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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment