FIREWORKS by Professor Hasan Askari, “Alone to Alone”, 1991
What preceded the BIG BANG? There must be an ingathered state followed by an outgoing which returns to the same ingathered state: a ceaseless series of alternate outgoings and returnings: a pulsating and breathing cosmos, a centre inflating into a sphere and a sphere contracting again into its centre.
With each outgoing goes the ingathering; with each manifestation stays its source; hence, the returning. There is no absolute infinite outflow. Hence there is no loss, either of the part in the whole or of the whole in each part.
There could be three possibilities. There is no fourth. First, there is a whole which lasts longer than its parts; parts replaced by other parts; say, within a species which endures but its individuals come and go. Secondly, a whole, being a plurality and a diversity of its constituent parts or individuals, involves a co-presence or co-endurance with its parts, for an empty wholeness without parts and constituents is untenable. Hence, there is a co-temporality (long or short) of the whole with its parts. Thirdly, as the whole with its wholeness is an outgoing from an ingathered state, its returning to its original condition must then be a unity wherein there cannot be a differentiation between parts as such and whole as such. Such a unity should be present at each point even of the outgoing wholeness, and therefore unity within the ingathered state or in the outgoing expanse are not two different realities. They are one reality. Hence, what goes out is already what is within. For example, has the seed from which a tree springs disappeared into nothingness as its source?
If one talks of the original bang, what sort of bang was it? An explosion? Like that of dynamite exploding inside a mass of rock? In this analogy the explosion expires with the explosion; each fragment of rock flowing out of the original mass has no longer the source of explosion with it. The ingathered source does not go, if such was the original explosion, with the outgoing fragments.
If such was the case, the universe would have long ceased to exist, unless each piece that flies out of the explosion becomes an occassion of further explosion. In order to explode it must be first intensely self gathered. Both for the large entities and for the smallest such a series of explosions must exist, whether they be stars or atoms. Hence, the difficulty or the impossibility of locating the centre of the universe; hence, there is no such thing as one original bang, but many bangs. That is one way to think afresh on the question of cosmological origins. Questions pertaining to the discovery of new galaxies, new structures and periodicities can be resolved when we re-examine the theory of the so-called big bang.
The phenomenon of the uniform and smooth micro-radiation in the universe, instead of tracing its origin to one mythical origin, may be seen as an evidence of an ongoing ingathered and outgoing activity throughout the cosmos.
There is however a far more serious issue about the so-called big bang. Apart from the course which the exploding “mass” took, whether leading to more and more “bangs” and apart from the question what sort of matter, of one sort or of two sorts (“matter” and “antimatter”), issues out of this explosion, one issue is first of all worth settling, namely, the behaviour of the original particles and forces. Was this behaviour haphazard? Was it arrived at through trial and error? Was it pregiven?
The very first question pertains to the law of the behaviour of antimatter towards matter. Their equal quantities are not supposed to coexist, for one will destroy the other. For the universe to survive and expand and grow, there should be some matter in excess of antimatter. We are not concerned here with the substantial question. Then the question of forces. Apart from other forces, the weakest among them all is gravity. However weak, it is essential to the structure of the universe.
We may for the time being believe that the so-called big bang really took place. We may also agree to the first massive and tremendous explosion of energy and matter, however difficult it is at this stage to differentiate one from the other. But what about “laws” which seemed to immediately come into operation soon after the said explosion? Did laws also “explode” into existence along with the energy and matter that they were supposed to govern and regulate? Under no stretch of reason one may suppose laws also exploding into the universe along with the bang. To say that the law of gravity also exploded with the big bang is to indulge in stark stupidity. And what about other laws which govern the properties of those elements which came into being much later, say carbon dioxide? And laws governing organic matter, life, consciousness, reasoning? Did they all explode with the big bang? Were they lying in suspense until those substances and forms arose which required them? Where were they lying in abeyance?
While we are trying to know what happened in the tenth of a second after the big bang and while we are thus trying to reach the first minimum of time at the advent of the cosmos, are we also reaching for the smallest possible unit of condensed matter? What held it in that state of intense density, and not allowing it to explode or expand? What force of gravity within itself pulled it to itself that it retained its intense density? If it exploded at x time, why not before, why not later? What suspended its internal gravity for an instant that the great bang was triggered? The answer is that we do not know, or we should ask another sort of questions. If the so-called big bang is a result of an instant’s suspension or weakening of the force of gravity is in itself a hopeless question. Or, was it so that a force involving a greater force of gravity pulled out of the contents within that mythical mass with such force that an explosion occurred? What was that force? If there was any, it makes the big bang a secondary phenomenon. For questions like these we require another perspective, another method.