How Did The Big Bang Go?
It
wasn't Louie's fault that he had a brain that could contemplate much of the
Universe without effort. It also wasn't Louie's fault that his brain was caged
within the goofy body of a mini-lop rabbit, but such a brain scarcely notices
such a body except as a distraction, in any case.
Another distraction
was Bonny. Bonny was a strikingly beautiful silver-blue bunny with the mental
aptitude of a tissue paper, and besides being a constant nuisance, her pretty
fur was always floating around or left in piles in the dark corners where Louie
hid to work out physical laws of the universe in peaceful
seclusion.
This is worthy of note because nobody seems to consider what
effort someone took to just think for a bit without fur flying up their nose
when they created the laws of motion, invented calculus, created the General
Theory or, in Louie's case, solved the Big Bang riddle.
Really, Newton
was probably OK, but who else can just goof off long enough to snooze outdoors
until, in a fit of late-summer's productivity, an apple tree boinks one on his
skull, and then he is so unfettered with paying phone bills and such that he
can stay there and work out the gravity thing until it's sorted out? And how
about relativity? Everyone already knew that energy=mass*velocity squared, so
what's the big deal about declaring velocity to be light speed? Newton dealt
with things that go about the speed of a falling apple while Einstein thought
"outside the box." Anyhow, both fellows had the wherewithall to just think
about things instead of paying bills all the time, and they figured out neat
stuff and were honored greatly by everyone except the phone company.
In
this regard, Louie was probably better off as a bunny, since that gave him lots
of time to just cogitate on things like the space-time continuum and big-bang
when he wasn't throwing things.
If you constantly had Bonny's fur
getting in your nose, you'd throw things too. This is particularly true when
you're trying to solve the Grand Theory of the Universe and Everything, but
can't concentrate because of all the sneezing. Louie had a terrible temper in
those days and would kick things furiously, or pick up things and throw them
across the room, which often had the effect of scaring the heck out of poor
Bonny and causing huge clouds of fur to fly as she scrabbled for safety from
Louie's rages.
Why should anyone care? The answer is that leaving out
the background information is totally unfair to the future worshipers of a
genius. So what if Newton was a worthless sloth while everyone else took care
of his phone bills. So what if Einstein had a cushy, overpaid government job
and all the technical science information he cared to stick his nose into as a
patent clerk. Louie's I.Q. had to be written as powers of ten, but he was a
rabbit with an attitude. -So what? Does anyone hold sway against Bethoven
because of his tantrums?
The Big Bang turned out to be the Big Flop,
since it didn't bang at all. Point of fact, it's still right where it has
always been at no where and no when, without time or dimension. Instead of a
big kapow, a gentle push just began drifting things away from no where and no
when to gain both dimension and time, and negative dimension and minus time.
From our perspective, the other side of the big bang is evolving time and
dimensions in the opposite direction as our own. From their perspective, new
experiences will evolve in their future as their progression of time flows
forward, just as we see things "over here." In either time, the opposite
universe is separated by both time and dimension twice as far as their own
clocks have ticked and their tape measures have grown. This is the way the
universe and our own world evolves. -Not as huge, energy-sucking blasts of
glory, but as timeless dribbles of change and compensation.
As Louie saw
it, conservation principals are immutable, but one can't get into a rut with
every detail. For instance, things can transmute energy and mass, but they also
transmute time and dimension. Both time and dimension are gifts that grow as
our universe gains displacement from no where no when, or from the origin, if
you wish to call it that. The one thing that must be sacrificed for this to
work is the holy grail of C - light speed. It only applies in the here and now
of this point in spacetime. At the origin, C is undefined (division by zero),
no dimension has evolved and time does not move.
That place sounds a
bit like a black hole but with significant differences. Suppose the physical
"constants" have already laughed at the bald-headed physicists who will
someday, arrogantly believe that constants in their bitty little universe have
always been constants elsewhere. For instance, if dimension has evolved with
time as we drifted away from the origin, how would you measure velocity when
dimensions are shorter and time is slower? Going backward toward the origin,
time would continue to move slower and slower while each dimension of distance
shrinks in a linear fashion.
Whoops! -Why linear? Why not shrink
dimension X, for instance, with some other exponent than one? In relating that
information, Louie suddenly spat out a flurry of expletives and yet another
hairball of beautiful, silvery blue fur; certainly not his own. That delayed
the explanation for a few days until his attention could be secured once more,
but the gist of it is the inordinate evidence of inverse-square distance
relationships observable in the universe. Energy itself relates in this
fashion. If you approached the origin without dimension or time, then gravity
must be zero (no dimension/no vector value for gravity) and everything is
contained inside a dimensionless monstrosity of mass. But moving away from the
origin, the inverse square relationships of energy versus velocity (thought
experiment: relate velocity in expanding spacetime - see the example experiment
below, "measuring lightspeed.") treat energy as if it contained a two
dimensional shadow from a pure linear expansion of a distant source. Mass
equals energy divided by the square of velocity. But velocity is speed over
distance, and distance is based on growing dimensional values as the experiment
egresses away from the origin. A complex consequence limitation of this
scenario requires all observations to be made from only one spacetime, however
the observed results are due to the reference frame of creation, like observing
starlight from a previous spacetime. That creates an automatic vignetted view
of progressive devolution in spacetime back toward the origin.
