What if the Universe began from a Big "Thaw" not, a Big Bang?
I quote the word thaw because it is not exactly accurate but serves to describe the intent.
The following short dissertation is from my own ideas. If it resembles anyone else's, please understand, I am not intentionally misusing someone else's ideas (if it is out there please point me to it). I admit my physics knowledge is limited to one official class as well as the physics I used while studying chemistry. There may very well be "simple explanations" as to why my idea, presented here, is not possible and the reason no physicists have taken this approach but, having no other forum to present my idea, I will present it here, for my peers here, to consider and respond to if anyone wishes.
What if all the matter in the Universe has always been, "in the Universe"? Conservation Law?
Not as we see it today of course, in the form of Galaxies, Stars, Planets, etc, but as the elementary particles (or the strings that make up the elementary particles if you are a string theorist) that make up everything there is.
The universe itself IS finite. The "space" the universe occupies is infinite. These elementary particles, both the matter particles and force carrying particles, occupied the infinite space where, as yet, NO ENERGY existed. They existed at a zero energy state... Zero resonance... The only time anything was truly motionless yet, they were moving, in the absence of any energy of their own, within the "space" of the universe.
How could that be?
In my hypothesis, the primary force that existed, that always has existed, the "God Force" (vs the "God Particle" if you will) that IS the Grand Unification Theory is, Gravity.
Why did gravity exist first?
In my hypothesis, the force we quantify as gravity, is the primary force that is the simple result of "Existence". Everything that exists AND possesses matter and as a result has mass, has gravity, be it a miniscule amount of an elementary particle or the massive amount of a Black Hole. Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". Gravity says, "I am, therefore I attract".
Everyone likes to see math when considering hypothesis like this and I will present "a little" on which I base some of my conclusions.
Here is my simple math:
U=M+E; where U= universe, M=matter, and E=energy; this is in keeping with the conservation law.
U=1 a unit less number and a constant. M or E will equal some portion of the constant and together will always equal 1.
From this I propose;
In the beginning, U=1=M and E=0 (the only state of absolute zero is if/when energy = 0)
So, in the beginning of the universe, the elementary particles existed but there was no energy in them. From a "God's eye view" this matter might appear as a huge cloud in an infinite space at absolute zero. While it is a common misunderstanding to think of absolute zero as a frozen state that is not the case at all. It really isn't a temperature as such. It is a zero energy state and a temperature of 0 Kelvin means no energy exists. The temperature in space is 2.7 Kelvin. This "temperature" is due to microwave background radiation, often cited as proof of a "Big Bang" but I believe it would also result from the energy released as the elementary particles reacted to each other, forming larger and larger structures until the first atoms formed and the stars and then galaxies, over billions of years. If you could look at the early universe from a human perspective you would see "nothing". The elementary particles are microscopic. The distances between particles could have been a little more than a Planck length or light-years apart. Over an immeasurable amount of time the particles coalesced, under the immutable force of gravity, until the first 2 made contact and created the first release of energy which in turn caused the first chain reaction. This occurred over and over releasing more and more energy allowing increased particle size and greater and greater gravitational forces. The result of this you see today in the Universe we currently inhabit.
(The cosmic back ground radiation picture)
This picture is sited as "proof" of a Big Bang. I feel it more accurately represents a spread out multitude of Little Bangs. One Big Bang should produce a large homogeneous flash... an even dispersal of radiation... not the spotty dispersion seen in the picture.
Why would I believe contrary to the "accepted" theory?
I see some inconsistencies in the theory and accepted "Laws" physicists believe in.
Which is easier to envision;
All the matter in the Universe occupying an infinitesimally small volume and suddenly exploding and expanding, from a single point in space, to an unimaginably vast universe, all the while, coalescing into larger and larger particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies?
Or;
All the matter in the universe existing, in the smallest particles possible but, spread over vast distances and, under the influence of gravity, coalescing into larger and larger particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies from all directions and toward all directions?
In the first example we are asked to believe "everything", all the matter in the universe, could have occupied a space smaller than anything you could imagine. That would mean that whatever individual bits and pieces the universe consisted of, prior to the Big Bang, would have had to be "less than a Planck length" apart. A Planck length is 1.616x10^-35 meters, defined as the point at which it would be impossible to determine the difference between two locations. That would seem to say the universe was a single particle which "became" an impossible number of individual particles.
In my example, all the individual particles were here and just needed gravity and time to join, release energy and form larger particles and elements.
What about conservation and entropy.
In the creation of the universe by a big bang an incredible amount of energy was initially released and has since been "lost" to the universe through entropy.
In creation by a gravitational coalescing action the energy released/transferred by particles "bumping" into one another is imparted into the formation of increasingly larger particles and "conserved".
I believe the first question asked may be,
"Ok, but where did the sub-atomic particles come from in the first place?"
Answer:
The same place the super tiny super massive Big Bang particle came from. Or, we don't know that answer.
Note that this is a some-what unfinished work. It is far easier to roll this idea around in my mind than to put it in writing. Perhaps your comments will provide an opening to express another, forgotten, point.
Your comments, good or bad, are welcome.
I quote the word thaw because it is not exactly accurate but serves to describe the intent.
The following short dissertation is from my own ideas. If it resembles anyone else's, please understand, I am not intentionally misusing someone else's ideas (if it is out there please point me to it). I admit my physics knowledge is limited to one official class as well as the physics I used while studying chemistry. There may very well be "simple explanations" as to why my idea, presented here, is not possible and the reason no physicists have taken this approach but, having no other forum to present my idea, I will present it here, for my peers here, to consider and respond to if anyone wishes.
What if all the matter in the Universe has always been, "in the Universe"? Conservation Law?
Not as we see it today of course, in the form of Galaxies, Stars, Planets, etc, but as the elementary particles (or the strings that make up the elementary particles if you are a string theorist) that make up everything there is.
The universe itself IS finite. The "space" the universe occupies is infinite. These elementary particles, both the matter particles and force carrying particles, occupied the infinite space where, as yet, NO ENERGY existed. They existed at a zero energy state... Zero resonance... The only time anything was truly motionless yet, they were moving, in the absence of any energy of their own, within the "space" of the universe.
How could that be?
In my hypothesis, the primary force that existed, that always has existed, the "God Force" (vs the "God Particle" if you will) that IS the Grand Unification Theory is, Gravity.
Why did gravity exist first?
In my hypothesis, the force we quantify as gravity, is the primary force that is the simple result of "Existence". Everything that exists AND possesses matter and as a result has mass, has gravity, be it a miniscule amount of an elementary particle or the massive amount of a Black Hole. Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". Gravity says, "I am, therefore I attract".
Everyone likes to see math when considering hypothesis like this and I will present "a little" on which I base some of my conclusions.
Here is my simple math:
U=M+E; where U= universe, M=matter, and E=energy; this is in keeping with the conservation law.
U=1 a unit less number and a constant. M or E will equal some portion of the constant and together will always equal 1.
From this I propose;
In the beginning, U=1=M and E=0 (the only state of absolute zero is if/when energy = 0)
So, in the beginning of the universe, the elementary particles existed but there was no energy in them. From a "God's eye view" this matter might appear as a huge cloud in an infinite space at absolute zero. While it is a common misunderstanding to think of absolute zero as a frozen state that is not the case at all. It really isn't a temperature as such. It is a zero energy state and a temperature of 0 Kelvin means no energy exists. The temperature in space is 2.7 Kelvin. This "temperature" is due to microwave background radiation, often cited as proof of a "Big Bang" but I believe it would also result from the energy released as the elementary particles reacted to each other, forming larger and larger structures until the first atoms formed and the stars and then galaxies, over billions of years. If you could look at the early universe from a human perspective you would see "nothing". The elementary particles are microscopic. The distances between particles could have been a little more than a Planck length or light-years apart. Over an immeasurable amount of time the particles coalesced, under the immutable force of gravity, until the first 2 made contact and created the first release of energy which in turn caused the first chain reaction. This occurred over and over releasing more and more energy allowing increased particle size and greater and greater gravitational forces. The result of this you see today in the Universe we currently inhabit.
(The cosmic back ground radiation picture)
This picture is sited as "proof" of a Big Bang. I feel it more accurately represents a spread out multitude of Little Bangs. One Big Bang should produce a large homogeneous flash... an even dispersal of radiation... not the spotty dispersion seen in the picture.
Why would I believe contrary to the "accepted" theory?
I see some inconsistencies in the theory and accepted "Laws" physicists believe in.
Which is easier to envision;
All the matter in the Universe occupying an infinitesimally small volume and suddenly exploding and expanding, from a single point in space, to an unimaginably vast universe, all the while, coalescing into larger and larger particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies?
Or;
All the matter in the universe existing, in the smallest particles possible but, spread over vast distances and, under the influence of gravity, coalescing into larger and larger particles, atoms, stars, and galaxies from all directions and toward all directions?
In the first example we are asked to believe "everything", all the matter in the universe, could have occupied a space smaller than anything you could imagine. That would mean that whatever individual bits and pieces the universe consisted of, prior to the Big Bang, would have had to be "less than a Planck length" apart. A Planck length is 1.616x10^-35 meters, defined as the point at which it would be impossible to determine the difference between two locations. That would seem to say the universe was a single particle which "became" an impossible number of individual particles.
In my example, all the individual particles were here and just needed gravity and time to join, release energy and form larger particles and elements.
What about conservation and entropy.
In the creation of the universe by a big bang an incredible amount of energy was initially released and has since been "lost" to the universe through entropy.
In creation by a gravitational coalescing action the energy released/transferred by particles "bumping" into one another is imparted into the formation of increasingly larger particles and "conserved".
I believe the first question asked may be,
"Ok, but where did the sub-atomic particles come from in the first place?"
Answer:
The same place the super tiny super massive Big Bang particle came from. Or, we don't know that answer.
Note that this is a some-what unfinished work. It is far easier to roll this idea around in my mind than to put it in writing. Perhaps your comments will provide an opening to express another, forgotten, point.
Your comments, good or bad, are welcome.
