Book: Surya Siddanta: Big Bang

The Big Bang theory

The “Big Bang theory” is widely accepted as the explanation for the formation of the “observable universe” around us. From Wikipedia, “The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, large-scale structure and Hubble’s law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth). If the observed conditions are extrapolated backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the prediction is that just before a period of very high density there was a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if the singularity was primordial.” A pictorial representation of the big bang is shown as below:

The theory leaves a large number of questions unanswered. While it is claimed that there is insufficient data to determine the properties of singularity, I find, there is insufficient data to accept the proposals of big bang as a formation theory even after the singularity.

Can extrapolation be done backwards?

The “Big Bang” theory makes some very big assumptions. It is important here to understand that the theory extrapolates the current observed conditions backwards. The information that we have to extrapolate, is only the current state of the system around us. Logically speaking, the current state should be some form of conversion, translation or transformation of various prior states the reality existed as. We have no clue as to the number of conversions or transformations or translations that have occurred to get to this current state. We have no clues as to the prior states that were existing before this state. Then, how can we then extrapolate with any certainty? 

Few examples: In a dropped ball, potential energy gets converted to kinetic energy. In a dynamo, kinetic energy is converted to electrical energy and subsequently to light. In a wind turbine kinetic energy is converted to mechanical energy and subsequently transformed to electrical energy. In all these examples, looking at the current state of the system at the point when the energy conversion has completed gives us no indication of the energy from which the converted energy is got. 

Let us say that, generated electrical energy from the wind turbine is combined along with electrical energy generated from a solar panels and is supplied to various houses surrounding the generators. By measuring the state of electrical energy at the various houses gives us no indication as to the energy from which the electrical energy was generated. If there existed no pre-knowledge that wind turbines and solar panels are used to generate the power, there is no way that we can extrapolate the current state of electrical energy observed, backwards to find the origin. When in such a simple system of energies we are not able to extrapolate, how can we extrapolate a system with unknown complexity and unknown variables.

Extrapolation can occur only in the forward direction with any amount of certainty. Since, we know the current state from where it starts, it can be extrapolated to say what can become of this current state into subsequent states and hence the later states we can expect. But extrapolating in the backward direction is filled with unknowns and has no way of showing even a low probability of it being near the truth.

Can laws of physics be used to explain formation of observable universe?

Let us take the example where we converted mechanical and light energy to electrical energy. The current state of the system is measured when electrical energy is present. The laws thus will be related to electrical energy and not mechanical or light energy. There can be observation of loss of electrical energy in transmission lines, there can be observation of load consumption at each house or region and similar observations across behaviour of electrical energy. Forming laws using these observations can only define for us laws related to electrical energy and not laws related to mechanical or light energy. Can these laws, by themselves, be used to explain the origin of the electrical energy observed? 

Similarly, laws of physics, cosmic microwave background radiation, light elements etc., are observed phenomenon after the fact of formation. How can these be extrapolated to be applicable even during the formation of the observable universe? It has to be recognised that the science in the current state of the universe can be indicative of what possibly could have existed in the prior state to this current state, but not indicative of what existed at the beginning.

For example, we have electrons, protons, neutrons organised into atoms, atoms organised into molecules, molecules into compounds and so on. How can we project that photons existed at big bang? Why not photons also formed as some sort of transformation in the slow course of formation? The point is we do not know and we cannot tell. 

What is the beginning?

This theory flounders in the definition of “the beginning”. It defines “the beginning” as the “big bang” where observable universe started getting formed or started evolving from. It is proposed that prior to this a singularity existed. Singularity of what is not perceivable. The single major drawback with this is with respect to “time”. It traces back “time” to an originating single point. The question that remains unanswered is “was time also formed with the big bang or did it exist even during the singularity?” By ignoring this question, the theory has not allowed for a way to decouple the formation of time from the formation of the observable universe. In such a theory, it is assumed that, time, observable universe and every fundamental concept associated with the observable universe such as distance, direction and so on has to be formed in conjunction with each other or none can be formed at all. Thus arises the question “How did such a lucky interplay occur that space, time, matter and all other concepts formed when the chances of this coincidence occurring is very low?”