The Creation of the Universe
by Andy Green
Recently, I watched a PBS special entitled “The Creation of the Universe.” The special discussed the supersymmetry theory and its implications. It discussed the perfection of a vacuum, the time before the theorized big bang when there was literally nothing, the links between the supersymmetry theory and belief in god, and the possibility of the supersymmetry theory as proof of god. It also implies the existence of an afterlife.
I will now explain the supersymmetry force theory. For those of you already familiar with it, click here to skip the explanation.
Over the millennia of scientific investigation and theory, different ideas about the universe have surfaced. The currently accepted theory states that the universe consists of matter and of four fundamental forces. These forces are: the electromagnetic force, which consists of light, electricity and magnetism, the gravitational force, which is the attraction between any two bodies of matter, the weak nuclear force, which governs radioactive decay and the interactions between subatomic particles such as electrons, protons, neutrons, muons and lambda particles, and the strong nuclear force, which binds quarks together into common particles such as protons and neutrons.
The so-called weak nuclear force was known to have little strength in nuclear reactions compared to the electromagnetic force. They were later discovered to have exactly the same strength in other reactions, and experiments at the CERN lab in Geneva, the two forces were proved to be, in fact, the same force. This became known as the electro-weak force.
This implied that the other two forces might be connected in some way. Scientists began to theorize about the grand unified force. This encompasses the electro-weak force and the strong nuclear force. This would only become apparent in very high states of energy, such as at the big bang. Although experiments are yet inconclusive, research continues. Further and more tenuous theory suggests that there is one force that encompasses all four forces, called the supersymmetry theory. This would also only become recognizable at extremely high states of energy.
Implications of the supersymmetry theory are vast and amazing. If scientists could understand the forces in this manner, they could know for a fact whether the big bang occurred. New forms of space travel, such as faster-than-light speeds, might become available.
This theory also suggests that the big bang could be the explosion of a single particle of the supersymmetry force. This particle would have appeared out of a vacuum. The vacuum itself would envelop all possible dimensions of space. These dimensions would be perfectly symmetrical (hence the name of the theory). The special took the tone that this was perfection. The reasoning behind this stated that at this time, every point in the universe would have been one. When the particle manifested, this was destroyed. There now existed a point where the particle existed, and an infinite number of points where it did not exist. This goes against common reasoning and the reasoning of others on this website that states that the sterility of a vacuum is in no way perfect. BUT, if nothingness is perfection, would not death be perfection? Any mature thinker knows that the human mind cannot live without a body, and once death occurs, there can be no so-called after life. What happens after death is exactly nothing. This is the perfection that must have existed before the first particle. BUT the second law of thermodynamics states that no system can regress to its original state. Does this mean that the perfection of nothing cannot be achieved after death? If nothing happens, must not something happen?
Does this mean that there IS an afterlife?
About the particle: how did it manifest? Scientists have witnessed photons appearing from nothingness an returning just as easily. If photons do it, so could the particle. BUT in the time before the particle, there was literally nothing. No energy, no matter, nothing. What could have induced its formation? Unlike the watch in the forest in Meditation 44 (PLEASE PUT A LINK HERE), no random selection of circumstances could be the cause; there was no entropy, no randomness, no circumstances, just nothingness. Must something (someone) intelligent have caused that particle to manifest?
Does this mean that there IS a god?
The special recognized that this theory takes much on faith that is, as yet, unproven. The writer stated that in this, science is like religion. They went further to state that science was in debt to religion for this. The theory that there is some simple, beautiful explanation for the existence of the universe is reminiscent of religion, but not derived from it. Both science AND religion are in debt to human nature, which reaches out for an explanation to everything. The simpler the explanation, the more palatable it is. Hence the large number of religious people in the world.
I personally believe that this theory could be true. That is, I can imagine a situation in which it were. However, in spite of the dilemmas raised by this theory, I am steadfast in my thought that there is no way to know whether god exists, no logic to prove it, save for direct experience.
The theory remains unproven for now.