Does Big Bang Theory Prove the Universe Began From Nothing?

by Godlessons on February 26, 2010

Well, I have been dealing with a few theists that believe that the big bang proves that the universe had a beginning.  I’m tired of retyping this, so I figured I would make a nice handy blog post that I can turn these people to.

The Big Bang

How far we’ve come since the big bang theory was first proposed.  Originally, theists, especially Christians, had a huge problem with the big bang theory.  They thought that it explained how the universe came to be without God.  It didn’t take them long before they figured they could bastardize it and use it to try and show the necessity of God.

The big bang is the explanation of the expanding universe that proposes that everything we see in the universe was once compressed into a singularity, and it expanded extremely rapidly in order to create the universe we see now.  That is the theory.  Now this hasn’t stopped some people from hypothesizing that all the mater in the universe came into existence at that time, but much of this is not necessarily based on physics, but is a philosophical projection based on the mathematical anomalies that can’t be solved.

How close can we calculate?

Well, the smallest measurement of time is thought to be a Planck epoch, or 10-43 seconds.  This means that we can’t measure further back than that because the next interval of time would be 0 when calculating back, and that would make all calculations undefined, since division by zero would be necessary.

During this first epoch, it is theorized that all the forces of nature were unified.  This means that gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism were all one force, and it was a state we can’t really begin to understand.

Does this prove the universe began to exist?

Well, saying the universe began to exist is one of those tricky things to talk about.  Did all matter and energy and everything we know of now begin to exist out of nothing?  Not likely.  It’s one of those questions that is not going to be answered soon, but that doesn’t stop some people from saying that the universe came out of nothing, leading to much confusion.

There are many things that theoretically are possible, but in reality they aren’t.  For example, theoretically absolute zero is the coldest temperature possible.  That means that theoretically 217.13 degrees C below zero is the coldest temperature possible theoretically, but this temperature can’t be reached, since that would mean an absence of energy, which would mean an absolute absence of anything.

It is also by no means certain that an absolute singularity, where T=0, can actually exist.  At T=0, matter and energy would become undefined for sure, and according to Christians, non-existent.  It would certainly go against the law of conservation of energy if this were the case, unless the energy came from somewhere else.  It could be that we can get to a point where beyond that it is impossible to go, but never reach the point where everything stops.

Now, there is also the question of whether nothing is actually a proper description of what would happen at T=0.  With string theory, we get things that aren’t necessarily what we call the universe, but they theoretically still exist, even if there is no matter or energy in what we call the universe.  This means that to say that prior to the big bang there was nothing is still debatable.

It is also possible that all the matter in this universe comes from somewhere else.  Many things have been hypothesized, such as the idea that the matter in this universe comes from another universe.  The idea of branes (membranes) colliding has also been suggested as a possibility stemming from string theory.  A quantum fluctuation causing it has also been considered.

Conclusion

Although there are many things said about the big bang, and the beginnings of the universe, much of it is merely philosophical, and is by no means conclusive.  The idea that nothing can exist is by no means determined either.  This doesn’t stop apologists from claiming it though.

Of all the possibilities given, there are no clear answers.  There are many many arguments, and the big bang theory itself is still argued about.  Anyone that would suggest that there is no argument when it comes to cosmology has no clue what they are talking about.  In all of astrophysics, the ideas behind the origins of the universe are the most contested there are, and it is just simply dishonest to assume that there is truth behind the argument that before the known universe started, there was nothing.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    No, Universe did not begin from nothing. Universe began from something. This something is vast expanse of spirituality wchich can not be seen by any manner. Hence it is called that universe began from nothing. This vast expanse, referred to above, is in fact in scientific terminology a vast expanse of gravitation force. Source of Gravitation Force is God. All other forces have been originated from gravitation force.

  • Godlessons

    Okay, whatever you say. That is the most scientific thing I have ever heard. All forces originated from gravitation force?

  • Untitled

    haha, i agree, but godlessons, please tell me if there is logic behind this theory that i thought of. There was the big bang, however i think that instead of the universe rapidly expanding, it is in fact being pulled outward by a massive force. the only explanation for this force is that there is a reverse black hole surrounding the whole universe. however, the universe may be like a galaxy, outside of that blackhole, there are more universes. Please reply/respond to this if you understand it.

  • Godlessons

    Make sure you use the proper terms, when speaking scientifically, an untested idea is a hypothesis. Having said that, I would have to say that it doesn't seem that could be the case.

    This sounds like a spherical or a doughnut shaped universe idea. Unfortunately, based on calculations done with the matter we see in the universe, it seems as though there is the same amount of positive and negative particles. This means the universe is flat. Not like a sheet of paper flat, but where nothing folds in on itself. Matter extends from the big bang and keeps going infinitely.

  • http://innerminds.wordpress.com/ innerminds

    Thanks for posting this, Godlessons. Allow me to summarize what I understand about the Big Bang Theory, and please correct me if I got anything wrong:

    1. Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state called a singularity.

    2. A singularity is not nothingness, not a void, because although a singularity has infinitesimal volume (space and time become infinitely distorted), it does have a mass, hence, infinite density.

    3. All the known laws of physics break down at a singularity, hence, you can't predict its fate using physics. You don't know where it came from and in what form, and you can't know what's going happen next.

    4. Nearly 14 billion years ago this singularity expanded in a Big Bang and marked the beginning of space and time – the universe as we know it. We have empirical data to support this theory: the cosmic microwave background radiation.

  • Godlessons

    It is suggested that the universe was in a singularity. The problem with singularities is that the laws of physics break down when there is no space. Without space, you can't calculate time. Without time you can't calculate anything.

    Now, what you have said seems to be true, but to tell the truth, it is impossible to know how things were like past a certain period, that being one Planck epoch after the expansion. Everything prior to that point can't be calculated, and is only speculation. So, saying that the laws of physics break down at any point is speculation.

    The only thing that can be guaranteed is that whatever is prior to that point is going to be beyond our comprehension.

    Another thing that can't be said for certain is anything about time. A singularity means there is no movement or space, so there would be no way to measure time, but to say that means that time begins at that point is something that is still argued heavily. The reason people say that it's the beginning of time is because physics has no reference point for time.

    Anyway, as I have said many times, most of what people say about this period of time is speculation, although some of it is educated speculation, there is no way to know for sure.

  • Untitled

    thanks for clearing that up for me, idk how that came to my head but i figured i'd ask someone about it, haha

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Thank you Mr. Godlessons

    'dense state called singularity' is due to the action of gravitation force towards centre or its source.

  • Godlessons

    The gravitational pull is actually caused by all the mass of the matter in a small area. Without mass, you have no gravity, so it is technically the mass of the matter that causes the singularity, not the gravity.

    When we speak of singularities, we generally are talking about an area where the pull of gravity is so great that not even light can escape. Now, it is speculated that the reason for this intense pull of gravity is caused by large amounts of mass in one area, but it could be something else. It's pretty much impossible to know for sure.

    So, in other words, the black hole singularities we witness may or may not be caused by large amounts of mass, but the singularity spoken about at the big bang would be due to all the mass in the universe being at one place.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Whether mass and energy are distinguishable in the area of singularity? In my speculation a Definite Big No. In this area only a Force of Attraction of infinitely high intensity remains to function. We may call it Gravitation Force.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    One more question please. Whether mass is material (atomic, sub-atomic or particle level) or energy level in the area of singularity. In the vast domain of singularity whatever is there, it has only one nature. Only one thing appears to me that there is only gravitation force in the area of singularity. From theist point of view we may term it 'Consciousness”

  • Godlessons

    Unfortunately, I don't think you can say that even gravity exists in the singularity. So, you can say whatever you want, but there is no evidence that would support it.

    Now, to say that gravity is consciousness, I would have to question your definition of what is conscious. It certainly doesn't seem to be anything that the dictionary would agree with you on.

  • lyv

    no, even in the Bible it says that the universe came from nothing.'ex nihilo'. Although i do not believe in Theistic evolution, i do believe that the universe cam from nothing.

  • lyv

    no, even in the Bible it says that the universe came from nothing.'ex nihilo'. Although i do not believe in Theistic evolution, i do believe that the universe cam from nothing.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Stephen Hawking writes in The Grand Design, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.” Hawking said the Big Bang was merely the consequence of the law of gravity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking had suggested that the idea of God or a divine being was not necessarily incompatible with a scientific understanding of the Universe.

    Although Hawking is very close to Truth yet he is not perfect in his views while discarding the role of divine being. I consider the role of eternal gravity uppermost but I strongly differ with Hawking on the role of divine being. I consider Divine Ordainment is the cause of Creation of Universe.

    Now I give Radhasoami Faith view of Creation Theory. In Sar Bachan (Poetry) composed by His Holiness Soamiji Maharaj the August Founder of Radhasoami Faith the details of creation and dissolution has been described very scientifically. It is written in Jeth Mahina (name of Hindi moth) in this Holy Book: Only He Himself (Supreme Father)and none else was there. There issued forth a great current of spirituality, love and grace (In scientific terminology we may call this current as gravitational wave). This is called His Mauj (Divine Ordainment). This was the first manifestation of Supreme Being. This Divine Ordainment brought into being three regions, viz., Agam, Alakh, and Satnam of eternal bliss. Then a current emerged with a powerful sound. It brought forth the creation of seven Surats or currents of various shades and colours (in scientific terminology we may call it electromagnetic waves). Here the true Jaman or coagulant was given (in scientific terminology this coagulant may be called as weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force). Surats, among themselves, brought the creation into being.

    These currents descended down further and brought the whole universe/multi verse into being i.e. black holes, galaxies etc. were born.

    I would like to add further that sound energy and gravitational force current are non polar entity and electromagnetic force is bi-polar. Hence spiritual polarization, if occurred, is occurred in the region of Sat Lok and region below to it only.

    • http://godlessons.com Godlessons

      No physicist says that there was any sound. The term, ‘Big Bang’ was coined to make fun of the expansion theory, and it stuck.

      Essentially, what is talked about is that space did not exist. Once it began to exist, everything expands with it. There is no need for sound in order for this to take place.

      Further, I am not convinced that gravity existed at that point either. I can completely describe the universe without bringing causality into it at all. Even now, what we see happening may not be because there is cause and effect, but because that’s just the way it is.

      Zeno’s paradox of the arrow shows us that movement is impossible, so without thinking that our perceptions may be wrong, there is no way movement can happen. If you think of an arrow’s path, before it reaches its target, it must reach half way. Before that, 1/4 of the way. Before that, 1/8, 1/16, and 1/32, all the way off infinitely. That means that the arrow could not move, unless there are discrete points in time, and not an infinite number.

      Second, if we assume they are discrete, movement can’t happen either. Imagine that we stop time at every point along that arrow’s path. At each point, the arrow can only occupy the space it occupies. That means that in moment A, the arrow is at point a. In moment B, the arrow is at point b. How does the arrow get from point a to point b though? Somewhere in between moment A and B, the arrow must be at both places at once, or things can’t move. That makes no sense unless we accept that our perceptions are incorrect.

      So, in order for things to move, things must be at the place it is, and its next position at the same time, or at least a facsimile must be. If that’s the case, they must be at their next position as well, for the same reason. This means that every position everything will ever be, it already is at the same moment, so instead of us causing the future, the future pulls us along in a pattern. Causality is an illusion, and describing how things happened at the beginning is actually nonsense.

      I have written a paper on this for a philosophy class, and although I don’t know that I believe it, since it is so counterintuitive, but I can’t deny that it answers the problems with time while violating nothing that I can think of, other than our intuition.

      I’m actually going to write it up on my blog here soon if you want to see more of what I am talking about.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Dear Godlesson

    Thank you for the reply. You wrote in your article: “Everything we see in the universe was once compressed into a singularity.” Now one question arises, in which state this singularity was existed, whether it was mass or energy or both? We may also term this state of singularity as Omnipotent Being. Do you agree with this?

    • http://godlessons.com Godlessons

      I don’t see where you get ‘omnipotent’ or ‘being’ from. Omnipotent on its own is contradictory, and being omnipotent would say it had the ability to think. There is no reason to assign such ridiculous attributes to it. There is no evidence whatsoever that would suggest that there was any intelligence involved at all.

      Why call it a being? It has being, in the sense that it existed, but it did not have being in the sense of awareness.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Dear Godlessons

    ‘Omnipotent Being’ is used here as one word.
    No, not at all. Everyone of us, from unicellular organisms to multi cellular organisms, all behave on some intelligent design. All our planetary and galactic existence also work on intelligent design. ‘Compressed Singularity’ is the source of all intelligence.

    Godlessons, you wrote: “During this first epoch, it is theorized that all the forces of nature were unified. This means that gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism were all one force, and it was a state we can’t really begin to understand.” This unified force is known as ‘Quantum Gravity’. This state corresponds to the region of Sat Lok of Sant Tradition. I tried to explain about it in my comments above but you replied differently.

    • http://godlessons.com Godlessons

      Everyone of us, from unicellular organisms to multi cellular organisms, all behave on some intelligent design. All our planetary and galactic existence also work on intelligent design. ‘Compressed Singularity’ is the source of all intelligence.

      There is no need for the singularity to be intelligent. There is a common misconception that it must be, otherwise why would there be intelligence, but less complicated things can bring about more complicated things. We do it all the time. We can’t fly, but we make things that fly. We can’t withstand the debris blown about by tornadoes, but we can build things that can.

      The fact is, I see no reason that we couldn’t eventually build an artificial life form that is more intelligent than we are.

      Anyway, I don’t want to get into any traditions until we deal with this simple thing.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    O.K. Agreed. But we should not turn our face from the ground reality just for the sake of saying religion absurd.

    • http://godlessons.com Godlessons

      Religion causes problems in my opinion. It is a way of saying you know things outside any testable method of knowledge. Because of that, there is no way to tell if what you believe is correct, or if it just feels good. As is evident throughout history, the religious can be easily coerced into voluntarily committing atrocities, and they tend to think as a group in ways that are detrimental to society.

      What I am saying is, if there were a religion that didn’t rely on hope to show evidence that it is true, and instead showed some ability to back up their claims scientifically, I would be more inclined to believe it. In absence of that, no religion has better answers than another, and certainly has no business in science.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Godlessons

    I very much appreciate your views and your quest for scientific basis of religion. I would like to give you my personal experience of reincarnation which to some extent describe scientific basis of religion.

    SCIENTIFIC AWARENESS OF REINCARNATION : BASES FOR A NEW UNIVERSAL RELIGION

    According to Dr. Granville Dharmawardena of Colombo University reincarnation may be defined as the re-embodiment of an immaterial part of a person after a short or a long interval after death, in a new body whence it proceeds to lead a new life in the new body more or less unconscious of its past existences, but containing within itself the “essence” of the results of its past lives, which experience goes to make up its new character or personality.
    In the seventeenth century Rene Descartes divided everything in the universe into two realms as “Res Extensa” (matter) and “Res Cogitans” (mind). Gathering knowledge within the realm of Res Extensa was called Science and the phenomenon of reincarnation got pushed into the other realm Res Cogitans which was not considered suitable for scientific probing. Science developed in the framework of Res Estensa is known as “Classical Science”. Classical science had tremendous material achievements because it helped all round growth of technology which brought about prosperity to mankind. The air of frame work of Classical Science was blown out by Henry Becquerel in 1896 by the discovery of Radioactivity. The discovery of Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein in early 20th Century gave it further blow. The advent of Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle did the rest. It is significant to note that Einstein’s discovery fall entirely within the frame work of Res Cogitans as it did not involve any experiments or measurements. Gravitation Force Theory of Newton is also an example of such observation and intuition work involving no experiments and measurements.

    Modern Science enhanced man’s knowledge surpassing the restrictions imposed by the five senses and took us to hidden areas of nature and profound changes had been introduced in procedures of science. Our ability to understand everything by way of perceptible mental pictures is reduced and it became necessary to imagine models with components which behaved in ways that had no counterparts at all in the world familiar to us. In most cases mechanisms involved in these models not only are imperceptible but also consist of elements that operate in ways never known in the world that we actually experience through sensory inputs.
    Modern science tied up the two realms, Res Extensa and Res Cogitans and made us to understand that they are not independent and cannot be completely studied independently. Within the establishment of modern science some of the aspects of nature that did not strictly adhere to the realm of Res Extensa, which were therefore earlier condemned as unbecoming of scientists to talk about have become respectable. Reincarnation falls into this category
    Reincarnation is a very old belief and a large fraction of the world population believes it. For example Rene Descartes’ statement “What I have said is sufficient to show clearly enough that the extinction of the mind does not follow from the corruption of the body and also to give men the hope of another life after death” in 1641 confirms his belief in reincarnation. About 20 percent of those in the Western World whose religions shun reincarnation nevertheless believe it. According to opinion polls this percentage is rising.
    Lisa Miller, Religion Editor of Newsweek says that Americans are becoming more Hindus. According to 2008 Harris Poll 24% of Americans say they believe in reincarnation
    Steven J Rosen writes in The Reincarnation Controversy, Uncovering the Truth in World Religions (New Age Books) that belief in reincarnation allows us to see ourselves as architects of our own future. Rosen raises certain queries,‘ what is it that reincarnates from one body to another? Is it the soul? the mind? the intellect? To understand this we should suggest answer to these questions. We all know that there are four fundamental forces in the universe viz., gravitation force, electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. I have written a paper entitled ‘Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator’ and presented it at the 1st International Conference on Revival of Traditional Yoga held in Lonavla Yoga Institute, Lonavla in January 2006. In this paper I have defined soul (individual consciousness), mind and body. According to this every point of action of Gravitational Force Field is individual consciousness or soul, electromagnetic force as the force of mind and weak and strong nuclear force as the gross material force which constitute physical frame of body.
    Consciousness is All Intelligent and pervades everywhere. Although all other remaining three forces are also intelligent but they are subordinate to Gravitational Force. THIS DESCRIPTION WILL HELP TO UNDERSTAND ‘WHAT IS IT THAT REINCARNATES FROM ONE BODY TO ANOTHER.
    According to Buddhism this is not the supreme atman or soul that ties one life to another, instead it talks about past lives as evolvement of consciousness, emergence of a new personality from the same stream of consciousness.
    Reincarnation is not an exclusively Eastern precept. It is contained in some form in almost every major religion and mystical philosophy. Research indicates that it was an accepted doctrine, at least in some quarters, at the time of Christ, and is still an integral part of some sects of the Jewish tradition. The Bible contain no condemnation of the principle of reincarnation, and in fact, when Christ was asked when Elijah would return, he answered that Elijah had returned, referring to John the Baptist.
    Sakina Yusuf Khan writes in an article A Night Of Forgiveness published in The Speaking Tree: “It (Shab-e-Barat) is also a festival associated with the dead. It is believed that the souls of the dead are set free on this night to visit their relatives.” What this indicates? This is a belief in reincarnation, of course in subtle body. Sadia Dehlvi also writes in her article Jesus In Islam published in The Speaking Tree (August 29, 2010) that both Islam and Christianity believe that Christ will return to destroy the Antichrist. This is affirmation to reincarnation although in some restricted sense.
    It is clear from the above descriptions that both Islam and Christianity appear not to opposed to reincarnation. Of course, they don’t believe reincarnation in broader sense as Hindus do.
    Unaccomplished activities of past lives are also one of the causes for reincarnation. Some of us reincarnate to complete the unfinished tasks of previous birth. The is evident from my own story of reincarnation:
    “My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state of mine. This was sort of REVELATION.
    HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho” (You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab. Sarkar Sahab later on became Fourth of Spiritual Head Radhasoami Faith.
    Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ (Agam Geet yeh gawan chahoon tumhri mauj nihara, mauj hoi to satguru soami karoon supanth vichara) but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.”
    I am one the chief expounder and supporter of Gravitation Force Theory of God. This is most scientific and secular theory of God. This is the Theory of Universal Religion. I have given Higher Theory of Everything. Sometimes back I posted this as comments to a blog on:
    ‘Fighting of the Cause of Allah by Governing a Smart Mathematics Based on Islamic Teology’
    By Rohedi of Rohedi Laboratories, Indonesia. Rohedi termed my higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Some details are quoted below:
    rohedi
    @anirudh kumar satsangi
    Congratulation you have develop the higher theory of everything more wonderful than which has been developed by Stephen Hawking. Hopefully your some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory are recognized by International Science Community, hence I soon read the fundamental aspect proposed by you.
    I have posted my comments to the Blog of Syed K. Mirza on Evolutionary Science vs. Creation Theory, and Intellectual Hypocrisy. Syed Mirza seems to be a very liberal muslim. He responded to my comments as mentioned below.
    “Many thanks for your very high thought explanations of God.
    You said:
    “Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation. Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
    (i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, Source of Gravitational Wave is God”
    Whatever you call it, God is no living God of any religion. Yes, when I call it “Mother Nature” is the God generated from all Natural forces and Gravitational force is the nucleus of all forces or we can presume that Gravitation is the ultimate guiding principle of this Mother Nature we call it non-living God unlike living personal God of religions. I can not believe any personal God would do so much misery created for its creation. Hence, only non-living natural God can explain everything in the Universe. When we think of any living personal God, things do not ad up!”
    I have also discovered the mathematical expression for emotional quotient (E.Q.) and for spiritual quotient (S.Q.).
    Austrian Scientist Rudolf Steiner says,
    “Just as an age was once ready to receive the Copernican theory of the universe, so is our age ready for the idea of reincarnation to be brought into the general consciousness of humanity”.

  • Anirudh Kumar Dursangi

    Mr. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi, is an Idiot. Internet is full of his copy-paste material in all blogs. He believes that he’s a real genius and debates around with people.

    He thinks he is wiser than Newton, Einstein and Stephen Hawkings, bigger than any religion. He keeps commenting even when no one is listening to him.

    May GOD show mercy on him and grant him Wisdom!

    • http://godlessons.com Godlessons

      I didn’t even realize that he posted that wall of text. Anyway, he’s been polite enough. Overly so at times.

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Dear Well Wisher

    You have shown me the mirror. Thanks. I am not great but my work is more valuable because it will unlock the mystery of Truth. People will soon realize it. In the words of Swami Vivikananda: Such realization comes after three steps-Rejection, Ridicule and then Acceptance.

    .

  • Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

    Modus Operandi of Radhasoami Faith View of Creation – Part II
    Here the true Jaman (coagulant) was given. The spirituality coagulated as it were, and Surats (spirit entities), among themselves, brought the creation into being. Thereafter, another Jaman (coagulant) was given. Regions from Agam Lok (Inaccessible Region) to Sat Lok (True Region) were created during the first creational process. That creation is true. That region is eternal. There is no trace of evil and suffering. This was the creation for many Yugas and ages. Then there appeared a dark coloured current
    That current appeared like a dark coloured stone set in a white one and was absorbed in the Darshan of True Being. Then there appeared two Kalas i.e. currents (viz. Niranjan and Jyoti) and they together evolved the creation of five Tattwas (elements) four Khans (species, categories of life) and three Gunas (qualities). The three Gunas (qualities) brought about the expansion and proliferation . They created Rishis and Munis (sages and holy men), gods and godly human beings and demons. Egotism then increased much. Niranjan separated himself from the rest, putting the burden of looking after the creation on them. Nobody could know of Niranjan. Even the Vedas referred to Him as Neti Neti (Not this, Not this). They did not get Darshan (Vision) of Niranjan. They made conjectures. Then how can anybody have knowledge of Sat Purush (True Being), Source of Niranjan and all that exists. (Source: Sar Bachan Poetry)

    Scientifically here Jyoti represent three Fundamental Forces of Quantum Mechanics i.e. electromagnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. NIRANJAN is the fourth Fundamental Force i.e. Gravitation Force.

Previous post:

Next post: