this big bang stuff ...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté

I was thinking about this the other day. Science for some time has been riveted to the notion that this universe began with the Big Bang¹...

My thoughts are the following - this whole visible universe is based upon cause-and-effect. Science in this case is accepting an effect with little attention ( as far as I can tell) on the cause.
Yet one could argue, that is the reason there is particle physics, and big atom smashers ( colliders) to probe into the depths of matter. Yet it continues to deal with effects.

That said I can see how one could come to the idea of Big Bang. Just follow everything ( galaxies) backwards and use assume it all ends up together at some point. Yet what is behind this point? From where does this point come from? For me it just does not pass my common sense test.

Many new theories are coming to modern thinking , like membranes coming together that create again-and-again. This is attractive as they do not deal with the notion of the origin of these membranes, and assume they were here for all time ( at least that is my comprehension).

My assessment is the Big Band idea is losing its sizzle.

Any one have other ideas?

praṇām
references
UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity.
From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
(http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html))

There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html) )

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe.
The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."
( http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf) )

[flabber]

as far as I know, our very understanding of space, time, matter/energy and gravity itself is being considered as highly inadequate. no wonder the idea of bigbang might just turn out to be a big flop, only time err whatever it is will tell ha!

bigbang(the beginning) and bigcrunch(the end) are called as singularities that cannot be explained much. hopefully there will be much progress made in the unified theory of everything a.k.a. quantum gravity theory that tries to bring together both the quantum theory and theory of relativity and will not have singularities.

stephen hawking's, 'a briefer history of time' (the newer edition) is a good read in this regard. also michi kaku's 'physics of the impossible' is also damn interesting.

[Ashvati]

I always thought the Big Bang theory sounded like some unimaginative scientist answering the question of where the universe came from with an answer he JUST made up to avoid saying he didn't know. "Umh, uh... a big bang!". I always also thought the same about the idea that a time paradox causes the universe to implode or whatever. "Umh... the universe implodes if you do that!". Like an explosion was the first possibility that came to mind and they went with it.

If the universe started in a big bang of any kind, it was probably the explosion from Shiva destroying the universe in the last kalpa with fire :D. I always thought there was a time between Kalpas where all atma are in moksha for what would be thousands of years if time existed in moksha, but I could be wrong and things could simply reset immediately. Excuse my lack of technical terminology other than the word Kalpa, but this felt like the best way to get my understanding of how it works across.

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,



My thoughts are the following - this whole visible universe is based upon cause-and-effect. Science in this case is accepting an effect with little attention ( as far as I can tell) on the cause.
Yet one could argue, that is the reason there is particle physics, and big atom smashers ( colliders) to probe into the depths of matter. Yet it continues to deal with effects.

That said I can see how one could come to the idea of Big Bang. Just follow everything ( galaxies) backwards and use assume it all ends up together at some point. Yet what is behind this point? From where does this point come from? For me it just does not pass my common sense test.

Many new theories are coming to modern thinking , like membranes coming together that create again-and-again. This is attractive as they do not deal with the notion of the origin of these membranes, and assume they were here for all time ( at least that is my comprehension).

My assessment is the Big Band idea is losing its sizzle.

Any one have other ideas?

praṇām
references
UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity.
From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
(http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html))

There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html) )

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe.
The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."
( http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf) )

I see it a little differently and therefore, I don't find anything wrong with the Big Bang theory. If we critically examine this theory ... it is not about "Cause and Effect" theory. It is the process. The Cause and the Effect are not different from each other in this case.

If we examine the "Berkely's explanation" ... it postulates that it all started with fluctuation of the vacuum i.e. "nothingness". So, it proves that perceived "nothing" is the essence of perceived "everything". That proves the Upanishad's wisdom that the Nirguna Brahman in its vibratory modes creates the three different layers of existence.

So, there is no cause and no effect in reality. The Reality is One which undergoes through infinite cycles of evolutions and devolutions ... the vibration of reality causes evolution and cessation of all vibrations causes it all to come to "singularity"/"nothingness" which is the essence of all.

OM

[sanjaya]

Well it's not so much that the Big Bang model is losing support among the astrophysical community. It's just that we're further refining the theory. For example, with the idea of the Big Bang comes the question on why there's more matter than antimatter in the universe. Quantum cosmological theories are trying to answer these questions of assymetry. But it's important to note that the Big Bang remains a fairly well-tested model.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté devotee, sanjaya, ashvati

thank you for sharing your ideas...

'cause and effect not different ' - yes I can see this; and 'further refinement' - yes, I think this is always the intent, to improve.


But I guess the thing that still gives me a brain cramp is the notion of the Big Bang as an explanation for all 'this'. It is more about matter and anti-matter, or dark matter + dark energy, which are relatively new to science; This I am fine with as energy-shakti is an expression of the Supreme.
What I see ( or do not see world be more accurate) is the notion on how creation evolves, unfolds and manifests. That of the Creative Intelligence behind everything - the orderliness of the seen and unseen universe . Where is the 'bang' there? Where is the notion of the orchestration , of this innate ability of to order systems albeit at the cosmic level or particle level?

As I see it the beauty and awe of creation is in its innate intelligence - and for me this is dharma. I do not expect science to jump on dharma, but I do hope they evolve to more then counting atoms and galaxies and look to the glue that holds this all together.

praṇām

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

AHEM! Excuse me.... :)
We all know that shakti is energy. But, you must also note than matter is somewhat a condensed form of energy, and anti matter is somewhat anti condensed energy (matter + anti matter = energy). Therefore everything which is annamaya and pranamaya is energy (the astral body). But, the layers of consiousness, manomaya kosa, vignanamaya kosa and anandamaya kosa and beyond, can be considered as purusha, shiva.
Amit goswamis PhD, quantum physics' gives these following explanations:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42mrdhKwRA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D98KWJ-1geI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LlTfNKVtU&feature=related

Coming back to the big bang, heres another video, comparing wid kashmiri shaivism:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJa1PE_9kPg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waFXFGV1DJs&NR=1

The world which we see is not an illusion, but is something else than what it appears to our five sense organs, therfore we should evolve and grow a sixth sense. The beginning, the primordial fireball(of the big bang theory) was never created, it is a manifestation of space and time under the influence of consiousness. The space and time itself is another manifestation of consiousness. The consiousness is all pervasive and pure and is called Shiva. Shakti is a 'part' of Shiva.
The activity of the all pervasive consiousness created the fabric of the space and time, with fundamental particles such as bosons, gravitons, etc.
The big bang theory has already been explained in hinduism, that too in shaivism, a very very long time ago, and later in vaishnavism, and it has gone further and stated that there is always a 'big crunch (pralay)' which scientists are trying to find whether there is going to be a big crunch or the universe is going to expand indefinitely.
We are all partial consiousness of the all pervasive one.
This world we see is a maya, not an illusion, but not exactly what it appears. Maya means a false image of the object (god).

You may ask the question: Why did the consiouness create the fabric of space and time, and afterwards energy(massless), matter(having mass) and anti matter(having negative mass)? Well the answer is 'evolution'. God is evolving, from infinite beyond perfection to beyond infinite beyond perfection. That is why he is explained as both the youngest and the oldest. God is Manifestation, Evolution and Liberation.

If you don't agree with me, you'll be disproved by osho who says god doesn't exist. follow this link:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhjOnYbKJJw

Open your eyes to the truth, to the real hinduism explained by the ancients. :)

Another video I found now. The best one too!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fWtBq8uWKE&playnext_from=TL&videos=hAb4SjDOdU4&feature=rec-LGOUT-real_rev-rn-2r-18-HM

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,


But I guess the thing that still gives me a brain cramp is the notion of the Big Bang as an explanation for all 'this'.

Big Bang is just one of the theories given to explain "creation" and further evolution ... it may or may not be true. I agree that "this is no explanation for all this". In fact, if Scientists who gave this theory or rallied for this theory would have spent some time on this theory they would have certainly come to this hypothesis resulting out of Big-Bang theory :

"Nothing" = "Everything"

which would have violated the law of conservation of mass and energy and also our common sense logic. So, predictably, no scientist was bold enough to come proclaim this result. Further logical analysis would have forced us to think beyond matter and energy which is the essence of "nothing" and also "everything". Now proposing anything which is neither matter nor energy is again a very bold proposition .... as there is no instrument which can measure that & hence that didn't happen and so this theory, like other creation theories gives birth to many more questions to be answered than what it tries to answer.


What I see ( or do not see world be more accurate) is the notion on how creation evolves, unfolds and manifests. That of the Creative Intelligence behind everything - the orderliness of the seen and unseen universe . Where is the 'bang' there? Where is the notion of the orchestration , of this innate ability of to order systems albeit at the cosmic level or particle level?

Perhaps the amount of energy required for all this creation and the energy supply into this "creation" would be so much that a bang is expected in the begining .... if we agree that it all started with just a point.


As I see it the beauty and awe of creation is in its innate intelligence - and for me this is dharma. I do not expect science to jump on dharma, but I do hope they evolve to more then counting atoms and galaxies and look to the glue that holds this all together.


Yes, but even a slight effort to move in that direction would defy the "common sense" logic and our previously established laws. It requires a very bold declaration.

OM

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

[/size][/font]
"Nothing" = "Everything"


Hi devotee,
But is everything = nothing? I dont think so devotee. Nothing may = everything, but everything is not = nothing.

[devotee]

Namaste SS,



But is everything = nothing? I dont think so devotee. Nothing may = everything, but everything is not = nothing.

What is "nothing" or "something" ? You/we really don't know. These are simply concepts within mental realm. The reality is neither "nothing" nor "something" and which is in fact, everything.

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste SS,

The reality is neither "nothing" nor "something" and which is in fact, everything.

OM

lol and Thanks. So confused sounding, yet so true. Finding illogic via logic.
Wisdom.

Aum Namsivaya

[Ashvati]

Finding logic with illogic is exactly why I like zen :D

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Namaste SS,



What is "nothing" or "something" ? You/we really don't know. These are simply concepts within mental realm. The reality is neither "nothing" nor "something" and which is in fact, everything.

OM
then you agree wid me that nothing may = everything and everything not = nothing?:confused::confused::eek::doh::headscratch:

[devotee]

then you agree wid me that nothing may = everything and everything not = nothing?:confused::confused::eek::doh::headscratch:

No. That is illogical. If a = b then b must be = a.

What I meant that you need to contemplate on what you understand by the terms, "Nothing" and "Something". Can you understand this ? :

There is nothing like "nothing" or "something". These are just mental concepts. The reality is neither "nothing" nor "something" yet it is "everything".

OM

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

I got it now, because, today was the first day I did Yog Nidra, just now. I got what you are telling. But I still say if a = b; b may not = a, I'll give you an example in maths itself. 0/0 is not = 0/0, because, 0/0 is not defined logically. Get it. Logic doesn't always win. If logic was everything, why did God present us with the right cerebrum, the left cerebrum would have been enough. I know that I'm not clear and my statement is out of logic. But, just spare it a thought. :)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté devotee,

you mention
"Nothing" = "Everything"
Let me offer the following view to perhaps expand ( not by big bang! :) ) the conversdation. One thing I find perfect, is the explaination of sanatkumara-ji's instructions on bhūma vidya.
This is in the chāndogya upaniṣad ( 7th chapter). He talks of fullness (bhūman¹).

Without going too deep into this ( as there are multiple posts on this subject) svāmī kṛṣṇānanda offers an explanation on this matter, he says: any-thing is everything; any place is everywhere.
For me this is quite telling and profound.
It suggests that :

any one thing is the contents/substance of anything else - homogeneous - this is what our knowledge and experience in ingoranace does not comprehend
any place is every where due to the continuity of fullness - it is without a gap.How can this be? because at the most subtle level the material of creation is consciousness and it is contiguous throughout.

This view is substantiated in the śiva sūtra-s, very first verse and the commentary by kṣemarāja-ji. He says , This supreme independent state of the Supreme ( God consciousness - caitanya) is the form.
Well one thinks, please finish the sentence - the form of what? The wise assist us and say kṣemarāja-ji is saying the form of every and anything.

Some think every thing cannot be nothing. I look at it this way - every thing cannot be no - thing. This is true. It is not just one thing, as that would be limiting to a thing, it is no ( one ) thing. It is every thing and hence no thing can be everything in this condition.

praṇām

words

bhūman - abundance , plenty , wealth , opulence , multitude ; some say the aggregate of all exisitng things. As a noun, this is a name of kṛṣṇa.

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,


svāmī kṛṣṇānanda offers an explanation on this matter, he says: any-thing is everything; any place is everywhere.
For me this is quite telling and profound.


Thanks for your beautiful explanation.

Swami Krsnananda's statement is very profound. This statement is really worth contemplating : "Any Place is Everywhere". I would add here :

How do we differentiate one place from the other ? By the difference between their contents and their expanse. But as in essence there is nothing which is different anywhere & there is no gap .... so, the difference ceases to exist.

It is really a beautiful profound statement. Thanks. :)

Dear SS,

What you are saying is illogical again. We were talking about a and b & their relationship in equality. So, once we decide to do that it is an underlying assumption that a & b are not undefined quantities. You can't deal with undefined quantities at all.

I think you are confusing this relationship with this statement : "All A are B but all B are not A." This is not expressed as "a = b but b not = a". It is something different. It talks about two sets where all elements of a set (each element is A) are in another set (all elements are called B out of which some B are equal to A) but some elements of another Set are not in Set A. That means the set containing all A is a subset of set containing all B but B has still something more than the entire set of A. It is like "all boys are humans but all humans are not boys".

OM

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Hmmm.... Devotee, did you get what I said about 0/0?
Everything and nothing, can you define them logically?

[devotee]

Namaste SS,


did you get what I said about 0/0?

Yes. The thing which you might be reading now ... I read that a few decades back. So, I think I understand what you say.


Everything and nothing, can you define them logically?

Forget it. If you are still interested, I have already given enough hint in my previous posts. You may try reading them again. :)

I am afraid, we are deviating from the central theme of this thread ... so I would stop here.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namasté devotee


Namaste Yajvan ji,

Thanks for your beautiful explanation.
Swami Krsnananda's statement is very profound. This statement is really worth contemplating : "Any Place is Everywhere". I would add here :

How do we differentiate one place from the other ? By the difference between their contents and their expanse. But as in essence there is nothing which is different anywhere & there is no gap .... so, the difference ceases to exist.

OM

perfect!

Perhaps this is why the wise talk of Brahman as wholeness (purṇatā).
That there is no break or pause - the continuity of consciousness pervades everything. Trika sees Brahman as vast (bṛhat) and all-pervading (vyāpaka). It needn't mention Existence (sattā) for that is Brahman already.

This continuum then (for the wise) allows them to see everything uniformly , with an even-ness of vision. They tell us this by saying:
sarvasarvātmakatā vapuḥ - everything (sarva) is the form (vapuḥ) of everything else (sarvātmaka)

praṇām

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Namaste SS,



Yes. The thing which you might be reading now ... I read that a few decades back. So, I think I understand what you say.



Forget it. If you are still interested, I have already given enough hint in my previous posts. You may try reading them again. :)

I am afraid, we are deviating from the central theme of this thread ... so I would stop here.

OM


Please don't stop here.....:(. If I am wrong, I will be rectified, please continue untill I understand, and no, I don't think we are deviating from the topic devotee.
O.K atleast reply to this post, please I beg you.... I spent all night thinking over it and wrote it in a book.

Well I still stick on to my so called 'illogical idea', if a=b, then b may not = a. Consider this ->

Say a = 0/0 and a = b (where b is an unknown)

But 0/0 may not = 0/0
this implies, a may not = a,
this implies, a may not = b,
this implies, b may not = a.

We can substitute a and b as nothingness and everythingness.
And we can consider a and b as atma and brahman too.

If I am correct, we can also make a statement:

Advaitha and Dvaitha, even though appear contradictory to each, both are true.

Well, this is my last arguement, devotee, please, I beg you to reply.
Look, if I'm wrong, you are not wasting your time. Knowledge stay more firm when you rectify others mistakes. If your right, knowledge stays firmer within you.

[sanjaya]

Well I think the problem here is that 0/0 doesn't mean anything in a mathematical context. There are mathematical jokes out there where someone proves that 1=0. It involves covertly dividing by 0 at some stage of the proof. Obviously this violates the law of non-contradiction, on which Western philosophy is based.

As far as Indian mathematicans go, I think our ancestors too implicitly used the law of non-contradiction. Perhaps this law isn't quite as emphasized in our spiritual philosophies. But I wouldn't derive too much philosophy from the math.

[devotee]

Namaste SS,



Say a = 0/0 and a = b (where b is an unknown)

But 0/0 may not = 0/0
this implies, a may not = a,
this implies, a may not = b,
this implies, b may not = a.

Sanjaya in his post has already hinted the explanation. But as you are interested to take to its logical conclusion, I would explain my position below :

You can see the falacy of your logic in your results above. See, the starting assumption is that a = b without any strings attached. But if you see the third line of your arguments & intermediate conclusions ... it says, " a may not be = b". This tantamounts to saying that though a = b, a may not = b which is a ridiculous situation.

As Sanjaya has pointed out and I also stated in my earliest post that we cannot work with 0/0 at all ... division by 0 is not permitted at all in mathematics. Why ?

If it was permitted,

1 x 0 = 2 x 0 = 3 x 0 ..... = 0 (no problem in accepting that ?)

Let's divide all by 0 & see what we get :

1 x 0/0 = 2 x 0/0 = 3 x 0/0 ..... ( we don't know what it is but let's assume that it is something)

Now, divide all by 0/0 (assuming that 0/0 is something we can work with) & we get ...

1 = 2 = 3 = .....

Which is ridiculous.

Again when you say a = b ... what are the underlying assumptions ? The sign of equality used say that both the named mathematical entities a & b are equal in all respect. It is not even simply "equivalent" ... it is "equal" (please try to see the difference). So, if a & b are equal in all respects then b must also be equal to a ... there cannot be any situation when a = b but b not equal to a.

However, when use logical statements then due to use of common words to show equality we confuse those with mathematical relationships which may not be the situation. You may remember the example of Human beings and boys that I gave in my earlier post : "All boys are humans but all humans are not boys".

Now this logically correct statement cannot be written as a boy = a human being (though we may be tempted to write as such). Why ? Because both are not equal in all respects. In fact, even two boys are never equal ... we cannot deduce this result:

Krishna = boy, Rama = boy
& so, Krishna = Rama !

That would be ridicluous. There are many examples which may shows such fallacies arising out of similar logical deductions :

A Cow = Something having four legs
An elephant = something having four legs
A Chair = something having four legs

So, a Cow = an Elephant = a Chair !


We can substitute a and b as nothingness and everythingness.
And we can consider a and b as atma and brahman too.

If I am correct, we can also make a statement:

Advaitha and Dvaitha, even though appear contradictory to each, both are true.

If it suits you to use "a" & "b" for understanding this ... I have no issues. Actually, it is such a subtle issue we talking about that mathematics is highly inadequate to explain all this. Mathematics deals with mathematical quantities ... there are some underlying assumptions & rules for their use ... it restricts the field of mathematics and that is highly inadequate for us.

In fact, we have to go into concept of the origin of words ... as the words are inadequate to explain what we want to say. So, we have to break the boundaries of our concepts which govern our thinking when we use words for explaining Advaita. You are, perhaps, the youngest friend here who is so much interested in Advaita & who is capable of giving some correct statements on Advaita ... & that fills me with great joy. It is very difficult to even talk on Advaita & that is why many people find it easy to ridicule it than to understand it.

When you say, Everything = Nothingness .... it appears ridiculous at the first glance ! Why ? Because use of these words is guided/governed by our concept of a "thing". We have some idea of a thing & we take it for granted for our discussion. The Everything means "all things taken together" & "Nothing" means "Absence of any thing" .... so, by definition (of "thing") both are opposite concepts & can never be equal to each other. We know that what we are saying is right but logically we find a fallacy ... why ? What is creating the problem here ? Our concept of a "thing" .... we have to analyse our concept of a "thing" & see if that is ok for this higher level of understanding ? When we analyse it in the light of logic we find that the concept of a thing has existence only when there is mind around ... in absence of mind there is no difference between a thing and nothing. This is proved also when we see a thing in the light of wisdom gathered from Quantum Mechanics .... we find that a thing may be something we don't know but it is certainly not what we understand. The line dividing a thing and "nothing" gets blurred by understanding Quantum Mechanics & when we read Upanishads ... it vanishes. Then all our concepts fall flat :

a) The touch is really without touching "anything" (as no two atoms can come closer to eacher other than a finte distance)
b) The colour is nowhere except in mind (it is only difference in wavelengths in the electromagnetic waves)
c) There is nothing like sound ... it is all waves at different frequencies and wavelengths and a portion of those waves is interpreted as "sound"
d) There is nothing like a good smell or bad smell ... it varies from one brain to the other even though the substance is the same (Dog smells something as pleasant and same thing is smelled as bad by humans)
e) The solid wall in front of us is acutally 99.99 % space !

etc. etc.

I, perhaps, wrote more than what you asked for. If that is the case, please forgive me. If the mathematics helps you to understand this ... there is absoluely no problem but as I see it ... mathematics is situated at a higher level of concepts whereas we need to go the lowest level of our concepts to understand all this & so, I find mathematics highly handicapped in explaining all these.

OM

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Thanks devotee, you have given me what I had needed, not more, not less. Thank you. :)
I have finally realized the flaw of my statements. I knew that there was a flaw, but myself could not explain it. I thank you very much devotee.

[rainycity]

That said I can see how one could come to the idea of Big Bang. Just follow everything ( galaxies) backwards and use assume it all ends up together at some point. Yet what is behind this point? From where does this point come from? For me it just does not pass my common sense test.

praṇām
references
UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity.
From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
(http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html))

There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dp27bi.html) )

American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe.
The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."
( http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar/011603cyclicuniversesummary.pdf) )

Read about hiranyagarbha, moolaprakriti, pralaya, and lila. The similarities to the big bang theory are remarkable.