Multiverse Theory or Infinite Universe Theory?

PSI Blog 20221024 Multiverse Theory or Infinite Universe Theory?

 

Infinite Universe Theory was suggested at least as early as 1344 in reaction to Aristotle’s Finite Universe Theory, with today’s hair-brained Multiverse Theory being an oxymoronic compromise.

 

 

Thomas Bradwardine (1295-1349), an early inventor of Infinite Universe Theory. Credit: madriod.

 

Infinite Universe Theory

 

I have sometimes been blamed for Infinite Universe Theory, but sorry, that credit goes to many others, with one of the first being Thomas Bradwardine of Oxford University scooping us all by over six centuries:

 

“As early as 1344 Bradwardine attacked the Aristotelian idea that the universe was finite in size, arguing that the universe was infinite in extent as God himself was. This was a view shared by many such as Oresme in the 14th century. Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century also argued that the universe was infinite and full of stars, and that, as the universe was infinite, the Earth could not be at its centre.” (MacTutor).

 

Bradwardine was a mathematical theologian (Archbishop of Canterbury) who like, Einstein, managed to combine the assumptions of science with those of religion. The only difference was the overt nature of his claims, while those of Einstein were so subtle as to go unnoticed by those unfamiliar with the foundations of relativity.[1]

 

Turns out Infinite Universe Theory has been around ever since, with one promoter, Giordano Bruno, being burned at the stake by the Pope in 1600. Newton later got into big arguments when he claimed the universe had to be infinite. Otherwise, everything in the universe would have clumped together as a result of his claimed gravitational attraction. Like most folks at that time, he was religious too. Apparently, Infinite Universe Theory didn’t shake his beliefs significantly, although he managed to spend a lot of time on confusing and otherwise ignored religious speculation toward the end of his life. Once the Big Bang Theory is gone, we should expect the implications of Infinite Universe Theory to be rationalized by currently religious folks. They probably will imagine some form of pantheism to handle the cognitive dissonance.

 

Philosophical dissonance certainly did not disappear when relativity and the Big Bang Theory arrived on the scene. While the “Last Creationist Theory” now sits well with the Pope, the explosion of everything out of nothing always had more level-headed doubters. But reformists have been cautious. Most hold fast to the Eighth Assumption of Religion, finity (The universe is finite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions).[2] The universal expansion interpretation reigns supreme, in tune with Einstein’s claim light was a massless particle filled with perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space.

 

Steady State Theory

 

The first attempt to counteract the good Monsignor Lemaître’s grand-scale creationist theory was presented by Fred Hoyle.[3] In fact, it was Hoyle who derisively coined the name for the hypothetical mess: “Big Bang Theory.” He rejected the “universe exploding out of nothing” idea, but retained the myopic universal expansion assumption. The resulting “Steady State Theory” included creationism, but only a tiny bit of it—the “creation” of one hydrogen atom at a time over long periods. According to cosmogonists, it was falsified by:

 

“using two observations: (1) counts of radio sources and (2) cosmic microwave background radiation. Observations show that the density of faint radio sources is higher than strong ones, implying that there were more cosmic radio sources billions of years ago than at present. The discovery of the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) also showed that the universe cooled and expanded from its very hot and dense initial state, contrary to what the steady state theory proposed.”

 

Of course, a truly Infinite Universe would exhibit those phenomena as well. Both are caused by sources whose distances approach infinity. But, as I pointed out, Big Bang theorists are limited by calculations that give 13.8-billion-years as their assumed “age of the universe.” There is not supposed to be anything beyond that timeline and its associated distance. The James Webb Space Telescope photos, the evidence for much more distant cosmic radio sources, and the CMB itself (z=1089) are all confirmations of Infinite Universe Theory.

 

Nonetheless, we must reject Steady State Theory for several reasons. First, it incorrectly assumes universal expansion. The proposition that the Infinite Universe undergoes expansion is a non sequitur—there is nowhere for it to expand into. Second, there is nothing “steady” about the Infinite Universe, with all its parts moving with respect to other parts. Third, the claim that the Infinite Universe looks the same from all points is false. Per the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things). No two galaxies are exactly alike, just as no two people in the universe, and no two snowflakes are exactly alike. You may think this is just a semantic quibble, but it is not. The sky never looks the same even two nights in a row. The “unsteadiness” of all portions of the universe produces heterogeneity as well as homogeneity. Furthermore, it removes all possibility of the “time travel” so dear to those gullible enough to believe cosmogonical propaganda.

 

Multiverse Theory

 

Cosmological agnostics have now invented yet another popular absurdity: the oxymoronic “Multiverse Theory.” Again, like Hoyle, they erroneously accept universal expansion—the petard for both theories. There are other theories, with one being a cyclic theory in which universal expansion is followed by universal contraction, both without causes other than the fictitious “dark energy.” I guess if you can have one Big Bang, why not have an infinite number of them? Egads!

 

Like many other myths, this one has a bit of truth behind it. For instance, here are two scientific papers in which Kashlinsky and colleagues produce evidence for galactic clusters moving in a direction implying they eventually would move outside the observed universe:

 

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Ebeling, H., Edge, A., and Kocevski, D., 2010, A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies: The Astrophysical Journal Letters, v. 712, no. 1, p. L81-L85. [10.1088/2041-8205/712/1/L81].

 

Kashlinsky, A., Atrio-Barandela, F., Kocevski, D., and Ebeling, H., 2008, A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of galaxies: Results and cosmological implications: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 686, p. L49–L52.

 

Then too, many of the elderly galaxies so far discovered contain elements recycled from still older stars. Young stars such as our Sun have mostly hydrogen, which forms helium during fusion under high pressure. Yet, Earth and other parts of the solar system contain heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, gold, platinum, and uranium derived from much older and much larger stars that were able to produce suitably high pressures. There was no way for the solar system to have produced such heavy elements. Cosmologists think they are products of supernova explosions and merger of neutron stars.

 

No doubt cosmogonical apologists will have to address this element recycling in some way commensurate with the Big Bang Theory. Having at least one big banging “universe” next door would be one way, although I wouldn’t want to be the one to do it. I am too much a stickler for the meaning of words.  

 

Parallel Universe Theory

 

This is an offshoot of Multiverse Theory, although it is even nuttier. You can read that Wikipedia article, but I hope you don’t gag on it. I don’t really know any cosmogonist who takes it seriously. One of its claims involves a violation of relativism, substituting the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics) instead. A fanciful popular imagining derived from it is the idea that there may be another, perhaps more successful, you in another universe. Really?

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]

 

[2] Ibid.

 

[3] Hoyle, Fred, 1948, A new model for the expanding universe: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 108, no. 3, p. 372-382; Hoyle, Fred, 1956, The steady-state universe: Scientific American, v. 195, no. 3, p. 157-166.

 

 

 

To read this and its updates on Medium, click here.

 

On Medium.com you can read more than three essays monthly by joining for $5/month.

Half of your membership fee supports the endowment of the Progressive Science Foundation, which will continue advancing Infinite Universe Theory as the ultimate replacement of the Big Bang Theory. You’ll also get full access to every story on Medium. Just click here.

 

When on Medium, you can clap a lot of times to aid the foundation, follow me, and subscribe to get these weekly essays directly in your inbox.