Content uploaded by Andrew Planet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Planet on Jan 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
¿Did spacetime exist before the Big Bang and if so is this Universe
crunching into another universe within a Multiverse that as a whole obeys
the same periodicity of chemistry plus laws of physics?1
This is an attempt to hypothesise by an authorship not formally educated beyond college level.
It is motivated by a strong lack of faith for historically recurring themes of either the creation
of something out of nothing, which violates the laws of physics, or by an apocalyptic nihilism,
both of which have encroached cosmology. If String Theorists are taken very seriously by
scientists although none of their theories might pertain to this universe,2 why not portray this
alternative approach explanation for cosmological evolution?
Here given is a thought experiment speculating on if this universe is part of a Multiverse and
everywhere wherein subject to the same laws of physics,3 did spacetime exist before the Big
Bang singularity? Adding upon that, is this Universe crunching into yet another universe
rather than oscillating with endlessly crunching back onto itself and then expanding again? The
proposed Multiverse is not of the typical motif where different universes coexist in parallel
dimensions.3 Alternatively it advocates a Multiverse in which every single universe in it,
together with all the others, obeys the same laws whilst existing in a common dimension of
space and time, albeit a much larger expanse of space that our single Universe.3 In this
scenario, the intent is not to depict this Universe gravitationally crunching back onto itself after
an initial expansion as is commonplace proposition, but after its initial expansion and
acceleration, gravitationally crunching into another universe creating type event inside a
Multiverse. To draw a distinction in this piece, the universe we live in shall be referred to as
this Universe, with a capital, and other universes in a Multiverse in small case, as in a universe
of many.
It seems as if the field of cosmology has always been constrained since its earliest years,
growing whilst being severely restricted by the primate powerplay insecurities of sceptic
institutional inertia that blindly fears being caught out wrong.4 When couched by practitioners
of belief systems that purport spontaneous creation myths or apocalyptic end of days doctrines
such scientists might evince their subjective biases in their own scientific work. It was only as
recent in history as the early part of the 20th century when it was first considered that this
Universe we exist in might be larger than our home galaxy, the Milky Way.5 On the 26th of
April in 1920 at an event sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences called The Great
Debate, some clam shaped fuzzy smudges on deep sky photos, by then called spiral nebulae,
were publicly put forward as other Milky Way equivalents.6 At the time the Milky Way was
regarded to constitute the whole universe and correspondingly the smudges were posited,
amidst adversarial detraction by some of the astronomical establishment, as other island
universes, now known as galaxies. Without knowing what they were, these island universes
had been spotted by the early astronomers with telescopes as early as the 1700s.2 These were
so far away and their movements so tardily relative to Earthly observers living ontogenetic
timescales, that two centuries had to pass before it could be established from calculations in
which direction they were travelling with reference to our own position and if indeed were
other galaxies.2 Even Albert Einstein, who has been proved again and again correct on many
key transformations of theoretical physics and astronomy, did not know with any certainty that
other Galaxies existed when under these constraints published on general relativity and the
theory of gravitation.2
Have we reached a stage in how we perceive the Universe as a single entity that artefactually
repeats the same impasse that humans had when we thought that the Milky Way galaxy was
all there was? Is our Universe instead just one of many universes that form a composite
Multiverse? If so, what would be the mechanisms that make that Multiverse possible and how
big is it relatively? Can we credibly extrapolate a Multiverse from what we already know of
from the observable Universe? The following is an attempt to do so. The largest singular
celestial objects that we know off in this Universe are supermassive black holes (SMBH)7 and
the most colossal of them that we know of are recognized to have masses equal to the masses
of some of the smaller galaxies.7 Relativistic energy jets are produced in polar pairs by these
most massive black holes otherwise known as active galactic nuclei (AGN) , though far less
massive types of celestial objects equally form similar energy jets also from gravitationally
bound accretion discs.8 AGNs are the largest and most powerful particle accelerators that there
are in this Universe.9 The output of their relativistic jets, which are known to travel for more
than a million light years,10 are composed primarily of protons,11 which are also what the
atomic nuclei of hydrogen atoms are made out of.12 Electrons are also emitted through the jets11
as they gyrate in a AGN’s magnetic field.8 Hydrogen atoms, the most common element
comprising ~70% part of all matter in the universe today,13 first formed around 380, 000 years
after the Big Bang,14 when this Universe had cooled down enough so that atomic nuclei could
capture electrons.14 Electrons and atomic nuclei had first formed just a few minutes following
the Big bang.14 Hydrogen can through the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis transmute into
all the other chemical elements found in nature and that is why so much of everything and
everyone is made out of star dust forged in stars.16 The largest AGN that we know about is 66
billion masses that of the Sun and is named TON 618.16 Scientists are quite confident that we
will one day discover black holes that are ever larger, ranging around 100 billion solar masses.
So called stupendously massive black holes only exist in theory but “they could exist in
principle.”16 However, these specialists in their field still do not know if there is a an upper
limit to how massive they can be.16
An initial singularity and subsequent Big Bang that sprung out of a total physically null
nothingness lacking the existence of anything implies the abrupt origination of matter and
energy reminiscent of creationist mythology, “and God said, let there be light.” 17 Say that
instead of the initial singularity we replace that event with a Black Hole of a size never
conceived of before. Visualize its relativistic energy jets, when they cooled down into protons,
electrons and other particle phenomenology,11, 18, 19 scaled up to a magnitude that can bring
about the eventual birth of a whole universe through Big Bang and stellar nucleosynthesis. To
give these theoretical humungous universe creating mechanisms a name they shall hence in
this piece be termed UCBH, Universe Creating Black Holes.20 Every UCBH creates 2
universes (See photo below)21 each forming from either jet. A universe blasted out of an energy
jet, spun from the accretion disc of that black hole as it cooled, can eventually coalesce into the
first atoms. In time gravitational attraction between the atoms amassing themselves create stars
and galaxies. If this process repeating itself had the remains of these stars and galaxies
eventually gravitationally crunching into another universe would the laws of conservation of
matter and energy still hold out? This question is meant in respect to a Multiverse where the
same physics apply equally everywhere within, even in between and around different
universes. The answer is a definite yes! Yes, if the starter point for every universe in a
Multiverse were the UCBH and its cooled down energy jet, which then got recycled by another
UCBH into another energy jet, crunching along and being ejected by yet other UCBHs for all
relative eternity.22 This essentially posits that universes do not crunch back into themselves
after an initial expansion and a later acceleration of that expansion, but they do crunch into
other universes in a Multiverse. Something would never manifest itself out of nothing and the
laws of conservation are kept.
Imagine our Universe created out of the cooled down relativistic energy jets of a black hole, thrusted into the space that constitutes the
Multiverse.
What accounts for the expansion and acceleration of that expansion by this Universe after the
Big Bang? If this Universe is but one of many universes in a Multiverse where an UCBH has
shot out its relativistic energy jet, the initial expansion is the momentum of that jet as it projects
and diffuses with inertia into outer space. Once that jet cools down into stars and galaxies as
it travels and gets gravitationally attracted by other UCBHs, asides from the one that gave birth
to it, this accelerates its expansion. The resulting effect is that of being torn apart by more than
one gravitational pull, and thus we have the accelerated expansion of this Universe at a speed
faster than light accounted for. A Hubble Sphere is a spherical region of the observable
Universe surrounding an observer outside of which objects move away faster than the speed of
light due to the accelerated expansion of this Universe.2 Because of this light emitted by those
objects would never reach us. Perhaps, if we can determine how much the rate of acceleration
of the Hubble Sphere is expanding faster than the speed of light, then we could determine in
terms of other UCBH’s gravity causing that expansion our location in a Multiverse. How large
would a Multiverse of UCBHs be? If this Universe can be ascribed the age of 13.77 billion
years and contains an approximate set number of galaxies isn’t that the same as saying that it
has a trajectory and is finite in mass and energy but just very, very, very big?
Gravity works at the speed of light and forms regular structures after having an effect that takes
millions of light years in scope, as the diameter of some of the largest galaxies attests to, and
these galaxies are attracted to other galaxies and so on. In fact gravity has no limits in being
attractive over distances so no limit in time.23 If dark energy is the gravitational pull of UCBHs
and dark matter an artefactual expression of an external field effect24 of UCBHs existing in
spacetime before, after, and around this Universe, then estimations of the mass and volume of
this Universe must be valid approximations of area for a specific region of the Multiverse. The
Modified Newtonian Dynamics hypothesis speculates that the gravitational pull in space that
is found with respect to galaxies, which is greater than it ought to be, “should not only depend
on the mass of the object itself, but also the gravitational pull from all other masses in the
universe.”24 Replacing the word Universe with Multiverse, maybe readings of Dark Matter are
readings of the gravitational effect of UCBHs. Also, extra gravitational lensing, “the stretching
of the light due to the shape of spacetime,” by what is nowadays regarded as dark matter makes
it more likely that this Universe is more like a finite sphere than a flat sheet.25 Granted that if
they exist UCBHs eventually evaporate due to Hawking radiation, given that other UCBHs are
forming at the same time as they consume all the matter debris and radiated energy from other
universes. UCBHs feeding off each other because of gravity and Hawking radiation staggered
in time, sums up to a Multiverse that would never fizzle out, in all sectors at least. Could that
give a measure of size in a dynamic steady-state Multiverse spacetime model? At least, if many
UCBHs that surround each other do in unison make up a Multiverse, maybe we could work out
the distances they have in between by calculating the rate of gravitationally caused acceleration
of the expansion of this Universe. A constant rate could mean that all UCBHS are extremely
far away even if located at differing distances, but constancy might probably equal a large
amount in number. Einstein did think that events that are happening for one observer may not
be for another, and with the immensity of scales dealt with here in this piece it could be that
our location from this part of the observable Universe is skewed.26
Will we ever climb the cosmic distance ladder high enough so that we could technologically
see another universe in a Multiverse? Imagine how advanced our human descendants will be
just in a few hundred years. The present could well be our descendant’s equivalent of what the
Stone Age is to us now. The imagery of recent discoveries might give us a glimpse of what
that might be like and is here presented just as a visual example even though it did initially
make this author consider that it might be an UCBH. Even if it is not an UCBH, the recently
discovered Odd Radio Circles27 (ORCS in astronomical jargon) could still be smaller scale
AGNs which would also be the product of relativistic energy jets, so the imagery is still useful
as an analogy of UCBH scales. ORCs are verified non optical images of radio emissions caught
on camera by the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder radio telescope.27 Below is an
example of an ORC.28 No one knows for sure how large or how distant ORCS are but it is
believed that they might be composed of clouds of electrons, one of the by-products of
relativistic energy jets. The scientists who discovered these discounted the jets idea on the
basis that ORCS have a circular shape, unlike the knotted clouds seen around very luminous
AGNs. If ORCs were extremely far away and larger than clusters of galaxies, their being
evenly gravitationally attracted by UCBHs on all sides might explain why they remain circular.
If ORCs were UCBHs, or yet undiscovered type of AGNs, the lack of an optical signal might
be explained by it having transmuted to a radio signature.
ORC image made from radio source, not optical. Could it be possible that we have reached the same impasse as during the 1920’s Great
Debate?
Light transforms radio waves as it loses energy over distance and there is a surprisingly
unexplained very large overabundance of energy in space that what could be reasonably
explained as originating just from far off AGNs.27 The unaccounted for widespread prominent
energy seems to be coming in all directions and is termed radio synchrotron background.
Synchrotron radiation is emitted in the form of high energy particles in magnetic fields, also
produced in the same way in AGNs. The amount detected in space is 6 times more than what
accounted for AGNs should be creating and this might be indicative of a novel source.27 Could
the microwave cosmic background be the remains of UCBH synchrotron emission in the
microwave range?28
Summing up, are we at present convinced of an artefactual creationism genesis mythology
evinced in the Big Bang? Is this mirrored in the apocalyptic nihilism of a finalistic ultimate
crunch borne out of a dearth of evidence and consilience? Has the paradigm of the Big Bang
as the one and only ever genesis of this Universe forced talented scientists to come up with
artefactual results to please that singular idea?29 If we are living in a Multiverse where the Big
Bang and resultant universe is merely one of many UCBHs how would the laws of conservation
apply? The laws would hold if each UCBH were designated part of a Multiverse system with
their energy jets expanding as particle phenomenology coalesced into energy and matter that
eventually got recycled by other UCBHs as they gravitationally accelerated its expansion. The
laws of entropy would not be broken from UCBH to UCBH if the gravitational acceleration of
universes is caused by other UCBHs after being created from relativistic energy jets. Entropy
leads to recycling in UCBH negentropy and this Universe’s Big Bang is not the temporal centre
of itself in the Multiverse. To envision this, imagine the Multiverse as a single composite entity
made of UCBHs and energy plus matter gets recycled, never being created nor destroyed,
remaining faithful to the laws of conservation.
