Big Bang or Big Bluff

October 18, 2009

Introduction

Imagine yourself taking a walk in the heart of a city like New York or Tokyo and looking around at the well developed infrastructure around you. Infrastructure of that magnitude never ceases to amaze us. The tall buildings, monuments (such as statue of liberty) the well planned roads and the underground railway all point to meticulous planning (by the government authorities), amazing engineering skills (Architects and Engineers) and well managed execution (Contractors, Laborers, etc).

Now imagine some one coming up and telling us that all this automatically came up due to some ‘big bang’ or due to some ‘automatic molecular combination” that formed a simple structure and then ‘evolved’ into more and more complex buildings! We would think that such a person is likely to be out of his mind.

And yet, that is exactly what we ourselves seem to think when it comes to explaining the origin of the universe, which is so complex and vast, that millions of such well developed cities would constitute only a fraction of it! We attribute the origin of a well developed city to thoughtful planning, excellent engineering and meticulous execution. However, we tend attribute the creation of the universe to some automatic combination of molecules or some ‘Big Bang’.

The Big Bang Theory:

‘Big Bang’ a scientific theory, developed from observations of the structure of universe and from theoretical considerations. Everybody knows that the theory of big-bang generally refers to the idea that the “universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.”.

In 1924 Edwin Hubble found that the universe is constantly expanding. As the universe is constantly expanding, scientists came to a conclusion that the universe would have started at some time in the past and named it as Big Bang.

Are we made of cosmic dust?

The basis of this theory, as explained scientifically, is that we owe the creation of the universe to the breaking away of the absolute symmetry of the absolute emptiness that existed before the creation began. There is a theory called vacuum genesis, which suggests that the universe began from a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum. A particle so powerful that it gave raise to the cosmic creation. Of course, a particle from nothing is admittedly not very likely. But it is a theory that they still work with, possibly for a lack of anything else.

The premise of the Big Bang Theory is based on the Redshift, the evidence that the universe seems to be expanding. This is when the wavelength of the light from a distant celestial object shifts toward the longer wavelength. This is figured to be caused by the Doppler Effect that the space between the objects giving the light is increasing, caused by an expanding universe. The Vedic version of the universal creation is that it was created by the guidance of the Supreme Being and, indeed, has been steadily expanding. But this does not imply an unnatural Big Bang from which everything appeared. The bottom line is that the Big Bang Theory is founded on a few assumptions that if ever negated or proven wrong will dismiss the whole theory. And, low and behold, it seems that after a closer look into this theory, there are some major flaws that prevent it from being acceptable for everyone.

TomVanFlandern, the space scientist, has presented three major problems found in the Big Bang Theory. One is that the law of conservation of matter and energy is not upheld within this theory. Secondly, this theory offers no calculations of the early ages of the universe that can properly deduce the temperature of the microwave background radiation. Thirdly, though the theory may be able to explain how such substances as helium and deuterium were formed, there are problems in understanding how the nuclei in such substances as lithium, beryllium and boron were created.

Furthermore, the inflation that would have taken place with the Big Bang makes the age of the universe unreasonably small when compared with the estimated ages of the galaxies or globular clusters that are in existence. It also puts a limit on the amount of ordinary matter in the universe, forcing some astronomers to speculate that there must be a large amount of “dark matter” to fill in the spaces. But such dark matter cannot account for the observable superclusters and galaxies, says Anthony Peratt, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Thus, the superclusters are not what would be expected from the Big Bang model.

One last point is that the smooth nature of the background microwave radiation would not be the result of an explosive beginning, which would have produced a less organized and more chaotic or unsmooth result.  As it stands, science still cannot answer the question regarding what started the explosion of the Big Bang. Where was the original substance, or particle? What caused the creation? Even now science is still looking for another theory that can explain how nature would have behaved at the time of the threshold of creation under the extreme conditions during the original explosion of the Big Bang. How would it have happened in a way that caused the original atoms that then changed into forms that paved the way for all of the additional atoms to have developed? Because of these concerns and problems, along with others not mentioned, some scientists now feel that the Big Bang Theory is “thoroughly unsatisfactory” as an explanation of the universe’s origin. Besides, even if there was a Big Bang origin, where did consciousness come from? Why would there now be a bunch of entities running around trying to figure this out and not merely a bunch of dust and molecules drifting through space?

Encyclopedia Britannica admits: “It should be emphasized that no theory of the origin of the solar system has as yet won general acceptance. All involve highly improbable assumptions.”

Vedic Observer

Big Bang has been another theory that at first is applauded as the answer to the questions, yet with time is found to be too faulty, typical of the ever-changing scientific process that starts with one theory and in time gives way to something else. It is even admitted by science that the cause of the creation is “almost supernatural”. So it is still a mystery–why is there anything instead of nothing? But unfortunately it is still the theory found in the schools textbooks.

The formation of universe is best explained by the “Vedas” which is present at the time of universe creation. The “Vedas” are like a manual for universe. It explains the functionality and formation of universe. In science you cannot go outside the creation to find its cause. However, the Vedic creationism does indeed take us to the point before there was anything at all in the cosmic creation. That is the difference. The Vedic version points out that the cause of the creation is indeed outside the universe, just as an architect for a building may be living outside the building, someplace else rather than within it. Science still owes a lot to religion. Science still accepts that we have a “uni-verse”, a single system governed by a single set of laws. This admittedly is based on the religious concept of one God, one creator, and thus one system of laws, and a single source from which everything began. That is what the Vedanta Sutras explain, that the Absolute Truth is “He from whom all else manifests.” So to me, the faults found within the scientific creation theories only lends further credence to a Divine Source for the material manifestation. It also shows that there are many answers that can be found by researching the Vedic version of the Divinely guided creation. And unlike us Human beings, whose imperfections are sometimes very costly (the bridge of the Delhi Metro rail collapsed recently, causing heavy damage, one death and 15 injuries), God’s creations do not have such anomalies (imagine the consequences if God had made a small error while designing the orbits of planets in the solar system – there would have been a collision of planets!)

Quotes from renowned scientists on creation

Many renowned scientists acknowledge the need for an existence of an intelligent creator behind the universe, quite unlike the statements from the Big Bang Theory:-

*“There is a perfect brain behind all the natural physical laws”. – Albert Einstein

*“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man…” – Albert Einstein

*“It is the perfection of God’s works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity” – Isaac Newton

*Sir Isaac Newton further continues to say that “Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowels) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two four legs or two wings or two arms on the shoulders & two legs on the hips one on either side & no more?. Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eyes of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power”.

* “If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to believe in God” – Lord Kelvin

*The story of Newton and his Atheist Friend: Once Newton engaged a craftsman and had a nice model made of the “Solar System” which would even depict the movement of the planets on the push of a lever. He then called over one of his friends who happened to be an atheist and showed him the model. His friend expressed his appreciation at the craftsmanship and asked whose work it was. Newton promptly replied that the model just ‘came up by itself’. His friend laughed at the answer and when Newton insisted on that answer, the friend remarked that Newton must be kidding. Then Newton pointed out that this was the same explanation that was being given by the scientists (including the friend) for the origin of the ‘actual’ solar system which was much obviously much more complex than this one!

*Newton used this situation to drive home the point that there is an intelligent creator behind everything, and that nothing can come up on its own, due to random molecular combinations or some big bang.

Authored by Giridhari Gopal and Vivek Devarajan
Edited by L Narasimha Rao

4 Comments

  • Girish M says:

    The Scientists may well be aware of the limitations of the Big Bang theory. However, admitting the “creator” at once puts an end to all their scientific quests. Once they admit creator is present, their research loses value. I guess this is what propells scientists to adhrere to theories which exclude “Creator” – not because they offer substantial reason but because they make the scene vague and all the more researchful !

    According to Vedas, the universes are emanating from Maha Vishnu’s skin pores. Could it be possible that “Big Bang” or “Singular Point” be the tiny universe bubbles coming out from Maha Vishnu’s skin pores and the moment they “come out” is the point of Bang and they just continue to expand ? Does a singular point come out from Vishnu’s body or full fledged universe ? I have heard the universe actually expands once it comes from the body of Vishnu.

  • giridharagopaladas says:

    There’s long way to go after admitting the presence of Creator. Suppose, a student is doing research on a tree, admitting that the tree has a root will not stop his research but rather it will help him to do the research in a proper manner. If the student didn’t admit that the tree has a root, he may still do most wonderful and glorious research but in vein. For such a student who didn’t admit the presence of root to the tree, has to dig the earth to find out whether the tree has root or not. Similarly we should start looking with in ourselves to find the Creator, the Supreme Personality of GodHead Krishna.

  • giridharagopaladas says:

    The skin pores of Maha Vishnu cannot be compared with the Big Bang’s Singular Point. The nature of Maha Vishnu is Smaller than the smallest and Bigger than the biggest and so the pores of Maha Vishnu also hold similar qualities. The chemical structure of the sweat will not form after coming out of our body and so the structure of universe. The expansion of universe mentioned in scriptures is different from what you have understood.

  • Mostly the athiestic scientists remain materialistic. Athiesm is followed by materialistic ideas. As such acceptance of God, brings a sense of fear, sense of responsibility for our actions. By denying God’s existence, the materialists try to safely exclude the idea of God, so that they can still remain without any fear for their sins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Print This Post 715 unique views so far
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

The senses are so strong and impetuous, O Arjuna, that they forcibly carry away the mind even of a man of discrimination who is endeavoring to control them.

by Gita 2.60

2010 All rights reserved ABTN.