The universe has always intrigued humanity. Could it be a dome with holes for a luminous background? Why do some of these lights move? Why does the day have two phases (day and night)? During breaks between hunting and gathering, humans tried to solve these mysteries. The first adventurers probably drew what they saw, creating a primitive form of data collection.
These early humans wanted to unravel the world. With the abundance of protein-rich food obtained using tools they skillfully manipulated due to their opposable thumbs, their brains developed, and their imagination followed suit.
Initially, to justify some natural events, they relied on associations with what they knew and what was present around them. For example, the sound of thunder was interpreted as an entity beating a drum, and daylight was seen as a giant bonfire in the sky. If something moved, it was believed a supernatural force was behind it. An earthquake, rare and terrifying, was attributed to a deity stomping forcefully somewhere. The first concepts of gods were closely tied to the observation of the skies and natural events. Ancient cultures often placed their gods in elevated places, showing the undeniable connection between abstract thought and the heavens.
Thus, the first concept or myth of the creation of the universe could only have been mystical. For all actions, a creator was necessary, according to human empiricism.
Science only took hold in the 17th century with Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton during the Scientific Revolution. It was during this historical period that the scientific method was born. Evidence began to be collected, generalizations and hypotheses were created, generating experiments that either refuted or corroborated these hypotheses. Peer review emerged, allowing other scientists to replicate experiments and reach the same conclusions. For a long time, mystical explanations dominated the description of the cosmos, prevailing for about 1.9 million years compared to just a few centuries of science.
Some humans became privy to the “divine right” of the gods’ will, gaining enviable social status. They convinced society that, to have a satisfactory harvest or for their families to reach the kingdom of heaven, the approval of these guardians of knowledge was necessary. It’s no surprise that this class was one of the main enemies of science in its early days.
The Inquisition, for example, was a reaction by the Church to avoid losing its privileged position. We are talking about power, land, money, and wealth. With each new scientific advancement, religion was pushed aside a bit more. Thunder was reinterpreted as sound waves created by the rapid increase in temperature where an electric current passed. The sky was no longer seen as a dome placed over the Earth by a deity. The Earth stopped being the center of the universe and began orbiting a star, which became just another star among billions.
There is also a precariousness in the tools we use to study the universe. Despite current telescopes dazzling us with stunning photos of the universe, they are still imperfect tools that show only parts of it. Mathematics is a crucial tool but is limited by the lack of devices and methods efficient enough to test its hypotheses. We can create mathematical equations for specific events and test them with ultramodern detectors like LIGO, which detects gravitational waves.
Another problem with mathematics in the study of the universe is that many mathematicians are unaware of the dialectical principles of transformation from quantity to quality. As a result, physicists apply their theories more broadly than they should. For example, the idea that everything in the universe could be condensed into an infinitesimal point at the center of the explosion that created the universe.
They apply this formula by compacting the universe’s mass until it virtually disappears. It’s like crushing a soda can until it becomes small, and then continuing to crush it until it disappears. This contradicts the principle of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created, only transformed. In this case, physics contradicts itself.
This is clearly an overuse of a mathematical formula. Applying it quantitatively without recognizing its limitations leads to aberrations. Physicists can cite evidence of the universe’s expansion, but more common sense is needed in analyzing these data. One could argue that a massive explosion in one part of the universe caused the expansion as we know it today.
Another significant philosophical issue with the Big Bang theory is deciphering where the universe expanded to. Something only explodes and expands towards something else. A materialistic view of the universe helps in this case.
Additionally, there is a material aspect to the scientific community. Scientists receive funding to carry out their activities. By committing to the Big Bang theory, they must show results; otherwise, they will not receive further funding. To use modern telescopes, one must first present a thesis, and only after approval do they receive time to use the equipment. There is an ideological filtering before the choice of use, favoring projects aligned with the prevailing theory.
However, things evolve despite difficulties. Recent measurements show galaxies far beyond what we imagined as the age of the universe. This forces proponents of the Big Bang to revisit formulas and invent new concepts, such as dark matter. They want us to believe there is something in the universe we cannot observe but must be there because their formulas would be wrong otherwise.
Moreover, they are building enormous detectors for something that cannot be detected, spending billions of dollars. My expectation is that we will eventually find evidence of something significant that will disprove this theory.
Other theories of the universe already exist, like the steady-state and cyclic universe theories. One of the theories that has recently caught my attention is the Electric Universe theory. The universe is composed of 99% plasma, so it should follow the evolution laws of plasma discovered on our planet. Electromagnetic forces would have significant influences on the formation of galaxies and stars. Laboratory evidence shows that plasma can create structures similar to galaxies.
This theory still needs a lot of verification, but it has a positive aspect: the laws governing plasma can be replicated in a laboratory, achieving phenomenal results.
Leave a Reply