the greatest story ever told!

THE POWER OF REASON!

Decoding the Physics of the Big Bang

In our investigation, we are going to test the claims of both branches of Astronomy: Cosmology and Astrophysics, against the physical laws that have been painstakenly established through rigorous experiments, in fields and sub-fields that include, but are not limited to: spectroscopy, entropy, blackbody radiation, the ideal gas law, the laws of gravity, the 3 phases of matter, plus plasma (which is a sub-state of gases), with the aim of comparing how elements and substances act compared to any proposed descriptions of their behaviour, made by cosmology and astrophysics. As a preface and reminder, we will briefly restate the Big Bang theory, in the words of the scientists who promote it.

The Big Bang Theory: An Intellectual Comedy

Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe had expanded from some prior initial state, into its current gigantic proportions, by studying the light of red-shifted galaxies. A light bulb went of in the busy minds of scientists: this must mean that if we run the expansion of the universe backwards, we will come to a point in it's history when all matter we now see, and even space and time where all crushed into a single point of infinite properties: including density, pressure and temperature. That point is called the "singularity." Mathematically, a singularity represents the point where theories break down, that is, when the theory can no longer explain what is happening. Yet, with the Big Bang theory, the claim is that, although, everything was squeezed into such an unimaginably small space, we still know what was happening. All these infinite properties - density, pressure, temperature etc., coexisted in a fluctuating quantum state! The Big Bang is the theory that describes how the universe went from that infinitely dense quantum state, the singularity, to being the vast size it is today. It also claims to tell us where all the energy and matter that fills the universe came from! While the Big Bang was initially thought of as an explosion, that has been amended. Now, the scientists-of-the-gaps, claim that it was just the starting point for the incredibly rapid expansion of space and time. This refinement to their theory was necessary due to the problems it had in explaining observable phenomena. Thus corrections and quick fix band-aid solutions had to be dreamt up. As to the core theory, the Big Bang, was, the expansion of the 4 dimensional Space-time itself. This space-time is made up of four dimensions: the three of Space; and the one dimension of time. However, all these dimensions are part of the same entity, the 4-in-1 "space-time." There are many different versions of the Big Bang, with some altering this or that detail. But, there is also a well-worn general theme that runs through all of them. It is the most updated version of the general theme, that we are here outlining.

As the rapid expansion of the universe continued, so goes the claims, its average temperature started to cool, due to the larger volume of space - though it was still incredibly high. At this stage, everything existed in a hot plasma soup. There were no atoms, or molecules, only an incredibly hot plasma of intense radiation and subatomic particles - which is technically an ionized gas. A gas that is so hot, it is stripped of all its electrons, leaving bare nuclei, in the case of single electron hydrogen! Thus, again there were no atoms, or molecules. Indeed, there was NO CHEMISTRY yet! By chemistry, I mean there was no periodic table of elements - as the building blocks of atoms were constantly being created and just as quickly going out of existence by turning into radiation again. So hot were the temperatures in the baryonic soup. This is what is meant by Big Bang Theorists when they say that due to intense temperatures at this point, the "light had not yet decoupled from matter." They are referring to the supposed back-and-forth conversions between radiation and subatomic particles. They describe this weird situation by saying "electrons would eject photons, but the photons couldn't travel very far without hitting another electron and getting reabsorbed." Supposedly, this coupling of matter and radiation, would render the universe opaque, as in - not transparent. If you stood anywhere in this rapidly expanding universe, you couldn't see anything - apart from a heavy diffuse orangish haze - the hot soup plasma! That is what the concept of "matter and radiation being coupled together" is claimed to mean. At this stage, matter was represented not by objects, or even molecules and atoms, but only by sub-atomic particles like free floating electrons and protons. And it was this matter that you could not truly separate from light, in the chaotic high temperature quantum state of the early universe. Even so, the universe kept expanding incredibly rapidly, and as it did, the hot plasma soup kept getting cooler and cooler, until, after about 375 000 years, it reached the relatively low threshold temperature of 3000 Kelvin, at which point the universe is said to have become transparent. This special point, represents the first time in the universe, that the temperature was low enough to allow the most basic atoms - hydrogen atoms, and some helium atoms - to form in a process called RECOMBINATION. The transcript of a video explanation follows:

