Michał Karzyński

My personal Cosmology

Don?t tell any physicists, but I believe cosmology to be a pseudo-science, at most a meta-science. To me it is an art of extrapolating current scientific theories to the extremes of time and space. Its goal is to create a model by which to answer the most fundamental questions about why we?re here and where are we going.

As with all art, I believe that the criterion of aesthetic beauty should be an important consideration when judging cosmological theories. It will certainly prove a more practical criterion then empirical testability (sic!).

Thus motivated and without being to particular about current physical theories, I hereby present my personal version of cosmology.

Our observations lead us to believe that the Universe is expanding in all directions. We assume that it has always done so, ever since its very beginning.

The Universe begun in a single point, an anomaly with no dimensions except infinite energy. This single point exploded, giving rise to both space and time with their 4 (11, 12?) dimensions, and perhaps innumerable parallel universes (if you like the Many Worlds interpretation).
The universe thus has a limited age and size. It is only as old as the time elapsed since the great explosion (?Big Bang? seems somehow unfitting) and it is only as large as a sphere of light travelling outwards from the anomaly. It is pointless to ask what lies beyond this perimeter, because space as we know it does not exist there. It only becomes as our universe grows.

As the universe expanded and cooled, matter solidified from the omnipresent energy. The energy fuelled random quantum fluctuations, which gave rise to elementary particles. These later combined to form more complex structures such as protons, neutrons and finally Hydrogen.

Hydrogen atoms started a random dance driven only by gravity. They formed denser clouds, which compressed into stars. The stars are furnaces which turned the hydrogen clay into all of the heavier elements. It is true that we are made of stars, each atom in our bodies once burned in one of them.

The heavier atoms from exploding stars were gathered by gravity and rolled into planets. Some of the planets gave rise to life and thus here we are, you and me ? an incredible end to an incredible scenario.

But what happens now? Where are we going?
According to my model, we are taking part in a great universal deceleration. If there is enough matter in the universe, gravity will someday put an end to its expansion. Then the universe will start pulling itself back towards its ancient centre.

I believe that, when this happens all laws of physics will reverse, and in one moment time will start flowing backwards. If we were alive at that moment, we wouldn?t even notice it. Suddenly we would find ourselves on the other side of the universe?s great temporal mirror. Our lives and actions would be exactly the same with one difference ? time would flow backwards. Thus I assume that we exist in two times, on the opposite sides of forever. Both now and then we live as we do, and we are both equally real.

Try to imagine what I just described. The universe starts in a point, which then expands into a gigantic sphere. At one point the sphere ceases to expand and starts to compress back towards its origin.
If you substitute time for one spatial dimension, you will again see a sphere, only this time it will have two exactly symmetrical halves. We are in each of the halves, living twice with opposite time arrows.

Beyond the Big Crunch
What happens when the universe compresses back to the anomaly? The anomaly has no dimensions, and thus is absolutely uniform and void of any information. When it explodes anew, it may create another universe on the other side of the Big Crunch. This universe is a fresh start, no history will repeat itself exactly, it is a new entity. Another great sphere on the other side of the anomaly.

Now, just to add another aesthetic element ? let me assume that time has more then one dimension. Let me assume that it is not a straight line composed of opposing vectors (—><——><—)
I do not claim any of this to be true, but it very well may be.