The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[durgatosh]

The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

 

Durgatosh Pandey

 

 

Introduction: the blind men and the elephant

 

We are all familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each of the blind men is wise. But because they cannot see the elephant as a whole, their descriptions of the animal are contradictory. We can understand this story because we can see and thus are aware of the limitations of these wise but blind men.

 

In science, all our theories are based on reasoning. Ultimately, they are based on some observations. These observations are then processed by our minds and machines that we have made. The raw materials for all scientific data and theories are the observation and reasoning. Observation is the function of our sense organs and reasoning is the function of our mind and intellect. We have sensory perception for sight, sound, touch, smell and taste. The machines and computers are just the extension of our sensory and mental capabilities. Thus, we have cameras and videos (extension of vision), tape-recorder (extension of hearing), computers (extension of mental computing) and so on.

 

We believe that all the phenomena in the universe can be explained by the scientific methods which rely on observations and their mental processing. We know of the sensory and mental faculty that we are endowed with, but we can never know that there may be many other sensory perceptions and mental or intellectual endowments that we probably do not have. I think it would be highly arrogant for us to think that human beings are endowed with all the possible sensory and mental faculties and these are enough to describe the wide-ranging phenomena in the universe.

 

This brings us back to the story of the blind men and the elephant. Imagine a world in which everybody is blind. Nobody would be aware of sight as a sensory perception. Of course, they would have their own way to perceive and interpret things; they would have their own scientific theories about all their observations and various phenomena of the universe. But the fact remains that they cannot see. Now, imagine a situation where in such a world, somebody is born with eyes. He can see things; to him, all the descriptive (non-visual) facts about the elephant hold no meaning because he can see the whole elephant. But the tragedy is that nobody would believe him because his experience cannot be replicated by others; a necessary requirement for scientific theories. This man with eyes would be regarded as unscientific and possibly mad.

 

Now let us consider the human species, the Homo sapiens. It is quite possible that there may be some sensory or mental faculty that we do not have. If a person is either born with or somehow acquires such a perception, the scientific community tends to ignore it. Such a person would find it extremely difficult to explain his experiences directly to others. Perhaps, Buddha and Christ are examples of such people. They had experiences that we cannot have. Because it was not possible for them to explain their experiences directly, they used the words which we can understand. But we all know that it is one thing to describe an elephant without seeing it; it is a completely different experience to see the elephant! No wonder that we do not understand them completely and are always in conflict.

 

Let us all shed this misplaced arrogance of our species and accept that there are many things that we would be unable to explain because of our inherent limitations. Let us also be open to a completely different approach to a particular problem. This is the only way to scientific progress.

 

It is in this context that I humbly submit my own thoughts about the origin of the universe.

 

 

The Big Bang and the origin of universe

 

The Big-Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory for the origin of the universe. According to it, the entire content of the universe was condensed in an infinitely dense matter-energy complex which exploded at the moment of the so called big-bang. The universe technically was born at that moment and the protagonists of this theory censure the events before this moment. Thus, questions about the origin of this extremely dense matter-energy complex are not addressed.

 

It has been said that the big-bang was a moment of singularity from which everything including matter, energy, space and time sprung up. What, then, is the nature of this singularity? Can we scientifically or mathematically explain this singularity? Modern science is almost silent on this.

 

In spite of this theory being so widely accepted and there being many evidence to support it, there are inherent weaknesses about it. It presumes the existence of the infinitely dense mass-energy complex from which the universe is derived. It refuses to answer or even consider the questions about the origin or nature of that infinitely dense mass-energy complex. How then is this theory different from the traditional religious belief of a Creator being responsible for the creation of the universe? Whether God made the universe or He made the highly dense mass-energy complex from which universe originated is one and the same because either of these fails to really address the issue of origin.

 

Is there any other means to approach the question about the origin of universe? With a regressus in infinitum approach, the issue of origin can only be resolved if we can explain the universe to come out of nothing. Let us attempt to explain this possibility.

 

 

 

The Split of Zero

 

Conceptually, this is a very simple theory. It is easy to understand if we replace the infinitely dense mass-energy complex (of the big bang theory) with zero and the event of big bang with the split of zero. In other words, it is from nothing that everything sprang up. Mathematically,

 

0 = +x –x.

 

Zero is the singularity. Before the beginning, there was nothing; no mass, no energy, no time, no space. We can mathematically represent this nothing as zero. The origin of universe was the split of zero. From zero, several positive and negative things sprung up. This was the beginning of time, space, mass and energy. The universe will always obey the law of conservation, that is, the sum total of all existing things and phenomena should be zero.

 

Although this theory explains the origin of the universe from nothing, it is not without difficulties. According to this theory, there must be positive and negative mass, positive and negative energy, positive and negative space, and positive and negative time. Why don’t they cancel each other and become zero? This can be explained by supposing that the positive and negative things are compartmentalized so that they do not interfere with each other. It means that we live in a positive (or negative?) universe and there must be some negative universe as well. This does not explain how the positive and negative things could be compartmentalized.

 

Another difficulty with the theory of “split of zero” is that if zero can split, other things can split too. Mathematically,

 

If 0 = +x –x,

Then, 2= +4 -2,

8 = +4 +4, and so on.

 

However, we do not see any object splitting spontaneously in front of our eyes. The theory of “split of zero” fails to explain this contradiction.

 

 

The nature of Zero

 

The contradiction shown above is the major limiting factor of the theory of “Split of zero.” In order to resolve this problem, we need to study the nature of zero. For this, let us assume a hypothesis and then try to support the hypothesis with reasoning and available data.

 

Hypothesis: “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.”

By “things,” we mean mass or energy or space or time or any other conceivable phenomena in the universe.

 

This would mean that gross things would be stable because they are quite distant from zero. However, the smaller it becomes, more is its instability. The closer it gets to zero, its instability increases to such an extent that it can never become zero. In other words, zero would be infinitely unstable. Therefore, zero (nothing) cannot exist by itself. The only way by which zero can exist is in the form of positives and negatives, the sum total of which is zero.

 

 

Quantum theory

 

For a long time, Newtonian laws governed the discipline of physics. These laws were accurate for gross objects, but when they were tested for subatomic particles they failed to predict their behavior. The behavior of the subatomic particles can be explained by the quantum theory. While the classical physics treated energy as a continuous phenomenon, the quantum theory states that energy can be emitted or absorbed in tiny discrete amounts. Each individual packet of energy is called a quantum and it cannot be further subdivided.

 

The concept of an indivisible tiny packet of energy can also be extended to matter, space and time. Therefore, space and time are not continuous. Time moves in quanta and space can also be occupied in quanta.

 

With this information, it is not difficult to understand that continuity is not possible because quantum theory necessitates a jump of at least one quantum for transition in time, space or matter-energy. Continuity would mean that distance between two spots can be as small as possible and they can merge so that the distance is zero. With quantum theory, this distance can be very small but not zero (the two spots cannot merge). Let us illustrate another example to understand this phenomenon.

 

 

The problem of overtaking vehicles

 

We all have seen a vehicle overtaking another vehicle because of its greater velocity. Let us have a closer look at this observation. Let us suppose that a car A is 20 kilometers behind a car B at a particular moment. Both cars are traveling in the same direction, each car is moving with a uniform velocity (assume A moving at 60 Km per hour and B at 40 Km per hour). Simple algebra would predict that the car A would overtake the car B in one hour.

 

Now, let us look at the same example in a different way. A time comes when the car A is just behind the car B. By the time the car A has moved to the position where the car B was, B has already moved a little ahead. Again by the time A reaches the position of B, the car B has again moved a little further. We can extend this infinitely, but the car B will be always ahead and the car A will never be able to overtake it. The distance between the two cars is getting smaller and smaller but the car A is not able to overtake it. We all know that it is contradictory to common observation and must be absurd. But what is the flaw with this reasoning?

 

The flaw here is the assumption of continuity. The distance between the two cars can become smaller and smaller, but not smaller than one quantum. The continuous uniform velocity is again a flaw. The distances jump by quanta and so does time. Therefore, at a critical time when the distance between the two vehicles is small enough, the greater velocity of the car A would allow it to jump more quanta of distance than the car B at the next moment (quantum jump of time) and hence overtake it.

 

 

Correlation of the quantum theory with hypothesis of instability

 

By the quantum theory, we understand that there will always be a finite separation between two objects or events in terms of space, time and energy. Continuity is not tenable. However small this separation may be, it will never be zero. Hence, zero would be infinitely unstable and cannot exist on its own. The only way zero can exist is as a sum of many positives and negatives. Thus the quantum theory gives support to the previously mentioned hypothesis: “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.”

 

Not surprisingly, therefore, extremely small subatomic particles like electrons, quarks, photons etc are highly unstable.

 

 

 

Origin of universe: the final theory

 

The following points have already been explained:

 

1. The issue of origin can only be resolved if we can explain that universe originated from nothing.

2. “Split of zero” explains the possibility of origin from nothing. However, it does not explain why we do not see things splitting spontaneously (if zero can split, why a finite object doesn’t also split?).

3. “The stability of a particular thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero.” In other words, zero is infinitely unstable and therefore cannot exist. This infinite instability of zero is also supported by the quantum theory and the illustration of overtaking vehicles.

 

If we combine the above points to come to a conclusion, it is obvious that the sum total of everything in the universe is zero. But because zero cannot exist on its own, it can only exist as a vast multitude of positives and negatives.

 

Therefore, the universe never began, nor will it ever end. It has always existed and will always exist as an infinite multitude of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which will always be zero.

[BrainForce]

:P welcome to hypography.

your idea of expressing and also giving a conclusion is really good,your thread length is quite big! better if u had posted in articles by adding somethings more.

I have never taken big bang theory as the ultimate theory the real fact is that today in world there is no theory which can give contentment to human mind and the origin of the universe is still a mystery, maybe we haven't even made the start of our quest to the ultimate theory.

 

:confused: Why won't you indulge in cosmology quiz if u are having such a great zeal for astronomy.

[arkain101]

I enjoyed skimming.. I want to read it when I have the time and chew on it for a bit.

 

great job.

[infamous]

The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

 

 

Therefore, the universe never began, nor will it ever end. It has and will always exist as an infinite multitude of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which will always be zero.

Excellent post durgatosh..............Personally, I agree. IMHO, the universe is infinite and eternal and therefore has no need for a beginning. The expansion we observe is only local to our 13.7 billion year record and reflects a BANG not really that BIG. Because; If the universe is in fact infinite, our Big Bang is nothing more than a local whimper.....................Infy

[Eclogite]

Thus far, Durgatosh, I have only read your introduction. I am hung up in it, since I found some of your premises controversial. I am uncomfortable proceeding to the main course, when the soup is giving me mild indigestion.:cup:

 

Perhaps you could respond to these observations, so I have a clearer idea of your position.

We believe that all the phenomena in the universe can be explained by the scientific methods which rely on observations and their mental processing.

I must ask, who is 'we'? Certainly not, in my understanding, any scientist of quality. Science recognises that certain aspects of existence are to be ignored, because they will not yield to the scientific method.

We know of the sensory and mental faculty that we are endowed with, but we can never know that there may be many other sensory perceptions and mental or intellectual endowments that we probably do not have.

Yet we are aware of the full extent of the electromagnetic spectrum. We know of certain sensory abilties and skills, which we do not have, in varied creatures.

I think it would be highly arrogant for us to think that human beings are endowed with all the possible sensory and mental faculties and these are enough to describe the wide-ranging phenomena in the universe.

You see this quite brought me to a halt, for it simply is not true. If this in any way constitutes a premise of your principal thesis, I feel inclinded to abandon it at the outset. If, however, it is merely a passing comment, then I may be able to proceed, wondering only why you raised it.

But the tragedy is that nobody would believe him because his experience cannot be replicated by others; a necessary requirement for scientific theories. This man with eyes would be regarded as unscientific and possibly mad.

He would not only be regarded as unscientific, he would be unscientific. That is as close to an absolute as I am prepared to conced may exist.

Now let us consider the human species, the Homo sapiens. It is quite possible that there may be some sensory or mental faculty that we do not have. If a person is either born with or somehow acquires such a perception, the scientific community tends to ignore it.

I think quite the contrary. The scientific community would be intrigued by the perception the individual would display. They would sieze upon his input as a means of deepening their understanding of the Universe. The danger would be their tendency to treat him as an instrument, like any MRI scanner, or radio telescope, rather than as a human being.

