Alfàs del Pi (Spain), 1st of July 2020
My view is that, since the Big Bang theory as and explanation of the origin of all the Universe depends on the fact that the size of the whole Universe be known, there are therefore no grounds for the theory of the Big Bang as the origin of the whole Universe. Only when the total size of the whole Universe is known, will you be able to begin pondering explanations about its origins.
It can also be argued that the “total size” of the whole Universe is unknowable by definition, since at any given time science believes to have found the outermost frontiers of the Universe, so as to be able to measure its size, one could ask if there is “more Universe” yet “beyond” those limits. One could always conceive and put forward that it is possible for more Universe to be beyond that border. You can never prove in a conclusive and final fashion that “those” are the “final” and ultimate borders.
The idea is defensible that you can never answer the question if the Universe is finite. Knowing if the Universe is finite depends on having final knowledge about the entirety of the Universe.
Accepting that the redshift indicates the expansion of matter does not equate to putting forward an origin of the whole Universe. Even though the size of the known and visible Universe is huge and unimaginable, it is still but a part and, as far as we know, the redshift affects the visible Universe. Actually, we have no idea, evidently, by definition, about what happens in the rest of the Universe–the region beyond our sight–or about how big it is. The “entire Universe” may be just a little larger than the visible Universe, and the redshift may affect the “whole” Universe. Certainly, that can be. In order to be able to claim that point-blank, it is necessary to see somehow this portion of the Universe that right now escapes us, and besides it has to be determined that part which is the border of the Universe, namely, the certainty that that is the real outer border of the Universe has to be so firm as to render it ridiculous to ask if there is even more matter beyond that. I wouldn’t bet on that.
Therefore, as long as the undeniable total and final size of the Universe is not known (which implies having such a certainty that the Universe is finite, that would render preposterous even asking if the Universe could be even bigger), postulating theories about a creating event of the entire Universe is premature. Personally, I don’t take seriously such theories about creating events of the whole Universe, including the Big Bang theory, despite the prestige the supporters and adherents of this theory enjoy. The redshift could very well be a regional phenomenon of our region of the Universe. The redshift may have been caused by some “bang” or explosion in the distant past, but there is no reason to put forward that something like that actually created the whole Universe.
The size of the known Universe has been constantly growing for the last one hundred years. My wager is that the “total” Universe is either bigger than the visible Universe, or infinite, but not that it matches the visible Universe. If the visible Universe happens to be 1/googleplex of the “total” Universe, then “Big Bang” should be spelled lowercase, “big bang”, because although it be big for us, it could be rather called “Tiny Bang” or small explosion, taking distance from a human perspective adopting the perspective of an enormous “total” Universe; or explosion ridiculously small, from the standpoint of an infinite Universe.
My bet is that the visible Universe does not match the whole Universe, and this for two reasons. One, that the size of the visible Univers is constantly getting bigger and bigger. New telescopes, new ideas, whatever it may be, but the visible Universe is ever bigger. Secondly, because I am incapable of conceiving a method such that demonstrates in a final fashion, a fashion that rules out the possibility for anyone to ever debunk it, that the postulated boundaries of the Universe are its final borders. This, both if the total Universe coincides with today’s visible Universe, and if the entire Universe coincides with the visible Universe at some future moment or epoch.
It is already astonishing that theories can be formulated about an event that created the entire Universe. There is something even more astonishing, and that is the fact that those theories are being formulated all the time–actually, in the singular, for it is always the same theory, that of the Big Bang–and non stop as the size of the known and visible Univers grows. I never heard of people who have stopped to think: “Wait a minute. The Big Bang theory, as the theory of the origin of the entire Universe depended upon the knowledge of the true total size of the whole Universe. The Big Bang theory, thus formulated, has had a certain adequacy to reality while it was maintained that the truth was that the observable Univers was the entire Universe. We have just discovered today that the Universe is way bigger than we used to think even yesterday it was. The theory has to be reconsidered.”
Actually, it is amazing that the Big Bang theory managed to survive even the first enlargement of the known Universe.
At the beginning of the 20th century the predominant belief was that all the visible stars were located in the Milky Way. That which today we consider to be our galaxy was the whole Universe.