What
would a monstrosity of mass be in a point without gravity or dimension? How
would it be defined if gravity couldn't even affect it. How could gravity pull
it anywhere without any dimensions? So, unlike a black hole, all this stuff can
stay there forever or perhaps just ooze out to where dimension and time begin
to evolve and take it on a new journey.
The classic Big Bang Theory
evolves the universe with a big pop, at which time a whole pile of constants
are simultaneously created for physicists to worship fondly, or for heretics to
be burned because they did not worship the physicist's constants.
Louie
worships no such idols. It's easy to ignore such trivia when a blob of fur is
stuck on your nose - kind'a drags you back into the more immediate and relevant
issues. Considering that evolving time and space is a product of displacement
from the origin, Louie fully believes that what appears to be universal
constants from our flash-point perspective of the universe are actually
resultant values of our proximity in the evolution of spacetime this far from
the origin. Believing this, Hubble photos of deep space would show evidence
that the apparent age of objects is not what one would expect, if they thought
that light speed based on our values of dimension, for instance, has never
changed since the Big Bang. -And guess what the Hubble deep space photos have
shown scientists... (!)
Yes, or current crop of Constant Worshippers are
every bit as daft as Bonny is. You've got a better shot at Truth using some
beach pebble arrangement hocus-pocus formula to outguess the universe than to
rely on science.
Now scientists aren't total fools, although they don't
have Louie's brainpower or anything near it. Science is very fond of Quantum
Mechanics, but only because a fellow named Feynman probably had a smart rabbit
of his own and got the Sum of All Possibilities vector math worked out pretty
well for the stuff inside atoms, that is, until you start looking at tiny, tiny
things like strings hiding inside little bitty parts of atoms. Inside tiny
parts of atoms are huge universes of things that, once again, laugh at us.
They laughed at Niels Henrik David Bohr. Niels Bohr was a really smart
fellow and everyone knew that he was, but he couldn't stand the little things
laughing at him and finally blurted out his Copenhagen Convention idea, which
generally admits that every time you try to predict what will happen but you
look at little things, they do something different simply because you were
watching and they are trying to ruin your reputation for being smart. Dr.
Richard Feynman covered his reputation better by saying that the results
included every possibility added together. How could you go wrong with that? No
human is that smart, so Feynman obviously did have a smart rabbit. Einstein got
caught in the same trap once when he would look at one little thing over there
and something else over here would change, rather like a turning on the lamp in
your bathroom makes the car horn honk outside. Ridiculous! Peals of laughter
from the microguys! Einstein was furious, stating that he refused to believe
that God would play dice with the universe. It affected Einstein so deeply that
he avoided microscopes for the rest of his life.
In the age of science's
total failure to teach tiny subatomic particles to sit up or roll over on
command, mathematicians like Heisenberg invented theories to explain why
scientists that burned huge amounts of grant money but couldn't teach one trick
to a little electron should still get paid.
Anyhow, back to Louie's Big
Flop Theory: Instead of this huge explosion described by popular physics, in
the Big Flop Theory, material just begins to drift away from the time-stalled,
dimensionless origin, rather bumping and pushing as dimension, energy and time
begin to carry the material into a new sea of existence, sort of like ocean
waves picking up a pile of compost on a beach and diffusing it out to sea. In
the Big Flop, our waves just float without time at first, then begin to go
faster and faster as both dimension and time expand.
Now, if the
exponents work out correctly during expansion, you could pick up a stopwatch
and "measure" the distance that light travels in second. Supposed that your
flashlight shined to a mirror placed in space then returned one second later,
covering a distance of 186,000 miles during the trip. Then you sit there
patiently removing bunny fur from your face until, eons later, you run the same
test again. You are not aware that all dimension has evolved, or that your
clock ticks much faster than it used to tick. Your perception of distance is
dependent on relativity (oh horrors! - there's that word!) and you again place
a mirror in space for the one-second light speed test. But, your universe is
bigger than it was. It is, in fact, expanding nearly as fast as light will
travel, giving you a Doppler shift radiation of 3 degrees Kelvin from the edge.
All the constants have changed, but with more total dimension and a faster
clock, you adjust "distance" to suit the same constant you measured the first
time, and you're a happy scientist. You're happy, that is, until you try to
look outside of your own spacetime and into the consequential light of a
different spacetime, where you can clearly hear laughter waifting through the
cosmos.
There's much more to this Big Flop Theory. I've tried to relate
the basics for the time being, avoiding serious issues like consequence or the
details of conservation, or intelligent direction which is nearly unavoidable
since there is infinite probability of occurrence, all of which do flow nicely
with the Theory. Louie is a tough study and I wouldn't expect anyone to handle
the entire issue at once. It's not like they'll hand me a PhD for transcribing
the Big Flop notes or anything like that.
- More later. I'll probably
spew out these pieces as "Notes" like Feynman did, so that I don't have to sort
or organize them. -TB |
|
|
|
