PDA

View Full Version : Stephen Hawking's Idea on Creation, God etc.



devotee
27 April 2012, 10:21 PM
Namaste,

Yesterday, I was watching Discovery Channel. The program running was Stephen Hawking's idea of Creation. Some of the ideas that he proposes :

a) The Universe has come out of "Nothing" producing both "Positive Energy" and "Negative Energy" of equal amount. The manifest universe is the positive energy in the form of matter, energy as we all know. However, there is just the opposite of everything of this available in the vast universe too in equal amount which is sufficient to neutralise it all to "Nothing" again.

b) Everything seemingly infinite Universe that is manifest can be merged into a point "Black Hole" which was perhaps the "thing"/"nothing" before Big Bang.

c) Time started only after the "Creation" or after the Big Bang. There was no time before creation. In a black hole time stops.

d) As sum of everything "that is" is equal to "Nothing" .... there is no scope of having a separate God as everything has been already accounted for.

e) Even if a separate God's existence is accepted for argument sake, He won't be able to "Create" anything. As He needed time to create and before "creation", there was no time at all !

f) There is no hell and no heaven

******************************

My take on Hawkin's theory :

a) Everything comes from "Nothing" :

The Upanishads/Vedas have already proclaimed that :

In the beginning It was One alone which was neither Sat nor Asat ... neither Being ... nor non-being. (NAsdiya Sukta)


The Fourth state of Reality as described in Mandukya

===> The "Nothing" in Hawkin's above theory has to be some special miraculous "nothing" otherwise creation of this intelligent self-governing Cosmos is not possible. As the Absolute from everything has come out is "Nothing" and yet it is special and miraculous ... it fits into the above description of the Reality of the VedAnta.

b) There is no separate God :

No scripture says it better than VedAnta. God and the Universe are not different and separate. The MAyic power of the Absolute (which is neither Being nor Non-Being) creates three states on the substratum of the Absolute i.e. the Turiya. God is undifferentiated Mass of Consciousness i.e. God is not an entity separate from this World.

c) God didn't create this world.

Actually, no separate God created this world. The seemingly "Nothing" which is the Absolute creates all this due its Nature. VedAnta says that it never "happened". It is beginningless.

d) There is no hell or heaven

Not the way it has been perceived by the Abrahamic religions. However, mental painful and blissful realms can exist as accepted in Hindu Dharma. Again, these realms are time-bound so are within creation. These are not permanent.

OM

kallol
28 April 2012, 07:35 AM
The same is my analysis also (had done this partially in 1978-80). The gap between the energy (gross matter) and the nothing (consciousness) is stated to be the subtle matter and subtle universe.

All four states together form the living world. However till now we can perceive the different pieces but unable to connect them.

Gross matter is to some extent discovered. However the connection of gross matter to subtle matter and then subtle matter to consciousness is still to be discovered.

Mana
28 April 2012, 11:32 AM
Namaste devotee Kallol,

Some great points and ideas already, if I might add a few thoughts.

One thing that science, and particularly physisits, negate whilst examining the universe; is themselves, thus removing much needed critical perspective.

This is the utmost importance, as it distorts everything else by subjecting it to ones perspective and that of ones piers. As Patajali has so elegantly described.

Here are a few ideas as a response. I should love to discuss this in person with the learned Mr Hawking!

a) This strikes me a Linear take on a non linear world, just as Euclidean geometry exists only in our minds, so does this liner notion of something from nothing. How can something emerge from nothing with out imploding, it must by default emerge from a state of lower dimensions as a dot even in two dimensions has a middle and thus can be reduced. By losing dimensions we transform from matter into energy, if there are no dimension of space how can E=mc² light will have to move somewhere for this equation to hold true.

b) If inside a black whole the only thing that changes is the dimensions in which vibration occur or even the nature of the vibration (let us not forget that 80% of the universe comprises of black energy or black matter). How can we assume there is nothing in a black whole?

c) How do we know that time is not created by conciousness?

d) A Mathematical axiom; set as required.

e) See c)

f) There are no good days or bad days, just life.

g) Any responses to any of the above which fail to explain the fractal nature of the universe, could well be wrong; to my mind. One must ask, when observing a fractal in its entirety; are we observing Brahman?
Fractals have two distinct subsets, tending towards infinity or converging into a repeating cycle. Nirguna and Saguna perhaps?


I find Stephen Hawking to be particularly prone to this, this does not stop him from being an excellent physicist either.

There is some interesting philosophy theorised by Lisa Randell; in her book "Warped passages" which she speculates that we live on a membraine between two worlds with differing quantities of dimensions.

Very similar to Advaita in many ways.

It is interesting to note that the structure of a cell is no longer perceived as was at the time of her penning this, they are now seen as being fractal. The nano tube is of particular interest when pondering what this means.

Thank you for a very thought provoking thread!

:)

praNAma

mana

realdemigod
28 April 2012, 12:25 PM
After unbelievable amount of money invested in reasearch, all scientists, astrophysicists etc., will have no option left but to accept Advaita as the source of creation :D

Mana
28 April 2012, 12:37 PM
After unbelievable amount of money invested in reasearch, all scientists, astrophysicists etc., will have no option left but to accept Advaita as the source of creation :D


Quite! Also the energy; the lights dim here in France every time they turn the accelerator on at CERN! ;)
With that said, it is fascinating to hear of their studies as well!

realdemigod
29 April 2012, 01:10 AM
I hope they spend less amount on CERN and its research and use some of the money for poor countries around the world...I'm sure tax payers would be very happy.

IcyCosmic
29 April 2012, 04:39 AM
An excellent breakdown devotee. Already showed this thread to many of my 'atheist' or 'universalist' friends however you want to group them....but they enjoy seeing the parrallel between science and hinduism and how it is much more prevalent than in the abrahamic religions they were born into...
^.^

devotee
29 April 2012, 06:56 AM
Namaste,


However the connection of gross matter to subtle matter and then subtle matter to consciousness is still to be discovered.

This cannot be discovered in this state of consciousness as the consciousness is trying to understand itself by itself when this consciousness is conditioned and apparently limited to this body-mind entity.

Mana's observation is in the right direction. The problem with physicists is that they want to see all within the laws of the Gross World which only a dream image of the Reality. The laws of this waking consciousness apply only to this realm and not to mental realm i.e. Taijasa or the other two states of Reality i.e. the PrAjna or the Turiya.

In fact, as I have written somewhere on this forum. Any knowledge of anything is only relative. In fact, all knowledge gathered by Mind in this waking consciousness is relative alone. We can not know a thing by seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, thinking based on previously gathered knowledge etc. ... we must attain oneness with the object to know the Reality of the object.

OM

kallol
29 April 2012, 09:12 AM
Dear Devoteeji,

We are underestimating our spiritual scientists whom we call as saints. Please do not think that our advancement of science will be limited to the way we are today. In distant future the science will be discovered through the labs of mind and not much in the physical labs.

It is the question Viswamitra put to Rama & Laksmana - There are 2 paths to destination - 14 days path & 14 months path. 14 days path is difficult but 14 months path is easy. But both reaches destination.

Our saints took the 14 days path. Western education took the 14 months path.

Yes the source cannot be realised or fully understood - possibly ever. But upto that - it might be possible to discover much - though difficult.

The knowledge we have today from the scriptures are pointer to what can be achieved. Our spiritual scientists have defined the end point. We have only taken few steps it that direction. Lots need to be covered.

I am sure one day science will reach there. But that science might be totally different from how we see or know science of today.

wundermonk
30 April 2012, 10:36 AM
@devotee:

Nice thread this...lot of scope for discussion.

My thoughts for your consideration.


a) The Universe has come out of "Nothing" producing both "Positive Energy" and "Negative Energy" of equal amount. The manifest universe is the positive energy in the form of matter, energy as we all know. However, there is just the opposite of everything of this available in the vast universe too in equal amount which is sufficient to neutralise it all to "Nothing" again.

IMHO, one needs to be clear what one means by "nothing". I have sometimes observed that when physicists talk about cosmogony, their terminology leaves a lot to be desired. They become sloppy in their usage of terms.

Now, Hawkins needs to define what exactly he means by "nothing". Is it absolute vacuum? Then, he should be precise and call it "absolute vacuum" and not "nothing". Absolute vacuum is something [after all, the vacuum that we know of implicitly accepts the existence of space....so it is not "nothing"].


b) Everything seemingly infinite Universe that is manifest can be merged into a point "Black Hole" which was perhaps the "thing"/"nothing" before Big Bang.

Ok. So he attempts to define "nothing" as a "Black Hole". Then he should call it "Black Hole" and not "nothing". That is bound to mislead people.


c) Time started only after the "Creation" or after the Big Bang. There was no time before creation. In a black hole time stops.

Again, Hawkins is not exact here. If time "stops" in a black hole, that does not imply that time did not exist before that stoppage. Think of the half-time in a football match. Game time "stops". But there was definitely a first half prior to the half time.

Also, time cannot start. For time to start, there should have been a point in time when time did not exist. That is a contradiction.

Thoughts?

realdemigod
30 April 2012, 11:54 AM
wundermonk,
Good arguments.

I think you are right in saying that Hawkins may mean 'black hole' as 'nothing'. It cannot be vacuum as vacuum is a space empty of matter. I think it's fairly logical as one doesn't have to be a genius like Hawkins to deduce that black holes rip the entire cosmos taking their own share and finally getting closer to one another and ripping each other apart with finally one ultimate black hole merging to a speck of dust with infinite energy and energy is matter. Hence cannot be vacuum that's why I believe he said 'nothing' instead of 'vaccum'.


Also, time cannot start. For time to start, there should have been a point in time when time did not exist. That is a contradiction

In black hole time stops. When you don't have time flowing you cannot measure time right? As time measured is sum of time intervals (however you define). So when you are in a black hole you don't know how much time has passed.

There is no contradiction in your statement if you accept time cannot flow in black hole. When time isn't recorded in black hole there is no time and you can take any point in time (figuratively) as reference and when the big bang happens again.. time flows in reference to the earlier point in time.

Mana
30 April 2012, 01:21 PM
Namaste,

I think it might be of interest to add that: within black wholes, time is considered to stop, the physical Law E=mc² can only be stated as true if time is directly related to velocity; the faster we travel the slower time flows, why you might ask?
If you are a set distance from a lamp, the light from that lamp arrives a certain time after leaving so you can calculate its velocity, the speed of light, c in the above equation.
This becomes tricky when travelling towards the light, let us suppose at half the speed of light, when you calculate the relative speed of the light reaching you with your speed added as being the relative frame of your perspective; the value calculated remains the same, space is said to have warped, to allow for this your mass also increases. The frame of perspective is critical to everything.

Gravity is a Force against which we must exert force to move, for example: we can calculate the force required to jump one meter off of the ground, we will however need to pass a certain velocity at take off, if we want to reach one meters height. The same is true for a black whole.
The force of the Gravity within the event horizon is such that one must travel faster than the speed of light in order to pass just 1 millionth of a millimetre over this limit. Time plays a trick when we get close to the speed of light, space starts to warp and bend, mass thus gravity increases, the distance becomes infinite, and so does our mass.

We might travel for a 1000 years at half the speed of light and we would still not make it past the limit, however we might see light arriving from outside, although time would appear to have speed up to an incredible rate.

It is interesting to note that atomic clocks are now precise enough to denote a difference in the rate of vibration of an atom between the top and bottom of a ladder, thus the flow of time if you believe it relates to the vibration of atoms.

It is also of interest to note that Gravity has been shown recently, not to be constant.


I love Astrophysics, but I will add that I am a passionate novice.

praNAma

mana

JaiMaaDurga
30 April 2012, 06:50 PM
Namaste,

Carl Sagan at least tried to give some credit where due:

Cosmos in India (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o)

JAI MATA DI

Mana
01 May 2012, 01:10 AM
Namaste JAI MATA DI

Thank you for posting this clip, very interesting.

What a fantastic closing statement!

praNAma

charitra
01 May 2012, 09:14 AM
I admire an honest scientist when I see one. He was a wonderful American.

Namaste,

Carl Sagan at least tried to give some credit where due:

Cosmos in India (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugyrzr5Ds8o)

JAI MATA DI

kallol
01 May 2012, 10:39 AM
Namaste,

I think it might be of interest to add that: within black wholes, time is considered to stop, the physical Law E=mc˛ can only be stated as true if time is directly related to velocity; the faster we travel the slower time flows, why you might ask?
If you are a set distance from a lamp, the light from that lamp arrives a certain time after leaving so you can calculate its velocity, the speed of light, c in the above equation.
This becomes tricky when travelling towards the light, let us suppose at half the speed of light, when you calculate the relative speed of the light reaching you with your speed added as being the relative frame of your perspective; the value calculated remains the same, space is said to have warped, to allow for this your mass also increases. The frame of perspective is critical to everything.

Gravity is a Force against which we must exert force to move, for example: we can calculate the force required to jump one meter off of the ground, we will however need to pass a certain velocity at take off, if we want to reach one meters height. The same is true for a black whole.
The force of the Gravity within the event horizon is such that one must travel faster than the speed of light in order to pass just 1 millionth of a millimetre over this limit. Time plays a trick when we get close to the speed of light, space starts to warp and bend, mass thus gravity increases, the distance becomes infinite, and so does our mass.

We might travel for a 1000 years at half the speed of light and we would still not make it past the limit, however we might see light arriving from outside, although time would appear to have speed up to an incredible rate.

It is interesting to note that atomic clocks are now precise enough to denote a difference in the rate of vibration of an atom between the top and bottom of a ladder, thus the flow of time if you believe it relates to the vibration of atoms.

It is also of interest to note that Gravity has been shown recently, not to be constant.


I love Astrophysics, but I will add that I am a passionate novice.

praNAma

mana

As Mana rightly pointed out, time is a factor decided by our ability to perceive change against certain baseline.

As the velocity of a particle approaches the blachole, there is a point where the gravity is such that the return path of the light or electromagnetic ray is not possible. That point is known as event horizon. The time gets permanently fixed there. Though the particle has actually moved in long back, the observer never sees the particle moving beyond that even horizon and the particle seems tardily moving towards the event horizon and seems to get stuck at that point.

Black holes are the scavengers of the universe, the mass to energy converting systems.

However beyond a certain threshold they cannot hold and then we have the big bang or white hole. This creates universe.

There are many blackholes in this universe. Blackholes eat masses, other blackholes, and any heavenly bodies. They are indentified only indirectly. Like light bending, stars and gallaxies moving around unknow body, etc. generally at the core of any galaxy is a blackhole.