICLES that have come into
existence, after this two-step process. At the same time, ANTI-PARTICLES headed out in exactly opposite
directions (which had the capability to form an entirely separate Anti-Particle Universe.) Initially, all the
protons and electrons that got (or get) created into our Universe began to rapidly orbit each other to form
hydrogen atoms. Nothing else existed, just hydrogen atoms. Gravitation then caused formation of stars and
later, everything else!
In general, when an environment has BOTH particles and anti-particles in it, such particles tend to collide and again
mutually annihilate, converting back to pure energy (in compliance with the standard Laws of Physics and with all
experimental evidence).
However, with these mutual creation processes occurring continuously and in immense numbers, there will
likely eventually be some Statistical accumulation of particles heading away in one specific direction, and an
identical, but upside-down and backwards of each other, accumulation of anti-particles, headed away in the
exact opposite direction, PRECISELY.
Within each of those accumulations of particles, there WILL be mutual annihilations which occur when any
remaining anti-particles encounter their opposites.
THIS then would eventually result in OUR Universe which is essentially filled with particles, and which also
has impressive amounts of energy in it.
WE call this our Universe!
Note an interesting required consequence of this reasoning. Because the geometry of the way EVERY
particle was created with a precise Vector velocity (direction and speed), it was necessarily matched by an
anti-particle with exactly the opposite velocity vector (direction and speed). This seems to imply that
when something complex like our Sun came into existence in OUR Universe, of countless individual
atoms, the precisely identical anti-particles must have also caused an Anti-Sun to come into existence in
an Anti-Matter Universe. In order to strictly comply with all the known Laws of Physics, this IS
necessary! Continuing that reasoning further, when YOU were born in OUR Universe, there necessarily
must have simultaneously been born an Anti-You in that Anti-Matter Universe, and he or she has lived a
life which is absolutely identical to the life which you have lived in our Universe. (But there is a
difference, of being upside-down and backwards, which would never be detectable!) An Anti-You might
therefore be left-handed if you are right-handed, but in every other way, to the tiniest detail, you ARE
absolutely identical.
Again, this consequence is REQUIRED in order that EVERY particle and EVERY energy beam in existence
maintains compliance with Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of
Mass. If even a single atom in a single one of your brain cells ever became DIFFERENT, then the Conservation
Laws would no longer precisely apply, which should not be possible. So there ARE two of You!
Since we could not possibly ever enter an Anti-matter Universe without being immediately mutually annihilated
with individual anti-particles, we could not possibly ever MEET our Doppelganger, or even be aware of the
existence of such an Anti-Universe where we might even ever be able to communicate. So, in practical terms, you
ARE alone in being you!
Let us now remember that we had an Anti-Energy beam, which clearly would have EXACTLY the identical
consequences regarding creating two OTHER Universes, which we might refer to as Anti-Energy Universes. The
Conservation Laws still apply (everywhere) and so this means that there must be EXACTLY FOUR Universes
that exist, which are necessarily absolutely identical to the tiniest detail. The single exception is the fact that the
geometry of these processes necessarily creates mirror Universes, where some might be considered upside-down and
backwards. However, note that we residents of the United States might describe the people of Australia as constantly
being upside-down, while there is NO actual sensation of that for the Australian people. So as the Anti-Energy,
Anti-Matter, Anti-Me is typing these words on his Anti-Computer, he might consider ME to be upside-down and
backwards! There are apparently EXACTLY FOUR OF ME, each in totally separate Universes. This is
NECESSARY to ensure that the Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass laws of science are absolutely
true and reliable! In fact, the four of ME are each typing away on absolutely identical computer keyboards, which is
also necessary to always maintain the two main Conservation Laws! Of course, each of us four MEs claims to be the
'matter-energy' version, and we each refer to the others as being 'anti-mes' in the other three Universes that none of
us could possibly ever confirm or detect in any way. Each of us thinks that the others are 'left-handed' or 'upsidedown', but since we cannot ever actually know that the others exist, we are each free to believe such things, and even
in the UNIQUENESS of me!
In 1960, as part of a High School Science Fair Project, I came up with this reasoning which seems to be a strictly
logical description of how the Universe might have come into existence. Even after getting my College Degree in
Physics from the University of Chicago, I still believe that THIS explanation for the creation of the Universe is far
more logical than any others that I am aware of.
It is based on STANDARD Laws of science, without having to discard them for exotic events that do not comply
with what we understand of as science.
Specifically, we live in a Universe that is essentially ALL MATTER. We know that there are ANTI-MATTER
particles which are identical to all our matter protons, electrons and neutrons. Equally importantly, we know that if
any matter particle encounters its matching anti-matter particle, they immediately annihilate and disappear
(becoming pure energy and no actual objects any more). Physics also often analyzes experimental results where the
passage of time might seem to pass in EITHER direction, forward or backwards. So, it is well known in Physics that
if ENERGY is present in a large enough quantity, that energy CAN cause the spontaneous creation of an electron
and anti-electron (also called a positron) or cause the spontaneous creation of a proton and anti-proton. That has
been experimentally confirmed countless times, as has the annihilation which occurs when an electron and positron
cease to exist.
Based on these KNOWN FACTS, I thought it possible and even likely that the MATTER in our Universe might
have come into existence as an extended spray of matter particles from some location. To still comply with the
Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum, there would necessarily have been a mirror-identical spray
of anti-particles into what would become a SEPARATE (anti-) Universe.
This COULD have occurred in a single instantaneous burst as per a Big Bang, but it also could be at a
"seam" between the two resulting Universes AND MIGHT STILL BE CONTINUING!
So, instead of a cataclysmic explosion of the popular Big Bang, my reasoning suggests that ADDITIONAL matter
might be dribbling into our Universe, even to this day. This might possibly be occurring at a fairly consistent rate (as
long as the EXACT same amount of anti-matter was dribbling into the Anti-Universe to comply with all the
mechanical and Conservation Laws of science.
I felt that this explanation provided a logical explanation for where all the MATTER in our Universe had come
from. However, it still would then require massive amounts of energy (per E = mc 2 of Einstein). Therefore, I also
proposed an earlier second level of this creation, regarding where the energy could have come from. It is well known
in Physics that two streams of radiation (energy) can annihilate if they are at exactly the same frequency and are also
exactly out-of-phase with each other. Then the only real assumption in my concept: IF two energy streams can
totally annihilate to totally cease to exist, then it SHOULD also be possible that "nothing" should be able to
spontaneously create two beams of radiation. The resulting radiations must be exactly out-of-phase with each other,
and where the vectors describing the paths of those two radiation beams are exactly opposite in direction and exactly
identical in amplitude.
The combination of these two steps seemed to suggest a wonderfully logical explanation of the beginning of BOTH
energy and matter in our Universe. It also has the somewhat creepy implication that there would also have to be
three other mirror-Universes that exist (but which we would never be able to encounter or even prove their
existence!)
An interesting implication of this which I did NOT know when I was in High School is that IF our Universe has had
a "variable total mass" that seems to imply (by General Relativity) that the rate of passage of time may have
significantly varied!
We DO now know (again by General Relativity) that the rate of passage of time on the surface of the Moon is NOT
the same as the rate of the passage of time here on Earth. The difference is very miniscule. It appears that I am now
a few seconds older, having lived my life on Earth, as I would have been had I lived my life on the surface of the
Moon. No one but a Physicist even cares about such tiny differences!
This concept was first created in 1960 as part of a High School Science Fair project. This presentation was first placed on the
Internet in 1998.
The origin of the Universe has been speculated about for centuries. A new approach suggests that it might be that
there are either TWO or FOUR identical Universes! This is based on some very well known facts in Nuclear
Physics. (1) Energy, in the form of a photon, can transform into Matter and Anti-Matter, in the forms of an
electron and positron; that is, the electron and positron simply APPEAR where nothing had existed a
moment earlier except energy; a photon can similarly transform into a Proton Anti-Proton pair. (2)
'Nothing' can transform into two packets of energy which are exactly opposite or out-of-phase; this is easier
to follow in the opposite direction, where a sound wave or light wave can "destructively interfere" with an
identical wave to entirely cease to exist. These processes can be both done in a laboratory in both directions, either
FORMING the two products or in ANNIHILATING the two sources. This premise has geometric constraints, where
the two products necessarily have to leave in exactly opposite directions with exactly identical velocities. This is due
to the Conservation of Mass, Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum Laws. This would seem to
have implications that resulting Universes would have to have great similarities.
In a laboratory environment, we might say that 'nothing' might transform into a photon and anti-photon (two packets
of energy) which then each could transform into an proton anti-proton pair. Such experiments are regularly done
in Nuclear Physics. The result of this sequence of experiments is that you started with 'nothing' and ended up with
FOUR solid objects! In the lab experiments, two of those resultant particles, the two anti-protons (the anti-Matter
particles), quickly annihilate when they encounter any Matter particles (protons) and therefore immediately
transform back into energy. The premise presented here is that the four different types of particles were each
sent in SELECTIVELY different directions where they might there only encounter particles of their own
types. The anti-Matter anti-protons would not encounter natural protons and would then be quite stable for
long periods of time. Ditto, all other anti-matter particles would be stable because there were no natural Matter
particles in that Universe to encounter and mutually annihilate with. As long as the four resultant types of particles
did not interact with any of the other three types, there could very logically be four very stable Universes!
One new implication of this premise is that this would NOT necessarily have to have occurred in a single explosive
moment of a Big Bang. Indeed, it might easily be an ONGOING PROCESS where the total mass and total energy of
our Universe might therefore be changing at this moment.
Another new implication is that this premise does not need Physicists to entirely discard all the known laws of
science, as they find it necessary to do regarding the Big Bang theory. It seems very troublesome to insist that the
Conservation Laws exist everywhere, universally, but then claim that they do not apply at all related to Big Bang
issues. It does not seem acceptable that you get to change your set of Laws just on a whim!
In the middle of the Twentieth Century, radio astronomy discovered that there is a very faint Background Radiation
that seems to come from all directions in the Universe. This is a very faint and weak radiation, generally described
as three-degrees-K radiation, which is a reference to the apparent temperature of the source of that radiation. The
presence of the 3°K radiation is the ONLY bit of evidence that has seemed to be available regarding the early
stages of our Universe. It has been interpreted as indicating that some event of immense heat and power occurred
around 13 billion years ago, and the heat from that event has been dissipating ever since, and is now at a remaining
temperature of 3°K, just slightly above Absolute zero.
This reasoning, based on that single bit of evidence of 3°K radiation from all directions, has resulted in the
fact that most scientists now believe that the Universe, as we know it, began with a Big Bang. The idea is that,
if we could somehow "run the movie of time backwards", we would see that the Universe was physically smaller,
and hotter, in the very distant past. If this assumption is true, then at some specific moment even before that, all of
the material of the Universe must have existed at a single point in space.
Therefore, in "real" forward time, everything of the Universe would have seemed to have burst out of that single
point in space, and has since been cooling, and that's why it is called a Big Bang.
Physicists have speculated about the details about how this could actually happen. They suggest that there were
momentary stages where only energy could have existed. Then, as this incredibly hot environment cooled down a
little, actual material (protons, electrons, neutrons) came into existence, then the outward momentum of all the
original contents continued to carry everything outward to eventually be distributed throughout the Universe as we
now see everything.
Keep in mind that this sort of subject only involves very little actual fact and a LOT of speculation on the part of the
scientists! No one does or even can ever know the details of what would have actually happened in those first
fractions of a second.
To a great extent, it IS essentially entirely a speculation.
All of the currently supported theories about the very beginning of the Universe require completely ignoring
a number of the basic principles of Physics. The field of Physics was built on ideas like the Conservation of
Energy and the Conservation of Momentum. It seems really troublesome to just dismiss such concepts, and instead
claim that the circumstances were so unusual that different rules applied, but that no one can every know just what
those rules were! The premise described here does not seem to have these problems. It seems to comply with
both Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum, at all moments. In that, I believe it has potential
value.
To suggest how incomplete the current logic necessarily is in these matters, I will now suggest an additional feature
that does not seem to be included in such speculations, even though it must certainly have been true, if a Big Bang
event occurred.
How Big Did the Universe Seem to Be?
First, let's consider today. We believe that the Universe has a physical size on the scale of 13 billion light-years,
really huge! We also know, from consequences of some things that Albert Einstein discovered, that the path of a
light beam is affected by the mass of stars and other objects it passes. Such a light beam would actually appear to be
perfectly straight to any instrument we could ever build, but it would actually be a very slightly curved path. Now,
say we sent out a really powerful laser beam in some direction in space. After a LONG time (13 billion years), that
light beam might be apparently passing the very outermost objects in the Universe. In other words, all of the MASS
of the Universe would be BEHIND it. Actually, well before this moment, the great bulk of that mass would have
caused it to slightly curve in one direction or another (to the side). The logic can get a little confusing here, but the
final effect would be that the light's path would eventually get SO curved that it would be turned, first, sideways,
around the mass of the Universe, and then, back inward, back toward the inner areas of the Universe and back near
us!
A similar logical situation exists for us on Earth. Say you decided to go on a long trip, and you decided to go
EXACTLY west. No matter what you encounter, oceans, mountains or whatever, you continue to go exactly west.
Well, after traveling about 25,000 miles, exactly west, (in a direction that you believe to be an exactly straight line)
you will likely come upon very familiar territory, where you started from! You would arrive home from the east! If
you hadn't known that the Earth was a giant ball, which you had gone around, you would certainly be really
confused at how you could have arrived back home after going absolutely and perfectly straight west continuously.
