Something wrong with the theory of Big bang
May 10, 2001 by Maziar Aptin
Updated December 2014
Although I am not a physicist,
I have been very interested in science, especially in theoretical astrophysics.
I have subscribed to Scientific Americans Magazine since the early 1980s
and have read other scientific publications.
In the early 1990s, I read A Brief History of Time – from the
Big Bang to Black Holes by Stephen Hawkins, and I loved it.
I do understand the basic
principle of the theory of the Big Bang, but I take issue with the theory’s
assumption that the size of our universe, right before the Big Explosion, was
equivalent to a size of a ballpoint pen.
Allow me to explain what is
bothering me: The Big Bang theory was born in the mid-1920s when American
scientist Edwin Hubble had mathematically figured out that the universe is
constantly expanding at an accelerating pace. This, in turn, infers that as we
go back in time, the universe must have been smaller and smaller.
The assumption is that, because
the volume of matter in the universe is so vast (almost infinite), the size of
the universe just before the Big Bang (due to the inward pressure) must have
been almost infinitely small.
In my opinion, the above
assessment is mathematically correct – “the opposite of infinity is zero”;
hence, the opposite of “almost infinite” is “infinitesimal”, or almost zero. In
other words, because the amount of matter in our universe is almost infinitely
large, if all that matter were pressed into a small place, the inward
gravitational pressure would make the size of the concentrated matter close to
zero: This is the principle of the Theory of Big Bang.
My Problem
In my opinion, even though
mathematically the above assumption is correct, the law of physics will not
allow the concentration of such a vast amount of matter in such a small place,
as the theory of Big Bang suggests. In my opinion, long before the
concentration of matter reaches to the assumed point, it will explode.
For example, in our own Milky
Way Galaxy (which is only one of billions of galaxies in the universe), when
gigantic stars grow too large, the intense heat will create a “little big bang”
(Super Nova), which will result in the creation of a nebula.
Based on the above fact, if the
law of physics precludes the concentration of matter to exceed from a certain
amount, then how could all the matter in the universe—which consists of more
than trillion gigantic stars—to be concentrated in a place the size of the tip
of a ballpoint pen before exploding?
Most scientists have accepted
the theory of big bang but no one has, so far, explained how a nearly infinite
amount of matter and energy could be concentrated in such a small space.
That is when the term
“Singularity” was coined.
Definition of Singularity: Singularities are where the
law of physics, as we know it, breaks down.
In other words, the scientists
that came out with the Big Bang theory say: “We do not know the answer to this
important question”.
In conclusion, based on the
above argument, in my opinion, Big Bang theory, in its present form, is
incomplete until the term “singularity” is explained away.
In recent decades, the idea of
“Multiversity” has been introduced.
Up to the early 20th century,
we used to think that the Milky Way galaxy was the whole universe; but now we
know that the Milky Way is one of billions of galaxies in our universe, and
these galaxies sometimes collide with each other and merge.
Consequently, there could be a
number of universes out there, and the Big Bang could be the result of the
collision of two (or more) universes.
In my opinion, this hypothesis
is more plausible than the “ballpoint pen size universe” right
before the Big Bang.
Maziar Aptin
