Basically, the universe starts with "Big Bang" and expands rapidly. Gravity and other forces cause matter to clump together forming the stars, planets, asteroids, comets and whatever else there is out there. Though it is currently expanding, eventually that expansion will slow down and the universe will begin to contract, collapsing in onto itself, (a process known as the "Big Crunch"), causing another "Big Bang". This will start the whole process over again. I compared it to the tide rising and falling. Knowing that others, far more educated and experienced than I, believe as I do is good news for a donkey. Perhaps my first guess was not as far off as I thought.
Unfortunately, the news is not all good. In a recent television broadcast, (I'm sorry, I can't remember exactly which one), Dr. Michio Kaku explained simply and elegantly why he doesn't currently hold to the "Big Crunch" theory, but instead favors one referred to as the "Big Freeze". This theory is based on the fact that the Universe is expanding and that this expansion is accelerating. It asserts that as it gets larger and larger, matter is becoming increasingly dispersed and randomized, (scientists refer to this as entropy).
According to this theory, "The future of an expanding universe is bleak." "The space between clusters of galaxies will grow at an increasing rate." "Stars are expected to form normally for 1,000,000,000,000 to 100,000,000,000,000 years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. Once the last star has exhausted its fuel, stars will cease to shine. According to theories that predict proton decay, the stellar remnants left behind would disappear, leaving behind only black holes which themselves eventually disappear as they emit Hawking radiation. Ultimately, if the universe reaches a state in which the temperature approaches a uniform value, no further work will be possible, resulting in a final heat death of the universe", the "Big Freeze". (from "Future of an expanding universe" at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe)
Please recall that I wrote the following before presenting my theory: "I doubt that I am correct about what follows and I am sure that, as I become more educated on the subject, my views will change. In fact I'll be disappointed if they don't. I am much more likely to be wrong than right. I am also not concerned that "making a guess" will influence what I learn. On the contrary, I will be looking to challenge and refute these ideas at every step along the way." I like to think of it as having a sort of Socratic dialogue with myself.
Let's begin that process by examining the ways that Dr. Kaku's theory differs from mine. I recall that he mentioned that the "Big Crunch" theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and "That", he said, "is a big no-no". It is true that in describing my theory I stated that our universe is "finite and closed" and that if that were true it is both reasonable and accurate to predict, as Dr. Kaku did, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics would lead eventually to a "Big Freeze", (the theory he favors), rather than a "Big Crunch" as my current theory proposes.
Though my initial reaction is to agree with him and revise my theory, as I look back I see that in describing the universe as being "finite and closed" I was referring more specifically to the amounts of matter and energy that the universe contains, and that this description was incomplete, at best. Please accept the apology of this humble donkey.
Einstein described the universe we occupy more completely as "Spacetime". In my "Tidal Theory of the Universe", the universe has always existed and always will exist. It just changes forms. While I consider the amounts of matter, energy and whatever else it may contain to be finite and closed, the "time" part of Spacetime, (as I think about it), is infinite. Therefore, the universe as described by my theory is actually, by definition, not finite and closed, but infinite. I am comfortable therefore that, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, it does not apply to my theory.
In the same telecast Dr. Kaku also stated that he felt that gravity was "too weak a force" to slow and eventually reverse the expansion the universe. This assertion poses a much more troublesome challenge to my theory and must be carefully considered. Is the amount of matter that currently exists already too spread out to have enough gravitational attraction to slow down and eventually reverse the Universe's expansion? Dr. Kaku mentioned that calculations had been done. Before I can concede this point and modify my theory I'll need to understand how those calculations were made and what they were based on. Were they based on the luminous and non-luminous matter that comprises about 4% of the matter in the Universe? Did they account for Dark Matter, which comprises about 23%? What about Dark Energy, (the other 73%)?
It's reasonable to assume that his calculations included Dark Matter and Dark Energy, after all the main reason we know that they exist is by noting the gravitational effect they have on objects we can see, but I should verify that. You might remember that in a previous entry I speculated that Dark Matter is not some form of exotic matter, but just the nuclei of regular matter whose electrons are "else-where-when", (meaning they don't currently share spacetime with us). I wonder how he sees it?
It's reasonable to assume that his calculations included Dark Matter and Dark Energy, after all the main reason we know that they exist is by noting the gravitational effect they have on objects we can see, but I should verify that. You might remember that in a previous entry I speculated that Dark Matter is not some form of exotic matter, but just the nuclei of regular matter whose electrons are "else-where-when", (meaning they don't currently share spacetime with us). I wonder how he sees it?
In my theory I also stated that, though the universe is currently expanding at an accelerated rate, it may not always expand at an accelerated rate. What might cause its rate of expansion to change? I have speculated that this accelerating expansion may be caused by the anti-gravitational effect of anti-matter. I think of the universe as being composed of matter, energy, anti-matter and other things that are currently unknown. For the sake of simplicity, please allow me to set aside that which unknown to us. This leaves us for discussion purposes with a universe that is theoretically composed of matter, energy and anti-matter.
For the universe to be expanding at an accelerated rate, (currently estimated at 74.2 plus or minus 3.6 kilometers/second/megaparsec, a megaparsec being about 3 million light years). We would postulate that currently:
The amount of Anti-Matter is greater than the amount of Matter + Energy
The anti-gravitational effect of abundant anti-matter is overcoming the gravitational effect of matter and energy at a constant, (Hubble Constant), rate. What could change this? We don't know, because it hasn't happened yet. It could be some unknown and/or unforeseen natural phenomena or it may have something to do with life.
In my simple donkey way, I view Life as an exception to the rules that govern the universe. It temporarily defies gravity, (the older I get, the more acutely I recognize that). It uses the energy it borrows to temporarily defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics and create order amidst the chaos that appears to reign throughout the universe. It overcomes its temporal nature by replicating itself, (the basic definition of life). Whether you believe it's the result of intelligent design or a cosmic accident that was bound to happen eventually, you must admit that when you carefully consider the facts, life seems pretty unlikely. You might even call it a miracle. I believe that life exists or has existed elsewhere, but I don't believe that it is either very common or very abundant. While it seems unlikely to me that we are completely alone, it also appears that we are currently very isolated by the vastness of space and time and may continue to be that way for a long time to come.
Let's imagine that an intelligent form of this exceptional thing called life figures out how to harness and control the process of converting matter and anti-matter into energy, (somewhere this may have already happened). Two things may result. The first is that the energy released will include heat, creating a kind of "Universal Warming", (like Global Warming, but on a much more massive scale). The second is that as matter and anti-matter are annihilated, the anti-gravitational effect anti-matter creates will decrease, and the rate of the expansion of the universe will slow. Even if these life forms do not follow our historical pattern of not conserving our resources, eventually, (in a very, very long time), as anti-matter and matter are depleted, the universe will begin to contract and heat up rather than expand and cool, (as it is now). Eventually:
The amount of Anti-Matter will be less than the amount of Matter + Energy
Like the rapid population increase on the Earth that the cheap conversion of oil into energy has fueled, life may use Matter/Anti-Matter technology to temporarily prevail. We may live to populate and colonize the universe, only to be destroyed in the end in the "Big Crunch" that my "Tidal Theory of the Universe" describes. Of course I don't know if this is even possible and cannot even speculate about the probability that it will happen. It's also possible that there are other stronger forces at work in ways that we are unaware of. These forces, which are currently overcoming gravity, may also somehow eventually become reversed. Electromagnetism comes to mind as a possibility, but ... I must honestly admit that my theory now seems much less likely than that of the "Big Freeze". Yet the very existence of life indicates that, however unlikely, I still cannot yet totally rule out the "Big Crunch". Will we learn somehow to balance the Cosmic Eco-system and avoid extinction altogether? Will we, (or someone or something else), learn to reverse the process and convert energy back into matter and anti-matter? Can the universe and the living organisms it contains become eternally sustainable?
Regardless of how it all ends, my experiences of the past year have lead me to make an important personal decision. I've decided that despite the consequences, and no matter how difficult it may become, I will strive to "affirm and celebrate life". If life is not a miracle, it is at least extraordinary. Yep, it has become my simple "acid test" and "guiding principal". I simply ask myself, "Does this person, object, or activity affirm and celebrate life?" I wonder where that will lead me in 2012? Hee Haw!
No comments:
Post a Comment