[subal 107]

Originally Posted by LoveroftheBhagavata Big bang is no longer the predominant cosmological theory, and as such this debate doesn't really rest on solid grounds. Try superstring theory and you're closer to what has prevalence these days.

Well as much as I know that most accomplished modern cosmologists love utterly abstract mathematics, kindly check out these perspectives

21st Jan 08 .....://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/022108_guest_sjcrothers.htm

20th Jan 08 .....://thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/012008_big_bang_cosmology.htm

(sorry arent eligible to post live links just yet)

I'd love to read your comments.

[krishnadasa]

Originally Posted by Avinash I was very happy to read this. Often times I have read that big bang was the beginning of time and therefore we should not ask what happened before big bang, because there was no 'before'. But, it never seemed believable. According to two physicists (from Cambridge and Princeton universities), there is neither a beginning nor an end of time. They say the current model of the universe is flawed. That model starts with the beginning of time and the so-called Big Bang. The universe then cools and expands, and then in the distant future it will cool to the point when no stars are formed and normal matter breaks down. But the expansion is speeding up, and the current model does not seem to adequately explain why this is happening. The scientists claim their new model can account for this and other things that are difficult to explain. They say the universe is undergoing an endless series of Big Bangs, expansions, contractions and big crunches. There is no end of time and no need to define what existed before the universe was born.

Basic flaw of Big-bang is that it tries to explain it on the basis of Physics laws, when Physics law break down at singularity. For example, even the simplest law like conservation of mass can not be satisfied when Big-bang theory is explained. Slowly and steadily science is able to understand about the higher energy, which has nothing to do with atoms or electrons, which are primarily used to explain the material energy. Howver, they still do not appreciate the existence due to thier imperfect senses and EGO....

[Catholic devotee of Christ]

If I may,...with my limited understanding, present a theory I've been tossing around in my head for awhile.

I think that maybe we could see it somewhat like plate techtonics. Where the earths crust goes in on itself and new earth is formed in the lava flows and volcanoes. Perhaps in the same way, if there are black holes which suck matter into them, there are white holes which spew the same matter back out.Which appear as 'big bangs'...(?) maybe? Which could show how the universe is eternal.Even if there was a beginning, how are we to measure it?

[theist]

Yes that is a theory that some have put forth. I have no idea. Anyway time certainly predates any universal happening.

[Catholic devotee of Christ]

Originally Posted by theist Yes that is a theory that some have put forth. I have no idea. Anyway time certainly predates any universal happening.

Hey theist! How ya doin'?

I really have no idea either. But, it is fascinating. I don't know how much relevance it as on my life. This is one of those instances where I just accept that God is eternal.

[PassingThru]

For what it is worth, contemporary physics will never get it right, simply because they have "time" all wrong. And from a science dominated (crippled?) with the baggage of Genesis I, one can expect nothing more.

That is not to say that contemporary physics cannot develop new knowledge. It has, and continues to do so. Its practioners just miss the mark in relating what they generate to reality. But not from want of trying. Those who try and invoke different paradigms, particularly as glimpsed in extant hindu documents, sometims may have better luck.

The Brahma Astra for instance, can be built, in my most humble opinion - though there is a very narrow window within which that is do able. A window provided by the elegent experiments of Aspect et. al., a narrow window of ca.2.3 mm or there abouts. I would be interested to know if there are hard core physicists here, and whether they can derive this window's dimension as well. This appears after all, an out of the way web site to ask this question, but I will stop by and check often. Sorry, no more clues.

Peace.

[primate]

Alain Aspect (born 15 June 1947 in Agen) is a French physicist and alumnus of the École Normale Supérieure de Cachan in France. In the early 1980s, with collaborators in France, he performed the crucial "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance. A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of the child particles was measured. If quantum theory is correct, the determination of an axis direction for polarisation measurement of one photon, forcing the wave function to 'collapse' onto that axis, will influence the measurement of its twin. This influence occurs despite any experimenters not knowing which axes have been chosen by their distant colleagues, and at distances that disallow any communication between the two photons, even at the speed of light. Aspect's experiments were considered to provide overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's inequalities are violated in its CHSH version. However, his results were not completely conclusive, since there were so-called loopholes that allowed for alternative explanations that comply with local realism. Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance". However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves are inherently random. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect

I would say, (quantum) events are inherently 'chaotic'. And if quantum entanglement or quantum correlation is real, a faster-than-light chaotic mechanism must underly physical reality..

[melvin]

The beginning of time did not start with the Big Bang. Time started with the primeval Lord Govinda (Kalpataru Krsnah), the controller of time. This is confirmed in Brahma-samhita(5.40): " I worship Govinda the primeval Lord by whose personal effulgence the unlimited brahmajyoti is manifested. In that brahmajyoti there are innumerable universes and each is filled with innumerable planets."

[primate]

Originally Posted by PassingThru For what it is worth, contemporary physics will never get it right, simply because they have "time" all wrong. And from a science dominated (crippled?) with the baggage of Genesis I, one can expect nothing more. That is not to say that contemporary physics cannot develop new knowledge. It has, and continues to do so. Its practioners just miss the mark in relating what they generate to reality. But not from want of trying. Those who try and invoke different paradigms, particularly as glimpsed in extant hindu documents, sometims may have better luck. The Brahma Astra for instance, can be built, in my most humble opinion - though there is a very narrow window within which that is do able. A window provided by the elegent experiments of Aspect et. al., a narrow window of ca.2.3 mm or there abouts. I would be interested to know if there are hard core physicists here, and whether they can derive this window's dimension as well. This appears after all, an out of the way web site to ask this question, but I will stop by and check often. Sorry, no more clues. Peace.

Time is just a theoretical concept that we use to mathematically describe change. And our perception of time (or sense of time) derives from our perception of irreversible change in this world.

A (mostly) hidden quantum mechanism must necessarily underlie our conscious experience of reality, in order to account for 'quantum non-locality' or the effect of quantum entanglement. All manifest quantum events in our world must then necessarily constitute only a small discontinuous subset or fraction of complete reality.

I propose that this underlying mechanism or original quantum principle, is like a conscious point or singularity that continuously describes a complex non-linear (chaotic) and faster-than-light trajectory in space. In fact, the speed of such a 'non-local hidden variable', must be almost infinite (relative to the speed of light) in order to produce all our manifest conscious experience as a limited (discontinuous) subset of its continuously changing state or position in space. This subset could be a particular 'phase-projection' of the original chaotic oscillation itself. Our actual consciousness may then simply be a function of a specific frequency or sound that is present in the oscillation, like a specific higher harmonic tone (Om).

Anyway, if such a physical scenario is true, then time doesn’t exist as an actual dimension of reality. Only a specific complex sequential order of manifest quantum events exists, which projects all material structure and dictates all perceived change in our world. Such a hypothesis can in theory be verified by a measuring device that detects whether any two quantum events ever coincide exactly. It predicts that there will always be an (infinitesimal) interval between any two quantum events, such as between the correlated wave function collapse of two entangled photons in the experiments of Aspect et. al. Although (much) faster than the speed of light, non-local quantum phenomena can never exactly coincide. Thus, it is predicted that 'spooky action at a distance' is not instantaneous. An experiment to test this might be feasible, if intervals between non-local entangled quantum events are of some measurable magnitude.

Sorry, no more clues..

[Ananta Sesa]

Originally Posted by melvin The beginning of time did not start with the Big Bang. Time started with the primeval Lord Govinda (Kalpataru Krsnah), the controller of time. This is confirmed in Brahma-samhita(5.40): " I worship Govinda the primeval Lord by whose personal effulgence the unlimited brahmajyoti is manifested. In that brahmajyoti there are innumerable universes and each is filled with innumerable planets."

There were not even any "Big Bang"...it´s just a fantasy-theory of the "scientists"...

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by primate Time is just a theoretical concept that we use to mathematically describe change. And our perception of time (or sense of time) derives from our perception of irreversible change in this world. A (mostly) hidden quantum mechanism must necessarily underlie our conscious experience of reality, in order to account for 'quantum non-locality' or the effect of quantum entanglement. All manifest quantum events in our world must then necessarily constitute only a small discontinuous subset or fraction of complete reality. I propose that this underlying mechanism or original quantum principle, is like a conscious point or singularity that continuously describes a complex non-linear (chaotic) and faster-than-light trajectory in space. In fact, the speed of such a 'non-local hidden variable', must be almost infinite (relative to the speed of light) in order to produce all our manifest conscious experience as a limited (discontinuous) subset of its continuously changing state or position in space. This subset could be a particular 'phase-projection' of the original chaotic oscillation itself. Our actual consciousness may then simply be a function of a specific frequency or sound that is present in the oscillation, like a specific higher harmonic tone (Om). Anyway, if such a physical scenario is true, then time doesn’t exist as an actual dimension of reality. Only a specific complex sequential order of manifest quantum events exists, which projects all material structure and dictates all perceived change in our world. Such a hypothesis can in theory be verified by a measuring device that detects whether any two quantum events ever coincide exactly. It predicts that there will always be an (infinitesimal) interval between any two quantum events, such as between the correlated wave function collapse of two entangled photons in the experiments of Aspect et. al. Although (much) faster than the speed of light, non-local quantum phenomena can never exactly coincide. Thus, it is predicted that 'spooky action at a distance' is not instantaneous. An experiment to test this might be feasible, if intervals between non-local entangled quantum events are of some measurable magnitude. Sorry, no more clues..

You do shed light, and I believe do have it about right wrt entangled photons. But time does exist, no less than space, so we look to "coincidence" & "singularities" in "Time". Matter occupies space, but not Time. Material singularities exist in Time. But exclusionary principles exclude their extension into space (same time, same space"fusion"). Yog gives me the essence of Time: Absent the occurance of events, Time does not exist ("before" & "after" become meaningless). Coming now to the Brahmastra, in the context of Aspect's work, we could generate a Ca40 <---> K40 transformation to resolve a generated photon entanglement. Would be elegent, depending on the Yogi' s level of discipline. As a practical matter, would have to work with photon frequencies. Would any in Desh care to try the Physics?------------ all the clues worth the printing.

[PassingThru]

For the more spiritually inclined, imho, Time began at the transformation of "Ahm Asti" to "Aham Bhavati". A defining primal event resulting in the union of Being (I) and Ego (am). Thus the primary assertion of being, "I am" (the union of "I", the pure being with "am", the assertion of the pure being's free will), set the universe in motion. For what it is worth, in my most humble opinion. From this too, all physics can be derived, with very practical, testable consequences. We come from "Time", to which we should aspire to return.

Om Shanti Om to all.

[primate]

Originally Posted by PassingThru You do shed light, and I believe do have it about right wrt entangled photons. But time does exist, no less than space, so we look to "coincidence" & "singularities" in "Time". Matter occupies space, but not Time. Material singularities exist in Time. But exclusionary principles exclude their extension into space (same time, same space"fusion"). Yog gives me the essence of Time: Absent the occurance of events, Time does not exist ("before" & "after" become meaningless).

Yes, I think you got it. This 'exclusionary principle' (Maya), is the basis of time. We consciously perceive only specific 'material singularities', that occur in a specific sequential order. Hence, the illusion of duality, change and time.

Coming now to the Brahmastra, in the context of Aspect's work, we could generate a Ca40 <---> K40 transformation to resolve a generated photon entanglement. Would be elegent, depending on the Yogi' s level of discipline. As a practical matter, would have to work with photon frequencies. Would any in Desh care to try the Physics?------------ all the clues worth the printing.

What do you mean? Are you proposing an actual experiment?

[PassingThru]

Before we go any further, I will need to know more of your background. I have worked on this a long time. I just may need to pass on thru until I find myself in the right circumstances, back in our ancient homeland.

[primate]

Originally Posted by PassingThru Before we go any further, I will need to know more of your background. I have worked on this a long time. I just may need to pass on thru until I find myself in the right circumstances, back in our ancient homeland.

What do you need to know? What right circumstances do you mean? After all, this is public internet..

If you have found some ground braking scientific answers to religious questions, I would publish the research in a peer reviewed journal, and I suppose we will hear about it in due time. If, however, you have questions or uncertainties concerning the subject matter, we can discuss these here..

[PassingThru]

primate: Sure this is public internet. The extent to which one chooses to be public, however, is discretionary. I am looking for ("need to know") a good complementarity in interest as well as in mathematical skills. I chose to enter an honors physics program at an IIT following selection in their JEE... way back in the 60s. Left India over 40 yrs ago, drifting into chemistry- biochemistry-biology, recently becoming emeritus prof. of biochem. But my underlying interest in physics remained constant, a lurking vocation marking time as an avocation. Now, I intend to give it my undivided attention. Right circumstances would be substantial & sufficient support to carry out all the required experimentation in India under a very legal but perforce covert program. but I know little of India other than the hype of an emerging giant, having left home barely past my teens.

Regarding "ground breaking....." etc., yes, but the other way around, really; and as for "publish... peer reviewed journals..." I have done enough of that in my regular research endevours, so it does not really interest me as an incentive, as I look upon it more as the tail that would wag my dog. The transient recognition, accolades, attaboys etc. do not interest me in the least. I believe India, specifically Hindus & our philosophies, theologies & attendant world - even universe- views have much that they need to reclaim, develop, and pursue until Hinduism gets its rightful place among the foundations of human civilizations, that any personal recognition that might accrue to me would be utterly inconsequental (rambling, but not malignant, I assure you). In face of ever increasing venality of almost every western philosophical construct, it is essential that the only remaining alternative paradigms rooted in Indic intellectual evolution be strengthened to withstand the onslaught upon them. The human experiment would be left in an incredibly bankrupt intellectual state were it to descend into a bland, uniform Hellenistic Judeo rational monotheism.

yes, we can discuss much, and I am sure both would gain by it, but I am not sure I want to indulge in it all on the public internet. Information, like time, goes in only one direction Perhaps I will spend a little more time on these forums, taking in the discussions, and contributing my bits as I learn from these discourses. We dont have to speculate on the feasibility of constructing some 5kT reset of deliberately breached exclusionary rules.

peace.

[primate]

Okay PassingThru. I can tell you that personally I’ve learned quite a bit from these forums. My interest is mainly philosophical and some (more or less religious) discussions made me adjust and/or better understand my own (more or less formal) theory of reality. In terms of hard physics, I wouldn’t expect too much input here, although personally I may be able to link your data with a particularly elegant, non-linear mathematical model of material reality.

I have a PhD in neuro-sciences, mainly from doing computer-simulation studies of the brain, using various neural-network formalisms, genetic algorithms, and other computational search - and optimization algorithms. But I came to the conclusion, that (apart from low level perceptual processing), the working of the (mammalian) brain cannot be understood in terms of a computer program (or Turing-machine). This is especially evident when it comes to higher cognitive processes, like reasoning, understanding and consciousness.

So, currently I’m working as a software engineer, solving complex scheduling problems and other interesting tasks, which are difficult for humans, but relatively easy for a computer, because the latter can do arithmetic calculations really much faster than our human brain.

Good luck!