Expert: James Gort - 4/20/2007

Question
Sir
I want to ask that according to many models of universe there was a singularity at the beginning of universe & at that point all classical theory break down even general relativity too , but it is said ( I have heard ) that if quantum effects are taken into account singularities does not occur. we know that singularity is a point of infinite density,infinite curvature ,etc. & at that point quantum effects can not be ignored , but  I want to know how can they remove infinity from that point ?

Answer
Hi Mohit,

This question is currently being studied by some of the best minds in physics. You're right - according to one current (widely accepted) theory, the universe was infinitely dense - it was a singularity.  Similarly, general relativity predicts (and shown mathematically by S. Chandrasekhar) that black holes must have a singularity at their core.  But is it a true singularity?  The problem is that there is no Quantum Theory of Gravitation.  If there was, it may indicate that gravitons cannot be confined to a point in space, thereby causing a finite, fluctuating multi-dimensional volume instead of a singularity.

In your questions, you assumed that the Big Bang theory is necessarily correct.  It is the most widely accepted theory, but I urge you to keep an open mind.  I've recommended the following books to others, and I'll do the same for you.  They'll do much to open your mind to other possibilities, and make you realize that physics has a long way to go.

There are many books on the popular market, but this one was written by three of the most respected astronomers/cosmologists in the world.  And they have major problems in accepting the Big Bang.  According to these authors, the background microwave radiation at about 2.7 degrees Kelvin (which some people say is evidence of the Big Bang radiation) could easily be accounted for as the remnants of energy created in stellar nuclear fusion.  They argue very convincingly for "continuous creation", whereby matter is being continually created from the universe's energy (and some of that matter decays back to energy).  And the redshift of galaxies (which seems to indicate galaxies are receding from the Big Bang) could have other explanations.  In fact, there are too many problems with the Hubble Redshift that there MUST be other explanations.  That book is "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Towards Reality".

That book gives the entire history of cosmology from 1914 to the present, and they insist that today, many former physicists became cosmologists for the funding, and behave like sheep, blindly following the Big Bang theory.  It requires only first year calculus (in some chapters only).

If you're still interested, I recommend "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, another very respected astronomer, who insists that galaxies' red shifts do have other explanations - and he describes them in detail.  In particular, he describes how the "accepted" velocity-distance relationship can't be correct.  

Prof. James Gort