Book: Surya Siddanta: Debatable theories of modern science

Logically speaking, to answer the questions that plague us related to awareness, consciousness, space, time and so on, we need to locate a point from where we can trace a single continuous thread of formation all the way back through to the beginning. This raises very important questions, “what is the beginning of all this around us?”, “How do we locate that point that will lead us to the beginning?” and “How do we define reality that we observe around us to encompass everything that is observable by us and that which potentially can be an observable?”

Of these questions, modern science attempts to answer just the first that is “what is the beginning of all this around us?” But, to answer this question without the answers to the other more basic questions leads to wrong assumptions and conclusions as I have described below.

The Big Bang theory

The “Big Bang theory” is widely accepted in modern science 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.”

This explanation is usually followed by a pictorial representation of the big bang as shown below:

Courtesy https://www.space.com/13219-photos-big-bang-early-universe-history.html

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. Below, I have explored a few of the insufficiencies.

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, definitely the current state should be some form of conversion, translation or transformation of various prior states of reality. But, 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. In-fact even looking at any state of the system gives us no indication of what energy was converted to what energy.

Let us say that, generated electrical energy from the wind turbine is combined along with electrical energy generated from by solar panels and is supplied to various houses surrounding the generators. Measuring the state of electrical energy at the various houses gives us no indication as to the energy from which source 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 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 (universe) 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 to convert into subsequent states and hence the later states. 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 the 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. Thus laws defined and studied 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 then, 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 or throughout the existence of the observable universe? It has to be recognised that, if we can study the variations in of continuous subsequent current states of the universe, it can be indicative of what possibly could have existed in the prior states, just prior to the beginning of current state. But this cannot be indicative of what existed from the very beginning. Yet, our science is not even as a study of continuous variations of the multiple continuous current states. It is limited to stable laws established across a very short span of current states where not much variations are observed. How can this then be used to extrapolate anything?

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. Again, even with electrons and protons, we have not studied the continuous behaviour of these across changing current states. We know that a half-life exists for radio-active atoms. If, nothing was to be done and a radio-active element is left undisturbed, the time it takes for half the atoms to disintegrate is half-life. This tells us that there is nothing which is stable across time. So, what happens to the atoms or electrons or protons? What are the laws that govern this? Has anyone continuously traced the disintegrated atoms to find what is the sequence followed and the what does it eventually become? This kind of trace can then be used to extrapolate, not otherwise.

What is the beginning?

Modern science basically flounders in the definition of “the beginning”. In fact modern science has no definition for reality and reality is defined as just empirical reality that which can be sensed. Hence, “beginning” is defined based on the observable elements that are present in the current state of the universe. So the big bang theory is extrapolated to account for just the observable elements by modern science in the current state. There is no proof that light elements present and observed in the current state of the universe existed in the same state even at the beginning of this universe. There is no proof that the distribution of cosmic microwave background began at the beginning of the universe or at the same time as the light elements came into existence. There is no proof that the rate of movement of galaxies was triggered by the beginning of the universe and not triggered by some other event external to the beginning. Sure, the movement of galaxies, the light elements present, the current state of CMB all give a clue to the flux that is present in the universe. But why should that imply that they link directly to the beginning of the universe. They could have started at different points in time.

According to this theory “the beginning” is a “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 major drawback with this is with respect to “space and time”. It traces back “space and time” to an originating single point. In such a theory, it is assumed that, time, space, 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?” What is its relation to energy? This is not explained. This also does not explain the relation between these various fundamental concepts. If we are looking at a singularity which is dense single point, then how does that expand to get distance and direction? Did the expansion create energy or was energy present during singularity?

How do we account for analogous properties of time?

“Time” is considered to be infinite in nature. But, if there was a specific starting point called the “Big bang” when everything started, it implies that “time” has a specific starting point and hence cannot be infinite in every direction. So, infinity loses its meaning, since we can trace back to a specific point of origin. Thus the origination of an idea that a mirror universe exists that there is an inverse universe where time and space flow in the inverse direction and the big bang is in fact a centre point from which time and space flow in both directions. Similar to the below:

When we talk about infinity, it should be remembered that it should flow in all dimensions towards infinity and not just the three dimensional space that we are talking about. So, does the mirror universe also have multiple dimensions in all directions? Then what is it a mirror of?

