Does the Universe suck, or does it blow? That could be an existential question.
I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician, not a cosmologist nor a quantum physicist. I simply know enough about a lot to be dangerous. Please as you read the following, understand that it reflects some thoughts I had and that I present as sheer speculation. A mind game akin to contemplating the sound of one hand clapping.
To the extent that it may provoke any actual scientifically-grounded thought, that would be exciting.
Mike
_____________________________________________________________________
What if we’re all really “matter chauvinists”? It wouldn’t be unreasonable. As thinking, reasoning matter, we’re kind of at the top of the “existence chain”, and that could make us a bit cocky.
But the problem with matter is gravity, and the problem with gravity is entropy.
Maybe nature does not abhor a vacuum. Or maybe nature is actually a vacuum chauvinist, and we just can’t ‘see’ it. (As the saying goes, if Nature abhors a vacuum, why is there so much of it?)
Entropy states that everything in the universe is ‘running down’; degrading into states of less and less organization. That seems to work for light, radiation, heat; all sorts of energy. Yet entropy doesn’t quite work for matter.
Matter has a weak attractive force called gravity. It makes two dust motes want to hang together, and get more dust motes to join the party. Gravity, as we understand it, wants matter to collect together; to grow more and more organized.
For entropy and gravity to exist at the same time in the same universe, energy has to be running down at the same time that matter is clustering up. Isn’t that a contradiction? Winding down and bulking up at the same time?
While watching an episode of Morgan Freeman’s “Through the Wormhole”, which questioned the directionality, linearity or even reality of time, I began to wonder about matter and gravity and entropy.
As I pondered, I became further puzzled by the notion of particles. Light, radiation, even electricity have particles, and we can ‘see’ them in one way or another, experimentally or otherwise. But then there’s the elusive ‘graviton’; a particle theorized to exist which carries gravity the way photons carry light, or electrons flow as electricity.
We haven’t had much luck finding gravitons.
I began to look at it another way.
What if the reality of the universe, call it “anti-mass”, is what we call the Vacuum? We think of vacuum as an emptiness; an absence of anything. Yet we also talk about vacuum energy; spatial volume created out of nothing, which is what we call the expansion of space, possibly at the same time creating almost-instantaneously self-destructing matter/antimatter particles.
So if space wants to expand and matter wants to collect and contract, what might that suggest? Entropy or anti-entropy, or something totally else?
Allow me to pose a completely speculative scenario with a slightly different perspective:
Vacuum expands, doing so with some form of literally indescribable vacuum-based pressure. Vacuum wants space all to itself, but there is this annoying ‘litter’ mixed into the vacuum which we’ll call matter. There’s not much of it, relatively speaking, but matter makes the place messy. When two bits of matter get close enough, there develops a sort of ‘surface tension’ akin to oil bubbles in water. Let’s say that the vacuum pressure pushes these particles close enough that the ‘surface tension’ at a certain proximity, created by the surrounding vacuum pressure, pushes them together and unites them. As the coalescing bits get bigger, the ‘surface tension’ created around them by vacuum pressure becomes greater, demanding more litter bits to merge with them from further and further away.
But vacuum pressure is always attempting to crush these things down into smaller spaces. Only the energy inherent in the litter bits, or resulting from their atomic reactions to each other, keep them from collapsing into singularities.
Large clouds of gas form, coalesce and begin to collapse under vacuum pressure, until fusion (or some other energy-generating reaction) begins to push the matter back outward to counterbalance the vacuum energy which is attempting to crush it. It’s not actually the mass of matter which keeps it ‘real’. Always, it’s the energy inherent in the matter – heat, electromagnetic repulsion, etc. – which actually fights matter’s eternal battle for existence against vacuum energy.
Perhaps it’s not gravity which warps Space. Perhaps it’s vacuum pressure creating the illusion of gravity, pushing up against matter, applying increasing ‘force’, and the warping of Space is actually the visible application of pressure against matter by vacuum.
In this concept, by the laws of entropy, gravity is not organizing matter into larger and larger pieces, because that’s not how entropy works. Rather, vacuum energy is expanding, pushing bits closer together and forcing them to coalesce and crush them into ‘nothingness’ (i.e., a singularity), and the coalesced matter fights back with its (finite supply) of repulsive energy, which is slowly used up; entropy.
Over time, large stars are said to lose the battle against gravity as their fusion fires die, when actually they may be losing their battle against external vacuum pressure. As fusions ends and heat pressure diminishes, vacuum pressure continues its relentless assault. The star mass continues to retreat, finding new lines of retreat and resistance, but ultimately retreating again.
Finally, at the end game, if the mass has enough surface for the flimsy vacuum to gain sufficient traction and matter’s internal energy resources have sufficiently waned, vacuum begins to inexorably win, crushing out, at the atomic and subatomic level, the heat, electromagnetic repulsion, and any other forces preventing subatomic and quantum level bits from coming together, cheek by jowl. At this stage, we have a singularity; a Black Hole.
Vacuum has finally done its work.
Heat, energy, radiation, light, electricity, always tends to move from high concentration to low concentration; entropy in action. These forms of energy are yielded, one way or another, by mass reactions. Over eons, every particle grows ever cooler and more energy-depleted, and as it cools it shrinks.
So in the end, gravity itself is an illusion. Mass is really just litter mixed into the vacuum, and the pressure of all that vacuum surrounding all that matter gradually pushes it together and squeezes it to death. If possible, into singularities.
Perhaps we need to be more grateful to Space than we know. It may be the only thing actually keeping us stuck to the Earth.
(C) 2011 by Michael R. Honig, All rights reserved.
Michael R. Honig has hosted ThinkWing Radio with Mike Honig on Talk650-AM (Houston), and maintains and updates the web site ThinkWingRadio.com. He is a political activist, writer, thinker, and avocationally a teacher. He has decades of experience in the retail business, the window fashions trade as installer and seller, and in film process control. (Like that’s gonna be useful anymore.) If he hasn’t worked at it, he probably still knows enough to be dangerous. Contact him through his website, www.ThinkwingRadio.com.
I like it, interesting thoughts. Reminds of something simliar i read a while back… i think it had something to do with string theory but i do recall another author offering a different perspective on gravity. I was a little puzzled that I found this under the humor tag…
LikeLike
It’s under humor because I felt it possible that the ideas were so outlandish as to be potentially funny. :-)
LikeLike
Haha, ok. Now we are getting into some humor;)
LikeLike
so how dows hawkings say it ALL came from nothing!! that begs the question who made the universe an the vacuum an where did the particles originate if there all eventually swallowed up by that vacuum.can an unconcious universe with no conscience create concious living beings with a concscience.
LikeLike
You’re asking key existential questions.
Since at least my college days, I’ve looked at it this way: God is a fallback position for not understanding, and it only displaces the question. If an intelligence is required to create the Universe as we see it, you simply defer the question to, “Where did that intelligence come from?”
It’s always okay to admit you don’t know the answer to something, but keep an open mind. If you don’t know the answer, but create a ‘guess’ as the answer instead, aren’t you simply denying yourself the possibility of ever knowing?
Deep thoughts….
LikeLike
ok,if gravity created the universe then its a thing,matter or whatever,it had to have a beginning.whatever starts to exist had to have a cause.time itself is matter in motion.we know that entropy will eventually will take over an the universe will be no more.again then where did the universe come from.the only reasonable answer is an all powerful being outside of this space an time is responsible! an after checking the evidence of the bible i have found my answers in the god of the bible.its the only book that spans many many years an it spells out the whys an whats of mans existence in my humble opiniion of course.there is just to much design an purpose as i ponder the universe.an how is it that we can see our own universe an understand many of its laws.these laws are irrivocable an complex so how did they come about! we are a tiny miniscule dot in our galaxy at exactly the right place to see all the glory of the heavens.can life come from non life.no way.thats a stretch beyond an credulity.ill never belive that we living beings with a real conscience came all about by chance.an what about good an evil,is that too random chance.
LikeLike
As soon as you attribute creation to an ultimate being, you must confront the next question: Where did the ultimate being come from?
LikeLike
I like your explanations for two reasons. First they make sense of our observations of the universe. Secondly you do this in a way that most of us can understand. But where does the energy come from to supply the push of vacuum on matter. Could it be the same force that is driving the expansion of space or Dark Energy?
LikeLike
Well, if we’re going to speculate…
If vacuum is itself a form of ‘anti-energy’ (perhaps some kind of weak anti-force), that can be the germ of a notion. In my VERY limited, VERY lay knowledge of quantum physics, particles and anti-particles are thought to constantly be spontaneously generated and mutually annihiliated in space. Perhaps this process is ‘pushing’ vacuum constantly outward.
In the Star Trek universe, our galaxy is surrounded by an energy barrier that is in the visible part of the spectrum, but undetectable with (and extemely damaging to) instrumentation. It made for good drama, but wouldn’t it be funny if Roddenberry was actually on to something?
LikeLike
Funny. I just Googled an idea I got in bus today: “…is gravity pressure of vacuum…”. So, Im not first to think about that. Somehow, ‘pushing’ feels more realisting than ‘pulling by exchange of gravitons’ or ‘space curvature’.
TapioR
LikeLike
It’s a crazy idea, but hey … the notion of “Plate Tectonics” — that the Earth’s crust is made up of separate moving segments — took about 30 years to be accepted, and that theory was proposed by a geologist with real credentials.
LikeLike