Two Plausible Scenarios for the Big Bang Theory
The subtitle of my book The Afterlife and the True Nature of Reality is The Quest for Answers to the Great Questions of Existence, and that quest was, indeed, the main purpose and impetus for me undertaking the writing the book. Among the Great Questions addressed by my book are: (1) Where do we come from before we are born? (2) Where do we go after we die? and (3) Why are we here? And I do hold true to my word by providing specific answers to these questions, answers that are supported by compelling evidence – scientific evidence as well as spiritual evidence. But probably the greatest of the Great Questions is: Where did it all come from? That is, How did our universe – everything in existence – originate?
That enquiry falls under the purview of cosmology – the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. Cosmology's answer to the question Where did it all come from? is known as The Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory posits that, approximately 13.8 billion years ago, our universe – all of it: matter, energy ... the works – sprang into existence in an instant out of what is called a "singularity" which is conceptualized as an infinitely small, infinitely dense, and infinitely hot state of existence. In spite of the use of the phrase "big bang" the birth of our universe out of this singularity is not considered to have been an explosion but rather a rapid expansion of the singularity. Continued expansion and cooling has led to our universe in the state in which it presently exists (with it continuing to expand and cool further). Esteemed physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose believe that nothing existed prior to the singularity – i.e., matter, energy, space, time – none of these existed prior to the singularity. The singularity's origin, purpose, and medium of existence are all unknown.
Now think about this Big Bang theory for a moment: basically, it is saying that everything sprang from nothing in an instant for no reason. This is about as unscientific an "explanation" as I've ever heard. The Big Bang Theory, as offered by cosmologists, is, in point of fact, little more than a creation myth disguised as science. Terence McKenna's comments on the Big Bang Theory are priceless: "[The Big Bang Theory] is the limit test for credulity… I mean, hell, if you can believe that, you can believe anything ... try and think of something more improbable than that contention." And this: "It's just the limit case for unlikelihood that the universe would spring from nothing, in a single instant, for no reason! What the philosophers of science are saying is 'Give us one free miracle.'"
"One free miracle" indeed. All humor aside, the Big Bang Theory truly does sound more like a religious miracle than a scientific hypothesis – it's about as far-fetched a notion as one can imagine. When I first became aware of the Big Bang Theory I was astounded that any serious scientist could propose it, let alone support it, with a serious face. Part of the reason I felt this way is the obvious unlikelihood of it; another reason is the fact that I've never heard, or read, a specific explanation as to how the entire universe could possibly have grown out of this practically non-existent singularity. I have never seen a specific explanation – understandable to laypersons – which describes a mechanism by which everything in existence could have been born out of an infinitesimal singularity. Nevertheless, I've thought often and long about the Big Bang Theory and, after many years of pondering, I've come up with two possible explanations as to how it might actually have been possible for our universe to have been born out of seemingly nothing. Here are my two scenarios for exactly how and why the Big Bang Theory might actually hold some truth.
BIG BANG SCENARIO #1: THE SINGULARITY AS A MASS OF SUPER-COMPRESSED PHOTONS
A photon is a "quantum of electromagnetic radiation" or, in simpler language, a photon is a "particle" of light. One of the many interesting and intriguing properties of photons is that they have no mass; mass is the amount of matter in a substance, so to say that photons have no mass is equivalent to saying that photons are not matter. Now, matter is defined as something that has mass and takes up space, so photons do not take up space. Interestingly, although photons themselves are not matter, there is a scientific theory that posits that matter can be created out of photons.
The possibility that matter can actually be created from light is taken quite seriously by mainstream scientists. Quantum electrodynamics predicts that the mutual annihilation of two high-energy photons colliding under the right conditions will produce pairs of electrons and positrons – i.e., matter and antimatter. Scientists have proposed a design for a photon-photon collider using gamma ray beams to test this prediction. [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/ 182701-scientists-work-out-how-create-matter-fromlight-finally-proving-einsteins-emc2; http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n6/full/nphoton.2014.95.html; http://www.theguardian.com/science/ 2014/may/18/matter-lightphotons-electrons-positrons].
