The Big Bang and the Big Whisper
Tags: Beginning, Big Whisper, Universe, Physics, Science

The Big Bang and the Big Whisper

What these models are telling us about our scientists

There is no greater question than understanding the beginning of our material universe. The prevailing Big Bang theory has a single flaw: it is stuck in understanding the very beginning itself. There is an alternate view, very similar, but distinct nevertheless in the Big Whisper theory.

— -

The Big Bang and Big Whisper models.

The Big Bang model has a storyline that is shown in this simple table with two green fields, indicating the hot and dense state as the starting point and the maturation point for matter as found with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Prior to the two green fields, there is actually no real input in the Big Bang model. Basically, scientists nowadays start the green section with something called a singularity, which means that they don’t have a good answer for whatever was prior. In more proper language: The scientific models, when applied to the origin of matter, do not lead to an intelligible, usable outcome.

While the storyline is not captured fully due to the evasiveness of the singularity, scientists consider the overall storyline to be one storyline indeed. They are looking for a single storyline in green.

— -

The Big Whisper takes a different approach. It starts with the reasoning that something cannot come forth from nothing. Ergo: there was something prior and this prior reality is then undeniably true.

Instead of starting out with a singularity (or with a quantum fluctuation field), the Big Whisper starts with that something prior. The question is then not how matter derived from it, but rather how that prior state could have ended?

How did the prior state end?

By turning around the most fundamental question of where the material universe came from, we can start out with a different position to ultimately look at the same results.

The prior state could not have ended by itself; it could not have simply decided to become matter. Something real must have happened that was not based on what would happen in the future, but what took place in the then and there. Something had to be amiss for something new to come forth from the prior state. So how could something have gone amiss, then and there?

Naturally, there are very few handles. A good scientist would likely be lost quickly because a scientist cannot dwell in a prior state without much input. Particularly, if the future outcome has self-based features, then a scientist would find zero help in anything material for understanding what took hold prior to materialization. Scientists are lost because they are tied to a single storyline.

In the Big Whisper theory, there are two story lines. For the sake of keeping them apart, let’s call the material storyline Universe 2.0.

—

The two story lines are shown in this same table, with a storyline in grey about Universe 1.0. The grey storyline line ends at the CMBR where the green storyline starts for Universe 2.0. Note how the prior grey storyline extends into the ‘Prior state’ field, where the Big Bang model has a green field instead.

Universe 2.0 starts out at a distance of 380,000 years from its mathematical center.

As we all know, the oldest data we have about our universe is the CMBR. Anything declared older is hypothetical, although much can get theorized from known (younger) information about what existed prior to the CMBR moment and location.

In the Big Bang model, time and space started in the mathematical center.

In the Big Whisper model there is no such assumption about time and space. We know nothing about time and space (there are no scientific facts about their origin), and so they are declared phenomena that already existed in Universe 1.0.

The two grey fields do not tell the entire storyline of Universe 1.0. It is not known how Universe 1.0 came to be, but this is also not part of the quest. The quest is figuring out how it ended.

— -

Because matter is moving outwardly in our material universe — and we have known about this since Lemaitre and others proposed this 100 years ago — it is not outlandish to imagine an inward motion first that would have ended Universe 1.0.

With an inward motion, there has to be a stop at some point. If the inward motion stops, it can revert itself. A wind-up toy, for instance, is a good example to discuss this. Wind it up, and the release of tension causes the toy to do a trick or two until the pent-up energy is spent. Then, it can get wound up again.

If the inward motion occurred in an energized environment, involving an entire environment or a large part of it, and it didn’t stop:

What would happen then?

Like a wind-up toy being wound up too much, beyond its capabilities, the innards would have gone kablooey. All the tension that got built-up went awry in one smooth jolt and if one isn’t careful, a person could get hurt by the exploding innards. The sharp metal of the spring mechanism could easily leave a cut in someone’s fingers.

— -

Most likely, the inward motion got started up kind of innocently, perhaps for no good reason at all. But slowly, bit by bit, the inward push grew intenser. With more push coming in from behind, surely another push forward toward the center could get made.

Let’s ask the same question differently, this time about a vase and how it can shatter. All we need is a drop and a floor of course, and the vase can break in one thousand pieces. But if Universe 1.0 is a vase, how can there be a floor? There is not yet any matter, so how can the inward motion stop?

The vase broke on a self-established floor when inward push bumped into inward push and the very ingredients of the vase itself succumbed to the experienced pressures. It is possible that just the center broke under all this pressure and a subsequent catapulting action jolted everything towards their outer boundaries.

