Proving the beginning

M. Bendio of Orem, Utah asked the experts at Scientific American Magazine the following question:

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?"

Surprisingly, he is answered by a pool of experts who each state their version of the explanation. They are Scientific American astronomy editor George Musser; Robert J. Nemiroff, assistant professor of physics at Michigan Technological University; Christ Ftaclas, associate professor of physics, also at Michigan Tech; and Edward L. Wright, vice chair for astronomy at the University of California at Los Angeles who closes his response by saying...

"..the advanced reader could look at the technical solution to the question. Solving the field equations will show that the space metric in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe expands from infinite density without forming a black hole."

The four respondents more or less agreed as to why the Universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole. In short, black holes are relative singularities in that they can only occur in non-homogeneous environments. In the beginning, every region in the expanding Universe in creation had equally probable outcomes. No relative non-homogeneity existed until after the process of formation of stars and galaxies.

Wright's response is a fascinating confirmation of my own simple model in which there was a beginning before which nothing existed and at which space/time and matter evolved. I interpret nothing as having an infinite density with therefore an infinite potential so I am able to accept that we are living in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe without doing the math, and I am relieved about that since I admit to a different species of advanced readership than that required to extrapolate that monster.

I doubt that mathematics will ever deliver the explanation for what started everything to begin with, so we will have to settle for speculative idealizations until such time as we can reproduce the process to prove them, itself an impossible feat for obvious reasons. We can as an exercise, however, draw some conculsions from the evidence that we exist at all in a Universe which for our purposes will be around for some time yet.

Let's not take consciousness and life for granted. Let's assume that they represent the true nature of the Universe, ie. -- that it is anthropocentric in nature. In other words, the Universe would not exist without the presence of life. Now, that's not like saying, if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it would it make a noise? Of course it would. The point that I am making is that the initial moment of creation was produced by a stimulus precipitated by the precognition of the conscious, cognizant sentience which exists as the necessary predisposition which brought that quantum fluctuation about. Causal precognition is not dependent on a directional temporal framework. In this case it actually creates time after the fact of its impact. It is after that initial impetus that the infinite potential of nothing is realized and becomes manifest as the difference between nothing and existence thereby laying the groundwork for the establishment of the polarized physical concepts which contain the laws to which reality conforms. The paradoxes that abound throughout creation are the glue which maintains it.

The Universe can only be observed from within. I think that creation continues at the periphery. What this Universe represents is a very heavy idea, that anything existing at all is so staggeringly awesome and profound that it alone provides the fuel for that precognition: the premonition. We are present to make existence rational. It only makes sense, at least to me, when seen in this light.