The Universe of Nothing

When I was a young man, recently out of college, I read a comment from one of my favorites commentators who wrote a monthly column in one of my favorite magazines. I can not remember the name of the writer, but I remember very clearly what he said: The perceived span of time is inversely proportional to our age. A week when I was seven years old was a long time; a month even more, and a year something I could hardly envision. I am now 63 years old, and a week goes by without me knowing exactly what happened, a month is a short span of time, and a year is always around a corner. This writer was right, and although he was no scientist, that piece of deep thinking, albeit not very useful, has remained with me ever since I read it.

The interesting part of this theory is that it could be easily verified, and part of the magic of any theory is being able to verify it by independent sources so that it becomes a "law". Otherwise it's just a theory, and theories can actually be formulated by anyone, specially if there is no way for anybody to prove them right or wrong, independent of the fact that the person who formulates the theory is a renowned scientist or a complete moron. That is exactly what I am going to discuss next.

Allow me to establish at the onset a very important issue: The subject I am about to discuss is something that I can not prove, for I can not re-create it; but I will also like to leave no doubt as to the reality that no one else can. So, for the time being, this will remain in the realm of pure intellectual speculation and faith. Also, it is interesting to note that many theories about the universe have been challenged over and over again, and all of them have been superseded by new ones that seemed to better fit the latest scientifical findings as are observed by very tenacious and brilliant individuals. I have no problem with that. But the one I'm about to criticize is a totally different story.

So I read A Brief History of Time, written by Mr. Stephen Hawking. This person is a high-caliber scientist with profound knowledge of mathematics and cosmology, and enjoys a very solid reputation in those areas. I personally admire him very much and think he has certainly accomplished a lot. As far as the universe is concerned, I feel there are two areas that can be used to study it: The workings of the universe, and the origin of the universe. The workings of the universe, how it works and why it works the way it does, have been analyzed since man looked up at the sky and wondered "What is this?". Aristotle, Ptolomy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and lately, Einstein. Each had a theory as to the workings of the universe; each had its own flaws; but through continued and persistent studies, observations, and ever increasing improvements in measurement methodologies, each has been bringing us closer to the truth. The theories that were once accepted because of lack of better alternatives have been disproved, and others that could be validated have remained. The important thing is the "validation" process. If a theory can be validated by independent, reliable, sources, then it is accepted. If it can´t hold it's own, then it is discarded. That's what the scientific method is all about, and that is the beauty of the thinking process we humans have. Anyone can come up with a theory, but if that theory falls flat on its face, it disappears, and the person that formulated it quickly slips into oblivion. Some theories can take a long time to be put to the test, simply because the technology required to validate it is not yet available or perfected. Like the relativity theory. Einstein had to wait until a solar eclipse allowed observers to determine that light actually did bend around the sun because of its mass. Other theories take even longer. So in effect a theory that stands unchallenged for a long time, does not necessarily mean it is correct. It just means it has not been proven incorrect as of yet. It is fascinating to watch a person's brain working relentlessly just to try and understand the workings of the universe. But mind you, the universe is already working! No one has been able to build a universe no matter how intelligent that person is. Mr. Hawking states (Chapter 8): "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" It sounds as if there is nothing before and nothing after.

Now, my objection is not because I really believe the universe was created by the Almighty, Blessed Be He, but because one can enunciate many theories like this one which can not be proven right or wrong, and coming from a highly respected scientist as Mr. Hawking, would lead many people to think they are true. After all, the common man does not care much about mathematical equations and deep-thinking theories on the workings of the universe. So let's not use them, specially when they contribute nothing to the other accepted theories that explain the universe as we know it, and that can be verified by professional observation. In Discovery Channel's "Who Created the Universe", Mr. Hawking concludes saying "There is no God". But he can not prove it.