- Education and Science»
- Astronomy & Space Exploration
The Infinite Universe
The universe is everything, all of matter and space. But how much matter is there? Is there limited matter or unlimited matter? Is there limited space or unlimited space? Or in other words, is the universe finite or infinite? Can matter be infinitely divided into smaller pieces or is there a fundamental particle? Likewise, can matter be infinitely united into ever larger pieces or is there a largest object in the universe? What about space? Is it possible for space to be devoid of matter or does space always contain smaller particles? And then there’s the question of origins. Did the universe have a beginning or has the universe always been here? This hub will argue that the only reasonable conclusion is that the universe is infinite and ‘eternal’ (never had a beginning).
Let’s start with space. Space is the three-dimensional extent in which all material objects are located. Or simply put, space is a synonym for ‘everywhere’. All objects have a location in space with respect to other objects. But is space finite or infinite? Let’s try to imagine a finite space… oh wait, we can’t. It’s impossible. If ‘space’ were finite then it wouldn’t really be ‘everywhere’ it would just be another object with matter inside of it. The idea of ‘finite space’ cannot even be visualized. What would be on the other side of finite space? Clearly space/everywhere must be infinite. It makes no sense to try and claim otherwise.
Now on to matter. Matter occupies space and has three-dimensional shape. Anything you can point to is ‘matter’. Apples, clouds, rocks, stars, birds and everything else. All of it is matter. But how much matter is there in the universe? There are two options.
1. A specific amount of matter surrounded by endless empty space.
2. An infinite amount of matter located throughout endless space.
If the universe had only a finite amount of matter, then we would apparently be very special compared to ‘everywhere else’. Because ‘everywhere else’ (outside of the finite clump of matter) would be nothing but endless empty space. This type of egocentric thinking has always failed us in the past. Humans have always wanted to limit the size of the universe as much as possible so that they can feel more special. First there was the flat earth with the stars, sun and moon suspended in a firmament. Then there was the round earth that was located at the center of everything, with the sun and all the planets revolving around it. But, this was eventually disproven. The earth is not important at all. It’s just one of many planets which is orbiting a star (the sun). But did it end there? No, of course not. Astronomers needed to keep their universe finite and measurable, so they went on to claim that the entire universe is only comprised of the stars that we can see in the Milky Way. But once again, the infinite universe made fools of them because it was then discovered that what is now called the ‘Milky Way’ is just one of billions of galaxies. Did they finally give up on ‘the finite universe’? Nope, now they have the Big Bang theory which claims that there is a finite amount of galaxies that are contained inside an expanding sphere of space or so-called ‘space-time’. (Yes, the common version of Big Bang theory not only claims that there is a finite amount of matter but even that space is finite. Finite space is a definite impossibility as discussed above.) You’ll notice that each step of the way that most people throughout history have been trying to deny that the universe is infinite and that there is no ‘center’.
Which is more likely? That there’s a countable amount of objects surrounded by ‘infinite nothing’, or an uncountable amount in all directions of space. Both ideas might sound ‘strange’ at first glance. But it’s either one or the other. There are no other options. (Finite space is not even an option since it can’t be visualized and makes no sense). Common sense clearly supports the infinite amount of objects/matter proposal. Never, in our everyday experience, do we ever come across anything like ‘an infinite void’. There is absolutely no evidence of such a monster. All we ever come in contact with are objects (matter) and based on that it would obviously make more sense to conclude that that’s what we would find if we were to travel past what is currently claimed to be ‘the furthest galaxy in the universe’. We would simply find even more matter, whether it be more galaxies or something else. Not an infinite sea of pure nothingness. Both logic and history clearly support this.
