16) The question of the beginning and the end.

(This page was updated on Jun 2006)

There are some very strong reasons, which indicate that the universe is a boundless and timeless existence. Let me list a couple of them here: 

A) Science has always been based on the Laws of Conservation. These laws state that in a closed system that undergoes a physical process, certain measurable quantities remain constant. These laws also refer to functional symmetries. A system is said to exhibit symmetry if it's sum total remains unchanged in the course of operation. So the terms "closed system" and "symmetry" contain both physical and functional meanings. The Conservation Laws usually relate to the conservation of mass, energy and momentum, but in modern particle physics the conservation of electric charge is included. Hence, electricity and magnetism are fundamental properties of nature and exhibit symmetry (Electrons and Protons are fundamental to all atoms and are mutually inductive to magnetic moments. Electromagnetism is also fundamental to cosmic waves. Hence the entire cosmos are electromagnetism in nature). In short, the laws of conservations should mean theoretically that the sum total of all matters and energies that exist in the universe cannot come out of nothing, nor can they disappear into nothing. 

This is of course rationally true, not only no one has been able to prove otherwise, but also logically speaking, all constancy and predictability of laws of science depend on the fact that all thing in the universe are conserved. Of course, this also directly implies that the universe must exist forever because the interactions in the universe do exhibit both physical and functional symmetry. Therefore, the terms Beginning and End lose meaning in the infinite existence of nature. This, too, no one has been able to prove otherwise. Conversely if the Law of Conservation were not true, then there would be no more reason for all constancy in nature to prevail, and all laws of physics would have become untenable, or tenable only in isolated systems, but there is no such things as truly isolated system. In which case, unless all things are conserved and repeatable, sciences and mathematics would have become inconsistent. 

B) It so happened that in the last year of the official 20th century there have been two reports that scientists had broken the limit of the speed of light, which was said to be impossible. One experiment was carried out by a team at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, N.J, and the other by a team from the Italia National Research Council. (Please see above Contents Page items No.2 "On Time and Space" and item No. 5 "On Light and Speed of Light"). Then in 1998 a large team of US scientists, who had been using the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the rate of universe expansion for already 8 years, announced their finding and declared that the speed of expansion is in fact accelerating. Judging from their reported results and Hubble's law the most remote galaxies are at a distance of about 13/14 billion light years (this was first reported but later rectified to more than 12 billion light years), which in turn means that galactic recession speed at the remote end of the observable universe has already reached the speed of light (or there about) and yet still acceleating. This finding was confirmed by another group of European astronomers from European Southern Observatory in 2001. Another way of looking at superluminal speed (or speed greater than light) is that scientists at the SLAC of Stanford, California, have been able to accelerate electrons to just 1 mph short of the speed of light. Now, considering the power of particle accelerating machine at SLAC lab and the power that can accelerate the same particles at the center of galaxies, it would appear that the one mile/hour difference shouldn't be a barrier for the galactic center to overcome (Note:- This also means that the particles accelerating at galactic center can easily be faster than light. In which case the so called Black Holes discovered in recent years are the superluninal or unobservable part of galaxy ["black" to vision only, which I have termed as OBH (Observational Black Hole) in this website]. This, too, leaves us little doubt that the speed of light cannot be the maximum limit of speeds in the universe. Since then, there are more reports that scientists have achieved superluminal speed in laboratory conditions. These reports are listed under Internet search engines...     

In view of the above, a conclusion may be drawn as follows:-

Once the expansion of universe reaches the speed of light, the rest of the universe, no matter how big it might be, cannot be seen or detected by us, because no message or image can possibly travel faster than light to reach earth. In other words, recent observation and Hubble's Law show that the radius of the observable universe is approximately 13/14 billion light years (or more than 12 billion years), and that the speed of galactic recession has reached the speed of light, and is actually increasing faster than before. This means that the universal expansion has reached a maximum perceivable limit. But it also means that these remote galaxies couldn't have just got to be where they are last night by accident. It must have always been like that since long ago! We have no capacity and no right to determine how long ago the universal expansion has reached the speed of light, hence the beginning or end of the universe cannot be perceived or physically determined. The only thing we know is that the universe must be in dynamic balance or in functional symmetry, and therefore should be treated as repeatable, regenerative, infinite and perpetual... (please read more details and explanations in Contents Page # 17) "The real age of the universe", also FAQ # 24) "Additional arguments and sectional conclusions".  

The above is applicable to theory and practice both. However, there exists one tiny possible alternative. Supposing for some yet unknown reasons, or some new kinds of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, or perhaps the wizard like appearance of antiparticles, the universe does find itself creating, say, one tiny atomic particle of mass or one minute quanta of energy every billion years out of nothing, and since such tiny addition over such a long span would not be detected by science or by any means, and the Law of Conservation or any other practical and existing laws of physics would not be affected. Yet, with that tiny bit of increase in that endless life span of universe, say, countless billions of eons, which we could never know, the universe could still grow to its present size and magnitude. Yet all the time we are under the illusion that Laws of Conservation prevails. Would such a hypothesis be unrealistic and unscientific? In such a case, since it is indistinguishable to scientific reality, the possibility perhaps does exist, no matter how impossible it may seem at present. It 's at least more realistic then Divine Creation, and at least there is no need to explain how the Divine Being was created, or whether He has a large family or clan or not. So, why not? However, true or false it would not affect the Regenerating Universe Theory, because the theory is mainly about how the universe works, and not about its origin or creation. Either ways the theory works...

I have said it elsewhere in these pages, and will say it again here. Science has long departed from old religious belief or legendary fictional imagination regarding the start of universe. Efforts to describe and search for scientific reality has become the business of millions of scientists. There are still some incompatibilities between relativistic theories and Newtonian physics, Quantum physics as well as Hubble's Law that must be eventually sorted out, because mankind has truly reached the Quantum Physics Age as well as the cosmological age. I know my capacity is extremely limited and I may be utterly wrong in some of my analysis with regard to the fundamental postulate of universe. But I do feel the importance of sorting out the grounds of their discrepancies, because in the space age as today, each space project involves thousands of scientists and engineers. Any slightest inaccuracy by any one scientist in theory and in calculation, e.g. in design, in engineering, in the fundamentals of gravity, space or distance, speed, energy and in projection required for the space program, could easily send a multi-billion dollar spaceship into oblivion, or it could blow up some astronauts or tourists into smithereens... It probably has already happened, because in the process of making a space vessel, years of work and numerous calculations are needed. In short, cosmology, in theory and practice, has become a major part of daily life ...   

Finally, there is a strong reason for the conception or misconception about the Beginning and End of universal existence. Since the human being and all other forms of life do exist amongst infinitely numerous things and events, without ever to experience or account for all those things and events in his life time. Consequently, ever since a human is born, he sees nothing but the beginnings and ends of events, and he is educated to recognize those start and end of things and events. But he does not usually realize that all the beginnings and ends are joined into a continuous chain. In fact, it's one of those things that no one can clearly sort out the true beginning or the end, not even the chicken or the egg. The vision of a single span of human life or human affair is not different to the limited vision for the size and age of the observable universe, although the former is much smaller than the later.. Since both visions are limited and an individual human life may be chained in continuous evolutions and regenerations, then why not the observable universe be chained into portions and undergoing the same evolutionary process as well?   

Since no one is ever going to see or prove the physical beginning or end of the universe, but we do know that all thing in the universe are conserved, otherwise science would become unpredictable, then why can't we draw our conclusion that the universe is a functionally closed system (symmetrical and repeatable) or nearly closed system. This is a fact of science, otherwise the consistency of science and mathematics would lost. This implies that in all the immense greatness of nature, only visions are limited but the reality is endless, or increasing in quantity but too little or too long to be noticed. Foe instance, if you add some counts to infinity, it would still be infinity.  So, not only the limited microcosm exists in chains, but the portions of universe could also exists in chains. That being the case, the macrocosmic existence could be explained in realistic and comprehensible terms. Otherwise, how could the microcosmic, such as we, ever cross the visible barrier to understand the macrocosm?

Note;  The one and only religion born in the land of China is the Dao Religion, which may be regarded as the sole original Chinese religion that is still practiced today everywhere in China. It was evolved from the school of philosophy called Daoism invented more than two and half millenniums ago. Dao religion has all the worships and rituals like all religions, except what it worships is Nature. It preaches that the universe was originally a state of homogeneous gaseous matters or energy, which had precipitated to form all sorts of heavenly bodies. This is practically modern science! And it could even be right! 

Judging from sciences and from philosophical perspectives, the universe is an infinitive existence. Otherwise, science would become a form of belief. The human being is a creature of habits, and old habits die hard. But it could  inhibit the advance of science and civilization. In the final analysis, it's in keeping with scientific reality to bear in mind that all things in nature are undergoing mere transformation and nothing is ever lost. Not even one atom can disappear into nothing, let alone the whole big universe. If the whole massive universe cannot disappear, then it already means that the universe is a perpetual existence, but in continuous evolution and regeneration. This is science, and hope as well! At least better than a colossal violent explosion that could only symbolize destruction, not creation. So, why don't we let science remain hopeful!