Of course, calling it recombination is misleading, since electrons and protons had never existed as atoms before. Which is puzzling: if chemistry had never existed before, how did the subatomic particles know how to combine, and at what energies? Nonetheless, the claims go, decoupling occurred simultaneously with recombination, 375 000 to 380 000 years after the Big Bang. When the electrons and protons were smashing into each other light was being scattered. "Scattering" is a term that means a moving particle or photon cannot travel in a straight line because there are obstacles in its way. With the hot soup: it was photons that were trying to move in straight lines, but they were blocked by sub-atomic particles in the hot soup. However once the soup cooled sufficiently to allow the universe to allow decoupling, as a result of recombination, then the photons were no longer scattered. They could move in the way light always moves - in straight lines. Therefore, that moment is called the moment of last scattering. Remember, that, this moment is caused by the formation of atoms! Where did the light of the "last scattering" go? You won't believe it, but according to Big Bang cosmologists, it still with us. They claim that ancient light comes to us as the cosmic microwave background. Put another way, they claim that the cosmic microwave is the "afterglow," or leftover "relic radiation" of the moment of last scattering - the moment of recombination. In the following excerpt from an interview Alan Guth - one of the 3 usually recognized founding fathers of the theory of Cosmic Inflation - gave to Robert Lawrence Kuhn, of YouTube's Closer to Truth science related show:

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Alan, the term "Big Bang" is in popular parlance, everybody sort of knows it, and talks about it. But, there's imprecision in what that really means. What does it mean?

Alan Guth: To some people, the word "Big Bang," means the instant of creation, and it really, surprisingly - in spite of the name Big Bang - really says nothing about the Big Bang, itself. It says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged - I like to say. So, the Big Bang theory, is really the theory of the aftermath of a bang. It's a theory that describes the expansion of the early universe, assuming that started in a very hot, dense state. It assumes that all the particles are already present and that they've already been set into motion. And, the theory, then, describes how the universe expands; cools; describes how the early chemical elements formed; how, eventually, the stars formed - there's a lot in the theory - BUT IT DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE BANG ITSELF! A twist, called "Inflation" that I've worked on attempts to describe the bang of the Big Bang. The thing that caused the universe to propel into this gigantic expansion that we still see the aftermath of today.

RLK: So, what is Inflation, how does it work? ...

AG: Inflation is based on ideas coming out of particle physics, which tell us that our theories predict, that at high very high energies, there should actually exist forms of matter which turn gravity on its head, and cause gravity to behave repulsively - instead of attractively. And, the inflationary theory is basically the hypothesis, that this repulsive gravity was the bang of the Big Bang. It's what set the universe into this period of gigantic expansion. The gravitational repulsion leads to an exponential expansion, which means that there's a certain time in which the universe doubles. And, if you wait the same amount of time, it doubles again, and then, doubles again.

RLK: How much time do you have to wait? Not too much.

AG: Not too much. To get the universe from the size that we think it had at the beginning of Inflation, to what it needs to have had at the end of Inflation, to ultimately include everything that we see, requires about a hundred doublings. These doublings happen unbelievably quickly, using the physics of what physicists call grand unified theories. Then, the doubling time was about 10 to the minus 37 seconds. Decimal point, 36 zeroes, [and a] 1, at the very end. Unbelievably short length of time.

RLK: Wow. So, if you have a hundred of these, it takes 10 to the minus 35 [seconds]?

AG: That's absolutely right. A hundred of them takes 10 to the minus 35 seconds. Still an unbelievably short length of time!

RLK: So, in this period of time, the whole universe, as we know it was created?

AG: Essentially, that's right. Inflation is not a theory of the ultimate creation of the universe. IN THAT TO START INFLATION, ONE NEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF MATTER. Approximately a gram, it turns out. But, once you have this gram, Inflation, actually does describe, how all the rest of the matter that we see, which of course, is vastly more than a gram, is created.

At this point, you might be puzzled as to why, if it took Inflation, only 10-35 of one second, to expand the universe, did it take 375 000 years for the universe to cool down to 3000 Kelvin? After all, it was just a hot gas! Solids can take a long time to cool, because they can hold a lot of heat. Thus it takes them time, to also dissipate that heat. But gases are different. As soon as you expand the volume that their contained in their temperature drops! So if it took less than a second to expand their container - the universe - why did it take 375 000 years for the them to cool, since the claim is that the lowering of the temperature was a function of the expansion! 10-35 of one second, is a number that is incredibly small. Here is what it looks like: 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 - of one second! Yet the effect, took 375 000 years to happen! Let me repeat that! These two events, it is claimed are causally related. Yet, the cause took a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second to complete, but somehow the effect took 375 000 - 400 000 years! So, there is a glaring discrepancy between the self-contradictory claims of Big Bang theorists. But, that is only one of many, many problems with the theory. We continue our discussion with more of the Guth interview:

RLK: Now, it sounds like we're getting something for nothing. Because, HOW CAN YOU HAVE ENERGY BEING CREATED, when we know there's a very tight law of conservation of energy and matter?

AG: It does sound amazing, and I sometimes refer to the Inflationary creation of the universe, as the ultimate free lunch. So, we have this exponential expansion. AND IT ENDS, because this repulsive gravity material is unstable. So, it starts to decay into normal forms of matter - and releases energy in the process. And, it's that release of energy that becomes the energy of the universe that gets produced. The shocking thing is that even though, total energy is always conserved, one has an instinct to believe that energies are always positive. So, that to have a lot of energy in some place, you need to have STARTED OUT WITH A LOT OF ENERGY - SOMEPLACE! That's what falls by the way side. Inflation takes advantage of the fact - which has really been part of physics for a long time - that not all energies are positive. And, in particular, the gravitational field has a negative contribution to the total energy of whatever system its part of. So, as Inflation goes on, more and more positive energy goes into the creation of matter of various kinds. But, at the same time more and more negative energy is created in the form of this gravitational field that just fills the ever-expanding region of space - and they BALANCE! So, total energy remains what it was when you started, which was very, very close to zero. And, shockingly, it really is consistent, when we look at our observed universe: that the total energy in stars and galaxies and vast amounts of matter that we see, throughout the observed universe - is cancelled, by the gravitational field that fills the universe. So, the total energy of our universe is consistent with being zero!

There are so many things that are wrong with Guth's claims here, but we will only critique four. The negative gravity pushing Inflation, ends, when the high energy particles decay into normal matter. Yet, the contemporary claim, that won its discoverers the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, is that the universe is now expanding faster than it ever has. In other words, Inflation has not ended! These obviously contradictory claims about the expansion of the universe are both made by Big Bang theorists! How does that square? Newton said to the same causes, we must assign the same effects. Yet, Guth points to a strange form of negative gravity as the cause for Inflation at the beginning of the universe, while Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess, claim it's a new mysterious force called dark energy. Can we get the story straight?

Secondly, Guth, of MIT! does not know the difference between living within your means, and getting Forex before you travel. If someone is gainfully employed and living within their means, they will have a balanced budget. They earn R10 000 and they spend R10 000. They don't have any savings, but they are also not in debt. Now take someone who wants to take R100 000 from their savings, and turn into dollars for a short trip to the United States. That's Forex. Conservation of energy and matter is like the second example: taking something you have in one form; and turning it into another form - through work! Rands to dollars, and the Forex agents get a fee, because they did WORK! The key feature to consider, the one that guides all processes, is that you cannot create or destroy energy, not that the amount of positive energy you created is balanced by the amount of negative energy in the system. Guth's proposal violates the most basic law of physics: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another! It matters not, that at the end, the negative and positive energies are of the same quantity and thus cancel each other out. What matters is that you CREATED AND DESTROYED ENERGY! That is not physically possible! Intellectuals? SAD.

Thirdly, he says "the gravitational field has a negative contribution to the total energy of whatever system its part of." Let us take him at his word. Since gravity has changed: at the beginning it was negative, and therefore acted repulsively; but now it is attractive, that must necessarily mean it is now positive. How does that gel with his claim that "the gravitational field has a negative contribution to the total energy of whatever system its part of?" This is supposed to be a scientist, and he's playing shell games, card tricks that involve bamboozling your audience with a deluge of information. But all that is needed to see through the ruse is to slow down and consider the claims at pause.

Lastly, Guth puts himself into an obvious catch-22! The infinitely high temperatures at the Big Bang were supposed to be the result of all the matter in the current universe being squashed into an infinitely small Space - the singularity. But at the end of his quote he claims that positive matter came into existence, as negative gravity was expanding and thus balanced, both entities amounted to zero:

But, if at the beginning the "energy of our universe" was zero because there was nothing, that contradicts his earlier statement that: "The Big Bang theory is really the theory of the aftermath of a bang. It's a theory that describes the expansion of the early universe, assuming that started in a very hot, dense state. It assumes that all the particles are already present and that they've already been set into motion." And again: "Inflation is based on ideas coming out of particle physics, which tell us that our theories predict, that at high very high energies, there should actually exist forms of matter which turn gravity on its head, and cause gravity to behave repulsively ..." But, if there's no matter, where did the high energies come from? And if there are no high energies, where did the negative gravity come from? That's more flip flops than Liz Truss, and in a shorter amount of time! We continue with the interview:

RLK: Now, all of this matter, then, is created at the end of Inflation?

AG: That's right. It's created in the form of this repulsive gravity material, as Inflation goes on. But, [it] becomes normal matter, at the end of Inflation.

As to this last point, you will recall Sabine Hossenfelder's words on the Inflationary theory of the expansion of the universe. But, even before we get to that, let us point out a more immediate contradiction. The bang of the Big Bang, is supposed to be caused by the extreme heat that results, when we run the current picture of the universe backwards, and realize that all the matter that now exists, was once all squashed together in a singularity, which is smaller than any atom we can imagine. It was - because - all the matter, which now exists was squashed into such a small space, that the singularity had infinite properties: infinite density; infinite temperature; infinite pressure and so on. And, according to Guth, it is these infinite energies, due to incredibly high temperatures, that made matter act exotically and produce negative gravity. In that version of the story, matter is not created - it always existed: first in a dense hot state, then in a cooler lower density state. However, in the words above, exotic matter is being created all through the expansion, and at the end of the expansion is converted into normal matter. So, which is it? Was the matter all present at the beginning of the Big Bang, or was it created as Inflation proceeded? If the latter, then what caused the original bang, since there was only a gram of matter and thus it had less than infinite properties? An alternate way to make this point is that condensed matter is supposed to be responsible for the bang, yet here the bang is responsible for the matter. I am not talking of the conversion of exotic matter to normal matter. I am highlighting the creation of exotic matter "as Inflation goes on!" Whereas the pre-existence of exotic matter, is what was supposed to have caused Inflation, in the first place. It must be one or the other. It cannot be both.

I appreciate that Guth is only an Intellectual, and has thus never contributed to society in a concrete way, what some people would describe as having a real job. But, even so, he has to try harder. Sitting around coming up with fancy ideas all day, is one thing. But, they should at least have some level of coherence to them. Even if it's a fairytale, let it be a pleasing fairytale. Not one glutted with what came first "chicken or egg" paradoxes. Now, on to Sabine's point:

Hossenfelder's remarks are a direct rebuke of Guth's claims. Guth, claimed that his inflationary doubling of size "happen[s] unbelievably quickly, using the PHYSICS of what physicists call the Grand Unified Theory." By, selectively choosing to use the phrase "using the physics of..." he was implying that Grand Unified Theory had been proven experimentally. Because physics, means, laws that have proven experimentally. Laws that have been linked to one or other physical reality. Remember our long list of quotes from scientists, who said only experimental proof validates something as true. But there are no experiments that verify the ideas of Grand Unified theory. As Sabine says: "we have zero evidence that the forces were ever unified." Thus, there is no such thing as a "physics of ... Grand Unified Theory!"

Secondly, Sabine - as she has done in many of her other videos - repeats the point, that if we cannot detect it, it is not science! "How scientific is this idea? Well, we ... have equally good evidence, namely none, that the Inflaton field exists!" Like a Jenga tower that has had its bottom blocks removed, Guth's claims fall apart, because Grand Unified Theory, which is what he has based his Inflationary theory on, has no grounding in Science - there is no such thing as a physics of Grand Unified Theory. There is zero evidence for it, and hence, "equally good evidence, namely none, that the Inflation field exists." We continue with the claimed evolution of the Big Bang universe.

At the moment of last scattering, the last quantum fluctuation occurred - because after that: light started to stream through the universe, unhindered. We are now 375 000 into the Big Bang expansion of the universe, at the moment of decoupling and recombination. And, the hot soup is now at 3000 Kelvin, and has just experienced its last quantum fluctuation. That last fluctuation was captured as an imprint onto the photons of last scattering that were now freely streaming through the universe, and incredibly, or so the claim goes, we can still see it! It, is referring to the Cosmic Microwave Background! Thus the CMB is called relic radiation, or the afterglow of the Big Bang. From that point onward, the universe enters a dormant period, that lasts 400 million years, that is called the Dark Ages. This period, in the history of the universe is not called dark, because there is no light! It is because there is no starlight! The only light in the universe, is the cosmic microwave background, which is Big Bang Theorists claim is the faint afterglow of the relic radiation from the "bang" of the Big Bang. All, the while the matter in the universe is clumping together and forming regions of higher density, and regions of low density. This clumping is the evolutionary process that is supposed to have created all the structures we see in the universe. This period lasts for the remainder of the life of the universe - including our time.