Creating a mirror universe is just a Band-Aid that are added to a theory that does not explain all aspects of the formation of the universe. The theory that is formulated has to explain the fact that instantaneously “space and time” are created with a quality of “infinite” embedded in them in all dimensions and directions observable by us.

Are space and time finite or infinite?

Whether space is infinite or finite in nature is still undecided. As the Britannica says “An issue that arises when one contemplates the universe at large is whether space and time are infinite or finite. After many centuries of thought by some of the best minds, humanity has still not arrived at conclusive answers to these questions. Aristotle’s answer was that the material universe must be spatially finite, for if stars extended to infinity, they could not perform a complete rotation around Earth in 24 hours. Space must then itself also be finite because it is merely a receptacle for material bodies. On the other hand, the heavens must be temporally infinite, without beginning or end, since they are imperishable and cannot be created or destroyed.”

In short, all our ideas and notions regarding finite and infinite are related to what we can observe. For example, because we were able to observe the cosmological background radiation, we got a finite picture for the space as below:

Every day we find newer and newer concepts being explored and different ways of converting existing non-observables to observables. So, while at the given time, it seems as if we have reached some limit on the extent of space defined by the CMB, can this be considered as a final view? But, this raises another very pertinent question, if space has only the extent of CMB, what is present beyond that? In what is this space present?

Another view of it can be found when we question ourselves as to the measurement of space and time. I can pick up any space say a 1x1x1cm cube and divide it into multiple 1x1x1mm cubes, further I can divide these into 1x1x1mm cubes and this can keep going on and on and yet I will not reach the smallest space that is available. Similarly with time, I can take any second and split into milliseconds and those further into microseconds to nanoseconds to picoseconds and it can keep going and we would not hit the smallest instance available. Because we do not perceive these minute levels of space and time does not mean they are not present. So, while it might seem that by using the CMB we have hit the higher limits of space, do we know the lower limits of space and time in terms of depth? So, how does the big bang account for this infinity present in space and time?

Does reality only consist of the observable universe?

The next major drawback with such a theory is that the universe need not just be the observable universe. So, how can it account for the unobservable universe and its formation? Modern science does not even attempt to assume the existence of such a property of the universe and conveniently assumes nothing exists beyond the observables in this universe, which is a very faulty assumption, especially when we are talking about a beginning of the universe and evolution of the universe. Are we suggesting that only that which we can observe is present in the universe? Anything we can’t observe is automatically assumed as non-existent and hence having no role to play in the formation of this universe?

Can we ignore the formation of consciousness?

The theory assumes that the formation of the observable universe consists only of matter, space and time and is independent of the observable thoughts, awareness and consciousness. It has automatically decoupled that formation of awareness and consciousness from the formation of observable universe around us, while in fact “observe” has no meaning outside the context of “awareness”. So, how did the “big bang” which started this evolution know and understand about the formation of “awareness” and automatically adjust to that “awareness” that was forming in parallel to this universe? Would this also be just a lucky interplay? Coincidences are too many in such a theory and it fails to explain all the requirements needed for formation. In short, we have no choice but to recognise observable universe as just a subset of reality we live in.

In fact, while I have suggested that “consciousness” or “awareness” formed in parallel, that is not what is suggested in modern science. Modern science suggests that life formed after a whole number of years of evolution of just material elements which led to formation of organic compounds and further from there to life. This is because modern science has no definition for “life” and “thought”. The crucial role that “thought” plays in existence of the same light elements that are studied is conveniently ignored. If “quantum physics” were to be taken into consideration which is suggested by modern science, “all possibilities should exists until an observer is present to resolve it down to a single choice”. If “thought” did not exist in the beginning, then what was the observer to resolve the single choice to be picked up and hence evolve? So, what is the relation of behaviour of quantum particles to the big bang?

What is the nature of space and time?

The cosmological principle says that “the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale.” “When viewed on a large enough scale” is important here. This implies that “to an observer” it appears as if spatial distribution is homogeneous and isotropic. But, as we saw before the observer is not available at the time of formation of the universe?

But, more importantly, isn’t it required for us to understand the true nature of space and time, if we need to understand the universe, its beginnings and its formation?

What are space and time? Modern science cannot define space and time devoid of an observer, which is the next major drawback to understanding the origins and continuous analogous existence of space and time. A form of space and time needs to exist without an observer, in which other concepts of reality exist and this form needs to appear to the observer in the form we observe, whether it be homogeneous or isotropic.

Again, this theory assumes that “distribution of observation” is the only concept that needs to be considered. The question is “does matter or any observable occupy space or is it just a specific appearance of space?” While multiple matter forms cannot occupy the same space, multiple observables can. This is apparent when we consider magnetic fields, light, RF waves and other such observables. Matter and RF waves or sound waves or magnetic field can occupy the same space. Thus, we find that matter does not occupy space, but should just be a specific appearance at a given space. When two observables can be observed at the same space, the observer chooses which to observe.

Will time and space be isotropic when we consider all the observables together or is it only for a single observable? For e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation is considered to be isotropic in nature that is in whichever direction we see, the radiation is of uniform density. Will this be the case if we add to it, the distribution of matter that we find across space. Will this also be the case if we plotted the change across time in a given direction?

The Big Bang leads us nowhere

From the number of unanswered questions that exist, we realise that Big Bang does not give us any answers or path to finding the origin of our reality around us. It does not seem to be a path we can follow to get to the origin.

Many fundamental elements and their nature need to be understood before any theory on formation of the universe is proposed and it seems apparent that we do not have all the necessary fundamentals to do so.

Imperfect fundamentals

While I have explained the many unanswered questions that remain related to the Big Bang theory proposed for the beginning of the universe, as we proceed to analyse the various fundamental scientific definitions on which we have based many theorems, postulates and laws, technologies, we find that many unanswered questions remain even there.

A number of fundamental concepts are left to the imagination of the scientist or researcher and has no formal definitions which can serve as a foundation for other higher concepts. When we look at these fundamental definitions from the perspective of technology, typically it should not make a difference because they just use these definitions as a base to evolve upon. So, whether an iron atom is made of electrons, protons and neutrons or whether they internally composed of various quantum particles or not makes not much difference to iron used in production of steel. Whether electric current is considered to be flow of electrons from negatively charged terminal to a positively charged terminal or flow of protons in the opposite direction is not very important when a circuit is designed. All that is required is that some definition of standardized flow of current is present which can be anyone of the two.

Typically, we find that even though we have a shaky foundation for the fundamental definitions, these are just “definitions” which are just words. If the reality of what happens is stable and reproducible it can be used to create technology if the general referential concept is steadily defined. This is similar to using “java” or “perl” to code a new logic. The developer need not understand “how the java programs are translated to bytecode and just in time compiled to run it on various OS” or “how perl is an interpreted language” or any other details related to the language used to code the logic. They just need to know the usage of it.

But, when we start delving deeper into the beginning of the universe and the and trying to answer questions such as “What is matter?” or “What is reality?” or “What is consciousness or awareness?” then these definitions are not sufficient and we need to first search and understand the fundamental concepts before going deeper into creation and beginning of universe.

Inverted perceptions

When you look up the synonyms for imperceptible, you will come across words such as ephemeral, evanescent or momentary. This gives us the impression that an environment which is imperceptible is unstable. We all hold a notion that, that which is imperceptible is unstable and will disintegrate into a stable perceptible state. This may be the reason why we have stayed away from studying beyond the empirical reality, because this environment is basically imperceptible and not expected to stay in that state enough to experiment and study.

But, contradictory to the common perception, an imperceptible environment can neither be momentary or fleeting or unstable. Ironically, it has to be this imperceptible environment that exists perpetually and this surrounding empirical environment is really ephemeral, unstable or fleeting. A simple comparison to explain this point. There are many a times when we are travelling in an AC volvo buses with fully glassed windows and very least vibration to indicate motion and with no other points of reference, if we suddenly look outside a window, we get the impression that the bus is stationary and the surrounding trees and other environment is flying by. Similar situations can be experienced when sometimes you are stopped at a traffic light behind a very large vehicle and suddenly you inadvertently take your leg from the brake. The resulting slow motion of your car is masked because of very low vibration and other indicative parameters and the appearance is of the big vehicle moving backwards into you, until you realize it is you who is moving and brake the vehicle. Similarly, when we are a part of a change in an environment, the perception of which of the two, we or the environment is momentary can be easily inverted without us realizing the error. We need to become external to the change and environment to understand the bigger picture.

It is even more paradoxical then, that we term perpetual as equivalent to immutable or unchanging, while, in actuality, “change” is the one and only that is perpetual. These mix in ideas are due to an inverted perception of space, time and other related concepts. We need to break this contradictory concepts and re-define them for what they really are. To do this, we need to understand the reason for this inverted impressions.

Reversed cause and effect

Newton’s third law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This was originally stated with respect to force exerted on a body. Lately, this has been extended to a natural law of cause and effect, where it is assumed that every effect has to have a cause associated with it. This is the natural law of causality. Thus, to explain an observed effect, modern science searches for the cause. But, as we saw during our exploration of the question “Can extrapolation be done backwards?”, a backward extrapolation in natural process is fraught with errors.

To study and explain various concepts we observe, modern science always starts from what is observed. For example, we are able to measure distance, duration, weight, length. When we search for the cause of the existence of these concepts, we end up with space as a reason for their existence. We measure change, we search for the cause and we end up with time as the cause. We measure heat, observe ions/atoms of matter moving, we end up with the conclusion that motion of ions/atoms is the reason for thermal energy. We measure distance travelled by a body in motion, and conclude that the result is that the objects have kinetic energy. We measure force and observe resistance to movement and term that mass. We define mass as an inertia or resistance to that movement. We measure weight and define it due to gravity.

Inherently, we have no fundamental definition of any of these concepts. We have defined most of these concepts based on observed behaviour or a result of a cause. Then, can we be sure that we have got the order of relation between cause and effect correct?

In modern science we see the result first and then form a theory. Shouldn’t our reasoning really be reversed from what it is then. The cause and reaction becomes inverse to what they actually are. We identify dimensions and a persist-able origin, hence, we can measure distance in a direction. Isn’t it because we can identify distance and direction that our brains recognise space? So, shouldn’t the order of relations be distance and direction causes the existence of space rather than space being the cause for measurable distance and direction? Haven’t we reversed cause and effect here?

Let us look at another example. There are changes in various objects in the environment around us and change in ourselves. We are able to consciously measure some of these changes, unconsciously recognise some other changes and hence the reality around us is continuously changing. Isn’t it because our brains recognise this constant change that time exists? So, shouldn’t the order of relation be change causes time rather than time causes change? Haven’t we reversed cause and effect again here?

So, the questions that arise are, “Is space due to the fact that I can observe distance and direction?” or “Is space the cause for the presence of distance and direction?” Similarly, “Is kinetic energy the cause of motion?” or “Is motion the cause of kinetic energy?” Again, “Is motion of ions/atoms due to thermal energy?” or “Is motion of ions/atoms the reason for thermal energy?”. Another, “Is mass the resistance to change?” or “Is inertia due to mass?” And most importantly, “Is time the reason for change?” or “Is time due to the fact that I can detect change?”

There are obvious cases where the cause and effect cannot be reversed and are recognized correctly, especially in the user domain. For example, an apple becomes ripe and falls, it is attracted to the ground because of gravitational force. Definitely, in such a scenario, we cannot argue that the gravitational force is caused by the apple’s fall to the ground. These are the most obvious cause effect situations that caused Newton to propose the laws of motion. But, what should be noted is that when we start exploring the internals of “Why is there and effect of the gravitational force on the apple?”, then we start running into situations where the direction of cause and effect seems very muddled. What should be remembered when we want to start reasoning this is that every object in space has a force however small that it exerts on another object in space. Thus, while the gravitational force is much higher than force the apple exerts on the earth and hence a net force in the downward direction for the apply, the question we need to ask ourselves is “Is it because of the force however small applied by the apple on the earth, the reason for its weight and hence the exertion of the gravitational force of the earth on the apple?”

The major problem with many of our reasoning is similar to the problem in the big bang theory, the “observer” and “observation” is taken out of scientific reasoning. If we started reasoning by adding the “observer” and “observation” into the picture, it will run as follows: “The observer has the thought of matter because the observer can perceive the common properties of mass, size and texture for objects”. Another is “The observer has the perception of space because the observer can perceive the distance, direction and dimensions of objects with respect to themselves”. It should be noted, irrespective of what, if the perception is not present then the concept does not exist for the observer. It should be noted that perception can be in any form, for example a person who can see can assess depth of various objects with eyesight, whereas a person who is blind can assess depth of various objects by touch or distribution of echo of sound in a closed space.

From these, we find that by adding the observer and observation into the picture, the cause and effect in a number of scenarios start reversing.

%d bloggers like this: