Is universe is finite?

It was the question first raised when Newton for the first time postulated the theory of gravity. Then many contemporary scientists refused the Newtonian theory arguing that if gravity is real then all universe must collapse in one point. To defend his theory newton for the first time purposes that universe is infinite and in infinite universe there is no any point to fall all body. Then after some time this theory was revised by arguing that gravity is a force that work as attractive in short range and repulsive in long range. But this theory was ignored. It took too much time to understand the real nature of gravity. It was Albert Einstein who postulated the general theory of gravity that finally solved the question about gravity. At first Einstein  also confused about this. and he add cosmological constant in  his theory. But after Hubble found universe is expanding he remove the cosmological constant. this really solve the problem of gravity but still there is question about universe. It is finite or infinite? Some argues it as finite and some as infinite. what is the reality? Nobody knows.
But i think the universe is spatially infinite. I will take the help of uncertainty principle. which is as follows
" The uncertainty principle is the concept that precise, simultaneous measurement of some complementary variables -- such as the position and momentum of a subatomic particle -- is impossible. Contrary to the principles of classical physics, the simultaneous measurement of such variables is inescapably flawed; the more precisely one is measured, the more flawed the measurement of the other will be."
By this it is clear that both position and moment of universe can not zero. this mean if universe is finite then it implies that both position and momentum is zero outside the universe. So it will violate the uncertainty principle. so universe must be spatially infinite.

After reading "the grand design"

Recently I’ve finished a famous book “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking. His book represents beautiful work of him.  His previous books e.g. the brief history of time, theory of everything are very interesting books which easily change the thinking style of reader. But in this book Hawking give me a shock. This shock did not arise from what is in the book but from what is not in the book.

S. Hawking as a great scientist and I’m a student of physics so I have very few knowledge about physics so I can not criticize his work , (That’s why this article is published in this blog and not in newspaper) so this is not criticize but my own perception about this book.

This book is specially focused to verify non existence of god. Although I’m also inspired from atheist point of view this book cannot really touch me. Science is narrowing the boundary of god. But this does not mean that science is going against god. Science however is too much complex today and only few people can understand this but it itself cannot understand nature completely. I remember one priest telling me that scientist cannot show difference between dead and living body, and there are too much natural phenomenon that are still out of boundary from science. Since we have not reached our goal it is hurry to announce that science win and god loses.

Another main difficult point I found in this book is about theory of everything. Since I read about this topic in his another book “a brief history of time” it always attracted me. A theory that can explains everything may exists but now how we can say that we are very near of it? Hawking himself tells about Laplace’s theory of determination. Arrival of quantum mechanics rejected that idea and we feel funny Laplace’s point of view. But how we feel that now we know everything? We are seeking for TOE from decades but it is still far from us. How can we say that these ideas will not reject in some year? At that time TOE or M-theory will be new version of Laplace’s theory.

Another difficult point is his record of history. He has recorded the data of origin of science from Greece only. But he is unaware from the eastern development about science. One example is about astronomy. I sometime surprise by the difference between eastern and western astronomy. Their base is different but the result is same. E.g. eastern called universe “Brahmanda” Brahma+Anda (elliptical) and also “khagol” kha(space) + gol (round). And they called earth as “Bhugol” Bhu (earth) and gol (round). When western believed earth is flat, eastern called it bhugol or round. And they called space as curved. It means western thinkers are proud to know that they discover space is curves but every people in east call it curve (but they don’t know what they are saying and only experts know). So eastern researcher already knew what is new called in science. Another exciting example is about Mahabharat war. Eastern people believe that it was occurred five thousand years ago and now it is proved. How? The war was lasted for 18 days and in the story 27 astronomical signs are included (position of planets and also solar eclipse). And when it was calculated with modern mathematics scientists found that the day back to 5100 years. This means 5000 years ago eastern could calculate astronomical also. But hawking believes that solar eclipse was successfully calculated by Greek first time. How he can neglect the eastern development and only credited western for development of science?

These are few glimpses that I found difficult while reading this book. It may be due to my lack of knowledge. So this is only my point of view. If you have different opinions then you can give comment.

Some photos from arghakhanchi

Shree Sharada Secondary School Kerunga Arghakhanchi

Field which is used to agriculture purpose seems barran and Narpani mountain range in background

linn

A beautiful scene from Pali VDC