Search This Blog

Monday 8 August 2016

Pillar of fire - a simpler description of the universe?

Exploring the limits of the universe is something many scientists are very much interested in. On one end, we have so far reached deep down up to quarks and other similar particles, though early western scientists had thought 'atom' was the limit (something indivisible). On the other end, the scientists are pushing the 13-14 billion light-year extent of observable universe limit with better equipment and methods to look farther.

Let us switch to a story we learnt when young.  Many of you would have heard the story of the competition between Lord Vishnu and Lord Brahma, on who was superior. Lord Shiva appeared as an infinite pillar of fire and asked them to find the beginning or end of the pillar. Neither could do it, but Lord Brahma told a lie that he saw the top (beginning) of the pillar, while Lord Vishnu accepted that he could not see the bottom (end).

This story has triggered thoughts along scientific lines.  Most stories are not necessarily literal, and hence, is there a scientific view to this story? Representation of a view in fewer dimensions to make things simpler has been one of the methods to make people understand complex things.  At least it will not drive them away with the first paragraph.  Moreover, why will an 'infinite' consciousness have to display the 'self' as a 1 dimension pillar of fire?  Is this to simplify the concept to people who cannot comprehend the dimensions of the complex Brahman?

If we assume so, then what is the implied extent of the 'beginning' and 'end' of Lord Shiva?  At least in the 3-dimensional view, can we think of the miniscule 'end' of the 'consciousness' is to be explored in the smaller-and-smaller objects? Matter, made up of molecules which are made of atoms, in turn made up of electrons-protons-neutrons (and other particles), leading to finer particles called quarks... where does that end? It cannot end arbitrarily, isn't it? It is our own limitations with respect to what we can observe, or the tools we have so far - which makes us incapable of delving deeper than quarks as of now. However, if one were to think through, quarks would have to be some energy clouds, which themselves may have pockets of particles/ energies and so on, ad-infinitum.


Extending the thought experiment outwards (to the beginning) to the extent of the known universe, just because our ability to view only to about 13/14 billion light years in distance, does not mean that the universe has this limit. How big is the universe - can't it be infinite?  Why will there be an arbitrary limit - and on what basis?  Is it just because we have one or two theories, like the big-bang, (which 'seems to' explain (and predict some) events and behaviour of various observable items in the universe), which we want to hold on to (for sanity sake)?

In essence, can it mean that Lord Vishnu dived deep down inwards and searched for the smallest possible particle that makes up the universe and did not succeed?  Similarly, it may be implied that Lord Brahma tried to look at the extent of the universe and explored outwards, but may not have succeeded in finding the limit.  This is the thought process in trying to extrapolate this story to explain the limits of the known (and unknown) universe.

Such thinking does throw up a lot of questions.
A. How does the Big bang cycle get explained / fit into the infinite?
B. What happens to the concepts of time - both in the western Big-bang based concepts as well as the ancient Indian scientific concepts?
C. Can other seemingly conflicting concepts of 'Aham-brahmaasmi' and 'Time of Brahma' be explained and understood?
D. The relativity of time, the observer, the dimension, etc. - can they fit into the concepts and be understood?

These will be addressed in subsequent articles with the plausible explanations, views, thought experiments, etc.

Please continue to send links to related articles, feedback, etc., so that the shared learning can continue.

1 comment:

  1. Wonderful, creative interpretation of the mystical tale. Thank you for the post!

    ReplyDelete