Pure Space Is Just An Absolute State of Nothingness, and the Big Bang Event Didn’t Create Squat!

There has been quite some debate over a number of posts about the exact nature of space and time and how all of that relates back to the nature of our (the) Universe. I’ve made dozens of comments on these but of course scattered all over the place, so here I’m going to consolidate my worldviews on the nature of time, space and the Big Bang event.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that there WASN’T any physical existence before the Big Bang event but where is the actual observational evidence for that? There is none, so the BEST that proponents can do to negate an actual state of existence before the Big Bang event is just say that they just don’t BELIEVE there was physical existence prior to the Big Bang event. They don’t and can’t actually KNOW that to be a fact. Now for interested readers, I have provided some references below [#] to tomes that actually address the question of existence before the Big Bang event.

Words Come Easily: Doubling down – It’s easy to say there was a state of absolute nothingness – no – before the Big Bang event, yet state that with absolute certainty on the basis of no actual observational evidence (since one can’t observe whether or not there was an actual existence before the Big Bang event. In fact one can’t observe in the here and now any further back in time than roughly 380,000 years post the Big Bang event since the Universe prior to that was too opaque. That’s the same reason we can’t actually observe the Sun’s core because there’s too much other stuff in the way.

Words Come Easily: It’s easy to say that at the moment of the Big Bang event that the entire contents of the entire Universe were crammed into a volume pinhead-size (or even less) while clearly sidestepping any explanation of why that state of affairs wouldn’t create the Mother of all Black Holes which would then in turn nip in the bud any sort of “bang”, big or otherwise.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that the Big Bang event created all of matter / energy out of a state of absolute nothingness. However, when it comes down to actually explaining the “how” of that, they are strangely silent. It’s a case of just believe us because we say so. Of course such a proposal violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that the Big Bang event created space and time, but any attempt to actually explain the “how” of things has been a total failure. Now if you insist that the Big Bang event “created” space, then space has to be not only a something but a continuous something. It doesn’t take an act of creation to ‘create’ a state of absolute nothingness; a pure vacuum; a void. Now if space isn’t a continuous something then it’s composed of individual and discrete bits and pieces (of unidentified and unknown composition just to add insult to injury). But what MUST lie or reside BETWEEN those individual bits and pieces (of dubious composition) is, well, a vacuum; a void; a state of absolute nothingness, or, in other words actual space. That means that those bits and pieces reside IN space and are NOT space itself.

Words Come Easily: Doubling down - It’s easy to say that the Big Bang event created space, but that very act of creation implies that space is an actual something – is composed of an actual something – which is absurd for unless that something is continuous and solid, there would have to be gaps between the bits and pieces that compose actual space. That is then absurd since those gaps would be the actual space and the bits and pieces just residing in space.

Words Come Easily: It’s all too easy to say that space is an actual something but impossible to actually demonstrate this. Some people insist that it’s only a matter of time before this is demonstrated but we’re not living in a Universe of what might be (which could just as easily equally turn out to be what might not be) but what actually is the case in question right now.

Words Come Easily: It’s easy to say that space isn’t infinite, yet it’s easier to wrap your head around that concept – that space is infinite – than the concept that space is finite since that then requires the question, what’s beyond the edge or the boundary of finite space?

Words Come Easily: It’s actually easy to say that so-called something space itself is expanding. It’s just as easy to say that it is actually all of the objects IN space that are expanding away from each other (like the bits and pieces that fly off of a cherry bomb or an actual atomic bomb expand IN existing space). There is no observational test or experiment that cosmologists can make that would distinguish between objects – like galaxies – moving IN or THROUGH space vis-à-vis moving ON space piggyback style. If there is any reader who can offer up such an observation, speak it now or forever hold your peace!

Words Come Easily: It’s easy to say that there was at the point of the Big Bang event the creation of, or a beginning to, time (hence an initial creation of matter / energy) while ignoring the well-established First Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you don’t ignore that First Law of Thermodynamics – and you shouldn’t – then matter / energy has always existed and therefore time has always existed. There is a temporal infinity.

References:

[#] Burbidge, Geoffrey & Narlikar, Jayant V.; Facts and Speculations in Cosmology; Cambridge University Press, New York; 2008.

[#] Clegg, Brian; Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe; St. Martin’s Press, New York; 2009.

[#] Gasperini, Maurizio; The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory; Springer-Verlag, Berlin; 2008.

[#] Silk, Joseph; The Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the Frontiers of Cosmology; Oxford University Press, New York; 2006.

[#] Steinhardt, Paul J. & Turok, Neil; Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang; Phoenix, London; 2007.