Constitution of Matter
Another question is whether matter is comprised of infinitely smaller parts or if there’s an elementary particle that comprises everything else. An elementary particle would have to have no constituent parts and be perfectly solid. The first to propose such an idea was Leucippus, followed by his pupil Democritus. This philosophy is referred to as ‘Atomism’. But is it really possible for something to have no constituent parts? Can anything really be ‘perfectly solid’? Everything in our everyday experience is made out of smaller pieces of matter. A leaf is composed of cells, cells are composed of DNA, DNA is composed of atoms, atoms are composed of even smaller particles (protons, neutrons, electrons), etc, etc. Is there really any reason to think that it ever ‘comes to an end’? Not really, such an assumption is idealistic and unjustified. There’s no such thing as a ‘perfectly solid object’ in the real world, only in the ‘imaginary world’. In reality there are no true solids because all matter is comprised of smaller matter. That is what our everyday experience tells us and there is no evidence to the contrary.
The largest structures in the ‘observable universe’ are galaxy clusters and some might assume that it ends there. But, once again we need to use a little logic. If all objects are comprised of smaller objects ad infinitum, then wouldn’t the reverse also be true? Wouldn’t that mean that all objects are also themselves a part of larger objects? Like before, there is simply no logical reason to assume that there’s a ‘largest object’ which is not a part of something even bigger. If the universe is consistent and logical, then matter being ‘infinitely microscopic’ (as described above) implies that it must also be ‘infinitely macroscopic’ as well. There are no ‘weird inconsistencies’ in reality. We again go back to ‘everyday experience’. All objects in our everyday experience are comprised of smaller objects and are themselves a part of larger ones. Galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars, planets, plants, molecules, atoms, particles, etc, etc. Therefore we can logically assume that matter gets larger and larger just like it gets smaller and smaller. To claim otherwise is inconsistent.
Constitution of Space
As for space, at first glance it may seem like space is ‘empty’ and does not consist of smaller parts. Heck, it even seems like the air is not made out of anything smaller. But we now know that it is. Air (like all other matter) is made out of smaller molecules. The ancients did not know this. They thought that the air was a mysterious spirit. Researching the word 'spirit' will reveal that this word originates and is etymologically related to wind, breath, motion of air, etc. And this is the case in almost all languages. For example the Greek word for spirit is “pneuma”, which also means ‘wind’. The same in Hebrew, the Hebrew word for spirit is “ruach”, which again also means ‘wind’. But now we know better, now we know that the air is just another form of matter and that it’s comprised of smaller parts like everything else.
But what about the space between those air molecules? What about the space outside of the earth’s atmosphere? Does that contain any smaller pieces of matter? Or is it an empty void? Could it be that ‘space’ is also comprised of infinitely smaller particles as well? As strange as that might sound at first glance, that is what I’m about to argue. Now you see in order for something to move, it needs to be physically pushed against by something else. Hitting a pool ball against another one is a good example. Everything in the universe works by ‘cause and effect’. Likewise, what at first glance appear to be ‘action at a distance’ forces such as gravity and magnetism must also be caused by physical interactions in the ‘micro-world’. After all, there’s really no such thing as ‘a force’. ‘Force’ is what something does, not what something is. The universe would not work in the orderly, mechanical way that it does if there were no smaller particles between all objects. In other words, all objects have smaller ‘pushers’ and then those ones have even smaller ones and so on and so forth, ad infinitum. Matter and space both being comprised of infinitely smaller parts means that everything is ‘interconnected’ in a sense. It means that the universe is an infinitely complicated machine that works strictly by physical cause and effect mechanisms. This way of viewing the universe can finally make sense out of seemingly ‘spooky’ interactions such as gravity and magnetism, whereas the alternative view (empty space) cannot.
Another phenomena that can be explained is light. Light is caused by wave motion and this wave motion requires a physical medium of particles to propagate through, just like sound does. But 'sound waves' propagate through air molecules, water molecules, etc. Whereas 'light waves' propagate through an 'aether' which is comprised of sub-atomic particles. What we experience as light/shadow/color is an observer dependent sensation. This subjective (observer dependent) sensation is mediated by wave-motion propagating through a medium of sub-atomic particles (commonly known as 'aether'). Light is only a sensation much like sound, hot, cold, etc. are sensations. If all space contains smaller matter, then that sub-atomic matter can serve as the aether medium through which the wave motion passes. When the aether particles come in contact with the eyes, then that sends an impulse to the brain and the brain then interprets that as ‘light’.
And now we reach the question of origins. Was there ever a ‘moment of creation’ as almost all religions have been claiming throughout history? To make such a claim is to say that something can come from nothing. Is this possible? Can matter really ever just ‘appear’ out of nowhere? Can a tree just ‘instantly appear’ or does it gradually grow from a seed by having more atoms added to it? Clearly the latter is the case. That is how everything works in reality. It’s all really just things moving around and pushing against other things. Everything in nature is recycled. When we ‘grow old’ then our atoms will leave our body and become a part of other objects. Nothing is ever truly ‘created’, matter is eternal and is always in motion. The parts of matter are eternally recycled. There is absolutely no evidence that matter can be magically conjured out of nothing or turned into nothing. On the contrary, all of the overwhelming evidence tells us that the universe is a deterministic machine that behaves rationally and that it’s material parts are eternally recycled.
The Big Bang is a Big Myth
So, in reality matter cannot be created or destroyed. The miracle of creation is only possible in religious mythologies such as the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is really just pseudo-scientific creationism and it’s not really supported by any evidence as is often claimed. It was originally a way for its creator (Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest) to insert religious concepts into science (even though he claimed to be against doing that). And that’s precisely what he did. Creatio ex nihilo is a religious concept, not a scientific one. Lemaître was invited to London in order to take part in a meeting of the British Association on the relation between the physical Universe and spirituality. There he proposed that the Universe expanded from an initial point (a singularity, aka nothing), which he called the "Primeval Atom" and developed in a report published in Nature. Lemaître himself also described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"; it became better known as the "Big Bang theory," a term coined by Fred Hoyle.
A phenomena known as ‘redshift’ is often used to try and support this theory. Redshift allegedly indicates that galaxies are being caused to move away from each other because of the ‘expansion of space’. However, there is a rational alternative to the ‘expanding space’ explanation. It's called ‘tired light’. As the vibration (wave-motion) that we perceive as 'light' propagates through it's medium (the aether), it eventually weakens, especially while having to pass through various gases and plasmas and will therefore shift to the red spectrum. (Incidentally, this also explains why the night sky isn't filled with infinite starlight. It's because light vibrations don't propagate forever, they come in contact with objects that cause the vibration to weaken.) So this 'expansion of space' idea is based off of an irrational interpretation of redshift. 'Tired light' is a rational explanation of redshift, whereas 'expanding space' is a very strange and counter-intuitive one. Rational explanations are always preferable to magical surrealistic ones.
Another problem is ‘dark energy’. Dark energy allegedly makes up 68.3% of the observable universe. It is claimed that dark energy is causing the alleged ‘expansion of the universe’ to accelerate. However, not only is there no evidence for this alleged ‘dark energy’ but even in theory, there literally cannot be any evidence for it. Why? Well because ‘energy’ is not even a real thing at all. Energy is only an abstract concept which is used in mathematics. It therefore does not make any sense to claim that 68.3% of the observable universe is composed of a ‘dark concept’. This is a logical fallacy called ‘reification’.
The so-called “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” is also used as evidence, even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. Radiation/light (as discussed above) requires a physical aether medium. So what this really means is that there is a physical medium of vibrating particles throughout space. Ironically, a lot of pre-Big Bang theories actually predicted the temperature of the observable universe much more accurately than the big bang theory did. So the CMB cannot be used as evidence for a Big Bang. It really has nothing to do with it at all.
If the universe was never created in a ‘Big Bang’, then the only rational alternative is that the universe has simply ‘always been here’. It is eternal.
The universe is all that is or was or ever will be.
It contains unlimited matter and boundless space.
© 2013 Kevin Porter