|| Welcome to the Blog managed by the KVPY 2005 Batch || Twish asks members to comment on the blog MaKeOvEr!! || RG says: Looks like a famine situation here || Blog glows in bright shades || KVamPys tame their own minds... with new mysterious posts on TP ?! || What is TP after all ? || KVamPYs start thinking about their Summer Projects as the Entrances are about to end.. || IIT? IISc? IISER? KVamPYs wonder where to enjoy this summer.. || Obiwan and Sunita in ISSER || Arun awaiting replies to his letter. || Swetabh ( Bhakt ) and Abhilash trying for IIT Kanpur ( Along with Twish ) || What about the next year ? Apply again for KVPY ? || Bulbs light up as blog fills up with posts. || Latest News brought to u by Twish (Twishmay) and Gr81 (RaSh) (EMAIL US NEWS) || EvErY bOdY KnOwS..... KVamPYs RoCk!! ||

Sunday, October 01, 2006

BEFORE THE BEGINNING AND BEYOND THE END

Part 1


There was nothing at all, no space no time (not even me), then all of a sudden it all happened - The Big Bang. A theory we all have believed so blindfolded. A Theory that created a bigger bang in the world of science than the Big Bang itself. A theory that certainly could explain cosmic background wave and the red shift of the expanding universe, and even satisfies religious claims of things like God making everything. Everything is completely all right until we step beyond the beginning. People have asked numerous questions, “What was there before Big Bang?” The scientific community with a Godly authority turned all of these questions down. I will not repeat them.

But this was not all. This theory at last seems to be breathing it’s last (and thank God). The theory, which was once rejected, is now betting a rebirth – The Oscillating Universe theory. The General Theory of relativity, which so well explains everything regarding gravity, fails miserably in what we call Singularity – space and time condensing to one point – densities touching incredible values and distances reducing to about 10^-39 - the plank scale. And the reason? The same thing, which my dear blogmate Arun and I have been arguing upon – Calculus. We all know that charge is quantized, so is angular momentum of electrons, even mass. Let us take a step forward and extend quantization to time and space. Space is nothing but a fabric woven out of individual fibres. Calculus cannot be directly applied over discontinuous space. However applying it with a little modification allows us to end all problems. This theory is popularly known as the Loop Gravity Theory and interestingly but as expected originated in India.

The Theory was aimed at explaining the physics at plank scale which it did successfully. However, it led to another implication and directly counters the concept of the Big bang.. When all matter in the universe approach singularity, the theory says, there comes into play a force – one of tremendous magnitude, manifold greater than gravity itself and repulsive in nature. The situation is similar to a ball hitting a spring and bouncing back.

Certainly with this knowledge we can answer the most controversial question, “What was there before the big bang?” The answer is there was the countdown to a big crunch. We now have a universe that does not begin at the big bang, but only is symmetric about it.

What I want to say is here – Wasn’t it Obvious? We should have guessed it earlier. Let me explain why and how.

I would like to repeat the philosophy of a 2nd century Chinese philosopher. Every event is preceded by another event. (The former is the cause of the later) Hence, the implication follows that there has to be some thing before the Big bang the cause of the Big bang, more specifically. (Speaking further, we can say that there should be no beginning to the universe, but we will see to that later) To further justify the statement, and denounce the creation of space-time at t=zero (and with it the Big bang theory), I will give the following argument.

Let us say there was a primeval atom, which exploded to create the universe, space and time. The question is why at all did it explode? This can be answered in two ways. Firstly there was some thing (or someone …say God) outside it who/which caused the Big bang to happen. That means, there was something – matter, energy or say a consciousness excluded from the Primeval atom. But this is against our Big bang theory. The second way is to use probabilistic mechanics. The primeval atom just like a radioactive atom had a probability of disintegration at any given time. (I am sorry, but using probability without the concept of time is just impossible.) So there has to be Time before Big Bang. This again violates the Big Bang theory.

I would love to write more but its not possible in a single blog. I will put it all in the second part very soon. So stay tuned, the sting is in the end, I assure you.

Saurya "Time" Mishra

11 comments:

Arun Chaganty said...

YEAH HOOOOOOO!
Thanks a lot man, I've been waiting for ages for your post. Great job!
TIME IS BACK!!!

TwIsTeR said...

Gr8 New Ideas !

Heyy, wasnt there a question about quantizing gravity in IPhO last year ? Its published in Resonance check it out !

Keep Posting.

TWISH

saurya_time_travel said...

In IPhO the question was about quantises nutron detection. There was an article in the same journal about gravity, check that out for details on the loop theory.

Saurya Time

Arun Chaganty said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Arun Chaganty said...

It doesn't have too many details frankly, but its a great mag. They post a lot of great articles in it. I was rereading, and I'd like to ask how many of you knew/accepted the big bang/big crunch theory. I for one (read it from Brief Hist(Time)).
However, I think the topic of a beginning is hopeless debate, but none the less i subscribe to this view.
Another Q: how many of you subscribe to the Multiverse Theory? I don't but, I'm told it's supported by String Theory.

saurya_time_travel said...

i do support the multiverse theory... not only do i support, but my research paper advocated it as well !! i will write about it after the current article is over ...
The argument is not that if there was a big bang or not, the argument is what wes there before it ... The oscl univ theory and Big bang agree about the post big bang, but not the pre bang part.

Saurya Time

Arun Chaganty said...

I'd like to see your paper man. Do you have an electronic copy. Send me a copy of you paper PLEASE.

TwIsTeR said...

Hey !!!
Sry to interrupt 2 greatest of minds Ive ever met... but talking about the multiverse theory, I have really intolerant viewpoints towards them. Ohk Time we've argued abuot this earlier but I'd still like to claim that there'z a ghost right behind you looking at you as you read this post but he would disappear when you try to look at him. Okay now that you believe me I believe in this other universe which ( by some definitions ) cannot really interact directly with our universe. Okay I didn't believe in Sum over histories(Feynmann) and electrons travelling backward in time either but only that the almost "exact" agreements of QED with experiment leave us with no other choice...
...

TwIsTeR said...

Yup multiverses have provided us with theories. But I don't think its much of a tested one.

Another reason why I'm against this id that I think other universes would disrupt things like entropy changes & all. Nature has always been conservative. Resources have always been limited. If the branching of an infinitum of universes is what you're talking about... I think thats not what mother nature wants or would permit!


& the Kinematics of the 4th Dimension can do without the other universes. Its just suggestion, much less a conjecture.

~ TWISH ~

{ I apologize if I missed out details or am blinded by some intricate scarcity of information about a field... correct me please ! }

Arun Chaganty said...

Twish, thanks for the undue flattery. I'm siding with you on this multiverse thing. How many of you have seen the Elegant Universe? It's a good but utterly unsatiating. But it also supports the multiverse. I basically have come to accept that we are NOT unique, and that my version of God is the very instant this universe started. Assuming my theory about big crunch-big bang is true, then at the singularity, you can't predict anything, so the very beginning of the universe (as in the first of the beginnings) has no effect here. Each "loop" grows from the singularity INDEPENDENT of the events that preceded it. So God (to me) is that instant where whatever happened made things happen they way they did. I hope I didn't confuse anyone, nor hurt their religious sentiments. So what this has to do with this argument is that: Yes, there could be infinite possiblities for each event that occurs, but as only one occurs, it is satisfying (to some) to say the other possibilities have occured in another universe. I'd rather take: It happened. That could have happened, but it didn't. Tough luck if you wanted to find that million dollar cheque under your pillow.
The fact of quantum mechanics, and more directly, the probablistic working of the universe, as opposed to deterministic, means that no operation can directly lead to a unique event. If I throw a rock, and assuming it is either super small, or super fast, and QM come into play, then the result, where it hits is not definite. So an argument such as, the world runs deterministically, hence all is the effect of a single cause is foolish. This was just a random statement that came to mind as I was typing away

Arun Chaganty said...

sorry for the super long post. I really think i should compress all of my random rantings and compress them into an article, but their too speculative, and too random. But if you think it's worthwhile, I'd like to have a large discussion on the inner workings of our brain.