The assignment given to me by my science editor was a real tough one.
- "Find out what makes the Universe tick. Find out how it got where it is… I mean wherever it supposed to be… find out who put it there, what it supposed to be for, etc, etc, etc. When you got the facts, write a thundering good article, but no more than 536 words, about how it influences the Dow Jones index. Here is five bucks for expenses and if it's not enough you can take another fiver from petty cash…. But naturally I want receipts!" - he added as I left his office wondering about his sanity… and the Origin of the Universe.
I have to admit I don’t know much about the Universe. Does anyone? I know it's out there somewhere, my science teacher said so way back in school and it was safe enough to assume now that it would be still out there somewhere. But who would know about it in detail to give me an answer to all those questions my editor chucked at me.
I decided that I must find an expert who could tell me whatever I needed to get that article out by the deadline he had set.
After some enquiries a kindly librarian directed me to an eminent astrophysicist. (I had to look up in a dictionary how to spell that word and what it means.) Professor Hugo Aidebloed was the man recommended, who is the chief Astrogastrophysiognomist and head of the Paraoptical Deep Ultraspace Research Centre at the Palmolivian Observatory just to the left, off the coast of an island, some five thousand miles south of the South Pacific. Finding it was hard enough, but getting there was the real pain. The damned rowing boat had a leak and when I pulled the plug at the far end of it, it was letting in more water than it was letting out. I can tell you, I ruined a good pair of shoes just getting there….
But discounting the journey, things went pretty well once I got there. The professor received me with great courtesy and once I set eyes on him I had full confidence that I would find out absolutely everything about the Universe, I needed to know. I was pre-warned that the professor had made a very significant discovery about the Origin of the Universe and his theory was very much the in thing now in scientific circles. I, therefore, decided that I would conduct the interview in such a way that it would concentrate around his discovery and theories.
Professor Aidebloed is a tall, handsome, good looking, well built, muscular, sun tanned man in his mid forties, with slightly greying and mildly receding dark hair, elegantly and orderly combed on a high vaulted cranium.
Under thick, bushy, but carefully combed eyebrows a pair of ice-cold blue eyes scan and search the cosmic mysteries of outer space; scan and search that is when they are not focused with piercing intensity on the face of the interviewer, as it happened not infrequently during our interview.
He answered all my questions without the slightest hint of surprise or hesitation, exhibiting the surefooted superiority of a learned man who knows his subject intimately well and who is totally assured of his own knowledge and invulnerability when talking about his subject.
What follows here is the actual conversation in question and answer form as it transpired during our interview.
Q. - Dear professor, we heard about your extremely significant discovery and your highly esteemed theory about the Continuous Development of the Universe. Perhaps, if you would be kind enough, first of all please give a brief outline about the essence of your discovery and theory for our readers.
A. - Erm… erm… talking about the essence of my discovery, I firstly need to draw attention to the fact that there are currently two contradictory, opposing theories about the formation of the universe and the galaxies within, which are - as you would guess - completely and categorically contradict each other.
One of the theories starts with a point of origin, with other words it tries to prove that the universe was born at a certain point in time with an enormous explosion and all the physical manifestations within the universe: the stars, with their planetary systems, the galaxies, the gases, nebulae, interplanetary and intergalactic debris and all atomic and subatomic particles were formed as a result of this explosion. This theory is known simply as the Big Bang Theory.
The other theory - the theory that I humbly support - on the other hand proves that everything within the universe developed in a continuous fashion, it has always been developing, it continues to develop and will keep developing ad infinitum. We call this the Continuous Development Theory.
Naturally, the Big Bang Theory is totally unacceptable, as there is no solid cosmological evidence for its validity and the only supporting evidence is based on some observations, purportedly showing that the Universe is expanding. This theory would open the way to speculations about other less scientifically acceptable and very questionable hypotheses, such as that would presuppose the existence of a "Creator" and the "Creation Hypothesis".
Contrary to that the dynamic Continuous Development Theory proves that the "Creation" never happened, as the universe was not born in any given moment of time, but rather developed in a dynamic fashion and keeps on developing in this manner. With other words it was categorically not created by any means, but continually developed….
At this point I humbly interrupted:
Q. - Developed from what, dear professor?
A. - Erm… erm… naturally from a field. You have to use your imagination here for the point of illustration only. Therefore imagine if you will that there is a field here (he is showing it with one hand) and there is another one here. (he shows it with his other hand) Now then, between these two fields there is nothing at all except energy transference from one field to another. The field itself can be electric field, electromagnetic field or magnetic field and therefore the energy transference accordingly would be electric, electromagnetic or magnetic energy.
From this it could follow that, at a certain point of time and space and within the framework of certain favourable chance circumstances and occurrences, small subatomic and atom groups would develop, which in turn could lead on to the development of molecules and groups of molecules. These groups of atoms and molecules could then form what becomes the inter-field substance, which in turn can lead to the formation of interstellar substance, which in turn could develop into stellar substance, creating the nebulae and the stars, which in turn would develop into star and planetary systems. These systems then form galaxies and thus the Universe gradually and dynamically develops and keeps on and on developing.
Q. - What is the proof dear professor that would support your theory?
A. - Proof?... erm.. .proof in the sense of concrete material evidence is currently not available; which incidentally and paradoxically is a sort of proof by itself of the validity of the theory. A theory - you must understand - is built gradually on the basis of available collected statistical data to which eventually more and more statistical data is added. Now then, if there is no statistical data added which fundamentally contradicts the previously accumulated data and thus proves the theory invalid, then by virtue of the absence of contradictory evidence the theory can be declared valid and proven. Valid and proven, that is, until such time, when contradictory data or hypothesis proves it to be invalid.
As up to date such data or hypothesis is not available, our theory therefore holds rock solid and negates all other theories.
Q. - What about the religious teachings and theories?
A. -Oh, those religious fantasies do not even count. There are so many religions with so many contradictory teachings and theories, that they virtually negate and eliminate each other. It is a nice fairy tale to say that the Creator created the whole Universe in six days, then took a day off on the seventh, blessed it and declared it a holy day. Scientifically speaking this is simply unacceptable. It is just as childish as the teaching that the universe stands on a flat disk which sits on the belly of the Buddha. Laughable! Today we are in possession of serious and indisputable theoretical proofs that the development of the Universe took milliards and milliards of years until it arrived to the status that we recognise at present and will take milliards and milliards of years of further development. I have cast iron and indisputable evidence in my possession that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Universe was not created by a Creator.
Q. - And may I ask dear professor what is the proof?
At this point he leaned closer to me with an almost mystical expression on his face that can only shine on the countenance of a human who arrived at the absolute knowledge and truth and is convinced of his own superiority and infallibility over all other creatures and whispered in my ear with a tone of voice that was designed to melt away all doubts.
A. - What is the evidence? What is the proof?... you may well ask… well if you must know… and just between the two of us here… only ten minutes before your arrival I telephoned the Almighty on the radio-telephone and he told me so!
So, here is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Origin of the Universe, straight "out of the horses arse" - as they say in scientific circles…
What effect that may have on the Dow Jones… don't ask me, because I'd be damned if I knew… but if you must know it, ask an economist or a politician… and listen carefully. He will only tell you… perhaps a thousand times…
© P. J. Oszmann (2003)