By William Markiewicz
For a change, a break from politics... I invite the cognoscenti to enlighten the ignorant, including myself:
1. How can a non-material, non-entity like space/time be granulated into its tiniest components? Each cineaste knows that there is no movement that cannot be divided into immobile fractions. The theory says that at the quantum level this would not be true. Put the cineaste at the quantum level and it will be true. As Gulliver said: At each level, its own challenges.
2. If "gravity is time/space", how come it manifests itself only in the presence of matter? In the void, time and space persist without a hint of anything else.
3. Time manifests itself through displacement of matter and particles whether they are material or not, which is a matter of opinion. Time is an expression of action or lack of action, a description of a situation. Space is a 'bed' where something happens or not. Can time and space be affected by whatever is within? Can matter - energy - space - time be interchangeable? We know the theory about particles that appear and disappear from and into the void. This may be the reason for unexplained phenomena like acceleration in the expanding universe. The problem with new theories, like quintessence, is that they seem to patch the holes where information is missing. It's more an attempt at craftsmanship than science. If theory only patches a hole, it is a shallow victory.
May I propose another option, perhaps already expressed and rejected as too much like science fiction: what if the Universe is really infinite, with space and time really unlimited? In this case, our Universe may be one among an infinity of others, and not in some exotic parallel dimension but in our 'ordinary' three-dimensional space. Those universes would have their own expansions, as our own has. What if the extreme frontiers of those expansions approach close enough to reciprocally attract each other, thus increasing their speed of expansion? This would result in a cataclysm beyond imagination, more than a Big Crunch of a single contracting universe that forecasts the Big Bang. The cosmic dust resulting from this cataclysm would eventually be whirled into new galaxies of a new universe without intervention of a Big Bang. The Big Bang, though, may not be totally absent from the formation of the universe(s). It wouldn't have to be one primordial universal Big Bang, but one of some 'local' Big Bangs responsible for the formation of some 'local' universes.
One question remains: If, according to Big Crunch/Big Bang theory the Universe shrinks to a tiny object which explodes from its own potential, why wouldn't this tiny ultra dense bundle of energy find a black hole to swallow it as black holes are able to do with entire galaxies? How might this little energy bundle resist a black hole?
The theory of colliding universes forming new worlds would make the eternal recurrence theory more difficult to accept because if one universe, in its solitude, can shrink, collide in a Big Crunch, then explode and expand again in a Big Bang, ad infinitum with the precision of a perfect clock (the lack of external intervention eliminating chance), then what happens if an intervention comes from an exterior universe? It's too big even to speculate about. Can we consider leaving out chance in this situation? Few people believe in eternal recurrence even in our 'limited' universe. So, how could anybody believe in eternal recurrence in an infinite number of universes? Even if it could exist, the Ouroboros hasn't reached his tail (perhaps he never will), and the knot will never be tightened.
The Old Professor said everything is relative; even the most complicated musing can be reduced to its lighter side. There is a Polish children's joke:
Dudek observed the moon through a magnifying glass
The moon turned its back and showed Dudek its ass.