More than that, if your home town had significantly modernized during your long journey, you might not even
recognize it and keep going. After going around the earth fifty times, you might conclude that "the Earth is certainly
larger than 50 x 25,000 or 1,250,000 miles!" Of course, you would have been wrong!
Obviously, we can see that you had not been precisely going perfectly west after all! All along, without knowing it,
you had been very slightly going downward as well. In a mile of walking exactly west (on a perfectly round,
perfectly smooth earth), it turns out that you actually also curved downward around 16 inches without knowing it.
This is essentially the same kind of effect on that light beam that seems to be going absolutely straight through the
Universe. The actual curvature of its path would not even be noticeable to us at all, but even if we could sense it, the
curvature would be so small as to be virtually unnoticeable.
OK. The preparation is now in place! Now imagine that REALLY early Universe, where everything that exists
could still fit in an imaginary "box" a mile on a side. Inside that Universe, gravitation would be incredibly strong,
because all the mass that will ever exist is all so close together in there. All that stuff we just considered about a
(straight) light beam must be true in that Universe. So, if a light beam was aimed in any direction, it would
ACTUALLY be continuously bent back by that huge gravitational effect to permanently loop back and forth
through that Universe (until it eventually ran into some object and got absorbed). Since everything is much closer
together, gravitation effects are especially strong, so the curvature would be very severe. So, how long would the
light beam seem to be, from the thing that created it? If that beam never ran into anything, the light beam would
appear to travel forever IN A STRAIGHT LINE! Even though the entire Universe could fit inside an imaginary box
a mile on a side!
Again, this is just like the trip on the Earth's surface. What is the longest trip you could ever make on Earth? Well, it
could be infinitely long. Even though the Earth could fit in a really big box, you would be able to travel exactly west
forever on its surface. The reality would be that you would wind up going around and around the Earth, but the path
could be infinitely long.
All this is just to suggest how hard it is for us humans to really understand and comprehend these kinds of subjects.
And how a person's speculation of what MIGHT BE can easily get mixed together with the few actual facts that we
know about.
Summary
I actually came up with this concept while I was still a Sophomore in High School, as part of a Science Project. It
bothered me that no one seemed to be concerned with suddenly popping the incredible amount of material of the
Universe out of nothing! Even by then, I was aware of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass! And it
really bothered me that Physicists made clear that they were willing to dismiss those Conservation Laws!
Here is my logic about the Cosmogony concept. It is also speculation, but it seems at least as valid as the
speculations of others in the field.
Our known Universe seems to be virtually entirely MATTER, with only the tiniest occasional amounts of ANTIMATTER in it. But, the two are essentially identical. In principle, if enough anti-matter had accumulated
somewhere in the Universe, it could have gravitationally collapsed and formed a star, just like all other stars (and the
Sun) began. Such an anti-matter star would appear exactly like any other star we could ever see, and there would be
no way that we could ever know that it was anti-matter rather than matter, by its light or its motion.
But, if such an anti-matter star actually existed, within our Universe, it could not exist very long in our matter
Universe. The "empty" Universe is actually filled with all kinds of loose atoms and simple molecules, and
meteoroids and asteroids and comets and probably planets. There are therefore a LOT of loose things just wandering
around space, and most of these things must certainly be MATTER. When such an object would get pulled into an
anti-matter star by its gravity, the matter of the object would combine with some of the anti-matter of the star to
instantly annihilate each other, both instantly disappearing and creating a LOT of new energy. It seems certain that
an anti-matter star or planet would soon be entirely annihilated in this way in our matter Universe.
That implies that virtually everything in our Universe is MATTER. So, what about considering an initial raw energy
source that spontaneously divided itself into a LOT of MATTER, which went in one direction, and an EXACT
SAME amount of ANTI-MATTER, which went in exactly the opposite direction? On a nuclear scale, physicists
regularly see such energy (photons) spontaneously divide into electron-positron pairs (electrons and anti-electrons)
exactly in this way. I am just proposing that it had occurred (somehow) on a grand scale.
This concept could then explain why all the material of the Universe seemed to appear at the same moment at the
same place, if a Big Bang type of event actually occurred. Actually, it could also represent an ongoing process,
where new material continues to enter our Universe! It just seems to me to present a more logical explanation of
how it might have happened.
