Origins of The Origin

When Isaac Newton observed the apple falling to the ground and concluded that the earth must be attracting it downwards, it laid the foundations for classical physics where all interactions between material objects could be explained in terms of simple laws of force and motion. For the next few centuries, the theories evolved and expanded to include electro-mechanical behavior followed by an earnest peak into particle physics and space-time mysteries.

Nobody however seemed to pause and enquire why two otherwise sensible heavenly bodies almost infinitely apart acknowledge each other’s presence by exerting an attractive tug at each other. It is surely not enough to be satisfied by saying that they attract each other but to question why they should attract each other at all unless they have something common in their creation. As an analogy, if we pull two ends of a spring away from each other, they continue to remember that they were close together once and would want to get back to the initial status quo as soon as the external force holding them apart is released.

Albert Einstein surmised that space itself is in a sense curved and therefore has this property of making masses fall towards each other and they are prevented from actually doing so by the state of relative motion they find themselves in.

But why should the massive bodies in the universe find themselves in their present state of motion. Simple enough actually say the wise physicists and astronomers…the universe must have started with a big bang which provided the galaxies or their ancestry with the initial momentum which we can see to this day in the shape and form of a continually expanding universe. They even put a precise time to the grand event of creation…15 billion years ago…

If the beginning did indeed start with a big bang, where did the force for the explosion come from? Why should the original singularity of infinite mass suddenly want to explode? Maybe some proportion of the mass for some reason got converted to energy to provide the fuel for the big bang and from thereon, rest of the universe’s behavior is logically explainable.

What is energy anyway? We know that when the electrons in an atom fall to a lower orbit some radiation is emitted. This looks logical as at the minimum, the rotational inertia of the of the atom’s system gets reduced and therefore this changed state could manifest itself in the release of some energy to save us from the embarrassment of having to create radiation from nothing. Actually most of the energy may be coming from the analogous electro-magnetic energy state changes.

Similarly when atomic nuclei release ultra high energy waves such as X-rays, it may perhaps be in response to some adjustment of the relative electro-kinetics within the nucleus.

Therefore the initial explosion would have been a result of a huge release of energy which in turn would have come from reduction in the starting inertia of the universe. But how can a singularity with no dimensions have any inertia? There is nothing to move relative to. Is it then possible that the starting inertia being zero, gravity represents the negative energy in the universe and the grand sum of the gravitational energy, mass and all kinds of radiation is actually zero.

So may be we did get created out of nothing…and the semi-naked Indian fakirs of yore may have actually got it right in calling everything Maya or myth.

We know that opposite electric charges attract and extinguish each when they coalesce. Gravitational objects also attract but do not extinguish each other when they combine. On the other hand the mass of the combined entity is a sum of the two.

We know that black holes are extremely dense objects which do not permit even light to escape, though the common place ones do seem to leave alone higher energy radiation like X-Rays which get released when matter spirals into the black hole. This perhaps happens partly because the black hole and its prospective victim matter keeps losing inertia as the matter rotates around the black hole in ever tighter orbits and partly because as matter draws closer to the black hole, the kinetics internal to its nuclei may be changing to expel high energy radiation. As tighter and tighter packed matter falls into a black hole, one would expect higher and higher frequency radiation to get emitted. If one black hole were to fall into another any ultra high frequency radiation emitted would prove that black holes have a structure. If on the other hand the event goes unnoticed, then we could quickly work out a cap to the highest theoretical radiation frequency achievable. This would be another way of saying that the universe is fully collapsible and indeed may rule out the possibility of a big bang to start with.

We also know that black holes of lower mass have to be denser in order to be able to pass muster. As the mass of the black hole increases it can relax its density requirements and as we approach infinite mass, the density of the black hole can approach zero.

In a sense the universe as we know it has all the attributes of a super black hole. Nothing can escape it…not even powerful X-Rays and Gamma Rays. Therefore we cannot observe anything outside of our familiar surroundings and the Events within the Universe are unknown on the outside whatever that means.

From an outsider’s perspective, time also stands still in a black hole. So if the almighty is observing his creation from an external vantage point, he would be hard put to see any progress at all and may in frustration some day just call it all off…gravity, mass, radiation, space and time.

What is time anyway…when Michelson and Morley discovered that the speed of light in vacuum is constant and is not affected by the relative motion of the observer and the object, Newtonian physics could not explain this seeming paradox. Einstein came to the rescue and introduced the idea that this could have happened if the time or distance changed to compensate for the lack of change in the observed speed of light.

Therefore unlike the speed of light, time is not absolute but is only a measure of how long it takes for light to travel a given length of space and in a sense is a measure of the space itself. In a similar way, Space is the measure of time it takes light to traverse from one object to another. Space however is not uniform and is in fact severely influenced by gravity making light travel in curved lines resulting in increasingly longer times to an observer sitting far away in normal space.

So it is okay to say that light which is a vibration of energy produced by changes in the kinetics of matter and is essential to make any time and space observations, moves at a constant speed because it seems to have been solely created to accurately measure the goings on in time space. Light being a neutral measuring medium does not seem to participate in material kinetics as it is oblivious of the behavior of the source and objects. All it seems to be doing is looking at two points in space and saying how far apart they are.

In the same way, force is a measure of acceleration which is change in speed over time. When we say that two masses are attracting each other with some force, it is the same thing as saying that the masses would move towards each other and cover the separating space at an increasingly fast pace. So force is just an expression of motion in a unique way. If all forces on a material object were balanced and there was no motion, the presence or absence of force would be of little relevance. Therefore Time and Space are two sides of the same coin and Force is a higher level construct using the two as ingredients. Gravity which is a force and is assumed to be an inherent property of mass and indeed gives mass a way of manifesting itself is hence a simple construct of Time and Space.

If our universe is indeed a super black hole, light can never cross its boundaries or would take an infinite time to do so. On the other hand, if the material universe were finite, light would continuously escape and the universe would evaporate as it were. If the universe is infinite, it could not have started 15 billion years ago anyways. And then we are back to the issue about the universe not collapsing under the force of gravity because the objects are moving away at great speed from each other starting with some big bang.

All that remains now is to somehow reconcile the moving apart of galaxies with an infinite universe. If for a moment we agree that the sum total of all matter, energy and negative gravitational energy is zero and we are all created out of nothing, the nothingness does not cease to exist just because the infinite universe was created out of it. It should be possible for God Almighty to keep creating more tangible stuff out of the unlimited supply of nothingness in a randomly continuous process. Arguably, the nothingness would have to be outside of our infinite universe, untouched by it as it would cease to exist if even one particle of matter or quantum of energy were to adulterate it. However, having created an infinite universe, what difference would it make to add more infinity to it and we would continuously have the peaceful coexistence of an infinite universe and nothingness. The expanding empty spaces between galaxies may just be ephemeral phenomenon created by the limitations of our observatory gear and imagination of our impressionable astronomers. This is to some extent corroborated by actual physical observations through the more powerful modern telescopes that the material density of the universe is constant in all directions and across billions of years of time horizons. This could not be so if we were indeed flying apart from a common center where the big bang took place.

So the universe is not collapsing because it is infinite and in a state of balance. There is no common center and gravitational forces on all objects like galaxies and their clusters are from all directions and therefore cancel out each other. Some local imbalances may be there and these may translate into some regions of the universe appearing to be expanding.

Within the universe there would be any number of conventional black holes, which are not observable by bouncing light off them, but they do possess mass and interact gravitationally with the rest of the system. According to Stephen Hawking, these local black holes keep evaporating at their event horizons because they have to follow the certainties of the uncertainty principle. Thus local black holes do help in changing the mass energy equilibrium but not the sum total and are therefore quite different from the singularity which supposedly created the universe.

It is thought that most galaxies have massive conventional black holes at their centers and keep all the billions of stars rotating in formation around the galactic centers. May be there are even more massive black holes at the centers of galactic clusters which keep the innumerable galaxies rotating on a tight leash.

Everything in the universe seems to be rotating, held tightly together by gravity or other attractive forces which prevent pieces flying irrevocably apart. We can see the patterns in the solar system, our own satellites, and even tiny atoms and massive galaxies. The universe seems to be one big whirl of rotating masses.

If energy is just an expression of changes in kinetics of tangible bodies and is in turn essential to measure or observe these changes, then we can say that energy exists because of relative movements of physical matter which can only claim to move because energy approves of their movement. If there is no energy, there is no movement and if there is no movement, there is no energy.

But what of gravity? It seems to exist in an all pervasive way just because matter exists. In fact matter makes its existence apparent by communicating through the force of gravity. Only problem is that we need at least two pieces of them. A single piece of matter is useless by itself. It may or may not exist, as the manifestation of its existence through gravity cannot happen without the presence of another body. This also implies space as two bodies can only be distinguished from each other only if they are separated from each other by emptiness called space.

Just as movement and energy need each other to get recognition of existence, gravity, space and plural masses are conjoint triplets from birth. Plural masses can only maintain their individual existence if they are prevented from falling into each other by relative motion, which would then lead to creation of energy which is in turn essential for measuring their relative movement in the first place.

So to the triplets of gravity, space and mass, we need to add kinetics and energy to create conjoint pantalets at birth. Remove any one and the other four would die.

One question that remains is that of the critical quantum of these five that is required to get the whole chain reaction process started. For example, can we start the creation process with two masses of one kilo each or we need some different quantity. Well, the answer to this question will unlock the mysteries of creation. The starting mass should be high enough that when it collapses into a singularity, it can go through the stages of absorbing all the mass, energy, space, gravity and movement. We know that as matter draws closer and closer to the so called universe’s center, it would lose inertia and release radiation of ever increasing energy. Theoretically, a single quantum of sufficiently high frequency and correspondingly infinitesimal low wavelength can contain an infinite amount of energy and there is so far no derived upper limit for radiation frequency as there is for the speed of light. The universe is already infested with radiation of ultra high frequency like Gamma rays and would start producing even more destructive frequencies as it contracts. It is likely that the mass required to capture and absorb such kind of high energy will have to be infinite as well.

There is no way that we can have infinite dispersed mass in a finite space and therefore, the universe could not have started 15 billion years ago through a big bang as 15 billion years would be too short a time to expand to infinity.

If as all logic seems to point to, the universe is infinite, can the density remain constant with all the relative movements of galaxies and clusters happening at such astonishing speeds? Actually density seems to be an artificial concept. As more matter is packed in lesser space, it should become more difficult for light to travel from one point to another and therefore space would continue to look as spacious as ever. Therefore the very concept of an expanding and contracting or waxing and waning universe if you like looks self contradicting.