Prof. Muni Mahendra Kumar
B. Creation of New Matter
As we shall discuss further in this book that Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, who are the discoverers of the Steady State Theory, have assumed that new matter is continuously created in the universe which compensates for the expanding space and keeps the density of matter in the universe constant. Although, in the present book, this assumption is refuted on the basis of the scientific principle of conservation of mass and energy (see, pp. 310-313), yet if the new matter means 'mass', then on the basis of the creation of aṣṭasparśī pudgala from catuḥsparśī one, the idea of creation of matter could be made compatible with the Jain doctrine.
As explained above, when the paramāṇus unite together to form the skandhas (aggregates) of catuḥsparśī pudgala they will be massless. When the aṣṭasparśī skandhas are formed by the association of the paramāṇus, they will be possessed of 'mass'. Thus the creation of new matter as suggested in the Steady State Theory would mean that the massless paramāṇus" which had already existed in the universe have now been converted into the form of aṣṭasparśī skandhas possessed of mass. Thus, actually it is not creation of new matter but only transformation of existing massless matter into new form of matter possessed of mass.
Again, in that cosmological theory where it is assumed that the existing matter would be destroyed (see, pp. 104-105), it should be interpreted as transformation of matter, possessed of mass, into massless matter.
If the expansion of the universe is interpreted as only the motion of the galaxies, and not as the expansion of the space itself, then the Steady State Theory would become much compatible with the Jain philosophy. Again, if the expansion which is going on at present is followed by contraction, and so on, then it would mean that there are cycles of time, during which there are alternative "departing away" and "coming nearer" of galaxies. (See pp. 314-315) This would mean that during departing away (expansion), there is creation of new matter and during coming closer (contraction), there is destruction of matter in the sense of transformation of pudgalas from massless state to one possessed of mass and vice versa respectively; such process would maintain the density of matter constant. Thus, there would be infinite cycles of creation and destruction which is again a concept closer to that of kālacakra in the Jain philosophy.
It is worthy to note that in June 1964, a young Indian scientist, Dr. Jayant Vishnu Narlikar in association with Dr. Fred Hoyle had given a new form to the steady state model of universe. My explanation given above becomes all the more important for this new interpretation.[1]
It may be interesting to note that in the modified version of Steady State Universe, presented jointly by Narlikar and Hoyle, a concept of "Creation Field or C-field" has been added to resolve the discrepancy of the creation of new matter with the Principle of Conservation of Mass and Energy. This C-field is compatible with the concept of "catuḥsparśī" pudgala in the Jain Philosophy.[2]
According to Jagjit Singh,[3] "With continuous creation of matter at an appropriate rate in an expanding universe, it is possible to strait-jacket the universe in the same steady state as it has always been. For we can then postulate that new galaxies are born out of newly created matter at precisely the rate required to replace the older. ones drifting out of our ken by continual expansion, so that the universe as a whole remains the same for ever.
"The hypothesis of continuous creation of matter thus resolves the age discrepancy, but only by an infringement of the law of conservation of energy and momentum implied in Einstein's equations of general relativity. For Einstein's field equations provided an extension or generalisation of the classical Newtonian equations of conservation of mass, energy and momentum - as they had to, if they were to incorporate its successes - by suitable interpretation and definition of the energy and momentum terms. But, if they were to be amended to provide for continuous creation of matter, the amendment must have a logical rationale. Because the ad hoc introduction of additional terms into the field equations simply to accommodate new creation would make then no better than some of the empirical equations of hydraulic engineers without any theoretical basis. Moreover, the terms so added to Einstein's equations would destroy much of their immediate physical and geometrical significance. That is why any arbitrary tinkering with established fundamental laws, merely to tide over some newly arisen difficulty, is not considered cricket.
"For this reason, Hoyle and Narlikar's new theory of gravitation, published last year, must be considered a great advance in that it is the most plausible rationalisation available to date of the steady state cosmology; because, in their theory, creation of matter is not treated ex nihilo, as in the earlier versions of the steady state cosmology, either by an arbitrary tampering with Einstein's field equations, as Hoyle did, or by deduction from an even more arbitrary principle, the perfect cosmological principle, as Bondi and Gold suggested......
"With the action-at-a-distance difficulty having been conjured away, even though only formally, by a sort of mathematical jugglery, Hoyle and Narlikar proceeded to incorporate fully in their theory of gravitation Mach's principle - for which there is now growing observational support - which Einstein never did. As a result, mass or inertia of matter, according to Hoyle and Narlikar, is not its inherent property but is deemed to stem completely from the long-range interaction of distant masses. Indeed, they have produced an equation that neatly ties up the mass of any body to the total mass in the observable universe - a universe that is, moreover, assumed to be a conglomeration of discrete particles that any particular observer can possibly include within his observational ken. Furthermore, the equations imply creation of new mater not by an ad hoc insertion of new terms in Einstein's field equations (as in the original version of the steady state theory of Hoyle) but as a natural consequence of the new theory. For, according to the new theory, matter is created not ex nihilo but out of the very energy of the universe's expansion. This link between energy and matter need no longer be a mystery, now that their equivalence has been brought home to all of us with such deadly clarity by atom bomb explosions. It is neatly epitomised in Einstein's mass-energy relation:
E = mc2
where E is energy in ergs, m mass in grams and c the velocity of light in centimeters per second.
“The expansion of the universe then provides the reservoir of energy whence arises newly created matter - the famous Creation Field or C-field of Hoyle and Narlikar, although it is not a "field" in the sense we have been using the term here. On the other hand, C-field is an abstruse mathematical concept designed to balance the cosmic energy books disturbed by the creation process. Since the creation of matter of any mass m means virtually the addition of mc2 of negative energy. In this way, C-field becomes a peculiar kind of reservoir in that it is a store of negative energy, with the result that the more it yields, the greater it grows. The situation is not unlike that of a man with a vast resource of negative credit: the more he spends it (this negative credit), the richer (in the negative sense) he becomes.....
"If the Hoyle-Narlikar equations with their accompanying queer-looking C-field of negative energy happen to provide new physical insights not given us before, it would be worth-while spinning a legend or two around the Hoyle-Narlikar axis, too. But alas! no fresh physical insight has yet been vouchsafed by their theory. All that they can claim in its favaour so far is that it solves some awkward puzzles that have worried theorists for a long time, besides providing a sophisticated mathematical rationale of some sort for their own steady state cosmology.....
"Quickly realising the adverse implications of the existence of quasars, particularly the "quiet" ones recently reported by Sandage, for the steady state theory Narliakar has put forth a novel idea, in a recent issue of The New Scientist. While conceding that the original "simple" version of the steady state theory may disagree with the new picture of distant regions as well as earlier phases of the universe as revealed by Sandage's discovery, he suggests a more complex variant of the theory. He now considers that their earlier picture of a homogenous universe, in which gentle creation goes on everywhere, is no longer tenable. According to the revised model offered by him, "the universe is inhomogeneous, made up of the galaxies and clusters of galaxies and with a non-uniform rate of creation".
“In such a model the creation of matter tak place not all over the universe but in certain isolated pockets. To permit this uneven creation of matter, the C-field strength at any point is made to depend upon the pre-existing particles. The more massive or energetic particles cause a more powerful C-field in their vicinity, so that the rate of creation of new matter is more there than elsewhere in the neighbourhood of less massive particles with a weaker gravitational field.
"Narlikar has recently suggested that the massive quasars may well be such pockets of creation. He has examined the implications of the idea, and concludes that it is possible that we are living in a rarefied "bubble" within a much denser, more rapidly expanding universe."