With all of that as a foundation, consider the following hypothesis: Suppose that the singularity that preceded the Big Bang was simply a mass of super-compressed photons. Since photons are mass-less this would account for the singularity being a virtually non-existent point – an accumulation of mass-less "particles" would still be mass-less (i.e., infinitely small, occupying no space). Now suppose that the singularity ruptured and released all those compressed photons in the event that we call the Big Bang. As these photons expanded outwards at the speed of light, some of them collided with one another. As we learned above, quantum electrodynamics postulates that some of these collisions could result in the annihilation of the photons and the subsequent release of pairs of electrons and positrons – i.e., matter and antimatter. In other words, it would be entirely possible for the matter (and antimatter) of the universe to have been born out of a singularity that was composed of nothing but photons. The Big Bang may have been an event as simple as a bursting forth of light. This is eerily consistent with the Bible's version of creation (in Genesis 1:3): "And God said, 'Let there be light.'"
BIG BANG SCENARIO #2: THE BIG BANG AS THE EXPANSION OF THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE
In my book I introduce an original theory which came to me in part as a result of information revealed during a lengthy hypnosis session with Mira Kelley, and in part in a dreamlike revelation. I call this hypothesis the Organizing Principle Theory.
Everything we experience in our "physical" reality is comprised of energy and form. Science fully acknowledges that matter and energy are equivalent (think: Einstein's famous equation E=mc2). Energy serves as the raw material out of which our reality is made. I contend there is an Organizing Principle (OP), a natural process or mechanism which provides the information that molds that energy into the forms we experience. This Organizing Principle utilizes – or is – mathematics. That is, the Organizing Principle is a mathematical engine that takes the primal, chaotic energy of the Zero-Point Field and transforms it into the encoded forms that serve as the basis for our reality. Our sensory apparatus – our sensory organs and brain (or, more accurately, sensory organs and nervous system) – are predesigned to decode those encoded energy forms into our experience of reality. The raw energy is transformed by the OP into the encoded forms of the underlying reality via mathematics, and our sensory apparatus then decode those forms into our experience of "reality," also via mathematics. That is why nature appears to obey mathematical laws and formulas, and also why we humans are able to comprehend mathematics. [Note: I cover this process in much greater detail in my book].
The Organizing Principle Theory offers what I think is a more elegant understanding of the Big Bang event than that offered my mainstream science. Consider the following alternative hypothesis: I believe that the Big Bang was not a bursting forth of "everything" out of a primary singularity but, rather, the expansion of an Organizing Principle wave through the field of chaos. "Everything" was already there, in the form of unstructured chaotic energy (the Zero-Point Field). The OP was released into that mass of chaos and, as it spread through it, caused a continuous structuring of the chaos into patterns of energy that represent the forms that constitute our reality. This ongoing process of organization and complexification eventually led to the creation of our reality as we now experience it, as well as to the creation of us – living beings that possess the necessary neurological and sensory apparatus to decode those interference patterns into an experience of "physical" reality.
"IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS ... " LOGOS
If The Big Bang Theory is science's version of the creation, then the Bible's version is expressed in John, Chapter 1: "In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God" (John 1:1). In that sentence, the word "Word" is translated from the Greek word Logos, and "logos" does indeed mean "word." But Logos also has another meaning: The Greek philosopher Aristotle made a distinction in mathematics between arithmos, which referred to arithmetic calculations, and logos, which represented the foundation of logic and reason upon which mathematical principles are based. To the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, Logos represented "a principle of order and knowledge" while the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece identified Logos with "the divine animating principle pervading the Universe." Seen in this light, the biblical phrase "In the beginning was the Word…" takes on a much different meaning, and one that is quite consistent with the Organizing Principle theory. If we consider that the Organizing Principle is a force of organization that creates form and structure out of chaos, and that it was the primordial cosmological phenomenon responsible for the creation of the universe (by way of the Big Bang), then an interpretation of "Logos" as meaning "the foundation of logic and reason upon which mathematics is based" and "the divine animating principle pervading the Universe" makes much more sense than interpreting "Logos" as simply "word," for now we can render John 1:1 as follows: In the beginning was a divine animating principle, using mathematical logic and reason, that pervaded the universe… and that divine animating principle was God. This makes infinitely more sense as an explanation of creation than does the vague notion that a "word" was the causative agent.
While I don't subscribe to any particular system of organized religion, I do believe that there are profound truths contained in the Bible, many of which have been either intentionally or accidentally edited or redacted. In the case of Logos, I honestly believe that the original intent of that word was not its literal meaning of "word" but, rather, its deeper meaning of order, logic and reason.
As an explanation for the creation of reality, the theory of the Organizing Principle provides a degree of cogency, comprehensibility, and elegance that is sorely lacking in the vague and unsupported theories offered by science and religion.