Big Splash, Not Big Bang!

Yes, I want to talk briefly about the water drop theory of existence… again. I’ve talked about it before but I was viewing some Hitchens videos recently and in a debate with Frank Turek, Christopher gets infinitely close to using my idea but doesn’t quite get there. At the 1:06:00 mark is a good place to start listening.

Christopher talks about how few words we have to even describe the beginning of existence as we know it. This is important to remember. He goes on to say that no one can know what the big bang happened inside of.

“Don’t say being, what ground do you have to say being ” or creater…

He goes on to argue who has the burden of proof with some efficacy, ‘how do you know’ being the catchphrase that pays here.

I’m not claiming that I have proof of the big splash, but it is one possible way to create this known universe without a creator. If there is one then there are many. Complete accident. Completely unimportant to the reality from which our universe came. No gods, no design, no purpose… nothing but simple existence.

Check out from 1:06:00 but the whole debate is good

In case you are wondering, my big splash theory goes something like this:

The Water Drop Hypothesis

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, professional scientist, or think tank member etc.

Edwin Hubble‘s work led to the realization that the universe is expanding rather than holding still in a steady state as much of religion had believed up to that time.There is quite a bit of chatter about what the shape of the universe is. The “global shape” of the universe and what effects dark energy and dark matter actually have are unclear. They are given as explanations for observations of the universe. Then you get string theory involved. Explaining string theory to an ape is like trying to tell a tropical fish that air is not nothing or emptiness. Yes, I know the meme, if you think you know string theory then you don’t know string theory.

The current statement of my Water Drop Hypothesis is this: While we can imagine an ocean of quanta vibrating to create the four dimensions of the only universe we know, we cannot quite imagine what might be outside that ocean (the only universe we know). If a drop of quanta were to be separated from the larger “ocean” it previously belonged to, and the perturbations of it’s shape causes fluctuations in the material of the drop so that we can see the 4 dimensions we believe we see today, I think several things might be possible;

  • Time is the effect of dilution of the coherence of the vibrations. The faster you move through space (the more energetic the coherent wave is), the less time you experience.
  • The point of separation of the drop from the ocean may have caused a strong reaction in the energy field(s), which in turn created the disturbances within the center of the drop to form the 3 dimensions of space.
  • As the drop expands the ‘space’ of our universe expands while the properties of dilution of energetic coherent waves remains the same… the speed of light then appears to slow down.

There should be lots of math and use of scientific data for this, which I have not done. It’s an idea that occurs to me rather than an explanation for the data observed. It’s an idea that makes human apes even more inconsequential than any previous idea to my knowledge. Our entire universe is but a drop of quanta briefly separated from a puddle or ocean of it in a much larger existence. Clearly I have no scientific case to say that this is even close to possible but it is just as plausible and more useful than the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I’m willing to accept new data, new information and change my hypothesis. Once you say ‘my god did it’ you are done. Revising your ideas after that is to admit defeat.

If you know exactly why this hypothesis cannot be true please let me know in the comments. It will save me time searching.

 

About these ads
    • mvan4310
    • April 28th, 2012

    Your idea is pretty damn close to the Inflationary Universe Theory, which is based in string theory. Brian Greene explains a hint of it in a TED talk.

  1. My point is that if I can think of a way that the universe might come to existence without a creator, there are others. If there are any, the idea that god did it is not right. If space is not ‘nothing’ then I want to know what happens if you cut off a chunk of it. Does it retain it’s parameters or do they change? The big splash can account for bazillions of universes without need of anything but accident. If this might be, why must we believe anything else so far proposed?

    String theory can be as it wants… the big splash does not care. We do not understand even the basics of what space is yet. String theory does not explain it yet. Big splash is viable regardless of how or why string theory works.

    Of course, the big splash could be wrong too. :)

  1. May 12th, 2012

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 603 other followers

%d bloggers like this: