Prof. Muni Mahendra Kumar
In Chapter II, we had discussed at length the theories of expanding universe in modern astronomy. Now, let us make their comparison with the Jain theory of Loka and Aloka In the Einsteinian theory of universe, the universe (space) is considered to have a steady state-it is not conceived as expanding. After this theory, when, on the basis of the spectroscopic observations it was found that the galaxies are moving apart at very high speed, the theory of expanding universe emerged in the field of modern science. Almost all the cosmological theories prevalent in modern science have accepted the theory of expanding universe and based their views on it. According to this view, the universe is expanding. Let us first examine this view in the light of Jain view, and then compare the various modern views with it.
In Jain metaphysical view,
- Space itself is a steady substance, and as such it cannot expand.
- Ākāśāstikāya (space) is a single undivided substance which is itself infinite and unbounded with respect to extension. It means that there is no place where there is no space. In that condition, how and where can it expand?
- Even if the space is considered finite, then there arise several questions, such as-what is beyond the finite space? If there is 'something', then in what way is it different from space? Is it itself steady or expanding? If 'it' is also expanding, then in what does it expand? If there is something beyond it, then, in this way, ultimately the fallacy of 'regresus ad infinitum' would occur. On the other hand, if 'it' itself is steady, then why not consider 'space' itself steady? Again, if there is 'nothing' beyond 'space', then in what the space would expand? For, how space could expand in 'nothing'? In this way, even such questions based on common sense and simple logic could not be solved.
Thus, in context of the Jain metaphysical view, it can be said that it is erroneous to conclude that the space itself is expanding.
A well-known Soviet scientist, V. Majentschev, in his work 'Universe and Atom', has critically examined the interpretation of 'red-shift' as 'expansion of universe'. He writes, "The scientists like Lemaitre, Eddington, Milne, Bondi and other bourgeois Idealist scientists interpret 'red-shift' as expansion of universe which itself is not bounded, but is its bounded extension. Then, a conclusion is drawn from this that in past the universe was very small in dimensions and was formed from a single primordial atom. In this "atom", created by the God, all the planets, stars, and galaxies were present in their primal forms. Then, an atomic explosion took place and it broke the atomic universe into several pieces, and these scattered pieces of the primordial atom now go on moving all around in the form of galaxies and other astronomical bodies. Lemaitre and Milne have even calculated the time of origin of this explosion which according to them is several million billion years, and is thus considered as the time of creation of universe.
"Such doctrines and formulae explicitly show the scientific bankruptcy of them. If, really, the universal space is finite, where does such universe exist? "
(As a matter of fact), till now, complete interpretation of the nature of the 'red-shift' has not been made. Whatever it is, even if the event is the effect of the fast moving galaxies, it would be impossible to relate it with whole universe where there is no end and there cannot be end of the peculiarities of objects."[1] We have already discussed about some other arguments given by the scientists against the theory of expanding universe.
The only argument put forth in favour of this theory is that there is no other solution to the problem of the 'red-shift'. But is it not ponderable that only to solve the problem of red-shift, the theory of expanding universe is accepted, but at the cost of so many unsolvable questions. It would be better if thorough studies and consideration is made to explain the phenomenon of red-shift and some such solution is found out which would be acceptable in the field of science and at the same time the theory of expanding universe would be given up. Otherwise, the theory of expanding universe would remain always doubtful (and hence unacceptable).
There is one more argument which makes the theory of expanding universe doubtful. Even if the phenomenon of red-shift is accepted as a fact, it would mean only that the distant galaxies are moving apart, but how it can imply that the space itself is expanding, for the recession only indicates the motion of the galaxies and not that of the space itself. It would mean that the distant galaxies are receding away from us (i.e., the earth), and not the distant space. Thus, if the galaxies are considered moving, and not the space, it would mean that it is not the universe which is expanding, but only the galaxies are moving; this would amount to giving up of the theory of expanding universe and, instead, accept that of steady universe (space).