As for the stars and how they formed. The universe was supposedly full of the atoms of light elements, like hydrogen, and the early periodic table of elements, essentially only had hydrogen and helium. In this expanding universe, vast clouds of such gases collapsed in on themselves, due to the pull of gravity - and eventually, millions of years later, formed stars! In fact, 400 million years later. So where did the rest of the periodic table come from? While Guth earlier said it was created by expanding Space, a simultaneous claim from the Big Bang Theory is that new forms of matter were created far from expanding Space - in the interior of stars. Another self-contradiction. Those are two different explanations for the mechanism that created the different elements - the periodic table. Thus, the nuclear reactions in such stars, formed new elements, by fusing solitary nuclei into multiple nuclei. You might remember that it is the number of nuclei that defines an element. Hydrogen has one nuclei, helium has two, and gold has 79. It is the number of nuclei that determines what an element is. Thereafter, these first generation stars supposedly live out their lives and die in supernova explosions. This spreads their elemental contents all over the universe. And, these in turn, after many more years of cooling and collapsing in on themselves, form the basis of second generation stars. And the same process repeats. Through additional fusing, more elements are created which, in turn, have yet heavier nuclei. The theory is that this is how the universe went from having a periodic table of only one or two elements initially; to the full periodic table of our days. That is the theory! As the subsequent generations of stars evolved and died, the elements being fused in each successive generation got heavier and heavier and this continued over about another 13.4 billion years. In total, from the Big Bang, until our day, it is estimated that 13.7 or 13.8 billion have passed. All the while, stars were forming and planets around those stars. All the structure you see is then due to evolutionary processes over vast amounts of time. It is for this reason that many people think they are made of stardust!

Wonderful! I am sure you will agree. They just forgot to add the "Once upon a time, in a land far, far away ..." part, at the beginning of their fairytale. The rebuttals I have included up until this point are minor, because they are only refuting what I call circumstantial evidence. They are based on the "he said, she said" variety of arguments. Detailing what one scientist says against what another claims. That will not do! That will not be our method of refuting the claims of the Big Bang Theory! We will use the established laws of Physics to separate fact from fiction, physics from metaphysics! We will leave nothing to subjective analysis and assessment. We believe in the most fundamental level of reality - testing the actual evidence. We believe in Evidence Profiles! What many do not appreciate is that there while there can be claims and counter claims; there is no such thing as evidence and counter evidence! The universe only contains evidence. What people think is counter evidence is just a wrong reading of the evidence. Joseph Priestley conducted a fantastic experiment in which he managed to isolate a much sought after element. In his mind, he had discovered "dephlogisticated air." But that is not because that is what the evidence said. That was just his incorrect reading of the evidence. There has never been any evidence for dephlogisticated air! That's the power of Evidence Profiles. In that particular case, it was Lavoisier who understood the evidence correctly and was credited for discovering oxygen! That will be our mechanism for analyzing and assessing all that follows: the objective, wiggle-free world of Evidence Profiles!

First let us define the word fundamental. For in destroying false concepts we will be directing our blows firmly at the concepts that are most fundamental to their body of lies. In essence, by producing Evidence Profiles that strike at the most fundamental ideas of false theories, we will be giving the lies, no legs to stand on! The Wordnik online dictionary defines fundamental as: "Or or relating to the foundation or base; elementary." The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as: "Serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function - basic." We get the point. I also like Jordan Peterson's definition of the term:

Additionally, Bjorn Ekeberg gives us a fitting word picture of just what Peterson has finished defining for us in words,

Now, we realize the lower the block we are falsifying is, the more fundamental it is to the theory. In that spirit, we will be falsifying the very bottom layer of blocks! Our first litmus test for the Standard Model of Cosmology, the Big Bang theory follows. What will we be using as Evidence Profiles? All the Physics we have dedicated ourselves to learning so far. This is were, whether you were paying attention or not, will start to show. If you were not, it will really affect, not only your comprehension, but your enjoyment of what comes next. After all, you can only ever discover the truth about how the universe came to be - once! That light bulb moment is a one time event, that can never be repeated. If you have not had the integrity to take everything that came before seriously, you will now pay the price. Either by not understanding the proofs to follow, or by being forced to go back and re-read older sections - doubling if not tripling your reading time and effort. Those who had enough respect for the author to follow my suggestions of paying careful attention will now be rewarded with a relatively effortless rollercoaster ride of joy and discovery! Enjoy. We begin by asking the question ...