• [deleted]

Greetings folks, I see that I have come late to this discussion, but I might have a little something to contribute. I happen to have made a semi-thorough review of the philosophic literature on this topic. This is in connection with an upcoming paper. Here are some comments taken from that paper: First, theorists who have pointedly focused on the first-cause/infinite-regress issue have an almost unanimous consensus in favor of the latter (Brown 1966; Grünbaum 1989; Reichenbach 2010; Smith 2008). Thus one of the more prominent theorists associated with this issue, the philosopher Adolf Grunbaum (1989) writes: [Quote]There is nothing at all in the concept of causality as such which warrants the claim that all causal chains must ultimately originate in the finite past from a cause that is itself uncaused. Causality as such is wholly compatible logically with physical causal chains which extend infinitely into the past [Endquote]. The law of causality, in fact, only requires that each condition and each change in a condition is the result of preceding conditions. The supposed requirement for a first cause is illusory. Indeed, any supposed first cause would be, by definition, an uncaused condition. This would be the violation of causality. Nor does quantum uncertainty imply some violation of causality. More likely, this applies to gaps in our knowledge; as every student of the subject quickly learns, this is a science that is still incompletely developed at a fundamental level. Free will would imply a violation of causality, but both philosophers and scientists now have an emerging consensus opposed to this notion (Libet et al. 1983; Libet 1985; Wegner 2004; OConnor 2011; Strawson 1986; Pereboom 2001; Smilansky 2002). Likewise, a sometimes-supposed state of primordial or alternative nothingness seems to some to require a first cause. However, this can be named, but is otherwise impossible to conceptualize, imagine or even discuss in an intelligible way. It appears to be an idea completely devoid of merit (Heath 1967). The source of the supposed requirement for a first cause is apparently our everyday experiences with conceptually circumscribed causal sequences (e.g., the appearance of organic molecules as marking the beginnings of life). In fact, each such first event is preceded by additional causal conditions (with the possible exception of conditions at the moment t = 0). Most importantly, it is possible to prove in a simple way the feasibility of an infinite causal regress. Consider, for example, a hypothetical proliferation of universes as in the fecund universes hypothesis of Lee Smolin. This might be physically impossible for some unknown reason, but it is entirely consistent with causal principles. To a descendant observer infinitely remote, we would represent an infinite past. For that observer, there would have been no beginning to the Universe. (I thought references might help a little here.)

Brown, Patterson. 1966. Infinite Causal Regression. The Philosophical Review 75 (4): 510-525.

Grünbaum, Adolf. 1989. The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cosmology. Philosophy of Science 56 (3): 373-394.

Heath, P.L. 1967. Nothing. Ed. Paul Edwards. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan and Free Press.

Libet, Benjamin. 1985. Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 (04): 529-539. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00044903.

Libet, Benjamin, Curtis A. Gleason, Elwood W. Wright, and Dennis K. Pearl. 1983. Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (readiness-Potential) the Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 106 (3) (September 1): 623-642. doi:10.1093/brain/106.3.623.

OConnor, Timothy. 2011. Free Will. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/freewill/.

Pereboom, Derk. 2001. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reichenbach, Bruce. 2010. Cosmological Argument. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/cosmological-argument/.

Smilansky, Saul. 2002. Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.

Smith, Quentin. 2008. A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe. Philpapers. http://philpapers.org/rec/SMIACA-2.

Strawson, Galen. 1986. Freedom and Belief. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Wegner, Daniel M. 2004. Précis of The Illusion of Conscious Will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (05): 649-659. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000159.

14 days later
  • [deleted]

Infinity is a nice mathematical concept. But when applied to anything real, any kind of infinity is just too much.

Evidences gathered so far point to a recent beginning of our universe. But what about time? If we look at our time line back to the moment our universe started... and just a bit before that... and why not a very long time before... well, there is no reason to impose a limit toward the past.

That's assuming time is a "line", a one-dimension thing which could neither be blocked by walls at its extremities nor would makes sense to loop on itself.

We can eliminate quite a few paradoxes if we consider time as a pulsation of the real. What exists is the present, and it changes at every pulsation (sorry for sci-fi writers: time machines will never exist).

Before our Big-Bang appeared, there was nothing to pulse: time did not exist yet... and when the last particle will "evaporate", time will cease to exist.

You may still use time as a dimensional continous parameter to facilitate calculations as long as this does not introduce any paradoxe. But time, really, is neither a dimension nor is it continuous. It is only ticks occuring at indeterminate intervalles.

    • [deleted]

    Oliver,

    I've been advocating that point for awhile and that the conceptual miscue is as we live lives of linear motion, we experience change sequentially, when the reality is distributed and non-linear. So rather then it be the present moving along an external vector, from past to future, it is the changing configuration, turning future into past. Not the earth traveling a vector from yesterday to tomorrow, but the rotation of the earth turning tomorrow into yesterday.

    The problem with physics is that in its obsession with measurement, it treats time as a measure of duration, which only re-enforces the narrative vector. Yet duration is not external to the present, but is the state of the present between measurement events.

    Keep in mind that "spacetime" is a correlation of measures of distance and duration. So if duration is only an effect of action and not foundational to it, then the premise of an expanding universe is based on faulty assumptions and redshift must be due to some other, ie. optical, effect.

    It is all piled rather deep at this point, so watch where you step.

    • [deleted]

    Usually, we perceive "duration" as a segment of time measured with a clock. Thus the idea of continuity, of very small (Planck scale?) segments aligned end-to-end.

    What I am suggesting is that we should consider any duration as a discrete, finite number of "ticks" which impose the same number of updates of the universe.

    The small segments are replaced by a gap of nothingness between two ticks. From the point of view of our clocks, these gaps could have a length of Planck duration, but since nothing happens to the sub-particules of our updated clock "waiting" for the updating of the rest of the universe, there is no way of quantifying the gaps themselves. We can only count the ticks.

    • [deleted]

    Olivier,

    Keep in mind the "perceiving" and thus the measuring, is always in the "present." What you are measuring is actions within that present.

    • [deleted]

    Anthony, William, All,

    Another question that might be asked is what exactly is "the past"? Or to what exactly should the term "past" refer? Is it the complete history of all events that have occurred (recoded or not), that are not also the present? Is it the data recorded, in memory and/or physical records?; or does it also included data "recorded" within the electromagnetic variations of the universe that may not have been intercepted and interpreted?

    I have differentiated these different kinds of phenomena to overcome the confusion surrounding the term "past": The complete history of all events that have occurred is the imagined complete sequence of iterations of the Object universe, up to but not including the youngest, most recent, iteration . Electromagnetic variation data, (potential sensory data), that has been formed but not yet received is called the "pre-written future", as it becomes present experience when the data is received. It is -many different potential images-, which of them is manifest depends upon the location and behaviour and type of observer.Although it is important to realise that this "pre-written future" may relate to events that occurred long ago. Only records, including memories, are categorised as "the past" within the RICP explanatory framework.They have already been present "Image reality" of a sentient being or device within our star system.

      • [deleted]

      A universe with an infinite past -history- (William's endless chain of causation) fits with the RICP explanatory framework but not a an infinite universe that has material existence spread over time, ie. a block universe. As the matter must be recycled into the youngest version of the Object universe. Otherwise there is the problem of more matter being continually produced as the universe's latest form is generated. (The "infinite number of tea cups" dilemma.)

      The image of the universe produced from electromagnetic data is a fundamentally different aspect of "the universe". The data can persist and be intercepted and formed into an image even light years after the objects and events that are encoded existed in those forms and relationships. Though it seems the existence of data from which comprehensible images can be formed is -not infinite- as the event horizon is reached and older data giving clear images is unobtainable, which makes the image universe finite. (This way of thinking about the different aspects of "the universe " overcomes the temporal paradoxes inherent within Einstein's relativity.)

      SUMMARY: Infinite history, ("infinite chain of causation"). Temporally finite (uni-temporal ie. not spread over time) material Object universe. Parts of it can not exist at different times. Finite temporal spread of space-time Image universe. (Produced from data that has persisted within the uni-temporal material universe.As it is a space-time image,different parts of the image may relate to arrangements and events that occurred at different times.

      8 days later

      Oliver, you say that, [quote] Infinity is a nice mathematical concept. But when applied to anything real, any kind of infinity is just too much[end quote]. If by this you mean that an infinite (physical) causal regress is impossible, then this is an unsupported statement. Many others have developed this position in detail, and such detailed arguments have been considered and disproven by those who have looked at the topic carefully. If you develop your argument and then look into the rebuttals in the literature, you will see that the arguments are apparently fallacious. All of the many arguments in favor of a first cause (i.e., the supposed impossibility of an infinite, physical regress) are apparently flawed.

      You also say that, [quote] Evidences gathered so far point to a recent beginning of our universe [end quote]. This involves the unsupported notion that the expanding aggregate of galaxy clusters is the Universe. We don't know that. This expanding aggregate is everything we know of, but that does not necessarily make it the Universe. Our ancestors made this same mistake over and over, and we are now doing it again.

      Analysts (typically philosophers with sometimes a strong background in physics) now have an apparent or near consensus in favor of an infinite regress. (The notion of an infinite regress is apparently paradoxical, but the notion of a first cause is highly problematic.)

      We have absolutely no knowledge as to conditions prior to about 10^-4 seconds. Implications: (1) Any supposition concerning the emergence of time and space at the moment t = 0 is speculation. (2) We have yet to identify the Universe. (If there were any preceding conditions, these are unknown, but must be included in the identification.) For the above reasons, we cannot support the statement, [quote] Before our Big-Bang appeared, there was nothing to pulse: time did not exist yet [end quote]. We simply do not know that.

      Here is another thought. Established biological principles must be consistent with principles in chemistry. Likewise, the principles of chemistry must be consistent with those of physics. Philosophy (at least in this connection) is concerned with the analysis of purely conceptual or subjective aspects of reality. In as far as philosophy produces established principles, these must be consistent with science. Therefore, established principles of philosophy can at least provide constraints on scientific theories. One of these concerns theories about ultimate origins. Philosophers have now an emerging consensus in favor an infinite regress. If you are going to reject this, you should be prepared to show where they have made a mistake. You need to prove that a first cause is possible. You might be tempted to start by rejecting causality itself, but keep in mind that this has been tried, and it is an apparent failure.

      • [deleted]

      Dear All,

      There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count, there is no spacetime besides one absolute self.

      "Consciousness is the sphere of universal schwarzschild radius (ranging from zero to infinity) with a central cosmological constant of conscience (i)" - iSphere.

      zero = i = infinity

      Love,

      Sridattadev.

      5 months later
      3 months later

      Cosmology topic: Is the past infinite?

      My viewpoint on this is based on a new theory of The evolution of the universe

      The theory proposes a space boundary as well as a time boundary. The universe has a past time boundary at time zero but because the expansion of the universe is caused by the expansion at the space boundary there is no future time boundary.

      The universe is defined at all points within the spacetime boundary so that at any point T1 it will always be possible to find an earlier time T2 lying within the spacetime boundary. Space and time are only defined within the boundary so the hypothetical time zero could never be reached by this method. It is also possible that the rate of passage of time slows at the approach to time zero due to the effect of spacetime curvature.

      Richard

      5 months later

      I think the primary reason researchers have theorized exchange, parallel or digression universes need to do with the effects of twofold opening investigations. In my model, our universe is a piece of a more amazing fractal universe. Our universe exists between the scale of the Planck length and that of the vast froth. Our grandiose froth (having an average air pocket measure about 10^24 meter over) is the ether froth of a super-universe; our ether froth (having an average air pocket estimate approximately 10^-35 meter over) is the infinite froth of a sub-universe. Connection between scalewise universes must be deduced; it can never be specifically watched.

      Online Math Practice

        18 days later

        Alice, what do you think of the following?

        String Theory and subquantum scale atoms

        (Human scale mass 57.768 kg)/(neutron mass 1.675 x 10^-27 kg) = 3.449 x 10^28

        (Human scale mass 57.768 kg)(3.449 x 10^28) = (Solar System mass 1.992 x 10^30 kg)

        Human consciousness resides midway in scale between quantum & cosmic scale masses.

        Diameter of 1.992 x 10^30 kg concentrated in a sphere at atomic densities equals ~ 7.6 x 10^8 m

        Neutron diameter ~ 2.0 x 10^-15 m

        ツ・L = Length scaling factor between the quantum and cosmic scales = 7.6 x 10^8 m/2.0 x 10^-15 m

        ツ・L = 3.8 x 10^23

        In string theory particles are perceived as highly localized vibration of Planck length strings.

        lp = (トァGc^-3)^1/2 =

        [(1.0546 x 10^-34 Js)(6.6742 x 10^-11 Nm^2/kg^2)(299792458 m/s)^-3]^1/2

        lp = 1.62 x 10^-35 m

        From the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom and in particular quantized angular momentum:

        mvnrn = nトァ

        Combined with the de Broglie relation: ホサ = h/p

        The relation has long been known: 2マ\r = nh/p = nホサ

        The smallest atomic orbital circumferences are the ground state Helium shells (1s^2 orbital) of the heaviest atoms. The diameter of the helium shell for Radon (z = 86) ~ 0.02 テ.... This shell has an average circumference =

        2マ\)(1 x 10^-12 m) = 6.28 x 10^-12 m, which is also the smallest ground state wavelength of an atomic orbital in the human scale.

        Length scaling factor: ツ・L = 3.8 x 10^23

        A self-similar Radon atom existing at the subquantum scale will have a self-similar subquantum scale 1s^2 orbital circumference measured relative to the human scale:

        6.28 x 10^-12 m/3.8 x 10^23 = 1.7 x 10^-35 m

        Vibrating string particles correspond to subquantum scale atoms.

        Strings are subquantum scale atomic oscillators.

        4 months later
        • [deleted]

        The crisis in the fundamental physics, including cosmology - the "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya), the "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), it is the crisis of the philosophical foundations, especially in understanding of space and time.

        The way to overcome the crisis - is a further deepening of the Geometry, but rather in the "origin of Geometry" (E.Husserl) and the dialectico - ontological unification of matter, search for the absolute foundations of physics and knowledge, the absolute generating structure. Necessary to consider limiting (absolute, unconditional) state of matter: absolute motion (rotation, "vortex", discretuum) + absolute rest (linear state, continuum)) + absolute wave ("figaro" of states = discretuum + continuum).

        Then geometrized basis: "sphere" + "cube" + "cylinder". Each limit (absolute, unconditional) state of its way - the absolute vector, the vector of the absolute state. This "triangle" of absolute states of matter - the ontological representation of the triune foundation - "origin of geometry",» the beginning of physics, the beginning, framework and carcas of knowledge. This is what David Gross calls - "general framework structure" (D.Gross, an interview "Iz chego sostoit prostranstvo-vremya/What is in the space-time) the same for the QM and for GM. Today QM and GM are parametrical theories without ontologic justification.

        Semantically poor picture of the world "In the beginning was the Big Bang" should be replaced with a picture of the world "In the beginning was the Logos (MetaLaw, the "law of laws")...", the base of which the "General framework structure" or the "Absolute generating (maternal) structure" . This is the «Cosmic Origin».

        Should always be keep in mind the philosophical covenant of John Wheeler:

        "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

        It would be nice if FQXi will hold the new contest of cosmological models: «Cosmic Origins». In the world today there is a lot of alternative views and models , other than «the classic big-bang model».

        Carlo Rovelli made a good conclusion in the article SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS :

        "This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is.

        This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense.

        I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences."

        So, in the search for primordial structure of the Cosmos (Universum).

        Regards,

        Vladimir Rogozhin

        2 months later

        http://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism

        20 days later

        JUST BEFORE THAT BIG BANG WENT KA-BOOM

        Once upon a time, or was it in the beginning, there was a Big Bang and thus was born what we now call our expanding Universe - expanding because really Big Bangs are associated with explosive events and explosive events hurl out stuff hither and yon. But while there's little dispute about the Big Bang event, the central question is, was it an 'in the beginning' event, or more akin to a 'once upon a time' event? If the latter, then it's reasonable to suggest there was a prior existence to that 'once upon a time' event.

        I've gone on and on about how there must have been a 'before-the-Big-Bang', that the Big Bang event 13.7 billion years ago wasn't the first cause. That's because no effect (in this case that Big Bang event) can be the cause of itself. Cause is external to, separate and apart, and prior to the effect. Now it's time to explore some actual before-the-Big-Bang scenarios even though there are still, even the majority, of cosmologists who suggest that speaking of a before-the-Big-Bang is akin to speaking of what's further down from the centre of the Earth, or what's north of the North Pole.

        Astronomers can't see deeper into the history of our Universe than roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang event. Until then, the entire Universe was still too opaque. It's like the Sun being too opaque such that we can't see beneath the visible surface all the way down to the core. So it's obvious that if astronomers can't see post the Big Bang to the tune of some 380,000 years on, they can't see before-the-Big-Bang. However, I'm quite certain there was a before-the-Big-Bang and that our Big Bang event was just one local cosmic pop in a cosmic ocean of bursting Champaign bubbles.

        To understand the Big Bang event one needs to understand (as best as one can) what transpired just before the Big Bang event. And for reasons already outlined, what happened before exists in the realm of scientific speculation.

        First cab off the rank, here's a brief explanation why there has to be a before-the-Big-Bang. The Big Bang event did not, could not, create time. Although astronomers suggest just that, when it comes to actually giving the recipe for cooking up a batch of time, our astronomical chefs' duck back into the pantry. So, IMHO, time already existed at the moment that the Big Bang went 'bang'. The Big Bang could only happen in time if time already existed, which means that time existed prior to the Big Bang in order for the Big Bang to 'bang' in or at the time it 'banged'.

        As an aside, if our Big Bang wasn't a first cause, then one is hard pressed to say there ever was a first cause for reasons exactly similar to why our Big Bang wasn't the first cause. There always was a 'before' for whatever first cause you wish to postulate, therefore your first cause wasn't a first cause at all. The regression extends back infinitely. If the cosmos extends back infinitely, it stands equally to reason that the expanding cosmos will extend for all future infinity - for all eternity. As a theological aside, that eliminates the need for a creator god. It's been said before, but it bears repeating that if you have a timeless, existing for all eternity, creator God who created the Universe, why not eliminate the middleman (God) and postulate a timeless, existing for all eternity, Universe? By the way, a similar argument can be made for space. Anyway, back to the before-the-Big-Bang.

        One aspect that's important from the get-go is that one needs to avoid the trap into thinking that the before-the-Big-Bang to Big Bang transition resulted in something quantum sized, like a singularity, at that point of inside-out transition. There just is no way IMHO one can take the contents of our entire Universe and squeeze that down into a size that would make a pinhead look massive in comparison. In addition, the laws of physics break down at such a scale since there is no adequate theory of quantum gravity. You'd require such a theory since 1) you're postulating a quantum sized object, and 2) because the entire Universe makes for a lot of gravity, that's a lot of gravity in an extremely tiny space. Since it can't be done (and thousands have tried to merge quantum physics with general relativity (gravity), it's best to bypass that can of worms entirely, if possible.

        When you think of bangs today, big or otherwise, it's usually by something that's been sitting around for a spell just waiting for a triggering device like an about to be blown tire; about to be popped balloon; about to be exploded stick of dynamite, nuclear bomb, or supernova, etc. So, maybe our before-the-Big-Bang was akin to a giant firecracker just waiting for some before-the-Big-Bang happening to light the fuse. The one scenario that fits that bill is the Ekpyrotic Universe which basically states that there exists a minimum of two 3-D universes each existing in a higher dimensional space. That means the two universes don't actually see each other since photons can't pass through that higher dimension. However, gravity can pass through the higher dimension so the two universes can feel each other Thus, these two universes mutually attract under gravity, collide (our Big Bang and equally their Big Bang), and bounce apart - rebound. That process repeats at vastly lengthy intervals as gravity draws them together, again, and again and again (more Big Bangs) and then each rebounds, again and again and again.

        The closest celestial firecracker we have is a supernova. Unfortunately, even the mother of all supernovas isn't quite in the same league as the Big Bang event. It's like pitting the Little Leagues against the Big Leagues.

        A more theoretical firecracker might be the mother of all Black Holes which at some point reaches and exceeds bursting point vomiting out in reverse order its contents. That theoretical object is a White Hole, like perhaps a quasar (quasi-stellar object). Quasars spew out lots and lots and lots of stuff and energy all from a stellar-sized object. But that scenario too falls short of the amount of stuff comprising our Universe. It seems only the stuff of another universe could account for the amount of stuff that was 'created' to make our Universe. The one fly in the ointment here is that a singularity might lay at the heart and soul and centre of any proposed Black Hole and I wish to avoid that can of worms as noted above.

        The other kind of 'bang' expansion is say, using as an analogy, traffic approaching and merging at a four-way intersection. That's the contraction bit. After the traffic lights change, the traffic is free to go on its way. That's the expansion bit. There's no real 'bang' per say. In other words, the Big Bang was the transition of space turning itself inside-out as it were. Either you had the collapse of a previous universe that went through that four-way intersection, or something akin, like a Black Hole that's vomited up its contents in the form of a White Hole, sort of like post Xmas sale shoppers rushing the external department store doors and then being 'vomited' out the inside of those department store doors and expanding into and throughout the store.

        The more logical of the two scenarios is the latter. That's because we know that any universe is inherently unstable. You just can't have a perfectly still and static universe if for no other reason than gravity will pull all the flotsam and jetsam together, or in other words, a contracting universe is viable and likely.

        The fly in that ointment is that the alternative, an ever expanding universe is also viable and likely if the oomph force that caused the initial expansion is stronger than gravity's grabbing force.

        We can garner some insight as to whether the immediately pre-Big Bang era was hot or cold. If the Big Bang was an in-place explosion, well most explosions involve giving off heat, be it sodium placed in water (ka-boom), a firecracker (ka-boom), an atomic bomb (ka-boom) or a supernovae (ka-boom), these all appear to be exothermic reactions - they give off heat. However, an explosion in waiting is a much cooler state of affairs. While holding a firecracker in your hand won't burn your hand, the same cannot be said if it goes bang while you're holding it. So the pre-Big Bang era wasn't exactly hot stuff.

        If the Big Bang was the result of a previous universe contracting, like cars approaching an intersection from all four directions, well the very act of compression heats things up. So, the Big Bang was a hot (time in the old town tonight) event, and therefore just before the Big Bang was also pretty heated.

        Well, maybe we can't garner any insight after all since the era just before the Big Bang may have been hot or cold. But the Big Bang itself was a high temperature event no matter which way you slice and dice things which is good since that's what you'd expect from the observational evidence.

        What about entropy? Our Big Bang Universe started off in a state of high temperature, a state of high order, or in other words low entropy and has been going downhill (cooling off) ever since. That is, the Universe is becoming more disordered as it heads towards an inevitable heat death. A heat death means that the entire Universe is now at the same temperature and no further cosmic evolution or change can happen. But if our Universe started off in a state of high order, then the pre-Big Bang phase must have been in a state of high order too. Well, high order would have been the order of the day in either of the two pre-Big Bang scenarios.

        BIG BANG BLUNDERS BUSTED

        If you read the Standard Model of Creation Cosmology (the Big Bang event), it reads an awful like the first few verses of Genesis. While I'm sure that is just a coincidence, neither scenario as given is a satisfactory explanation, for vastly different reasons. Here I tackle the physical ones, not the supernatural ones.

        In "Alice through the Looking Glass", the White Queen believed in six impossible things before breakfast. Exactly what those impossible things were is not stated - so here's one possibility that reside in the land of cosmological physics.

        The Big Bang event is no doubt a concept that nearly everyone has heard about, and swallowed hook, line and cosmological sinker because scientists present this creation of the Universe scenario as fact. It's not fact; just the most viable theory of many theories and it has serious flaws. The accepted theoretical account of the creation or event that kick-started our Universe off not only has that event a something that created all of matter and energy, but all of time and space as well, and this creation event, to boot, all took place in a volume less than that of a pinhead (something in the realm of the quantum) and for no apparent reason at all. First there was nothing; then there was something. Wow!

        Astronomers observe the universe - obviously. At best observations that support the Big Bang event are indirect being made some 13.7 billion years after-the-fact. Those indirect observations that provide evidence for the Big Bang event are the fact that the Universe is expanding (galactic red-shifts); the Universe has a temperature - the remnants from the hot Big Bang called the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and the amounts and ratio of hydrogen to helium. In reality there are no direct observations as nobody was present at Ground Zero all those billions of years ago.

        The galactic red-shift observation boils down to the fact that nearly all galaxies are moving away from each other and the distances between them are in relation to their velocities such that galaxies moving at X velocity will be Y distance apart; galaxies that are 2X velocities will be 2Y distances apart and so on. Translated, it's what you would expect to see with respect to all the bits and pieces flying off on an exploding stick of dynamite. Thus we have an expanding Universe, and, by running the 'film' or the clock backwards, the Universe will have come to a 'point' roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

        The detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (a cosmic temperature detectable in part as static or hiss on your TV set when tuned between stations) was in accordance with theoretical predictions if the cosmos started out as an extremely hot explosion and slowly cooled down as the Universe expanded.

        Lastly, when one observes and calculates the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the Universe, the two simplest of elements, that ratio is what you'd expect given known interactions part and parcel of particle physics under the extremes of temperature and pressure that would be expected in a high temperature explosion.

        So, the Big Bang gets a heads up. Things are looking good. But, and there's always a 'but'! There are immediately several issues with respect to this cosmic 'explosion' termed the Big Bang event. There are really a couple, well more than just a couple, of anomalies present in the standard Big Bang (standard cosmological model) account.

        The 'bang' wasn't 'big' since cosmologists choose to run the clock back as far as they can and thus cram the entire Universe back into a volume less than that of a pinhead*. It's absurd in the extreme to believe that our entire Universe - everything - could be squeezed into a volume of atomic dimensions.

        Repeat - the first nanosecond of creation had the contents of what would become our observable Universe crammed into a volume less than a pinhead. Bull! If you could squeeze the contents of the observable Universe down into a pinhead's volume, you'd end up with the Mother of all Black Holes from which nothing would escape. Therefore there would be no Big Bang and thus our Universe would not have been brought into existence. You have a violation of pure common sense. Common sense tells you that you can not stuff the contents of the entire Universe into the realm of the quantum, something actually way less in volume in fact than a pinhead. If that's not anomalous, I don't know what is!

        Another anomaly is that the Big Bang event created time itself. Cosmologists say the Big Bang event created time but without any explanation or recipe given as to how this quasi-Biblical miracle was accomplished. The creation of time can't even be done in theory, far less in actual practice. Pull the left leg!

        Related, the Big Bang event allegedly created space itself. The Big Bang event created space but yet again without any explanation or recipe being given by cosmologists for that either. Creating space too is beyond the theoretical limits of modern physics and certainly cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. You cannot create a something like matter and energy within a zero volume of space which would have been the situation at Time = Zero. Therefore the Big Bang event did not create space. It happened in existing space. That space was somehow created; well that's another quasi-Biblical miracle. Now you can pull the right leg!

        Then there are those violations in our dearly beloved conservation laws. First there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin 'air'. How the Big Bang created matter and energy, again, without any explanation or recipe given, is another quasi-Biblical miracle. Do these constant 'this is what happened though we're lacking the nitty-gritty details' by cosmologists, as in giving actual putting-cards-on-the-table explanations, surprise you? It should if cosmologists were really fair dinkum about the bovine fertilizer they pontificate. Perhaps they literally believe in the Biblical account of Genesis but like to disguise this with scientific mumbo-jumbo. Anyway, they pontificate that there was a violation of the laws that regulate the conservation of matter and energy. That's also a free lunch, which is one of those impossible concepts the White Queen believes in before breakfast.

        IMHO it's impossible to create from scratch matter and energy. It's a violation of the basic physics drummed into every high school science student - "matter (and energy) can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed in form".

        Related, we have an absolute violation in causality. Apparently the creation of the Universe (the Big Bang event) happened for absolutely no rhyme or reason at all. That means there was no first cause attributable for the effect that was Big Bang event. Does that strike anyone besides me as odd, as in fact absolutely impossible? Lack of causality is another of those impossible concepts the White Queen believes in before breakfast.

        IMHO, causality demands that a cause creates an effect - the Big Bang was an effect, something caused it, and that something could only have preceded it in time. Therefore the Big Bang did not, could not, create time (as noted above). The Big Bang happened while the clock was already ticking.

        Lastly, no energy source for the 'bang' is given and you'd think that it would take a hell of a lot of energy to give some serious expansion oomph to something as massive as the Universe. I've often read that apparently no energy source was actually necessary (because the Universe is energy neutral - it has as much positive energy as negative energy), which I find more than slightly odd.

        My take on this can of worms is that the Big Bang was a macro event that happened in existing space and time. There was a before-the-Big-Bang, which for the time being, is out of observable reach - but then too the Big Bang itself can be 'seen' no farther back than roughly 380,000 years after-the-fact. The universe is indeed expanding, but it is expanding through existing space. Space itself is not expanding. In fact, there is no observational experiment that can be made that can distinguish between the two scenarios.

        So, yes there was a Big Bang event, but there is a lot of associated quasi-Biblical baggage which is totally impossible to support by anything approaching what's taught in Logic 101.

        * I could easily blow up a balloon, and you could easily film it, and from that calculate the expansion rate of the balloon. You could then run the clock or the film and the associated equation backwards. However, would you be justified in extrapolating that backwards shrinking balloon scenario to the point where the balloon was the size of an atom? I think not. Yet that's exactly what Big Bang cosmologists do, without any justification.

        IS TIME A CONCEPT OR A THING? CAN TIME BE CREATED?

        Is it possible to create time? If you accept the modern cosmological paradigm that's exactly what happened 13.7 billion years ago. If you accept that, was the creation of time a once only creation or is the creation of time occurring even as you read this? Or, is the whole idea of literally creating time something only those smoking the good stuff could conceive of, while those of a less befuddled mind view as total bovine fertilizer? It's the latter IMHO, or should be.

        According to the standard model of modern cosmology, the Big Bang event 13.7 billion years ago created both space and time. Exactly what the recipe was isn't given, but there was this act of creation nonetheless. Again, the standard model gives a scenario that even after the Big Bang event, right up to the present time (and presumably beyond our present time) space is still be created (out of nothing) and thus to make room for all this additional space, space itself has to expand (into what isn't stipulated) and thus we have the popular phrase that we exist in an "expanding universe".

        But if space itself is expanding, then space is a thing, and things cannot be created out of nothing which is what those advocating an expanding space are, well, advocating.

        I have elsewhere examined this issue of expanding space and found it to be IMHO utter claptrap. That's because the concept of expanding space treats space, as noted above, as if space were a thing. Space is not a thing any more than society, atheism, Wednesday or velocity is a thing; or beauty. Some thing maybe beautiful, but beauty is not a thing.

        Now what about time? The alleged creation of time, unlike that of space, seems to have been a one-off happening at that Big Bang event - or is it? Was time, 13.7 billion years ago, created for all time, unlike space, or is the creation of time an ongoing process?

        Time only seems to exist up to and including this very moment - right 'now'. One second from now is in the future and future time does not yet exist. So is time constantly being created in order for there to be a future? If so, how is it being done, or again, what's the recipe for creating or cooking up a batch of time? There can't be a bona fide recipe; otherwise some nerdy geek could create a batch of time at the same time, or within time, which already exists! That concept of creating a bubble of time within existing time should make your head ache!

        But relax, there's no need for the aspirin. There has not been one nanosecond of time created by all the humans who ever were and are (and are likely to be), nor by any of humanity's machines or devices. No theoretical physicist has ever claimed for example that the Large Hadron Collider could create time, even though it's supposed to come as close as possible to creating the sort of energies though present at the Big Bang event. Tis a pity actually since many of us feel at times as if there's not enough time in the day (week, month, or year) to accomplish everything. So wouldn't it be nice if you could create a bit of extra time on the sly and have a 25 hour day or an eight day week. Sadly, that's to be realized only in your dreams (or science fiction books and films).

        The flip-side that one second from now is in the future and future time does not yet exist, is what happened to the time that existed just one second ago? It's gone. The only record of what happened one second ago rests in your memory or in some recorded device, natural or artificial, all of which only exists or is accessible in the current now. You might remember an event from five years ago, but you remember it 'now'. A fossil might be evidence of a previous time, but that evidence only exists for your consideration 'now'. A newsreel film might document an event that happened decades ago, but when you view it you see it 'now'. When you look at the stars, you see their starlight that was emitted years before, but you see it 'now'.

        It would seem that the only bona-fide reality time has is 'now'. Past time is no longer tangible; future time is yet to be tangible. There's something very profound about 'now' - it's only in the 'now' that things change, and of course change is what gives the concept of time meaning.

        But let's suppose that 'in the beginning' time was created 'in the beginning'. There was a slice of time created at the alpha point - that "now" that gives time 'reality' that from the beginning onwards moves forward (in time) until it reaches the omega point. Or, perhaps there was a "now" slice of time created at the alpha point, but that slice stays put while reality moves past it until the omega point is reached. Think of a factory line where there is a row of gizmos (reality) and a worker (time) walks on up the line from gizmo to gizmo and attaches a doohickie to each gizmo in turn from alpha to omega. Or, the worker (time) stands still while a conveyor belt with the gizmos (reality) on it rolls past the worker from alpha to omega while he attaches to each a doohickie in turn.

        However, a slice of time is awkward if there's a different 'now' occurrence for different people as viewed by different people. That's actually a consequence of Einstein's Special Relativity (see further below).

        Why postulate a 'slice' of time? Well, as already pointed out, time has no existence in the past and no existence in the future. There's only that slice of 'now' time. How thin is that slice of 'now' time? How short is that duration of 'now' time? Well there is a concept of the shortest possible interval of time with the caveat that nothing can actually happen in any sense of the term meaningful in any shorter interval of time. Any interval of time can be infinitely subdivided, but there does come a point where nothing of substance can happen if the interval is too short. How short is short? Let's just say the number of shortest yet meaningful time units that would fit into one traditional second of time vastly, vastly, vastly outnumbers the entire human population past and present. When we say "short", we really, really, really mean "short".

        But if time were created for the entire duration it would be required for, then that implies some foresight or foreknowledge on the part of the process that created time (or the cook that owns the recipe book). Speaking of the cook, it's like the cook knowing in advance how big a turkey to buy and prepare for Thanksgiving dinner by knowing in advance how many guests will be present.

        If time can be created even if only as a slice of time, then time can cease to be created.

        If time were to stop being created, we'd never know since nothing would or could change (which is what time measures - rate of change). We only perceive time because things change from second to second; minute to minute; hour to hour, etc. If time stopped, our hearts would stop in mid-beat, clocks wouldn't tick, boiling water would stop in mid-boil, and photons on route from the Sun to your eyeball would freeze in mid-space. Presumably if this had ever happened, you'd be none the wiser since that would imply that time was rebooted.

        Another fly in the ointment is that while everyone perceives their personal rate of time flow at one second per second (and a second of time by the way is an artificial man-made unit of measurement), not everyone views everyone else's time flow rate as being one second per second. The flow rate of time, as Einstein pointed out (Special Relativity) is relative. Further, depending on frame of reference, one can see Event A happen before Event B while someone else sees Event B happen before Event A, while a third body sees Event A and Event B happen simultaneously. That's because it's the speed of light that's the physical constant. It does seem odd that in the beginning (assuming a beginning) it wasn't time or space that was created as being a constant rather it was the speed of light. Actually that makes some sense since both time and space are not things, but light is a thing. However, it's as if the speed of a batted or thrown baseball was always fixed and the dimensions of the ballpark and the playing field shape-shifted from second to second to accommodate the required outcome!

        But adding Special Relativity to the creation of time equation just makes the creation of time recipe super complex. So let's just drop the idea of time as a thing. Depending on point of view, events happen more or less quickly to others than you think is natural from your frame of reality. You just by force of habit translate that into time units, a habit you need to break.

        When it comes to the concept of time, it is second nature to suppose that no matter what starting or alpha point you presume, a question "what came before that?" is obvious even to blind Freddy. Therefore, it is way easier to adopt the philosophy that there was no alpha point (or omega point) - that time has always existed (and will always exist). Therefore, there was no need for time to be created.

        If time wasn't created, was there ever a first moment when time came to be? That would be the case if (and that's going to be a mighty bug if): 1) time was an intrinsic property of matter and energy, and 2) if matter and energy were created from scratch. Leaving Point 2 aside for another day, time is not a property of matter and energy*. It's not difficult to imagine a universe with just one electron in it. As far as that electron is concerned there is no time since there is no change to the state of that universe since there is no change, cannot be any change, to the state of the sole inhabitant of that universe - the one and only electron. Therefore time is not an intrinsic property of matter (and energy).

        Finally, you cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell time, nor can any mechanical instrument. You can say that time can be measured, but what are you actually measuring? What you are measuring are the changing properties of things you (or an instrument) can see, hear, etc. What about a clock? What changes on a clock? Well the minute hand moves from 4 to 5 or on a digital watch the reading changes from 4 to 5. There is a change in the properties of the clock or the watch that you can see or hear. You just label that change in the clock's properties, time. Your label of time is a concept, a human concept.

        All concepts, like society or beauty, are created, but in the minds of living things, and not just by human beings either since one can imagine non-humans appreciating beauty. No doubt my cats view a full food bowl as something of great beauty! Of course that means in another sense that time has been created, but by humans (and maybe by other animals) for humans. Just like mathematical concepts (more human inventions) help us come to terms with, or help us explain, reality, ditto our artificially constructed concept of time. You certainly don't hear cosmologists talk about the Big Bang creating concepts like mathematics, society, Wednesday, birthdays, beauty, atheism or velocity. Concepts like these have no tangibility - you can't weigh them or put them under a microscope.

        Conclusion: Time is the most mysterious facet of the cosmos and of your daily life you ever have to come to terms with, though most people don't bother. But it needn't be if you stop thinking of time as a thing and view time as a concept, like say your birthday. Unfortunately, way too many cosmologists imply that time is a thing and that the thing we call time was literally created. It's very easy to say that time was created at the Big Bang event and those hundreds of cosmologists say exactly that. But it's quite another thing to produce the recipe for how that was accomplished, and on that point these same cosmologists are very strangely silent on the matter. Extraordinary claims (like stating that time was created) require extraordinary evidence - one of those mantras the scientific community love to hurl at those advocating anything they call pseudo-science - but none is given by those very same cosmologists.

        What the Big Bang event did do was set in train all those laws, principles and relationships that govern the cosmos and govern change in the cosmos, which is what our concept of time measures.

        So, was time created 'in the beginning' - no; 'once upon a time - that doesn't work either. No matter how you slice and dice things, the idea that time can be created, like space, is also IMHO utter claptrap. That's because the concept of creating time treats time as if time were also a thing. Time is no more a thing any more than space is a thing. But if time itself is being created, then time is a thing, and again things cannot be created out of nothing which is what those advocating the creation of time are, well, advocating.

        The easiest way to deal with the concept of time is that that's exactly what time is - a concept, an abstraction, but not a thing. If time isn't a thing then time could not be created. If time isn't a thing, then time travel isn't possible. You can travel in a thing (i.e. - a car), not in a concept.

        *If you consult any science reference book on the fundamental properties of matter and energy, time will not be listed, though things like mass and charge and spin, etc. will be.

        10 days later

        THOSE AD-HOC COSMOLOGICAL EPICYCLES

        Sometimes observations are hard to explain. So you just have to tack on the best ad-hoc explanation that fits the facts, even if the explanation itself is lacking the nitty-gritty details. Astronomy went through such an exercise when anyone who was anyone said that the Earth was the centre of all things, and all things revolved around the Earth. That didn't end very well. I suspect that modern cosmology is in a similar situation that ultimately won't end well as far as the status-quo is concerned either.

        Once upon a time humans thought and believed that the Earth was the centre of the cosmos and that all things revolved around the Earth. When it came to the Sun and the Moon, things worked out pretty smoothly. The Moon does go around the Earth and the Sun damn well appears to. The 'fixed' stars also appear to go around the Earth and provide no ammunition to suggest otherwise.

        But the 'wandering stars', the planets, were different horses of other colours. Their motions, assumed to be going round the Earth, were difficult to reconcile with that stationary Earth in the middle. Nobody (at the time) was willing to abandon the Earth-centred cosmos, and so the motions of the planets had to be tweaked in order to get observation and theory to gel. Thus was invented the epicycle.

        Planets were assumed to go through various loop-the-loops and other gyrations or acrobatics (collectively called epicycles) in order to conform to observation. But original epicycles had in turn to be provided with second generation epicycles as observations still didn't fit the 'facts', then third generation epicycles tacked on to the second generation tacked on to the original generation, until things go so out of hand and complicated that everything just collapsed in a heap. That resulted in a paradigm shift.

        When the positions of the Earth and Sun were reversed, everything fell into place, theory matched observation (once ellipses were substituted for circles - the perfect circle was yet another once upon a time when humans were dictating to nature what nature should do requirement), and all those epicycles fell by the wayside.

        We seem to face a similar situation today when it comes to modern cosmology. We have lots of observations that require ever increasing ad-hoc epicycles to account for them.

        Many an observation has been made in the sciences, and then to explain a group of them, some sort of all encompassing explanation is given. That in turn results in various issues or problems and so to resolve them, another all encompassing explanation is given to explain that lot of them, and that in turn, well etc. etc. A clear case in point revolves around the standard model of cosmology.

        Astronomers observe the universe - obviously. Certain observations in need of explanation have given rise to just such an explanation, albeit incomplete and rather unsatisfactory. That trilogy of observations is: 1) galactic red-shifts; 2) The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR); and 3) the ratio/abundance of hydrogen & helium.

        The galactic red-shift observation boils down to the fact that nearly all galaxies are moving away from each other and the distances between them are in relation to their velocities such that galaxies moving at X velocity will be Y distance apart; galaxies that are 2X velocities will be 2Y distances apart and so on. Translated, it's what you would expect to see with respect to all the bits and pieces flying off on an exploding stick of dynamite. Thus we have an expanding Universe, and, by running the 'film' or the clock backwards, the Universe will have come to a 'point' roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

        The detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (a cosmic temperature detectable in part as static or hiss on your TV set when tuned between stations) was in accordance with theoretical predictions if the cosmos started out as an extremely hot explosion and slowly cooled down as the Universe expanded.

        Lastly, when one observes and calculates the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the Universe, the two simplest of elements, that ratio is what you'd expect given known interactions part and parcel of particle physics under the extremes of temperature and pressure that would be expected in a high temperature explosion.

        So, the Big Bang gets a heads up. Things are looking good. But, and there's always a 'but'!

        There are immediately several issues with respect to this cosmic explosion termed the Big Bang. Firstly, it created time (no explanation or recipe given as to how); secondly it created space (no explanation or recipe given for that either); thirdly it created matter and energy (again, no explanation or recipe, given); fourthly the 'bang' wasn't 'big' since cosmologists choose to run the clock back as far as they can and thus cram the entire Universe back into a volume less than that of a pinhead; and lastly, no energy source for the 'bang' is given. In fact I've often read that apparently no energy source was actually necessary (because the Universe is energy neutral - it has as much positive energy as negative energy), which I find more than slightly odd.

        However, postulating the Big Bang to explain the above trilogy of observations caused issues with another trilogy of observations. These observations centred on: 1) the horizon problem; 2) the flatness problem and 3) the monopole problem

        The horizon problem - contact between two regions - is a problem in that if you look at exact opposite regions of the Universe; you tend to see pretty much the exact same thing, especially when it comes to temperature. So what? Well, in order for things to achieve equilibrium, your hot cup of coffee cooling off while the kitchen gets ever so slightly warmer until both coffee and room are the same temperature, requires that the two regions (coffee and room) be in relatively close proximity since the exchange can only happen at velocities equal to or less than the speed of light. If two opposite areas of the sky, looking deep into space, are the same temperature, it requires that these two regions were once close together, close enough for equilibrium at or less than the speed of light to have taken place in order to even conditions out. Unfortunately, the distances observed between opposite points in the sky are such that uniformity could not have been possible. They are now out of contact with each other - beyond each other's 'horizon' so any bits of non-uniformity between regions that eventuated way back when should have persisted - and when we look that deep into space we are looking way back when. We need some serious additional oomph to get uniformity between regions from way, way back then (i.e. - immediately post Big Bang) out to currently observed distances.

        The flatness problem revolves around the observation that the Universe is fine tuned with respect to the density of matter and energy contained within, a density that has resulted in a just so 'flat' universe. Translated, a flat universe is one where Euclidian geometry holds sway (the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees). Now if the density was greater, the Universe would be closed, like a sphere (i.e. - the Earth), where the angles of a triangle on the surface add up to more than 180 degrees. If the density were less, the Universe would be an open (i.e. - saddle-shaped) hyperbolic Universe where the angles of a triangle add up to less than 180 degrees. If you have a potentially wide range of possible densities, it's amazing that our Universe has that just-so flatness.

        The monopole problem is that under the conditions of the Big Bang, one should have generated monopoles - magnets with either a north pole, or a south pole, but not both. Alas, no monopoles have ever been detected or observed. They appear to be rarer than hen's teeth.

        Well, the way to circumnavigate those problems is to propose not just an original Big Bang explosion, but an additional super-ultra 'explosion' that speeded up the expansion of the Universe, ever so briefly, by a very, very, very large factor indeed. This secondary 'explosion' was termed Inflation. Inflation made the expansion rate of the Universe caused by the Big Bang to appear almost insignificant.

        So how does an extreme, but brief, burst of expansion (i.e. - Inflation) solve the flatness, horizon and monopole issues?

        The horizon problem is solved by inflation. While, initial pre-inflation Big Bang conditions would have provided for the required close enough contact to achieve uniformity, regions flying apart would soon acquire their own distinct 'personalities' and be far enough apart that equilibrium could never be restored between these regions, even at light speed. However, that additional serious bout of Inflation then rapidly expanded out that evenness, Inflation providing the extra oomph and freezing the uniformity in place to the distances we observe today.

        The flatness problem is explained because an extremely rapid rate of Inflation would smooth out the Universe. If you're bacteria on the surface of an uninflated balloon, you'll see peaks and troughs - wrinkles. If that balloon is blown up thousands of times greater in extent, the surface will now appear flat - just like the surface of the Earth appears flat to us.

        The monopole problem is solved because the volume of the Universe increased thousands of times over in nanoseconds such that monopoles were now dispersed over an incredibly large volume such that the odds one would be in our cosmic neighbourhood becomes vanishingly tiny.

        The odd thing here is that I sometimes read that Inflation preceded the Big Bang, although it's usually an after-the-fact event. Obviously cosmologists haven't really a clue which came first - no, not the chicken or egg but the Big Bang or Inflation.

        Okay, we've explained cosmological observations via the Big Bang and Inflation. Can we go on R&R now? No, not quite. For you see, yet another very nasty observation has surfaced that requires yet another ad hoc tack-on explanation that well, has no explanation.

        We have been aware that our Universe has been expanding for going on nearly a century now. Of course we are also aware, from a quite considerable earlier time that what goes up must come down. In other words, gravity grabs. The Universe has lots and lots of gravity, so presumably, what goes up (i.e. - the expansion rate) must come down (i.e. - the expansion rate must at least slow down, maybe even stop and reverse). Cosmologists were very interested in finding out exactly what the rate of deceleration was. How fast was the Universe's expansion rate decreasing? It's like you car might be going uphill, but at an ever slower and slower rate.

        Okay, so, several teams of astronomers did the relevant observations and crunched the numbers and guess what - the Universe's expansion rate was accelerating, and gravity be damned. That's sort of like driving your car uphill and having it go faster and faster without you putting the pedal to the metal. Well, that surely was an unexpected result. So, they needed an explanation. The astronomers (team leaders anyway) got the Nobel Prize, but that was for the discovery, not for the explanation. You see, there wasn't any explanation. So, what do we want - an epicycle. When do we want it - now! What was the ad-hoc epicycle to be? It was called "Dark Energy", a sort of anti-gravity that was pushing the Universe apart faster and faster and faster. Trouble is, nobody then, or now, has the foggiest idea what Dark Energy is, yet in order to account for what this epicycle does, it must represent some roughly 70% of what makes the Universe up. That's a lot of epicycle that lacks any plausible explanation. Did someone mention rabbits and hats?

        Now can we go home? Sorry, not yet.

        There's yet another astronomical observation that in fact goes back to the first half of the 20th Century that has to deal with, at least initially, our own cosmic neck of the woods, the Milky Way Galaxy. Now you'd be well aware that in our solar system, Mr. Sun is the Big Cheese and keeps all of her planets in orbit via her gravity. However, gravity weakens as you get away from the source (the inverse square relationship) so it's not surprising that the farther a planet is outward bound from the Sun, giver the ever increasingly longer distance of its orbit around the Sun, the slower it orbits; the longer is its year. Now does that relationship apply to all the bits and pieces (i.e. - stars) that orbit around the centre of our galaxy? Well, in fact no. The outer stars whiz along just as quick-smart as the inner stars, so much so that the outer stars, given the amount of gravity the galaxy apparently has, should in fact escape altogether and head off into intergalactic space. The fact that they don't does mean the galaxy has a lot more gravity than apparently meets the astronomical eye. Oops, there's another epicycle coming on. This time the ad-hoc explanation is Dark Matter. It is dark because we can't see it. It is matter because it has (all that required additional) gravity. Of course, it makes up the majority of matter in our galaxy; of course nobody has a clue what it actually is, although the astronomical powers-that-be have been able to rule out a lot of what's dark, but common stuff like interstellar gas and dust, Black Holes, etc. So, for the here and now, Dark Matter is another epicycle, and what applies to our galaxy also has been observed for other galaxies.

        The concept of epicycles was originally used in order to explain observations. That remains the case in modern cosmology, only the ad-hoc explanations themselves need explaining.

        In conclusion, the state of cosmology and of our understanding of the Universe, its substance and structure, is pretty much at a crossroads where the state of our solar system was all those centuries ago. Once upon a time epicycles were heaped on epicycles in order to explain the solar system until everything fell to pieces. I suspect that history will repeat itself when it comes to the current state of cosmology. Explanations of observations are just too ad-hoc; too many things left unexplained by those ad-hoc epicycles. We've had the Copernican Revolution; it's time for the equivalent revolution in cosmology.

        SUMMARY

        Observation: Galactic Red-shifts

        Observation: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

        Observation: Ratio/Abundance Hydrogen & Helium

        Ad-Hoc Epicycle: Big Bang (no energy source given)

        Observation: Horizon Problem

        Observation: Flatness Problem

        Observation: Magnetic Monopoles

        Ad-Hoc Epicycle: Inflation (many varieties, just like Heinz)

        Observation: Accelerating Universe

        Ad-Hoc Epicycle: Dark Energy (unexplained)

        Observation: Galactic Rotations with Gravity Out of Sync

        Ad-Hoc Epicycle: Dark Matter (unexplained)