They had experiences that we cannot have. Because it was not possible for them to explain their experiences directly, they used the words which we can understand.

Sorry, I just find this wholly unconvincing. You appear to be asking me to discard reason, evidence, observation, repeatability, Occam's razor, the painful structure of investigation building conjecture to hypothesis to theory; to abandon all this, yet still call it science.

.

Let us all shed this misplaced arrogance of our species and accept that there are many things that we would be unable to explain because of our inherent limitations.

I have never doubted it, but equally I do not doubt that discarding the robes of science that have sheltered us so effectively for several centuries is the correct route forward.

[arkain101]

I said to myself today;

 

Self,

 

___If something as uncomprehensible and miraculous as the universe with all it's wonders and mysteries can happen, then, I do dare to accept that it may very well be possible that anything can happen.

[durgatosh]

I am indeed happy to have this critical comment of yours. I had actually expected it from any person with scientific attitude. I must clarify that my introduction is only a build-up to my principal thesis. If you read the rest of the paper, I have attempted to explain things scientifically to come to a conclusion about origin of universe.

 

Regarding your reservations about my comments on the limitations of science, I am not sure if science in its present form has the capability to understand all the phenomena in the universe. The scientific methods require certain conditions to be fulfilled; those that do not are ignored. I gave the examples of Buddha and Christ. The enlightenment which they had cannot be explained by scientific methods, nor are they reproducible in others, a necessary requirement of scientific methods. We can ignore the divinity in them, but can we ignore their enlightenment? How do we explian them scientifically? I gave the examples of blind men and the elephant. The blind men can explain the elephant in their own way despite their inability to see; but would their explanation be equivalent or even close to somebody who has sight. Yes, we are aware of the full range of electromagnetic spectrum; possibly because we are directly able to perceive a small part of it as light; the rest requires reasoning and experiments. But I am talking about the faculties which may be completely lacking in us. Science would perhaps not be able to comprehend these faculties.

 

Again, this discussion goes into the realms of metaphysics which is not the purpose of my paper. If you go beyond my introduction to the body of the paper, you will see that I have tried to stick to rhe scientific method and logic to give my own theory about the origin of the universe. I am sure it would appeal to a scientific person like you.

 

Science cannot and should not be abandoned. This was never my position. Despite its limitations, it is the best tool we have. But it is always good to be aware of one's limitations.

[Jay-qu]

At this point I am thinking, 'science is only limited by those who use it' we continually endevour to make science more complete and shed its the limitations that we have placed on it. Thats just the way I see it.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

In this day and age with all the observations and well known cosmologists not accepting the Big Bang because it is built on make believe ideas. A model put together by ideas that have not been proven.

 

Why do people hang on to theories that cannot work.

 

 

Think about it 13.5 billion years old they say the universe is.

 

Some of the super clusters have a life time of over 10^70 if not more.

We see deep field images 13.2 billion light years in one direction and observe existing galaxy structures. Billions of them. Now imagine in the opposite direction. You work it out.

 

The Big Bang bangers make this work by putting ideas to make it work. Thats not science its called rape of info.

[Jay-qu]

Some of the super clusters have a life time of over 10^70 if not more.

 

care to give some evidence to back up this claim? (thats not in the form of a link!)

 

Thats not science its called rape of info.

:hihi: :cup: :friday:

Sorry that was just too funny.. it sounds like a good way to describe one of your +10 link posts harry.

[durgatosh]

Dear All,

 

I see that the discussion on my paper is getting diverted to my opinion on the limitations of science. While I maintain my position on this, I would like to have more discussion on the central theme of my paper.

 

In particular, I would like to have opinions about my hypothesis of infinite instability of zero. As you would have noticed, this is the key to my entire theory. If we accept or prove this hypothesis, I am very optimistic that we have found the answer to the origin of the universe.

 

Looking forward to your replies.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, I don't understand the connection between the "split of zero" which is not a term I'm familiar with (although the concept is pretty sound, if a bit of a truism) and the start of the universe.

 

Is the "split of zero" and it's"infinite instability" the same thing?

 

TFS

[arkain101]

Yes but zero is only a symbol FOR something,

 

What is the zero representing?

 

I think something of NO VALUE.

 

If somethign of no Value splits, what is this thing that the zero is representing?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Okay, nevermind. A closer read has given me a better idea of what you mean.

 

Your hypothesis could be restated as "The closer something is to equillibrium to begin with the less time it takes to get there." If you consider "equilibrium" to mean composed of equal parts + and -. That's a truism, but I'm not sure it's a particularly meaningful one. Basically, you are saying that an electron is very close to not being anything, and so it is more likely to become nothing than a whole planet.

 

That's probably TRUE in a strictly logical sense - neutron decay has been observed. But proton decay has not, and electron and photon decay is likely impossible. So while, it may be intuitively true, it's not scientifically true.

 

From a particle physics perspective, the Earth is MUCH more likely to spontaneously decay into component particles than an electron is to spontaneously decay into... nothing? It doesn't have component particles, so it's difficult to even imagine. For example, the Earth could be consumed by a passing black hole,which would break it down into sub-atomic particles - but the sub atomic particles would not be broken down into nothingness.

 

Energy and mass are conserved - where does it go if it just "becomes zero?"

 

More interesting is your conjecture that the answer to Zeno's Paradox (in particular the Achilles and the tortoise problem.) Although I think the Paradox largely a structural word game - the idea that spacetime is discrete as an answer is not without merit. There is some calculus, which frankly, I'm a little fuzzy on which is that it doesn't take an infinite amount of time to travel an infinite number of distances, because the size of the distance you travel decrease, while your speed remains the same.

 

TFS

[durgatosh]

Thank you all, for your replies and coments.

 

At the outset, I must mention that I have submitted my own ideas about the origin of universe in this paper and hence, the terms like "split of zero" and "infinite instability of zero" have been coined by me to explain my theory.

 

I think I need to explain about my idea about the nature of zero. Zero does not represent something with no value. It actually represents "nothing". As I had mentioned in the paper, the issue of origin can only be resolved if we somehow explain the universe emerging out of nothing... otherwise the question of "where it came from" would be endlessly repeating. The "split of zero" explains this possibility, but cannot explain why finite objects do not split. This paradox brought me to the hypothesis of "infinite instability of zero", or "Instability of a particular thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero".

 

To explain this hypothesis, I have illustrated the example of overtaking vehicles (Xeno's paradox; actually I was unaware of it until you guys told me the name). This example and the quantum theory explains the discrete (as opposed to continuous) nature of space-time-energy. If we extrapolate it a bit further, it is not difficult to understand that zero cannot exist (distance between two points, duration between two events etc can approach but never be zero). Zero is a tool to understand these phenomna; but it itself cannot exist independently.

 

So, how do we resolve the contradiction between the origin of universe from zero and the impossibility of independent existence of zero? Simple. Zero exists as an infinite multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total of which is zero. Thus universe was never born, nor will it ever die: it will always remain as a dynamic and infinite multitude of things and phenomena, the sum total of which would always be zero.

 

Any mathematician out there!!! Please comment

[TheFaithfulStone]

There is also this problem where you imply that photons and electrons could become "nothingness." They cannot.

 

They can be absorbed by something, or captured by something, but they are not going to "break down." Contrary to your hypothesis, they are VERY stable.

 

Furthermore, I don't think that many people would argue that the universe came from nothingness, merely that before the big bang, all the something was crammed into a really, really, really, small something else.

 

But of course, where did that something come from?

 

As Tormod's sig says - "it's turtles all the way down" All cosmological explanations eventually become turtle problems.

 

TFS

[durgatosh]

I don't imply that the electron or photon can just disappear into nothingness. What I mean is that they are highly unstable in their properties (perhaps the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg explains this). More impotantly, what I am imlying is that a substance cannot be infinitely divisible; there will be a last discrete mass/energy/space/time beyond which it can't be divided. This is because then it would reach to a stage of being zero which is not possible by my hypothesis.

 

You say that all the cosmological explanantions eventually become turtle problem. Are we satisfied with this turtle all the way down explanation? My theory is to explain the origin. I agree and have explained that universe cannot come out of nothingness, because it is contrary to the infinite instability of zero. But because of the same instability of zero, the universe has always existed as an infinite multitude of things and phenomena; their sum total being zero.

 

Looking forward to more replies and comments,

 

Durgatosh Pandey