References
1) My first attempt at a composition on the topic of the title. Much more primitive and did not research properly whilst assuming
things without checking it out more. Also done on an almost anonymous Facebook Note including in the comments. Fraser Cain
especially and Pamela Gay corrected me on much by asking them questions online at the many virtual live events that mainly
Fraser organises. Entitled Before the Big Bang, Beyond the expanding Universe. Facebook has officially discontinued Facebook
Notes but for some reason unbeknownst to me, having access to the URLs of the note because I’d saved them, they are still all
accessible. I feel more educated than I was then. https://www.facebook.com/notes/3262674420521730/
2) Mack. K. (2020) The End of Everything P10 Footnote
3) Discussing live with Tony Darnell who runs his online social media astronomical service called Deep Astronomy. Amongst other
topics, I offered by text online during these events many times the idea that the fact that our universe has a determinable age means
that though it is pretty big, having a temporal limit whether that meant that it was finite. Once I mentioned about how the latter
might relate (all of this live and recorded on video is searched for) there being other universes to which he immediately responded
that he did not believe in parallel universes in other dimensions. I had to add by text that I meant it in the sense of obeying the
same laws of physics. I too do not and had never believed in there being parallel dimensions to this Universe, but I was glad that
Tony had said that because it forced me to put to words what I meant by a Multiverse, one in which the all-inclusive space
accommodates many universes where the laws of physics are the same. The following is Tony’s (Deep Astronomy’s) YouTube
page. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQkLvACGWo8IlY1-WKfPp6g
4) For expressing factually correct ideas Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 and Galileo after being found “vehemently
suspect of heresy, “was imprisoned for life until his death in 1642.
5) Read it in a small book whose title I don’t remember after which I asked at a life streamed event organised by Fraser Cain and
Cosmoquest around 2010 approx, that if that was the case perhaps we are now in the same dilemma. Fraser emphatically
affirmatively confirmed about the limits in our understanding the size of this Universe in the early 20th century. Do not exactly
remember which event that was but it must be in the cloud somewhere on YouTube.
6) I just knew that in the early 1900s humans still considered the Milky Way as the total extent of this universe. During the 2020
pandemic, looking for virtual scientific events to attend, I’d registered with the USA National Academy of Science for an event of
which I was able to attend more than one session. I did not know then that the National Academy of Science has hosted the Great
Debate exactly one hundred years earlier and it was only thanks to a Facebook post by Seth Shostak on an article he had written
on The Great Debate, marking the centenary, that I found out a few days earlier about this great for me coincidence. Seth has done
that to me several times ever since I first got to know him online, despite the many detractors there are to Facebook, he proves that
social media is a good thing. I personally am ahead in life because of him. Even though it was the centenary of the Great Debate,
the hosts of the National Academy of Sciences during the unrelated events they held did not at all mention it as if they did not
know themselves. The subjects discussed at the events had nothing to do with astronomy anyway. I made the effort to post Seth’s
article in the NAS’s social media and with hash tags, (This can be confirmed with a search) also at their pages during their events
that it was the centenary, but no one from the NAS acknowledged The Great Debate.
7) Mann. A. Space.com. Cosmic Record Holders: The 12 Biggest Objects In The Universe. https://www.space.com/largest-objects-
in-universe.html
8) Simonsen. M. (2010) Universe Today. JETS Jets Jets Jets! https://www.universetoday.com/79898/j-e-t-s-jets-jets-jets/
9) Gough. E. (2020) Universe Today. Quasars are the Biggest particle Accelerators in the Universe.
10) Battersby. S. (2007) NewsScientist. Intergalactic particle beam is longest yet found.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13019-intergalactic-particle-beam-is-longest-yet-found/
11) Nokhrina. E. E. (2018) frontiers Science News. Black hole jets are clearer now.
https://blog.frontiersin.org/2018/03/21/astronomy-space-black-hole-jet-model/
12) School City Of Hobart. Periodic table on Hydrogen https://hobart.k12.in.us/ksms/PeriodicTable/hydrogen.htm
13) Geggel. L. (2017) Live Science. Why is Hydrogen the Most Common Element in the Universe?
https://www.livescience.com/58498-why-is-hydrogen-the-most-common-element.html
14) Sharp. T. (2019) Live Science. What Is an Atom? https://www.livescience.com/37206-atom-
definition.html#:~:text=Atoms%20were%20created%20after%20the,quarks%20and%20electrons%20to%20form
15) Tate. J. (2010) Universe Today. Nucleosynthesis. https://www.universetoday.com/51797/nucleosynthesis/
16) Choi. C. Q. (2020) Space.com. Stupendously large black holes could grow to monstrous sizes. https://www.space.com/black-
holes-can-reach-stupendously-large-sizes.html
17) Genesis. The Bible. It would be easy to excuse this for an allegory but the fact that the Bible was and is taken literally by many
says otherwise. Retrospectively, from a modern perspective with many of the clergy being modern experts in cosmology, the Bible
can indeed be understood allegorically if unapologetically, in an evolutionary scenario, we see our ancestors as having to come to
terms with reality constrained by what was a vehicle for expression and contemporary temporally accumulative substantiveness
then, as in 20).
18) Uppsala University, Department of Physics. The First Stars and Galaxies. https://www.physics.uu.se/research/astronomy-and-
space-physics/research/galaxies/first-stars-galaxies/
19) Princeton Physics. Particle Phenomenology. https://phy.princeton.edu/research/research-areas/particle-phenomenology
20) UCBH Universe Creating Black Hole. I was quite challenged to find an acronym that encompassed a mechanism that explained
the creation of a universe. When UCBH came to mind I was originally quite hesitant to use it and once even dismissed the idea as
it was reminiscent of the Islamic phrase Allah o Akbar which means God is the greater or the greatest. It is not that I have anything
against being associated with being a believer in a God because as a believer in pure science and nothing else, I can easily as a
factualist double up and with the same scientific exactitude express myself through pantheism. I do not believe that sexual
segregation is good for the health for instance and I drink alcohol moderately. Very strongly, I believe in celebrating both sexual
genetic lineages in surnames and these are my personal reasons for being hesitant. But then as a pantheist I understood that Islam
had during the middle ages (I learnt this from TV from Jim Al-Khalili on the BBC) been ahead of everyone else in astronomy,
even though for them the universe in size was smaller than it is now, and less accurately depicted as with the entire age prior to
The Great Debate to them then. But that is everyone during that length of time in history really, not just the Islamic. Pensively
retrospective, I think that Islamic people were justified looking up at this Universe and pantheistically believing that God,
synonymous in pantheism with the word universe, is the greatest! (¡Allah o Akbar!) I would have done and believed the same in
their scientific shoes, as I do now. We the believers of astronomy currently are the scientific offspring of Islam. ¡Allah o Akbar!
21) I borrowed an image from a galaxy with its jets from the internet and tweaked it a bit to seem like an UCBH. The image was
obtained from Dr. Wolfgang Steffen https://www.bu.edu/blazars/3c120.html
22) If a Multiverse of simultaneous, withering, and spawning UCBHs were ever proved to exist, would we also reach the same impasse
as The Great Debate and find that there’s more beyond a Multiverse, or would a Multiverse, without a temporal centre be proved
to be one composite unit, as what we regard this Universe now?
23) Hartle, J.B. (2003). Gravity: An introduction to Einstein's General Relativity. Addison-Wesley. p. 332. ISBN 978-981-02-2749-4.
(Obtained from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity)
24) Case Western Reserve University (2020) https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-12/cwru-upo121620.php
25) Leah. C. (2019) New Scientist. Cosmological crises: We don’t know if the universe is round or flat.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2222159-cosmological-crisis-we-dont-know-if-the-universe-is-round-or-flat/
26) Howell. E. (2017) Space.com. Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. https://www.space.com/36273-theory-special-
relativity.html
27) Noris. R. The Conversation. ‘WTF?’ newly discovered ghostly circles in the sky can’t be explained by current theories, and
astronomers are excited. I made a few comments at the end in this article that were still available to read at the time of publishing
of this piece. The author seemed to have the knack of teaching well sussed and was incredibly detailed in explanations given to
our many comments and queries. I also commented on how I thought that this might be a repetition of the Great Debate scenario.
https://theconversation.com/wtf-newly-discovered-ghostly-circles-in-the-sky-cant-be-explained-by-current-theories-and-
astronomers-are-excited-142812
28) Et al. (2003) A new approach for a Galactic synchrotron polarized emission template in the microwave range.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/344/2/347/1120412
29) Cartlidge. E. 2019. Physics World. Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists
https://physicsworld.com/a/our-universe-has-antimatter-partner-on-the-other-side-of-the-big-bang-say-physicists/
https://didsburyscibar.co.uk/big-bang/
Andrew Planet. Writing physically from Gibraltar, socially online virtually based in USA.
23/01/2021
Thanks to Fraser Cain and the people that work with him for constantly feeding me with
knowledge and to Seth Shostak for getting me going online at the very beginning of my
socialising with likeminded people.