There is a really interesting consequence of this premise! Precisely the same number of protons and electrons and
anti-protons and anti-electrons would have to have been formed. The physical law of conservation of momentum
would insist that each such pair of object must necessarily move off in precisely opposite directions. From standard
symmetry arguments of Physics, I don't see how it could be avoided that our MATTER Universe and the proposed
ANTI-MATTER Universe must be precise "inverted mirror images" of each other! They would even have
PRECISELY the same initial conditions in each of them. Therefore, all of the later gravitational interactions would
have to have proceeded identically in each of them. That would imply that both of these mirror image Universes
must progress absolutely identically. The materials that gravitationally came together five billion years ago to form
the Sun must have been matched in the anti-Universe in the forming of the anti-Sun! And then, the anti-Earth, and
anti-oceans, and anti-dinosaurs, and anti-people, and anti-computers, and anti-YOU! It seems to me that the initial
symmetry of the beginning of the two Universes must necessarily have set the conditions for absolutely identical
progression in both of them. This is essentially implying that the anti-ME is now typing these letters on the keyboard
of his anti-computer on the anti-Earth in that anti-Universe!
More than that, I have no way of even establishing that I am the original! HE certainly thinks of himself as the
original and so he considers ME as the anti-HIM!
Fortunately, the two hypothetical Universes could never meet each other, or even be in any contact with each other,
because any such contact would necessarily involve mutual annihilation of the message (energy) or the person or the
Universe! If they should ever meet, every particle in our Universe would exactly meet its anti-particle, and the
existence of the entire Universe(s) would end. Still conserving Energy and Momentum. So, there's absolutely no
way to ever confirm or deny my speculation about the anti-ME!
I find that part interesting to think about, but essentially irrelevant. More important to me is that a matter/anti-matter
pair of Universes allows a logical description to be possible as to where everything originally came from!
OK! This accounts for TWO mirror-image Universes. But the beginning of this said there might be four. What
gives?
Well, the premise as presented still required the pre-existence of a lot of energy that somehow spontaneously split
apart into the matter and anti-matter. Could that original energy that is necessary also be explained?
Another characteristic of nuclear physics is that it is possible for two (identical) photons to meet each other and just
disappear! Essentially, this like two identical waves in water or in a vibrating guitar string or anywhere else, which
are exactly out-of-phase with each other. If two such identical waves are traveling in exactly the same direction and
they are exactly out-of-phase (by 180°) then they completely "cancel" each other and disappear.
One of the central understandings of nuclear physics is that any event that occurs could occur as seen is real time or
it could also occur as if time was running backwards. This seems to imply that, if two photons can completely
annihilate each other, leaving nothing, then a beginning "nothing" must also be able to split into two photons. Again,
things like the various conservation laws of physics would insist that the two photons thus created are (1) absolutely
identical, but have opposite phase; and (2) traveling away from the point of creation in precisely opposite directions.
Therefore, my speculation on the beginning of everything adds one more step prior to the division of initial energy
into matter and anti-matter Universes. The new step is an earlier division of NOTHING into mirror-image, identical
energy streams traveling in precisely opposite directions from the original point of origin.
This actually provides, not only the energy stream necessary to later create our matter Universe and my hypothetical
anti-matter Universe, but a SECOND identical (mirror image) energy stream going in the opposite direction. It
seems to me that, due to the standard symmetry arguments, whatever cause OUR original energy stream to divide
itself into matter and anti-matter, would also have occurred under the identical conditions of the OTHER original
energy stream. That seems to imply to me that TWO MORE identical Universes must have come about. And, since
the symmetry arguments must still be precisely true for both of these division stages, the four resultant Universes
must necessarily have progressed precisely identically. Wow! That means there are probably FOUR MEs typing
away! (The ME here, the energy-anti-matter me, the anti-energy-matter me, and the anti-energy-anti-matter me!)
The four of us would all experience the exact same sensations, in precisely the same ways. Even though I (this me!)
refer to anti-matter and anti-matter Universes, the me that is in any of the other Universes also thinks of himself as
being in the matter Universe, so they would refer to me as being in an anti- Universe!
As I keep repeating, ANYONE's opinion on such things is sheer speculation, because there is so little actual
evidence that exists about these matters. But I have always liked the elegance of this approach because it begins with
absolutely NOTHING, and accounts for all the mass and energy that we know exists in our Universe. Other
theories, like most Big Bang theories all just see all that mass and energy just popping up without explanation. Their
theories always say that the laws of physics just didn't apply at that time, to allow their speculation to be possible. I
have always been uncomfortable with subjectively claiming that the laws of physics either apply or don't apply
based on things some scientist might want to have happen. At least, my theory here does NOT require weird or
different laws of physics to have ever existed. That single reason is why I see potential value in this theory!
The concept was first developed for a High School Science Project in 1960. It was first placed on the Internet in 1998.