Prof. Muni Mahendra Kumar
There are mainly three schools among the scientists who hold that the universe has beginning and also an end:
1. Abbe Lemaitre's Theory
2. Prof. Martin Ryle's Theory
3. Other Theories
We have already discussed in detail about these theories. When we critically examine them, a question may arise whether they believe in the beginning of the very existence of the universe or that of the present status. If the latter alternative holds good, then it would mean that the actual existence of the universe is beginningless, only the present form had emerged anew and in this respect it is said that the universe has a beginning. In that condition, these theories become quite akin to the Jain view. If, however, the former alternative holds true, then the above theories would be quite incompatible with the Jain view which has logically refuted the belief that the universe had a beginning.
We have seen that although the Theory of Abbe Lemaitre is very similar to that of Dr. George Gamow, there is a fundamental difference in them; whereas the latter believes actually in the beginningless universe, the former asserts it to be with a definite beginning-actually, it originated from a single stupendous primeval atom some five billion years ago; in Gamow's Theory, the universe actually existed from beginningless time and five billion years ago, the present expansion had started, before which the universe was undergoing contraction. Thus, comparatively Gamow's theory is more compatible with the Jain view than Abbe Lemaitre's theory.
If we examine Abbe Lemaitre's contention that the universe evolved from the "atom" in the light of the Jain Cosmological view, then a question arises whether the "atom" itself has a beginningless existence or has a beginning. If the "atom" itself has beginningless existence, then it would mean that the universe itself has beginningless existence. But, if on the other hand, the "atom" itself has a beginning, then again some "material cause" would have to be conceived, from which that atom was created. On logical basis, no real existence can be created from "unreal material cause"; hence, the material cause must have "real existence". Now, if it again is conceived to have a beginning and so on, then ultimately it leads us to regresus ad infinitum. Hence, we have to accept the beginningless real existence of the ultimate material cause. Thus, any theory like that of Abbe Lemaitre would not sustain on the logical basis.
Another belief of Abbe Lemaitre is that the universe is expanding, and hence, the same criticism which was made for the theory of expanding universe would apply to Abbe Lemaitre's Theory.
Another important theory is that of Prof. Martin Ryle, which was propounded in 1961. We have already given the gist of this theory,[1] and on the basis of that we can say that the same criticism would also apply to this theory.
In the third school, there are scientists who are working in other scientific fields such as radioactivity, and have propounded the theory of the universe with a beginning. As already mentioned,[2] they have found on the basis of radioactive phenomenon, that the radioactive elements came into existence on the earth some 5 billion years ago. From this is inferred that our universe is also 5 billion years old.
The following two facts should be taken into account while critically examining the above theory:
1. The above number, based on the radioactive phenomenon, only shows that the existence of the radioactive elements on the earth is 5 billion years old, but how would it be logical to deduce from it that the Universe itself is 5 billion years old only? Firstly, how can it be ascertained that these elements had no existence whatsoever or in any form before 5 billion years? For, it is possible that the ultimate stuff (or subatomic form) of these elements had a quite different structure and only 5 billion years ago, the radioactive form of these elements came into existence. Thus, it would not mean that they did not at all exist. What we can say is that their radioactive elemental form is only 5 billion years old.
Another argument may be that even if it is accepted that their existence is only 5 billion years old, how does it imply that the very existence of the earth and the whole universe is also only 5 billion years old?
2. "In the cosmological theory of Prof. E. A. Milne,[3] he distinguishes two kinds of time: ephemeral or dynamical time, i, which is the time recorded by a molar timekeeper such as the Chronometer or the rotating earth, and absolute or kinematic time, t, which is the time recorded by a timekeeper based on atomic processes, such as a radioactive clock. It is the time of Newtonian dynamics, so that in terms of it a particle moving under no forces has a constant velocity: it is such that the Newtonian constant of gravitation, which has the dimensions (Mass)-1 (Length)-3 (Time)-2, remains permanently constant in time. On the other hand, the period of the radiations emitted by a radiating atom is constant only when it is measured in kinematic time so t is the time kept by an 'atomic' clock. The relation between i and t is:
Where to is the present value of t, i.e., the age of the universe in t-time, say 4x109 years. With this disposition, we have at the present instant i = t and di/dt = 1, so the two scales are momentarily the same."
From the above equation, it is at once known that i = t and dt/dt = 1 at the present moment, but with respect to past time, at very far moments these two time-units would not be the same. Thus, only on the basis of the 't' which denotes the time kept by the atomic clock, the universe has a beginning, but in reality, to attain the actual time of beginning, we require such infinite t units; this would mean that it would not be possible to attain it, which means that actually the universe is beginningless.
From this discussion, it follows that even on the basis of radioactive phenomenon; the universe is proved to be beginningless with respect to time.
