Questioning the Origins of the Universe

What if the Big Bang did not create the universe that we know today but instead destroyed it and we are remnants of the extinction of life that was spewed and fixed into 3-dimensional space. What if greater galaxies existed within the gather of energy that had been stored and collected until it had to be released. What existed may be a reflection of today’s existence, reshuffled and reorganised and therefore we cannot simply look at the Big Bang as the creation of a universe but as the destruction of another. Like a dying star whose existence we can only acknowledge from what we see, might long be dead when we notice. Our presence may equally be uncertain as there is no other known perspective other the what we see as elemental beings within the space in question. Like Schrödinger’s cat, we are fixed in space of uncertainty, unaware of the final outcome which we will never known, because it is not us who are the observer.

Like a camera that is set to take a long exposure that captures light and reveals in a fixed moment, a memory, of that which we cannot normally see, we may remain the extinctions of light that once existed. The expansion of the universe did not create life to exist, but rather set an copy of what had existed before, creating the perception that we are witnessing creation, when in fact we may be seeing fate and destiny pre-written. But in magnitude of infinite directions of how matter could have distributed, we may be too simple to understand the implications of the infinite number of timelines and tributaries of known events that have been prewritten to occur. We of course cannot see them or notice them as pre-determined, as we are too far seeing through the extinction of existence, as if living into the future following the determined paths created by memories we yet do not have.

And yet we feel free to have free will and choices that will reflect unknown outcomes. But if we think beyond the limits of time, that is focusing on events as they pass, but down to the tiniest re-arrangement of neutrons within atoms, as the smallest change known to occur, we may start to see the magnitude of chance and probability of what arrangement may come next. And each single re-arrangement event of the smallest known or unknown unit of matter or anti-matter, in that case, creates a set of infinite events from which subsequent events create infinite number of events, and so on. What we may not know is that all events have been predetermined as all combinations of how they might exist may actually exist at any single point. It may be that most probably our timelines would appear linear, although having at each event a divergent timeline from which a new series of infinite events originate. Under such conditions we may be not be able to travel through time, but that is not to say that no one would ever see the extinction of life passed, so long the observer has the correct perspective to see. What about life and death, and how can we be tricked by changes of those who exist and die? Well, it may up to every single atom or collection of atoms to have different values of extinction, which ascertain the amount of energy that is absorbed and reflected. This coefficient assigned to each atom or collection atoms may define how long they exist within the extinction of life that once existed.

It’s as if fast forwarding through the past then rewinding to see the future. We can only see things from our perspective of where we are in the timeline with observations not made of what exists, but what doesn’t exist anymore. We may now see the universe expand but later may see it shrink, not because it’s shrinking but rather the fading of it, as we observe from our biased perspective by where we are in the extinction timeline. But the universe expanding is an interesting phenomenon in this theory. It would need to expand as energy released needs to be used somewhere, if it is proposed that it’s not used to create the universe we know. What this implies is that without an external perspective, we cannot know whether we are dead or alive, then the universe itself must be both formed and destroyed. As thralls to our own existence or in an existence we cannot measure because our own perspective is that from within an experiment, we would simply be seeing what we’re meant to see. Every item, event of concept as a reflection of our own understanding having limited knowledge of it and missing critical information, and all information we create and learn only comes from the very existence that we question. This may explain why we form different hypotheses of a myriad of concepts, interactions or patterns that we may see or not see exist, parts of the universe that have yet to be explained, unsolved questions about space, time and mathematics. Why is it that can see different things exist and yet cannot explain them? The simple answer to that is because everything is and is not real.

Let’s talk about climate change.

How should we approach and discuss climate change? Engage with illustrations or with data? At the Experimental Vlog we discuss climate change with two personalities: Steven McEntyre (an artist) and Prof Nicklebreth (a scientist). While they have opposite thoughts on how to present scientific data, they both can appreciate that climate change is real and that we must do something about it. Being our first episode, we hope that these personalities join us later for more exciting discussions. Like all our Spawn Theory videos, this was completely unscripted and unplanned, anything that would suggest otherwise is just a coincidence.

Climate Change

3 min Thesis

Explaining our PhD research is as essential as conducting the research in the first place. And it’s already difficult to explain the research to other scientists in the field, but to present it to a non-science audience, in 3 minutes, now that’s the actual challenge!  

It’s training us to make fast and quick impact points.  But, training us for what exactly?  It’s like pitching a business idea to a panel who will interview hundreds in a day. The real question is how to be unique and credible  in 3 minutes.  What’s the real message that we are trying to say about science?