The Illusion of Choice Part Four: The Big Bang Schema

            Up to this point we have the universe, we have life, we have consciousness, and we have communication. You may recall how I stressed the importance of cause and effect throughout this entire series. Well we discussed the effects, what about the root cause? What about the very beginning? This is where speculation really comes in. I mean, how do you possibly determine what happened before everything? That is not to say, that scientists are just guessing, but the theories are certainly not as solid as say evolution. We will explore my preferred theory, but first, more psychology. I want to preface this entire writing with a lesson on learning theory, particularly the idea of schemata and adaptation.

            Let’s start with what a schema is in the first place. It is essentially your entire understanding of a concept. This series, for example would be my schema on the existence and behavior of life and matter. Now, anyone who has ever tried to change someone’s mind knows, I will never convince you of what I am saying unless I first convince you that what you already think could be wrong. I must show you evidence that contradicts your current schema. Schemata, however, are resistant. For adults with long held beliefs, they will often ignore or distort contradictory information in order to fit it to their current schema. Children, on the other hand, must redevelop schemata constantly. Just think of all of the beliefs a child might have about the world that will eventually be proven wrong to them. Wait. There is no Santa Claus, meat comes from dead animals, I can’t be a cat when I grow up, next you’re going to tell me fluffy didn’t go to live on a farm.

            This is learning for a child. Their entire life is made up of trying to explain the world around them, only to find that their explanation doesn’t make sense after all, and then having to adapt to a new schema. If I asked you what 11 + 1 equals, you could tell me it was 12, that fits your current schema. But, what if I said no it’s not? it’s 100. Can you tell me why? Can you even accept that what I said is true? and I promise you it is. This entire series is my schema, and it might certainly be disproven at a later date. I accept that. I find it unlikely that anything will convince me against something as concrete as the theory of evolution, but for something like the origin of the universe, it is probably only a matter of time before certain aspects must be amended. I invite you to keep an open mind as you read this, and perhaps your own schema will be amended by the end.

By the way, the above math equation is true when the numbers are binary representations of values. Binary is a base two system. That means each place value represents two raised to an additional power. 11 + 1 is (2¹ + 2⁰) + 2⁰ = (2 + 1) + 1 = 4 = 2² + 0¹ + 0⁰ is 100. (That’s right there’s math in here too.)

So now that we are all caught up on 1920s psychology, let’s look at some scientific theories from this century. The most well-known theory for the origin of our universe is the big bang. Basically, the universe originated from a single point and expanded outward creating energy in the process. The greatest evidence for this theory is that observation of the known universe shows matter spreading outward in an ordered manner. This would of course imply that it is moving from some point of origin. Question. How did the bang occur? Answer. It’s complicated. Through use of mathematics beyond your wildest dreams, modern physicists have created a model in which the universe, upon coming into being, was populated with an energy field with a strong negative pressure. This drove expansion while simultaneously generating energy. When the field became too unstable to continue this process, the sudden cease in expansion led to the release of the energy from the field into the universe which drove the formation of matter. I told you it was complicated.

Okay, but energy can’t just come into being, there is such a thing as the law of conservation of energy. True. But not all energy is positive. Gravitational attraction is opposite the energy of matter. Time for more math, and negative numbers even. Don’t worry I won’t make you calculate the sum total of energy in the universe. Others have already done that. What did they find? The answer is about zero. Remember the saying every action has an equal but opposite reaction. Well for all of the energy in the universe, there is an equal amount of opposite or negative energy.

So, the energy can exist without breaking any physical laws, sure, but what triggered it to come into being? If no one has ever told you before, quantum physics is strange. Subatomic particles have demonstrated some very unusual properties, one of which is the ability to spontaneously come into being. Quantum uncertainty essentially explains away cause and effect and leaves only the effect. As you can imagine I am uneasy about accepting such reasoning, but it would explain how a universe could spontaneously come into being. I would argue that such events being explained without uncertainty by yet unobservable factors is still a possible development. Like I said, my entire outlook might one day be completely foreign to my present self.

Regardless, we are left with but one more burning question. What about before the big bang? The simple answer, it didn’t happen. Alright, hear me out. From our everyday perspective, time is constant. It appears constant. But actually, time is relative. Time and space are interwoven, and changes in one can affect the other. It is difficult to wrap your mind around, but the implication is this: if there is no space there is no time. What was there before the big bang? Nothing. There was no space, it had not yet come into being. Since there was no space, there was no time. We like to think of time as a fundamental concept that has just always been. Logically, though, this would fall apart when looking at the physical properties of the universe. Were the universe actually infinitely old, the processes currently in motion, stars burning for instance, would have all expired long ago. According to the current model, the laws of physics are the only thing that need precede the big bang. If we can accept that fundamental persistence, then we can have a contradiction free origin of the universe.

Is anyone still following me? Well, if you are, I thank you. This was certainly a very technical piece. Our next installment will be a look at the persistence of gods and human influence, as well as the logic of an argument for or against an illogical concept. Can you really ever disprove the existence of divinity? Should you really ever need to? Perhaps proof is the wrong approach.

-AMS