In 1920, the American astronomer Harlow Shapley calculated that the diameter of the Milky Way was of 300,000 light-years. That is three times as much as what is accepted nowadays. Heber Curtis, debating with Shapley that year, estimated the diameter of the Milky Way in 30,000 light-years, which is three times less than is accepted nowadays. Also in 1920, Jacobus Cornelius Kapteyn estimated the diameter of the Milky Way at some 49,000 light-years.
Only one hundred years ago it was postulated for the first time the existence of galaxies, in the plural. Harlow Shapley developped, between 1917 and 1920, the idea the the spiral nebulae were actually other galaxies.
In 1924, Hubble determined the distance to Andromeda in one million light-years (currently that distance is estimated in 2.5 million light-years), so outside the Milky Way, with which the dimensions of the known Universe got larger.
In 1929 Hubble postulated that the galaxies were expanding. English astronomer Fred Hoyle used the expression “Big Bang” for the first time in 1949. The Big Bang theory gained cohesion and maturity in those years. The size of the known Universe kept on growing.
The concept was proposed of local group of galaxies. The Milky Way makes part of the Local Group, which has more than 54 galaxies. The term was coined by Edwin Hubble in 1936.
Later the concept of cluster of galaxies was put forward. A cluster of galaxies is a structure made up of hundreds of thousands of galaxies held together by gravity. Gérard Henri de Vaucouleurs proposed those structures. In 1953 he called our cluster the “local super galaxy” and in 1958 he called it “local super cluster.” Harlow Shapley suggested the moniker “metagalaxy” in 1959.
In the 80s the super clusters were discovered. It is estimated that there are ten million super clusters in the observable Universe.
At present the diameter of the observable Universe is agreed upon to be of 93 billion years-light. The Big Bang theory gets adapted to every new extension of the known Universe, but it is seldom challenged as a whole.
“Pressing” the scientists, it is not rare for them to admit that the Big Bang theory refers to the study of the redshift of light in the observable Universe. Now, it is not the same thing the study of the redshift in the observable Universe as the study of an event that originated the entire Universe. That confusion is tolerated in an unacceptable way. The reason why is known: a technical study carried out by scientists, as the study of the redshift is, offers a great cover for religions, notably Catholicism and other Christian denominations, which also have a “theory” of the origin of the Universe. Believers are interested in keeping that confusion. Scientists should not, but some are. True, I would rather for them to be more careful in the way they express themselves. That falls outside my control. I don’t really take seriously someone who considers that the study of the redshift and the study of an event that created the entire Universe ar ethe same thing. All the interesting things that could be inferred or discovered from the study of the redshift, including tracing matter back in time, about our tiny province of the Universe thus gets soiled by the way of presenting it as a theory of the origin of the entire Universe.
So the James Webb telescope is strongly suggesting that the Big Bang theory is wrong after all. All it took was a significant enlargement of the known Universe. This time, the aged theory could not tolerate this particular enlargement.
Scientists have two basic options.
First, they could repeat the entire process. They can declare that the limits of the whole Universe match whatever James Webb shows us now, and formulate a new theory of the origins of the Universe, the whole Universe, namely the new observable Universe. By repeating the process, in, say, one hundred years a new telescope would set (again) the new outer limits of the whole Universe, and this replacement for the Big Bang would be then itself replaced.
Their second option would be not to declare that the new limits of the observable Universe, these the James Webb space telescope are suggesting, are the final and ultimate boundaries of the Universe. After all, if they hadn’t done it for the last one hundred years, they could be sparing themselves all the current embarrasement.
Setting the limits of the Universe, the whole Universe, was premature during the last century while the love story with the Big Bang theory lasted, setting such limits now with the data James Webb is providing now would also be premature, and so would be if in some decades a better telescope that supersedes James webb makes the observable Universe even larger. Maybe it is premature, or even outright impossible, to postulate an origin for the Universe. After all, if the Universe did have an origin, it has to be found, then explained. Science cannot “want” to find an origin, and set to find it in prospective explorations. The fact that Christianity was involved in the formulation of the Big Bang theory speaks volumes. Organized religion will try to do it again. Right now they’re biding their time, lurking from a distance, since scientists themselves are puzzled. Scientists should be alert to detect the first attempt Christians will make to hijack cosmology in this post-Big Bang era, and everything they have to say will have to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
This article in the Gascon original
Contact me through my IRC
Email: gasconheart@sdf.org Skype: gasconheart
WhatsApp: +34 640667425