Introduction
The concept of an expanding universe is hinged on the Big Bang theory. According to this theory, around 13 billion years ago, a big bang occurred after all cosmic matter and energy were compacted into a single point leading to the release of enormous energy, which formed the universe. Thereafter galaxies, the Earth, stars, and other heavenly bodies emerged from the same process. Additionally, the big bang explosion created a force that is continually pushing matter outward and galaxies are moving in the same direction as this momentum. As such, based on the Big Bang theory, the universe is expanding. However, the fact that the majority of people believe in the Big Bang theory does not make it absolute – the only way to knowing the truth about the universe and its nature. A growing number of cosmologists do not support the idea of a big bang; hence, they offer alternative theories about the origins of the universe and its infinite nature. The universe is infinite and non-expanding, as explained herein. This paper will discuss points supporting this position and give opposing views before rebutting such alternative perspectives.
A Non-Expanding Universe
The argument that the universe is infinite and non-expanding is based on a cyclical process that continuously takes place. In this case, hydrogen and helium mix with “entrapped cold, larger elements condense under gravity and heat up to form stars which ‘burn’ by fusion to helium to give a heat of millions of degrees at the center. Photons move to the surface and become starlight” (Wynne-Jones, 2012, p. 1). This fusion goes on for many years, perhaps billions of years, via oxygen, calcium, carbon, and silicon, among other related elements until it reaches iron and it ceases. According to Wynne-Jones (2012), after all the smaller elements are exhausted, “temperatures drop and contraction under gravity forms a neutron mass with a nucleus density of 1015. Further compression under gravity may contract the mass to lie within its event horizon and form a black hole, which cannot radiate” (p. 1). However, the black hole takes in all the photons and neutrinos before heating up to the point of an explosion to release neutrons into space where they decay within a short period forming electrons and protons. The so formed particles come together to form hydrogen and helium. The cyclic process then restarts with the fusion of hydrogen and helium under the force of gravity.
Therefore, with this cycle in place, several conditions are met to support the infinite universe and its non-expanding nature, with the first one being that protons do not decay. One of the widely accepted principles of the Big Bang theory is that protons decay. However, an experiment by Litchfield (1984) pointed to the possibility that protons do not decay. This argument supports the claim of an infinite universe because if protons do not decay, they can only be converted into hydrogen and helium.
The second point to validate the existence of an infinite universe is that black holes are not permanent. A study by Keski-Vakkuri and Mathur (1994) showed that black holes evaporate, which underscores their impermanence. These findings play a central role in the infinite nature of the universe because they support the cyclic process mentioned earlier in this paper. In this case, helium and hydrogen fuse followed by a series of reactions to release photons, which are then taken by the impermanent black holes, and they heat up to the point of explosion, thus releasing neutrons. These particles decay immediately to form protons and electrons, which in turn cloud to form helium and hydrogen. As such, the process starts again, and this continuous cycle makes the universe infinite.
Additionally, as shown above, every element formed in the process of hydrogen and helium ultimately recycle back to hydrogen. As such, exploding black holes shower the sky “with neutron masses of all sizes which fragment in an expanding and cooling state to give a spectrum of elements from hydrogen to uranium of a pattern different from that produced in fusion step by step in a heating state” (Wynne-Jones, 2012, p. 6). Scientists have already shown that fusing neutron stars leads to a tremendous explosion that dissipates neutron masses, mimicking the effects proposed in the cyclic cycle of a non-expanding universe.
The fourth condition that is met in an infinite universe is that entropy is stable overall. The cyclical process proposed in this paper depends largely on the ability to make hydrogen through gravitational pull via the formation of black holes, which explode to release protons and electrons. Therefore, any form of matter is not needed to fuel the process as it entirely depends on the force of gravity to facilitate the involved mechanical process. As such, the source of energy, in this case, is reversible and stable. While this proposal is not yet embraced by the majority of cosmologists, it offers a feasible way of explaining an infinite universe.
Lastly, the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is no longer a preserve of the Big Bang theory. When CMB was discovered in 1965, it was solely used to “fulfill a postulation that the moment of the creation was incredibly hot and dense (in order to account for nucleosynthesis)” (Wynne-Jones, 2012, p. 7). However, it has since been proved that the CMB is the radiation of cold matter, and thus it is not purely red-shifted as proposed in the Big Bang theory. In addition, as opposed to dark matter, cold matter is warmed by the CMB, and this realization solves a major problem associated with the Big Bang theory – that of black matter.
Counter Argument and Rebuttal
The critics of an infinite non-expanding universe would argue that the entire cyclic process proposed above might not exist. The argument that elements created from the fusion of hydrogen and helium would undergo a life cycle through a black hole to regenerate hydrogen is tempting. Therefore, the opponents of this idea would rather stick with the Big Bang theory together with its underlying principles. However, the Big Bang theory has many loopholes that have not been addressed sufficiently using scientific arguments.
First, this theory makes a flawed assumption that the red shifting of light emitted by faraway galaxies was due to recession, as proposed by Hubble in 1925 (Maric et al., 1977). This premise was used to justify the finiteness of the universe hence its expanding nature. However, for expansion to take place, it means that the universe originated from a specific place, which cannot be known. Additionally, a finite universe that is constantly expanding means that two outcomes could be expected. It could continue expanding infinitely or collapse in a big crunch – the reverse of a big bang. In the presence of enough dark matter, the expansion process would be stopped and the universe collapse back into a single point of origin for the cycle to restart. Therefore, is this argument were true, it means such a system does not require a creator as it is self-sustaining.
Another major problem with a finite expanding universe is the issue of an event horizon. According to Sidhart and Joseph (2010), if the big bang was an “uncontrolled random event and blew different parts of the universe in different directions, then some of those parts may have no connection to the other parts, as they were disconnected in the earliest stages of the creation event” (p. 272). The disconnected parts are thus expected to be different from one another and the visible universe. This concept is based on the argument that ancient people growing in isolation developed their culture and language that was different from the rest of humanity. However, even astronomers who support the Big Bang theory claim that the universe is uniform, which negates the preceding argument. Therefore, the view of a finite and expanding universe, based on the Big Bang theory, contradicts itself, and it has numerous loopholes, hence the need for a better alternative.
Conclusion
This paper has supported the idea that the universe is infinite and non-expanding. The underlying principle of this proposition is the existence of a cyclic process where hydrogen and helium combine, and with the help of the force of gravity through reaction series, hydrogen is regenerated. This perspective is uncommon, but it allows the reader to rethink the commonly held beliefs concerning the origin of the universe because the Big Bang theory does not explain this issue comprehensively.
References
- Keski-Vakkuri, E., & Mathur, S. D. (1994). Evaporating black holes and entropy. Physical Review, 50(2), 917-944.
- Litchfield, P. J. (1984). Do protons decay? European symposium on antiproton interactions. The Rutherford Appleton Lab.
- Maric, Z., Moles, M., & Vigier, J. P. (1977). Red-shifting of light passing through clusters of galaxies-A new photon property. Nuovo Cimento Lettere, 18, 269-276.
- Sidhart, B. G., & Joseph, R. (2010). Different routes to multiverses and an infinite universe. Journal of Cosmology, 4, 641-654.
- Wynne-Jones, G. (2012). Infinite non-expanding universe: The realistic alternative to the Big Bang Theory.