Big Big Bang Challenges
Upon careful consideration, the cosmological theory of the origin and structure of the universe begins to crack at the seams.
Take a look at the starry night sky. How did all these countless stars and planets come about? Most modern scientists are likely to answer this question by referring to one version of the Big Bang theory. In accordance with this theory, at first all the matter of the Universe was concentrated at one point and heated to a very high temperature. At some point in time, an explosion of terrifying force occurred. In an expanding cloud of superheated subatomic particles, atoms, stars, galaxies, planets gradually began to form, and, finally, life was born. Currently, this scenario has acquired the status of an indisputable truth.
No doubt, the big bang theory captures the imagination and leaves few indifferent. And since it seems to be based on factual material and supported by mathematical calculations, it seems to most people more acceptable than religious explanations for the origin of the universe. However, the cosmological theory of the Big Bang is only the last of a number of attempts to explain the origin of the Universe from the perspective of a mechanistic worldview, according to which the world (including man) is a product of matter, functioning in strict accordance with the laws of physics.
Scientists’ attempts to create a purely physical model of the origin of the Universe are based on three postulates:
1) all natural phenomena can be fully explained by physical laws expressed in mathematical form;
2) these physical laws are universal and do not depend on time and place;
3) all the basic laws of nature are simple.
Many people take these postulates for granted, but in reality no one could ever prove their truth, moreover, to prove their justice is far from easy. In fact, they are only an integral part of one of the approaches to describing reality. Considering the complex phenomena that anyone who studies the universe faces, scientists have chosen a reductionist approach. “Let us,” they say, “measure the parameters of physical phenomena and try to describe them using simple and universal physical laws.” However, strictly speaking, we have no logical reason to reject alternative approaches to understanding the Universe in advance. It cannot be ruled out that the Universe is based on fundamentally different laws that are not amenable to simple mathematical expression. Nevertheless, many scientists, confusing their understanding of the Universe with its true nature, reject alternative approaches in advance. They insist that all phenomena in the universe can be described using simple mathematical laws. “We hope to put the whole universe into a simple and short formula that can be printed on t-shirts,” says L. Lederman, director of the National Laboratory of Nuclear Physics named after Fermi in Batavia, Illinois.
There are several psychological reasons that force scientists to cling to the reductionist approach. If the structure of the Universe can be described by simple quantitative laws, then scientists, despite the limitations of the human mind, have the hope that sooner or later they will understand this structure (and thus get the key to controlling the Universe). Therefore, they proceed from the fact that such a description is possible, and create thousands of different theories. But if our Universe is infinitely complex, then it will be very difficult for us, with our limited mind and feelings, to know it.
Let us demonstrate this with an example. Suppose we have a set containing a million digits, and we are faced with the task of describing the structure of this set with one equation. In practice, this is possible if the structure of the set is quite simple. However, if its structure is extremely complex, then we are unlikely to even be able to determine the form of the formula that describes it. Similarly, scientists’ attempts will be equally inconclusive when they encounter the properties of the universe, which in principle are not amenable to mathematical description. Therefore, it is not surprising that most scientists are so stubbornly holding on to their current strategy, not wanting to recognize any other approaches. In this, they look like a man who has lost his car keys on the road and is looking for them under a street lamp, simply because it is lighter there.
However, in reality, the scientists ’ideas that the physical laws discovered by them in laboratory experiments here on Earth are valid throughout the Universe and at all stages of its evolution are, to put it mildly, unfounded. For example, we have no reason to say that since electric fields behave in a certain way under laboratory conditions, they showed the same properties millions of years ago at a distance of many tens of light years from Earth. However, no attempt to explain the origin of the universe can do without such assumptions. After all, we cannot return to billions of years ago, to the time of the formation of the Universe.