Chapter 1: Understanding the Origin of Matter

Children can intuitively sense the shortcomings of the Big Bang theory.

Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

Physicists typically prioritize evidence over the overarching theoretical framework. This article will first delve into the different models that attempt to explain the emergence of matter, followed by a brief examination of relevant data in the context of the Big Bang theory.

The journey begins with the scientific consensus that matter originated approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Before this point, matter did not exist, and interpretations of what existed prior depend on the theoretical model adopted. Rather than seeking specific evidence, as is done with experiments like those at the Large Hadron Collider where matter is produced at extreme energy levels, the focus here is on models first. Currently, there are three primary models to consider.

The Big Bang theory aligns with either Model #1 or Model #2 but does not incorporate Model #3. This omission suggests a significant flaw in the reasoning of many physicists. If the Big Bang theory were comprehensive, it would account for all three models, whether accepting or rejecting them. However, it remains silent on Model #3.

The Three Models of Matter's Emergence

Here are the three theoretical frameworks available to explore the inception of matter around 13.8 billion years ago:

Model #1: Something From Nothing

This model is generally unpopular, as many recognize its inherent flaws, though pinpointing the exact issue can be challenging. If one assumes a state of absolute nothingness from which matter emerged, it raises the question of how one can transition from nothing to something. Without any "handles" to facilitate this transition, the model appears untenable. Despite this, it remains favored by some physicists.

Data Check:

Some physicists speculate that matter could arise from minute quantum fluctuations, suggesting that the initial state was nearly a void. However, any significant fluctuation contradicts Model #1 because it presupposes the existence of something to begin with. Therefore, the idea that something can arise from nothing remains flawed.

Model #2: Everything That Was Became Everything That Is

In contrast to Model #1, this model starts with an all-encompassing existence rather than a void. It seems logical that everything could derive from everything else that previously existed. Nonetheless, it contains an underlying flaw that can be difficult to identify. If the outcome is entirely based on what existed before, maintaining this state for billions of years becomes problematic.

Data Check:

The Big Bang theory acknowledges a starting point that represents a complete state. The term "Singularity" often emerges in this context, denoting a mathematically undefined state, yet it reflects physicists' desire for an absolute initial condition.

Model #3: A Fundamental Distinction Among Parts

Model #3 diverges significantly from the first two, as it does not posit an absolute zero or one. Instead, it suggests that a result arises from portions of the original state, where the material outcome is fundamentally different from what initially existed while retaining some aspects of the original state. This model proposes a partial transformation, allowing matter to function independently from the remaining original energy.

Data Check:

In the Big Bang framework, there is no consideration for partial transformations. Both Model #1 and Model #2 imply a totality, whether beginning from nothingness or everything. Model #3, however, does not conform to this paradigm and stands apart from the Big Bang theory.

The Process of Model #3

The principles of Model #3 imply that a fundamental shift took place within the original condition. This suggests a two-stage process wherein the initial state set the stage for its own transformation. The significant rupture at the end of that previous state has led to the current reality.

Recap:

The Big Bang theory does not address any fundamental break as a primary cause for the material phenomena we observe today. It seeks to uphold an absolute beginning, reflecting a quasi-religious stance within what should be a purely scientific inquiry. Thus, physicists may not be fully operating within a realm of scientific evidence when adhering to the Big Bang model, and instead, they seem to navigate into a territory that intertwines science with belief.

Chapter 2: Implications of the Models

Exploring the ramifications of these models will shed light on our understanding of the universe and the nature of existence. Each model presents a unique perspective on how matter might have emerged, challenging the conventions of the Big Bang theory.