Did Big Bang Happen?
This writer is not a spiritualist. He considers spiritual literature to be "collection of high sounding hollow words". He genuinely appreciates the contribution of science to the progress and well being of human race. Nevertheless, he does not accept the tall claims of astrophysicists, particularly about Big Bang.
He has serious reservations about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) after having very carefully read and studied the book "The Theory of Everything" by Stephen W. Hawking. Here are the reasons.
(Some snapshots from the book are presented with page number of the book mentioned in italics. If any reader would like to read it, a pdf copy of marked up book can be provided upon receipt of an email request.)
The theory is based on computer calculations. Such calculation must be based on a well known and proven formula. Normally we start with a small size set of reliable data, apply our method to analyze them and ascertain that the resulting answers are correct. Then only we apply that method to larger sets of data. There is no mention of this having been done in case of the BBT presumably because it is not feasible to do so.
The BBT is based on backward linear projection of the astronomical data as available. The methodology of collecting the data themselves is questionable because there is no way of making the measurements of celestial parameters directly and reliably.
page 26 of the book
The entire analysis is based on application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics explained as:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html (Copy paste this URL in the address box of your computer)
The key phrase here is isolated system such as a steam engine. The universe is certainly NOT an isolated system. Whether it is subject to only this law is questionable. Also, instead of degenerating into a more disordered state, the universe seems to have developed from chaos into an ordered state.
How can any scientist ignore the other laws of physics? There are also the following processes at work in the universe which would affect the energy distribution in the universe.
Latent heat of evaporation and cooling
Energy transfers resulting from exothermic and endothermic chemical reactions
Energy changes due to adiabatic expansions of gases.
The effect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is assumed to be linear like the Ohm's Law. The natural processes are not always linear. They may also follow the diffusion equation, exponential decay/growth, or wave function.
The wave function as shown below is worth considering. It has different stages, growth, inflection and recession. There are portions during which the process may appear to be linearly increasing or linearly decreasing even though they keep alternating. It may be a simple one like that shown in Fig.1 or little complicated like the "Equation of Time" shown in Fig.2 well known to all astronomers. The latter is the combined effect of two processes, one occurring once a year and the other twice a year. The universe may be affected by many more cyclic and non-cyclic processes, not just the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Fig. 1 Simple Wave Function
Fig. 2 Equation of Time
We humans can observe and collect data over a few decades or at the most a few centuries but still miss the fact that the universe is subject to complex wave like periods of millions of years of expansion followed by millions of years of contraction. What appears to us to be a linear process may actually be only a small portion of a much complex one.
Albert Einstein predicted and Arthur Eddington confirmed that light rays get deflected when they pass through the vicinity of massive objects. When light from some star located hundreds of light years away arrives at our earth, it may or may not have been deflected several times. Any measurement of the distance to that star is just an estimate.
Nevertheless based on the 'red shift' in the spectrum of the stars, it was concluded that the universe is expanding. Not only that but the rate of expansion was also computed. That rate of expansion was projected backwards to billions of years, as if it held good throughout those years, to predict the date of the beginning of the universe. When it approached zero, it appeared that there was a "Big Bang".
Consider dividing any number by a very small number. The result would be a large number. As we go on decreasing the denominator the answer keeps getting larger and larger. When the denominator becomes zero, the answer becomes infinity. This happened with the backward projections mentioned above. The astrophysicists call that event a 'singularity' which is an euphemism for "meaningless" the term used by terrestrial mathematicians. It should better be called an "absurdity".
page 32 of the book
Scientific conclusions are supposed to have been arrived at based on reliable verified measurements, not on any assumptions. Not so about the BBT.
page 20 of the book
page 23 of the book
It was not 'modesty'. It was helplessness. The mathematics is so complicated that they had to make this assumption. They are not modest enough to state that they cannot solve this math.
Please review the following.
page 41 of the book
Where does all this mass come from? At these densities, the atoms must have very high atomic masses outside the Periodic Table. It would be very highly radioactive with very short half-life, would it not?
page 46 of the book
Does any of it make any sense?
When it comes to spiritual literature, we believe it because other sages seem to have accepted it. Similarly, we also believe astrophysical statements because we think they must have been reviewed by other scientists and accepted. Isn't it just another case of blind faith? Is it proper to keep spending trillions of dollars after astrophysical projects just to satisfy the curiosities of a few thousand astrophysicists?