The Case for a Cellular Universe
—the Story of a Baffling Omission in Modern Cosmology

Our opening premise: The Universe, of which we are a part, exists. The Universe exists. As rational beings, we all agree that it does. This is as self-evident as it could possibly be. (Notice that the word ‘Universe’ is capitalized to make it clear that we are referring to the one real Universe that actually exists.)
 

1   Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?

   In the quest for a problem-free cosmology, the first task should involve deciding whether the Universe exists as a finite or an infinite cosmos. Is the Universe spatially endless or not? Is the Universe timeless or not?

   If we unwisely choose to place limits on the Universe ---as most cosmologies throughout history have--- we run into several major problems. The most obvious one is called the boundary problem.

The Boundary Problem

   The boundary problem involves hypothesizing some sort of “cosmic edge” that bounds and limits the universe. (When uncapitalized, the word ‘universe’ refers to the model of our Universe or some hypothetical universe.) The nature of the outer boundary of the universe has puzzled many of the ablest minds in the history of cosmology. Over the centuries, a variety of cosmic-edge boundaries have been proposed; none makes a compelling connection with reality; all represent attempts to tame the limitless.

   One of the earliest attempts at a cosmic edge involved an enveloping boundary of nothingness. A first century B.C. school of Roman philosophers, known as the Stoics, taught that the finite cosmos was surrounded by a void region that stretched to infinity.[3] The Stoics sought to restrict the size of their finite universe by surrounding it with an infinite universe! To the Ancients, the void represented absolute nothingness, and so it seemed reasonable to invoke the void as a cosmic barrier. Modern astrophysicists, however, recognized that the void, or the vacuum, represents physical dynamical space. And, of course, everything that is physical belongs to —and is contained within— the Universe. As a strategy for a finite universe the barrier of endless nothingness was a failure.

   A common conception was the belief in a wall-like cosmic edge ---think of a cosmic egg shell. Johannes Kepler may be cited as a believer in a finite universe that was enclosed in a dark cosmic wall of unspecified nature.[4]

   During the middle ages a spiritual boundary was adopted (and acceptance of it was strictly enforced). A spiritual cosmic shell, called the Realm of Heaven, was the outermost region enclosing a number of lower ranking concentric shells of the less pure and material universe. As one moved outward away from Earth the physical realm was progressively transformed into an aetheric or spiritual realm.[5] The spiritual cosmic-edge itself ---the extreme limit of the medieval universe--- consisted of the convex outer limits of the sphere of this Christian Heaven.

   Giordano Bruno boldly challenged the effectiveness of the barrier. He ‘explored’ the forbidden territory beyond the edge and found ---to the horror of the Guardians of the Holy Truth--- infinity. And as with most official doctrines, the more untenable the underlying idea the more ruthlessly it is enforced. Philosopher Bruno exposed the futility of a cosmic-edge idea when he advanced the argument, “... let the surface be what it will, I must always put the question: what is beyond?”[6] and paid the ultimate price. The terminal tax of heresy.

   As if on some mission of vengeance Bruno’s question lives on ---haunting all who fear the unholy truth of infinity.

   Before considering the modern cosmic boundaries we need to understand the relationship between space-and-time and the universe. Evidently the ancient view was that space and time contained the universe. The universe was pictured as an island surrounded by the void (space) and existing in independent time. The modern view is the converse: the universe contains space and time. [7] The old simplistic barriers have long been discarded; the new complex barriers of the mathematical genus were now embraced.

   The first attempt at a mathematical boundary was made by the German astronomer Johann Zöllner, who was not so much motivated by a desire to confine the universe as by the intellectual demand to resolve the infamous gravity paradox.

“In 1887 ... Zöllner proposed a resolution of the gravity paradox that was a landmark in the history of cosmology. Inspired by [Georg Bernhard] Riemann’s work on curved space, he suggested that space was curved and finite, so that the total amount of matter in the universe was finite. ... This was a remarkable anticipation of the Einstein universe of 1917.” [8]

  And as it happened, Einstein constructed the modern cosmic boundary. Einstein formulated (in his 1917 theory of the universe) the new boundary as the limits of a mathematical hypersphere of geometrized space.

   The mathematical magic behind this geometric barrier may be described something like this: If the universe of spherical space were static, then as you approach the cosmic ‘edge’ you are bounced back towards the center of the universe but from the opposite end of the universe! You will have circumnavigated the finite universe of curved space! Science writer Timothy Ferris, in his book The Whole Shebang, gives a similar description of this bizarre effect using a light beam traveling towards the edge.[9]

   The universes based on Einstein’s general relativity are abstract universes, not to be confused with the real Universe.

   It should also be mentioned that a cosmic edge implies a cosmic center. The presence of a cosmic center leads to a violation of the cosmological principle which states that the universe is uniform, on the large scale, in all places (spatial homogeneity) and in all directions (isotropic), and has no preferred location. And so in this sense, the presence of a boundary is an affront to the cosmological principle. You never, ever, want to violate this principle!
 

Philosophical Problems

   Now consider the problems associated with temporal restrictions. Although a universe that is finite in time does not necessarily imply an end-of-time it most definitely demands a beginning. Also, any universe that is both finite and evolving has, by implication, a beginning. The very notion that a universe evolves implies a ‘beginning’ moment (and state) from which it evolved. Georges Lemaître understood this when he fashioned the original version of the Big Bang by explicitly demanding one. However, Sir Arthur Eddington suggested a deeper understanding when he wrote in the journal Nature: “Philosophically the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature is repugnant to me.”[10] The philosopher Constantin Antonopoulos, critical of the beginning-of-time aspect of the expanding universe model, argues convincingly that the “idea of a first moment of Time is a self-contradictory one.”[11]

   Trying to explain “a beginning” adds a vast new layer of complexity to any meaningful understanding of the Cosmos. A philosophical branch of cosmology called cosmogenesis deals with this complexity. It involves the search for the origin of the universe. But since genesis involves an unsound and unnecessary assumption ---a creation event--- it is not good science. Postulating and explaining the creation of the universe is more a matter of faith than logic. Noble Laureate Hannes Alfvén sums up the point:

“There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being either four thousand years ago or twenty billion years ago.” [12]

   And of course anyone who has done any thinking at all will have, at one time or another, asked, “What came before the big creation event?” Physicists recognize this for what it is ---an invalid question since there was no ‘before’ time. However, the related question has them scratching their heads.

   “What caused the creation event?” Indeed, what did trigger the beginning?

   The popular approach to resolve the beginning-paradox is to invoke repeating cycles of creation followed by annihilation. The irony is that the resolution lays in transforming (by multiplication) finite time into infinite time. The ‘beginning’ (of course) vanishes, demonstrating once more that for an infinite universe there is no paradox and that our ‘infinite’ choice in Flowchart 1 is a wise one.

   A universe that is finite in time has always been philosophically objectionable.
 

Initial Conditions Problem

   A true infinite universe is clearly a non-created universe. It did NOT start-out in some compact form and then transition to the infinite state. It is because it always was.

   In contrast, a true finite universe is a created universe. The problem with a created universe, aside from the serious philosophical problems mentioned, is the determination of the physical laws of nature and the magnitude of the fundamental constants. How and why did Nature choose the laws and the constants? This is known as the initial conditions problem. How did the created universe end-up with its three or four fundamental forces when there could have been any number whatsoever?! Same goes for the various constants of nature and the collection of unique subatomic particles.  How were the menu items of universal rules and building components selected before there was a menu?

   In big bang cosmology the initial conditions problem leads to the mystery of the primordial atom: The metaphysical assumption that the universe originated as an infinitely small primordial atom of infinite matter density is countered by the probability that for physical reasons a singular state of this nature is unattainable.[13] Nevertheless, this is what some versions of the big bang propose. Now think about this for a moment. A universe starts out as a singularity ---an infinitely small speck of a point. Then this singularity grows to become a universe. Is there anyone who would deny that a speck of almost nothing that contains almost everything is a paradox?

   A paradox, of course, is the worst kind of problem. It is the most effective way of destroying any hypothesis (and any theory).

   Academic cosmologists tell us that “A universe that evolves from initial conditions, that has all its complexity implicit in a simple initial state, is a preferred universe.”[14] But wait a moment. Aren’t the experts overlooking the fact that a universe that simply has NO initial conditions is actually the most preferred universe? ... They should be reminded that only an infinite universe presents such a situation; it has no initial conditions (simply because it was never in an infant state). Consequently, it has no genesis paradox and no singularity paradox.

   Needless to say, regardless of the finite-infinite selection we are undertaking, the fundamental laws still need to be explained (why they are what they are) but this is not the purpose of the present article.

   For most finite universes there is also the related problem of end-state conditions. It’s described as the mystery of the fate of the Cosmos. For example, will the big bang universe continue expanding forever or will it collapse back into that impossible singularity?
 

Existence Cannot be Quantified

   The Universe is the exclusive manifestation of existence. To limit the Universe in any way with respect to its spatial extent or its temporal duration is to place a limit upon existence itself. Existence cannot be quantified. You either have it or you don’t. Axiomatically, it’s all or nothing. Since we agreed in the opening discussion that, indeed, we and the rest of the Universe do have existence, then we must recognize its full infiniteness. Nothing less than an infinite universe is acceptable.

   Although the argument in favor of an infinite universe is compelling, it does not diminish the extraordinary difficulty of grasping the conclusion’s totally uncompromising meaning and its power to out-scale anything imaginable into unimaginable insignificance. It is as though that which has no limiting barrier becomes itself a conceptual barrier of sorts. Ironic indeed. Infinitude becomes a barrier of the mind. ... We each deal with that issue as best we can.

   The Universe is timeless and spatially endless because it has always been timeless and endless. It exists perpetually.

“Things are as they are because they were as they were.” —American physicist Thomas Gold[15]

   And in its perpetual existence, it exemplifies the dictum called the perfect cosmological principle.[16]

Flowchart 1.   Choosing between the finite class of universe and the infinite class of universe.

We go with “the Infinite”

   Based on the above discussion, the winning choice is clearly the infinite universe. The Objective-reality view holds that the Universe is infinite.

   Care to guess the Official Science view?

   The Official View is succinctly expressed by Roger Penrose a leading expert on the Universe and “one of the world’s most knowledgeable and creative mathematical physicists,”[17]

“We do not know whether the universe as a whole is finite or infinite in extent —either in space or in time ...”  — R. Penrose [18]

   It may surprise you that Academic Science does not commit itself. Understand that Academia would like to embrace the finite concept but the accompanying problems are too blatant, too irresolvable. On the other hand, no matter how compelling the ‘infinity’ choice may be, Academia cannot accept it! I repeat, the infinite universe cannot be accepted into the Official View.  In the next section we make a simple choice for the space-medium of our universe and in the selection process explain why Academia must preclude the limitless universe.
 

2   The Space-Medium of the Universe is Dynamic

   Early in the 20^th century the theories and investigations of Einstein, Willem de Sitter, and Alexander Friedmann made it imperative that, whatever space is, it must posses a dynamic quality. Space could not be static; space had to be an active player in the universe. In other words, the nature of space was such that it had to expand or contract. In fact, DeSitter found that space was dynamic (specifically expansionary) even when space was completely empty, that is, when there was no mass present! With or without mass, “... in the general relativity picture the universe consists of expanding space.”[19]

   Then came the hard evidence. Astronomers, most notably Vesto Slipher, followed in the 1920s by Carl Wirtz, Howard Robertson and Edwin Hubble, found that all but the nearest galaxies appeared to be receding from our solar system and our Milky Way galaxy. Evidently the cosmic space between galaxies was expanding. It was the light from those galaxies that held the key. As the light from far-off galaxies radiates through expanding space the light waves are stretched —slowly, relentlessly, cumulatively. The resulting elongated light-waves carry the measurable imprint of space expansion. The measurable imprint is called the redshift --- the hard evidence.

   The large scale expansion of space is commonly called the Hubble expansion in honor of Edwin Hubble.

   Space expansion is also observable as the phenomenon called the Lambda effect (and means exactly the same thing). In fact, astrophysicists have for many years referred to space expansion as the Lambda effect, as well as the DeSitter effect. Then in the 1980s another kind of space expansion, called inflation, was introduced and became popular.

   The evidence that space actually expands was so overwhelmingly convincing that this dynamic process has been adopted as the main pillar of modern cosmology. You will find this process underpinning practically all the models of the last 100 years or so. The Einstein-DeSitter model ---the basic textbook model--- depends on space expansion. All the Big Bang models depend on space expansion. The various Inflation models depend on space expansion. Even the historic Steady State models required space expansion. (A rare exception is the Milne model of kinematic relativity.) Cyclical and Oscillating universes use space expansion for their current cycle.

   But space expansion is only part of the dynamic story. Dynamic space also partakes in a process of contraction. The universe’s space medium has a contraction mode.

“Einstein’s theory ... predicts that a uniform, unbounded medium can’t be static; it must either expand or contract.” [20]

   Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity theory) is a mathematical description of the contractile nature of space. According to his theory, space undergoes a contraction (relativists prefer the geometric phrasing and say that space curves positively) in the vicinity of mass and energy. As a simplified illustration, the Sun, is contracting the space of the solar system, but since the Earth is (and the other orbiting bodies are) ‘falling’ tangentially away from the Sun we do not notice the shrinkage. The Earth’s outward motion is balanced by the inward motion of space and our distance from the Sun remains more or less constant.

   Space contraction is an observable phenomenon that is essential in the manifestation of the gravitational effect. In the field of Process Physics, researchers refer to the contraction process as the ‘self-dissipation of space’. It means the same thing —space shrinks, space disappears.

   So here’s what we have. Theory says space must contract or expand; observational evidence shows that space does both. The choice for our space-medium is obvious. We vote with the Official View, as shown in Flowchart 2.

 
Flowchart 2.   It is a well established fact that space is dynamic. There are two basic modes whereby space reveals its dynamic nature ---space may expand, space may contract. Which then means there are three ways to incorporate dynamic space into a model of the universe: (1) Space in the universe expands; (2) space in the universe contracts; (3) the universe contains both expansion and contraction.

   Before moving on to the final and most interesting selection-round allow me to explain the expanding-space trap in which Contemporary Cosmology has entangled itself. Rightfully convinced of the reality of space expansion, the overzealous participants then extrapolated the fact of the expansion of cosmic regional-space into the highly speculative notion of the expansion of the entire universe!! Calling the extrapolation the Big Bang universe leaves no doubt about what they think is expanding.

   But now observe: Only a finite universe can, theoretically, expand. An infinite universe cannot. It would be utterly foolish and completely pointless to propose an infinite universe that could or would expand and become measurably bigger! If the concept of infinity means anything, it certainly means “already fully expanded” and the infinite radius (or diameter) cannot become more infinite!

   And so, Official Cosmology must turn its back on the infinite universe concept, for it has committed itself a priori to the expansion paradigm. History tells us, the medievalists had solemnly pronounced that the perfection of the universe was revealed in the perfect circular motions of the Heavenly bodies. Their modern counterparts now ordain that the perfection of the universe is patent in the universal Hubble expansion.

   Having elevated the Hubble expansion as the defining feature of the universe (rather than restricting the defining feature to a property of space itself) Official Cosmology must equivocate on the issue of finite versus infinite. Otherwise, if it does the honest thing and declares the universe to be finite it will look foolish because of its inability to resolve the serious problems (associated with the finite universe) discussed in section one. If it submits to reality and declares the universe to be infinite it will look foolish because it’s sacred Hubble expansion will become impotent. There appears to be no way out.

   Let me make this absolutely clear, the expanding universe paradigm (and I must emphasis here, expanding space and expanding universe are two totally different things), the very heart of the Official Cosmology, is scientifically untenable. The paradigm of universe-wide expansion has led Official Cosmology into a trap. It is trapped between the jaws of finitude and infinitude. The simple choice presented in Flowchart 1 is forbidden.

   Understand the nature of the trap and you understand the forces resisting meaningful change. It seems that when Academic cosmologists discuss the problem of finite-versus-infinite the main purpose is not to nail down a resolution in the interest of science, but rather to maintain a perpetual balance of views as if in the interest of fairness. If this is the game plan then it works wonderfully ---Academia cleverly avoids making that fateful commitment. The Ptolemaic ‘saving the appearances’ trumps the search for truth.
 

3   The Five Combinations of Space-Expansion and Space-Contraction

   The chosen criterion is a universe with two opposing space dynamics. We may quickly conclude that there are only five possible ways to combine expansion and contraction. They represent five classes of universes; each class with generally defined combinations of space dynamics.

   The Chaotic universe has no discernable order. Randomness reigns. There is a chaotic expansion and contraction of space; and the scale of this activity may depend on some unrestrained (similarly chaotic) variable. Theorists, like the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde, have a field day throwing together a seemingly endless variety of speculative models. Nature, however, reveals far too much order for this category to represent reality.

   When the two processes occur simultaneously nothing of consequence happens (at least initially). Think of it as a leaky balloon universe. As you ‘expand’ or ‘inflate’ the quantity of air by pumping air into the balloon there is a compensating ‘dissipation’ of air via the pinhole leaks. With luck, a temporary equilibrium may be achieved. Anyway, metaphor aside, you end up with a nominally static universe ---a universe balanced between runaway expansion and runaway contraction.

   In 1917 Einstein constructed a mathematical version of the static universe. Not surprisingly, its state, and fate, was precariously balanced. The slightest disturbance between cosmological ‘inflation’ and ‘dissipation’ resulted in the unmistakable instability of feedback amplification. In other words Einstein’s model wouldn’t work. Einstein eventually abandoned it and in 1932 selected the universal expansion class instead. In the context of Flowchart 3, he switched from the 2^nd box to the 4^th box.

   The Sequential combination (the third block from the left in Flowchart 3) leads directly to the quasi-religionary universe offering repeated creation and annihilation. This group is defined by the sequential and monolithic space-expansion, then space-contraction, then expansion again, and so on. Every reader of popular science will recognize this as a cyclical Big-Bang Big-Crunch universe. Historically, this is known as the Oscillating universe and was the type favored by Alexander Friedmann. Interestingly the oldest documented universe ---the Brahmanda universe of Hinduism--- belongs to this class.

   The problems? The Sequential (or Oscillating) universe, as a more complex version of the Big Bang, has them in abundance.
 

Flowchart 3.   The five possible combinations of space expansion and space contraction define five universe classes. The Regional class stands out: When, for an infinite universe, space expansion is fundamentally linked to space contraction, then a cosmic cellular structure necessarily manifests. The Regional category leads to the Cellular Universe which has consistently shown to be a problem-free cosmology.

     The fourth combination involves Universal Expansion with Isolated Contraction. This of course is the Official View. Universal space expansion, which the Big Bang ideologists call the Hubble expansion, causes the universe to expand; meanwhile isolated space-contraction tends to concentrate the otherwise randomly distributed galaxies, resulting in the formation of localized galaxy clusters. Unfortunately the model makes wrong predictions. For instance, a slowing-down of the big-bang expansion had been predicted, but in 1998 certain astronomical evidence was interpreted as the unexpected speeding-up of big-bang expansion. So in 1998, the decelerating Big Bang became the Accelerating Big Bang universe.