Thursday, January 7, 2016

Why I am very uncomfortable with the “Big Bang”

Why I am very uncomfortable with the “Big Bang”

Below is 'quote I picked up from Pinterest.

It is a good site to visit when one is lost for a thought moment.

My current analysis should not fall into any of the three IDEAS, EVENTS or PEOPLE.

I wonder where it should fall BUT the reader should not make any cross reference or opinions, lest s/he falls into the TRAP set in by the Big Bang itself. 

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds, events, small minds, people. 

My reasoning are

1. Bing Bang sounds nice as a phrase but it falls short of Reality of Nature.

2. That is of course if there is something called Reality, which the human mind can grasp.

3. The bottom line is we cannot even grasp what is called Mind and its physical constituents.

4. The Mind is so labile by the time it is measured by a physical agent (for example an EEG) it has changed into another form of expression.

5. It begs the question can something that is so labile can measure something so enormous like the universe in its full motion.

6. Mind has to FREEZE the universe out of its motion for it to be measured in physical terms.

7. It does not mean physics and derived equations can explain everything.

8. There are limits and boundaries for physical laws and the bone of contention here is does the Universe end where physical laws fails to apply, for example near the horizon of “Black Holes.

Let me express my discontent about the Big Bang.

Number one is it Freezes the universe at Time Zero or 15 billion light years ago and then work forward from there.

Why is it not 50 billion light years?

Time is a concept related to motion of particles (for example electrons).

It not a constant but a certain relationship to what we call SPACE.

If that is so the physicist should be able to send a particle equivalent of an electron to the universe and wait for another 30 billion years for it to report back to us of the outer limit.

But that electron or particle has to be guided from the time of its exit from the emitter through SPACE and should not be subjected to any interference of any kind till it reaches the boundary of the universe.

And then WHAT?

Would it turn BACK?

Would it escape the laws of physics?

This argument can be stretched to any limit till cows come home but would not answer the strangeness of the whole universe.

That is the experiment side of it which is not worth performing since our life cycle is limited by about 100 years,  insignificant in light years.

However one does not bother about experiments, the mother nature is performing experiments at will and they are abound.

This is what Hubble showed us with the spectrum of light which the human eye can see, the Red shift equivalent to receding universe and Blue shift as of advancing objects.

There is another assumption that is light or the photon moves at constant speed of light.

How can something be so constant in a universe where everything else is changing including the SPACE itself.

If time is relative concept, the speed of light is also a concept by itself.

This is the bottom line in relativity in physics.

If we don't have a constant and a time frame we cannot have objective measurement of anything in space.

In other words FREEZING the Universe at time ZERO.

Now I come to the crunch point which is How did the Mass at Zero Time Originate?

There is no answer to this point it is in the same line as the all mighty CREATOR did have a say.

In other words Big Bang was created to fall in line with Holy One.

That was the biggest fallacy.

Currently particle physicists are struggling to explain from where the Mass of an atom comes?

They are beginning to realize that even the space is not empty but has virtual particles, so that the other particles can make stable environment or tiny universes.

The presumption is the space is expanding not the particles that are moving at variable constants in relation to the mysterious gravitational forces making us believe that the particles are moving an not the other way round.

That is again the beauty of relativity.

So my unifying argument (mind you a theory) is that there are tiny universes within this universe and there are many tiny universes outside of this universe.

The words 'tiny' and 'this' are also relative terms not absolutes.

There is lot in physics left to be discovered and that why Steven Hawking talked about the bosons or the God Particle (no reference is made to the god).

The Spectrum is not limited by what is visible, it stretches beyond and outside the visible spectrum.

Mind you the grand theory is yet to be discovered.

I want the young physicist to take the mantle and explore the nature within and outside our universe.