Dear The Guardian Editor,
After reading an interesting Forbes magazine article on astrophysics, I embarked on taking a second look at the work of famous Quantum physicist Stephen Hawking to learn what he thought about the so-called Black hole phenomena. These are reportedly gigantic cosmic entities marauding around the universe. Having heard about the topic for some decades now (from back in the 80's when I was a young student in Europe), I had all along been under the impression that scientists had already confirmed its existence.
However, it turns out that astronomers around the world are only now coming together under the Event Horizon consortium of telescopes so as to attempt to conduct the first ever physical identification of any such phenomena for the first time in human history.
The Forbes magazine headline on this international research says "2019's Science Breakthrough Of The Year Will Show Us Black Hole Event Horizon".
In astrophysics and astronomy, the event horizon is reportedly the outer contours of the Black hole phenomena. It is also known as 'the point of no return' where there is high radiation and nobody knows what happens to matter (or anti-matter for that matter) once past that point.
But if they have never confirmed the existence of the event horizon, then they are therefore only attempting to confirm what is clearly now an assumption about a phenomena called Black Holes.
Behavioral science suggests that this retro-active approach to research can lead someone to establish anything as confirmation of what they would like all to believe.
The cosmic entity is claimed to exist, however that claim is so far unsubstantiated. And those conducting the research today are probably primarily searching for anything that vindicates their long held huge assumptions come what may (and possibly at whatever cost).
Another confusing aspect of this research becomes apparent when we discover that while mankind has no evidence about the existence of Black holes, some scientists (and Forbes magazine itself) simultaneously claim to know at least two already.
In their recent article, the news magazine says "Sagittarius A* is at the center of the Milky Way [our galaxy], and another black hole is at the center of M87." They then add that this last one is at "some 50-60 million light-years away and comes in at over 6 billion solar masses, making it more than 1,000 times larger than our galaxies giant black hole."
And since the article also says that it requires "a telescope the size of planet earth" to be able to see one, it means that whatever these astronomers are attempting is already wallowing in humongously insufficient capacity, and therefore knowingly bound to fail.
These serious inconsistencies from people believed to be grounded in logic, is what ultimately led me to read more about what science actually knows as fact concerning the phenomena. The mainstream media might not be reporting on any scrutiny to the assertions and works of the seemingly highly revered astronomers and astrophysicists.
It is this conclusion that made me look further into the science, and I ultimately came across The Guardian's 2010 article titled "Stephen Hawkings Says Universe Not Created By God". It says that in his book 'The Grand Design', the late astrophysicist appears to provide his opinion in response to two specific questions:
1 - What would it take for the universe to exist, and
2 - Did the universe create itself? (This last question is also in the Holy Qur'an)
If asked directly, most religious people would immediately either say "No", while others might automatically ask back "How?"
But it seems that the late Quantum Physicist attempted to respond to both questions simultaneously when he boldly stated that: "Since there is a law such as that of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. And therefore the universe doesn't need God to have created it."
There being no known challenge to this assertion by Mr. Hawking, I guess it is safe to say that all modern scientists, evolutionists, quantum physicists and astrophysicists have accepted his explanation.
It then occurred to me that people might be accepting certain idea's and/or formualae just because "the famous Stephen Hawking said it".
Besides being in obvious contradiction with the Big Bang theory which he has allegedly previously supported, and which claims that an initial explosion created the universe (an explosion which therefore required well structured explosive material put together, a detonator, and/or someone/something to press the button so to speak), Mr. Hawking's statement also seems to imply that the creation of the universe from nothing depends on the law of gravity first existing prior to the nothing from which his universe can possibly create itself from.
His theory is therefore fundamentally flawed because the law of gravity only exists because it applies to mass. The entity from which gravity is generated. Therefore Gravity (or its law) does not emanate from nothing, and cannot exist in nothing, right?
Because gravity is also a form of energy, the famous physicist Albert Einstein already formulated the theory of general relativity (E= MC square), where E stands for energy, M is mass, and C is the speed of light.
So I guess this brief explanation alone possibly debunks Mr. Hawking's entire last book and his penultimate last theory on the creation of the universe.
I pray that Mr. Hawking's soul rests in eternal peace wherever he could
have found himself. If the human soul continues its existence even after clinical death, he probably now knows for sure if God exists or not, and he also probably now has a better idea of how the universe was really created (and possibly by whom).
A few years ago (back in 2012) I theorized on a simple hypothetical
physics phenomena where I looked at the fundamental role that temperature plays as a platform for the existence of the universe. Because everything (including all particles and all matter) exist in a given temperature between infinitely hot and/or infinitely cold, if one removed temperature as an element of the universe, nothing would remain. By nothing I mean not even space, time, light, air, gravity, darkness, vacuum, matter, or any particles whatsoever.
Albert Einstein showed how time only exists because there is a universal fabric that he called "SpaceTime" (in one word), and both space and time are constantly morphing together, even enabling the expansion of the universe. One could ask how far out can the universe expand? How much room is left? Therefore what is this room that the universe is expanding inside? And was it there before the big bang?
But that is another subject for another day.
Meanwhile, to understand my thoughts on the role of temperature as a quintessential element behind the existence of everything, if I got for example a bottle and removed all temperature (hot and/or cold) from inside it, I theorized that the interior of the bottle would most likely cease to exist, simply because everything, including all matter all energy, and all particles, exist in a given temperature.
It would be like deleting SpaceTime itself from inside the test bottle.
For further ease of understanding, if we look at a slightly different
hypothetical example: Imagine a phenomena where a certain restaurant has that bottle of nothing on sale. A bottle where in order to have the absolute nothing
in it, they have removed all air, all liquid, all vacuum, all light, all darkness, all space, all time, all temperature, all matter, all particles, and all gravity, leaving the bottle to contain only the true nothing.
If I went to that restaurant and asked for a bottle of "The Nothing" to have with my french fries and steak, the waitress would just go and fetch that particular bottle from their stock.
First of all I wonder what would be the price of that bottle of nothing from which the entire universe could emerge (based on Stephen Hawking's theory), But just in case the famous scientist was right that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing", including therefore from where there is no time, no space, no light, no darkness, no matter or anti-matter, no God, no energy, no particles, no vacuum, no laws of science, neither those of religion, therefore no gravity and no temperature, then how did the original "Nothing" come to exist? Did it also create itself?
By Hussein Lumumba Amin