Radical unorthodox thoughts to ponder by: GF Willmetts. Having watched the UK BBC ‘Horizon’ programme about the problems of quantum gravity back in November 2009 explaining how black holes and the universe works stumping theoretical physicists with a desire for radical thinking for a new way to approach the subject got me thinking.

After all, a lot of the time I work on problems set from various SF realities making various connections and putting a different slant on the information, as you might have noticed that I’ve been doing again recently. Working on our reality isn’t too far removed from this although the stakes are different and certainly the size of the readership, not to mention a little egg on the face if I miss anything out or get it wrong. The real trick is sifting the evidence and interpretation than ignoring anything that doesn’t fit the pattern. I don’t have the habit of fitting the evidence to a hypothesis although I will look around for anything missed if the jigsaw seems incomplete.



Tackling the beginning of the universe has to be the biggest project next to the Unified Field Theory – I’ve started thinking about that one. Without the Big Bang or wherever we choose to call it, we wouldn’t be here.

There’s a lot of established things we do know. There was a compression of matter that exploded out, the so-called ‘Big Bang’, with a lot of littler bangs that created the various galaxies as they accelerated away from each other. Quite how the stellar matter got together is still stuck in theory and even my solution is still curious about that simply because there is nothing to suggest portals from other universes or dimensions, so it has to start here.

Anyway, if access to our reality was that fragile, then we’d see more examples. The main oddity is that the background radiation is a constant rather than accelerating away like the galaxies which tends to suggest that the Big Bang is independent of that. Although I don’t dispute Einstein’s general theory of relativity or even George Gamow who proposed the Big Bang, it’s more a question of looking at the evidence for any other interpretation, especially if it wasn’t known at the time.

Take this for instance. Our galaxy like most (there’s bound to be exceptions) galaxies has a giant black hole at its centre. Black hole singularities are mostly formed from collapsed stars. There must have been one hell of a giant star or many of them collapsing at the same time to create it before we even get the matter that becomes our galaxy. With the examples of other galaxies around us, there is no example of a black hole drawing back in all of its matter. So where does the matter come from to create our galaxy?

Black holes are reputed to discharge matter from time to time. With a giant black hole such discharges might not escape its gravity well so which came first, the galaxy or the black hole? Are the spiral arms of our galaxy black hole matter discharge from spinning singularities, pushed beyond the event horizon so not likely to be sucked back in? Time to go back to the beginning of the universe methinks.

The Big Bang is thought to be the start of our universe. We all see it as a big explosion of regular matter that gets chucked across space. However, if it’s condensed matter then wouldn’t it more likely be a gigantic black hole or several close up? Having them all discharging at the same time into each others paths could create a massive explosion and bang forcing them away from each other, occasionally spewing matter that spirals out and around the black hole before condensing and creating the stars that we know today. However, considering how far apart they are, the repulsion had to start first. That could account for dark and regular matter, not to mention the disproportionate amounts of each.

If anything, this puts a lot of things in perspective. Man once thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. That had to be revised when religious dogma was put to rest when it was proven that the Earth was orbiting the sun like the other planets. As things got bigger and the realisation that our sun wasn’t even that significant and one of a multitude of stars in our galaxy. Then our galaxy is just one of many galaxies all rushing away from each other. So why would it be a stretch of imagination that regular matter is a discharge from a black hole? Makes our place in the universe even smaller, doesn’t it? This would also explain why there is so little matter in the universe for its size. Putting us in our insignificant place, we might be existing in a black matter or singularity universe and even more accidental on the scale of things.

One thing this theory doesn’t allow for is how all these black holes got together in the first place or why they exploded than absorbed into each other. Something I’ve been contemplating for a long time now is why do we assume black holes move apart in an expanding universe? I mean, wouldn’t they be a law unto themselves considering they suck in any matter that approaches their event horizons? If they didn’t move, then they’d be left behind which would explain why we haven’t found that many small black holes yet. ‘Course, if they stayed behind, black holes would sooner or later bump into each other. ‘Bump’ isn’t quite the right word.

They are just as likely to be repelled from each other as absorbed into each other, depending on whether they connect at all. Whether a stationary black hole would bump into another star isn’t something we haven’t seen yet although it might explain some dispersed stars that can’t condense. A giant black hole singularity might move with the expanding universe unlike smaller ones that might not. Even if they didn’t, my example of the combination that gave rise to the Big Bang, would at least explain them moving away from each other. That being the case, then the galaxies could be leaving more singularities in its wake that could create another Big Bang or rather a continuous process of them as they mount up. If we look at Einstein’s description of space being like a giant rubber mat with the stars embedded in it, smaller new black holes could well be like marbles bouncing away or perhaps sliding way or rather not moving at the same rate.

So, somewhere behind us is a lot of relatively small black holes unable to influence regular matter. The big question then is would they start drawing towards each other. Maybe to make larger black holes before they reached whatever critical mass that would cause them to explode and move away from each other again. Hmmm...haven’t we been there before?

Not sure if that will ever solve the question of quantum gravity but it’s a different approach that might answer some questions. Instead of saying, ‘Let there be light’, maybe it would be better to say, ‘In the beginning, it was very dark. Then the dark moved.’ No wonder we are in awe of the night.

This theory might not have the maths to back it up but I’m not changing anything that is known or suspected, just offering something for you to ponder on. We aren’t just star stuff but singularity stuff.

(c) GF Willmetts 2010
all rights reserved

I am indebted to Paul Hanley, Pauline Morgan and especially Professor Ian Stewart for stewing their brains over the first draft of this article, which had a little polish from something he said. Professor Stewart agrees that is unorthodox and one of his colleagues has been pondering along similar lines. New universes start here.