What Possibly Happened Before the Big Bang

Afshordi, Niayesh, Robert B Mann, and Razzieh Pourhasan. “The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time.”Scientific American  Aug. 2014: 38-43. Print.

This idea made me marvel at the possibilities that are out there, possibilities that may or may not be true in explaining the universe around us.  They built this theory around the concept on the volatility of singularities.  What I am trying to say, is our universe is very uniform and flat, which makes no sense considering the accepted theory of the big bang.  Singularities have no laws of physics, and there is no future or past – there is no time.  Out of all the possible ways the singularity exploded, the singularity exploded in such a way that eventually harbored life.  To them there has to be a logical explanation rather than a spiritual one.  So they came up with this idea, to provide conditions for the singularity to explode in a much more uniform manner.

According to their mathematics, it very well could be possible that the big bang happened on the event horizon of a black hole in four-dimensional space.  This basically means the black hole is a part of a universe in higher dimensions.  The event horizon would be three-dimensional, the very conditions that our universe exists.  The core reason why they are scheming this is because they need the event horizon.  And I quote:

Cloaked by an event horizon, the singularity is rendered impotent.  Its disturbing effects cannot escape, making it possible for the laws of physics to describe and predict all that we observe…

…We would like to have a way to shield ourselves from the big bang’s singularity and its catastrophic unpredictability, perhaps with something akin to an event horizon.

The point to all of this is a way to explain why the singularity of the big bang exploded the way it did.  They saw that if the singularity was in an event horizon, then it would work out.  This theory is testable which I like, and it is tested by analyzing the background radiation.

So what do they say about the universe that exists in higher dimensions than our own?

Well since it would of been in existence much longer than our current universe, it would have time to equalize its temperature.  This would provide the favorable conditions on the event horizon which would allow our universe to explode in such a way that the temperature is consistent enough, and the shape flat enough to eventually harbor life.  But they of course have no good explanations on how that universe was created, or the laws of that universe for that matter.

In conclusion, it is a forced hunch.  They are designing a situation knowing what we know currently which would explain why the big bang exploded the way it did.  What about the universe in higher dimensions?  Why did that singularity explode the way it did?  It is my forced hunch, that physicists do not completely understand singularities themselves and how they behave.  I think it very well could be possible that the birth of our universe is from an implosion, and that implosion had the natural conditions to eventually harbor life.  Scientists just struggle with the implications of this.  Inflationary theory was derived because scientists didn’t like how precise the amount of matter was in the universe.  If it was much higher or much lower, life as we know it would not be able to exist.  I don’t understand it completely, but the fact that if the universe expanded on an order of 78 in fractions of a second, eliminates the need of what I term “The God Ratio.”  It’s the ratio of actual matter and theoretical matter required to make the universe flat.  It had to have been equal to 1.00000000000000.  With that precision.  If it was off, our universe would not be flat and we wouldn’t exist.  Scientists didn’t like that idea, because it points to a Creator.  So they derived inflationary theory.

It makes sense, that if the singularity of the big bang was created, it was understood it would harbor life.  Scientists don’t like this philosophy or way of thinking, and will derive complete theories to get around it.  Not only inflationary theory, but this theory as well.  This bothers me.

I understand what happened during The Enlightenment, and I can see why people have a beef with spirituality.  But spirituality cannot be divided into certain factions.  The bottom line is nobody knows, and we all can theorize on the spiritual realm.  Just as I cannot provide hard proof that God exists, we cannot provide hard proof that he does not exist.  Therefore, we should conduct ourselves open to the possibility that our universe was created.

Finally, I believe that if we continue to think everything was not created from a creator, we will deal with an infinite paradigm.  Here is what I mean:

At the end, the tadpole looking thing is going into a world that is completely infinite.  What I am trying to say, is if we do not wrestle with the fact that something had to come from nothing, we are going to explain different universes infinitely.  There will always be a universe that created the other, but how did the original become created?  Believing in creation ends this conundrum, and it very well could be that the existence He created is infinite.  It would be within His power, or wouldn’t it?

At least this idea is testable.  String theory is losing popularity because the ideas aren’t testable, it is just a mathematical marvel.

I mean the other month, I read about a theory that states universes are in the singularity of black holes, which means our universe is a singularity of a black hole.  What made that black hole?  A universe, which is the singularity of a black hole.

Am I making sense here?  This theory is infinite.

So I take theoretical physics with a grain of salt.  It is a lot of creative math, but no data to support its claims.  I hope scientists get the data they deserve, so we can have an absolute picture of our universe.  I also hope more scientists would be open to the idea that there is a Creator.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. aronwy said,

    July 21, 2016 at 1:51 am

    Personally, I find that the saddest and most disappointing (and also disturbing) thing about the education system today is the way so many educators push theory as fact and fact as truth. Even if you take care to couch your stance in speculative language “for the purpose of debate”, the very fact that you even entertain the possibility of a Creator is mocked and degraded, and you’re labelled everything from “anti-science” to “sadly deluded”. I’m not even sure if there’s any chance of this situation improving. What do you think?

    Like

    • naris said,

      July 22, 2016 at 4:38 pm

      I completely agree. I feel like in higher education especially, if you say you believe in a creator, you are immediately discredited. And I feel like this hinders humanity’s potential. Will it get better? Only if science can prove some of the things that spirituality says exists. So an easy example, is Chi. The energy force that flows throughout your body. I’ve seen videos of men shooting fire out of their hands. It could be staged, or it could be Chi. In my opinion, that is the only way spirituality will receive any credit in the scientific community.

      Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: