this big bang stuff ...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namast�

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 Bang�...

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)

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 )

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 )

[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 . 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)

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 )

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 )

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
~~~~~~


namast� 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=D98KW...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LlT...eature=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=6fWtB...ev-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