Yet this scenario has one trick up its sleeves that makes it less likely. If all kablooeyed back into place, then there would be the opportunity for Universe 1.0 to remake itself as it had been before. The scenario is too simple in that it did establish the vase and the floor, but it kept all broken pieces as part of Universe 1.0 and so a return to the original version was possible. The storyline as presented established a breaking of the vase, but it did not establish a full and eternal break among the parts.

— -

There is a phenomenon on Earth that provides us a glimpse how to answer a final stage of inward motion. A hurricane has a depression at heart and air flows are streaming in from all sides. But what is most interesting is that the winds form an Eye. There is really not much of a there there in the center, other than it being flanked by rising air in the surrounding circular wall forming the Eye. Blue skies above inside the Eye.

Jules Verne provided us another clue in The Journey to the Center of the Earth when Professor Otto Lidenbrock and his team get to the center. At that point, a compass does not give them direction anymore.

In the center, the data becomes zero. There, there is no there.

In the Big Whisper model, an inward motion is envisioned in the dark-energy setting of Universe 1.0, and fortunately for us, the inward motion did not stop.

In the scenario of the inward motion like a hurricane, or the center of the Earth in which there is a spot without data, then one can envision a clean break between various parts because the center behaves differently from the outer regions.

If the inward motion established a center in which all pressure got locked into place and friction would not even be possible, then we have a center without any movement, a stalemate situation. However, there would automatically be a first spot where friction would be possible right next to it.

Inward motion occurred in a larger setting, enormous but by its very nature also limited. Once the frictionless center had grown extremely large, the remaining push from behind would not be able to add more frictionless pressure to the center. At that point, friction becomes first possible. That is the very spot where all hell broke loose.

Next to the almost wind still Eye of the Storm, the strongest winds on Earth are measured in the Eye wall. The zero data point in the center is accompanied by the data point of maximized output sitting right next to it. All inward pressure left pushing-in establishes a side-way move at first point of possible friction. The strongest winds on earth are found next to the calm Eye; the strongest movements on earth occur right next to the solid core; the most extreme movement of Universe 1.0 are found right next to the frictionless center.

The fabric of dark energy was torn apart in the very first spots available, right next to the supersized center of tension, occurring with the final throes of Universe 1.0.

There is an outcome with a clean break.

While all catapulted outwardly, the energy of the center had not sustained any fundamental damage. It broke apart in all directions, but it remained dark energy.

The dark energy with its fabric torn right next to the center also catapulted outwardly, as did all dark energy that had been involved in the inward motion. Yet once the tension had been reversed and decompression had been established, the damaged dark energy kept on going and going and going. A full disconnect had been established by then between the original dark energy and the damaged dark energy.

The damaged energy was expressed at the CMBR, in the locations where the release of tension is spent and decompression therefore a fact.

While both Big Bang and Big Whisper models have the outward motion, the storyline for Universe 1.0 in the Big Whisper model is ending with this outbound beginning. Some dark energy had already been damaged by then but, due to the ongoing decompression, there was no option yet to express this. Universe 2.0 began with the expression of the damaged dark energy once all pent-up tension was spent.

In the Big Bang model the entire story is about matter and how it came about. Therefore, scientists are making truly one mistake only. They give themselves the freedom to theorize, and yet they fail to theorize about the ending of the prior state.

All they end up doing is theorizing about the extent of matter, how matter could have come about. It is like asking a baby where it came from. We all know the answer, because there are mature people around to give us that answer. Yet scientists in their Big Bang environment hold on to the baby with all their might and never ask themselves the real question:

What happened prior?

This question brings us back to the original and even more fundamental question:

Can we have something from nothing?

Most folks nowadays agree that it is impossible to have something from nothing. Even those that play with quantum fluctuation fields do not start from nothing; they start from fluctuation fields.

The baby did not arrive here from itself. It did not produce itself.

— -

There may be other ways to end up with having matter come about in our current universe. But the proposed inward motion of the Big Whisper theory sketches an environment in which not creation of matter but simply transformation of energy is possible. Meanwhile, the resulting matter is holding on to unification in the current universe — but only where that is possible. Viewed from the overall perspective, we can know that for one instance unification was not upheld, at the end of the inward motion, at the end of Universe 1.0.

—

I am a structural philosopher interested in the beginning of materialization. In my communications with scientists, I realized they are incapable of going where a philosopher has no problem going. That said, all as proposed in this article can be viewed from all known scientific facts and scientifically be considered plausible.