Social Scientist

Dialectics and Cosmology: The Big Bang and the Steady State Theories
Author(s): K. K. Theckedath
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 31, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Feb., 2003), pp. 57-84
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3518290
Accessed: 04-02-2016 10:01 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3518290?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
K.K. THECKEDATH*

Dialectics and Cosmology:The Big Bang and the

Steady State Theories

'Thereis a well-knownsayingthat if geometricalaxiomsaffecthuman

interestsattemptswould certainlybe made to refutethem. Theories
of naturalsciencewhich conflict with the old prejudicesof theology
provoked, and still provoke, the most rabid opposition'. To this
observationof Lenin one can add that, contrariwise,theorieswhich
lend support to the prejudicesof theology get acclaimedas the last
word in science even though they may be full of logical holes and
other deficiencies.This is preciselywhat has happenedto the greatly
hyped big-bangtheory in cosmology.
Cosmology is the study of the world in the large. It includesthe
stars,other stellarobjects,nebulae,galaxies,clustersof galaxies, and
the structureon the largest scales that are now observablethrough
the latest instrumentslike the large optical and radio telescopes.
Questions of the evolution of the various structuresare asked, and
often the question of the origin of the world itself is asked by
cosmologists.Hence this field of scienceis a favouritehuntingground
for theologians, who acclaim suitable theories of science and also
suggestwhich areas should not be put underscrutiny.
Stephen Hawking' writes of his experience with the Catholic
Church:
'Throughout the 1970sI hadbeenmainlystudyingblackholes,butin
1981myinterestin questionsabouttheoriginandfateof theuniverse
wasreawakened whenI attendeda conference
oncosmologyorganized
by theJesuitsin the Vatican.The CatholicChurchhadmadea bad
mistakewithGalileowhenit triedto laydownthelawon questionsof
science,declaringthatthe sunwentroundthe earth.Now, centuries
later,it had decidedto invitea numberof expertsto adviseit on
cosmology.At theendof theconference theparticipants
weregranted
*Coordinator,Teachers'Organizationin Maharashtra.

Social Scientist, Vol. 31, Nos. 1-2, Jan.-Feb. 2003

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 SOCIALSCIENTIST

an audiencewith the pope. He told us that it was all rightto studythe

evolutionof the universeafter the big bang, but we shouldnot inquire
into the big bang itself becausethat was the momentof Creationand
thereforethe work of God.'
In the present paper we examine, in the light of the principles of
dialectical materialism, the popular theory called the hot big-bang
theory as well as the alternative theory put forward by Fred Hoyle,
Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar2 which is called the quasi
steady state cosmology. We shall argue that the steady state theory is
closer to the reality of the structure of the world at the scale revealed
by the latest scientific instruments, which structure we call as the
Metagalaxy.
SOMEPRINCIPLESOF DIALECTICS
(i) On the inexhaustibility of moving matter
Dialectical materialism is not a set of principles that are taken to
be above nature or to be imposed upon nature. In fact dialectical
materialism makes no assumption except that the world exists
independently of our thinking and that it is knowable: 'Dialectical
materialism does not recognize any absolutes, with the exception that
there exists an external world and human consciousness reflects it.'3
The principles of dialectics are abstracted from the world and
they represent the widest and most general description of nature,
society and thought. A statement of the principles of dialectical
materialism would run into several pages, and such a description is
not attempted here. The reader may see, for example, my book
Dialectics, Relativity and Quantum4 (chapters 2 and 3). What we are
specially interested here is in the principle of inexhaustibility of matter
in motion.
All of science shows us that nature exhibits surprising properties
at different stages and in different conditions. By the term 'surprising
property' we indicate that the laws governing matter at one level fail
to hold unconditionally at all levels. For example, water which has
liquid properties normally, if put to cooling beyond the measure of
this law, suddenly reveals a new property of being a solid. It is the
failure of one law at a different level which brings forth the reaction
of surprise.
Further, all of science shows that this is a feature at every level of
the investigation of matter. In fact, a good scientist expects surprises
when he performs experiments by stretching any law beyond the limits
of its measure. This is an objective feature of the world, and it is also

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 59

a useful heuristicprinciplein research.Lenin describedthis feature

of reality as the inexhaustibilityof matterin motion.
In this book Materialismand Empirio-criticismrn Lenindealt with
some of the theories of Mach and others. They had arguedthat, in
view of the electromagneticorigin of the mass of the electron, mass
had disappeared.Leninwrote:
'Matterdisappearsmeansthat the limitwithinwhichwe have hitherto
knownmatterdisappearsandthat ourknowledgeis penetratingdeeper;
propertiesof matterare likewisedisappearingwhich formerlyseemed
absolute,immutableand primary(impenetrability,intertia,mass, etc.)
and which are now revealedto be relativeand characteristiconly of
certainstates of matter.'
From this idea Leninwent on to formulatethe celebratedthesis
of the 'inexhaustibilityof the electron', in which he stated that the
scientific cognition of the electron may proceed indefinitely,
continuously yielding new results about reality: 'The electron is as
inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite but it infinitely exists.
And it is this sole categorical, this sole unconditional recognition of
nature's existence outside the mind and perception of man that
distinguished dialectical materialism from relativist agnosticism and
idealism.' Lenin further states:
'All forms and states of matter in motion are finite, emerge and
disappear,passfromone into another,butmovingmatteritselfis eternal,
infiniteandinexhaustiblein its properties.Denialof the inexhaustibility,
uncreatednessandindestructibility of matter,whateverformthat denial
may assume,always leads to an idealist,and in manycases a religious,
view of the world.'
In effect, in the religious view of the world the indestructibility
and uncreatedness inherent in matter and its attributes are transferred
to a being created by human imagination - God.
The question can be asked. How is it that both science and religion
make identical use of the uncreatedness and indestructibility, the first
with respect to matter and its attributes, and the second with respect
to God? The answer was given by Marx who noted that any fantasy,
even the most absurd, has a rational core. Man can not only create
fantastic images by arbitrarilycombining different ideas (for example,
by combining realistic images of maids and fish they can create the
image of a mermaid), but they also assign known properties of nature
and society to these images.
However, there is a difference between the scientific idea of the
uncreatedness and indestructibility of matter and its attributes and

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 SOCIALSCIENTIST

the religious idea of the uncreatednessand indestructibilityof God.

In religion this idea has acquired the character of a dogma, a
propositionwhich one must simplybelieve,which one cannot in any
way demonstrate,since it is attributedto a non-existent object the
study of which is absolutelyimpossible.
In science, on the other hand, the idea of uncreatednessand
indestructibilityis attributedto the objectiveworld, which is open to
ever deeperknowledgeand is thereforeexpressedin deeperconcrete
forms, verifiableby the furtherdevelopmentof scienceand practical
activity.Whilethe ideaof uncreatabilityand indestructibilityis frozen
in religion at the level of an abstracttrivial assertion,in science the
idea is continuallyconfirmedand functionsas a guidingprinciplein
the developmentof the scientificcognition of the world.

(ii) The Dialectic of the Absolute and the Relative

The infinityand inexhaustibilityof matterin motion impliesthat
the processof cognition,that is, of understandingnature,will also be
a never ending process. The world exists and it is knowable. The
human potential for knowledgeis at the basis of all science. In fact,
belief in the power of the human intellect, the conviction that we
have an unlimitedpotentialfor knowledgeof what is as yet unknown,
plays a leadingrole in the developmentof science.
However, the knowledge that we have at any point will be
dependent on the means of getting that knowledge, the level of
technology etc. As Leninsaid:
'The 'essence'of things,or 'substance'is also relative;it expressesonly
the degreeof profundityof man'sknowledgeof objects:whileyesterday
the profundityof this knowledge did not go beyond the atom, and
today does not go beyond the electron and the other, dialectical
materialisminsistson the temporary,approximatecharacterof all these
milestones in the knowledge of nature gained by progressing science
of man.'
From the point of view of dialectical materialism knowledge is
an endless process of approximation of thought to the cognized object,
the movement of thought from ignorance to knowledge, from
incomplete, inexact knowledge to more complete and more exact.
Replacing obsolete theories with new ones, rendering old theories
more exact, knowledge marches onward, revealing ever new sides of
reality.
Lenin6describes this process of approximation of knowledge from
relative truths to absolute truth in the following words:

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 61

'Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straightline, but a

curve, which endlesslyapproximatesa seriesof circles, a spiral. Any
fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed
(transformedone-sidedly)into an independent,completestraightline,
which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the
quagmire,into clericalobscurantism(whereit is anchoredby the class
interests of the ruling classes). Rectilinearity and one-sidedness,
woodenness and petrification,subjectivismand subjectiveblindness
- violathe epistemologicalrootsof idealism.Andclericalobscurantism
(=philosophicalidealism),of course, has epistemologicalroots, it is
not groundless;it is a sterileflower undoubtedly,but a sterileflower
that grows on the living tree of living, fertile genuine, powerful,
omnipotent,objective,absolutehumanknowledge.'
We shall show in the sequel that the so called big-bang theory of
cosmology is such a sterile flower arising out of a rectilinearity which
fails to recognize that laws of physics cannot be stretched beyond
their measure. The roots of this go to a failure to recognize the
inexhaustibility of matter in motion as well as the dialectic of the
relative and the absolute.
THE HOT BIG-BANGMODELOF THE UNIVERSE
Almost all the books on cosmology written today focus on only one
model of the universe,namely,the currentlypopular hot big-bangmodel.
Roughly speaking, according to this model, the Universe was 'created'
in a big-bang which occurred some 15,000 million years ago, and the
radiation from that super hot event, it is claimed, can still be seen around
in the universe coming from all directions. This radiation, which is in
the form of a microwave backgroundradiationhas been observed. Huge
claims have been made about the 'origin' of the Universe.
For example, we give below some of these claims about the
microwave background and its fluctuations.
'They have found the Holy Grailof Cosmology'
(Dr MichaelTurner,Universityof Chicago)
'Well,if you are a religiousperson, it's like seeingthe face of God'
(Dr GeorgeSmoot, Universityof California,Berkley)
Naturally, such reactions, publicized in journals like Time
magazine, have certainly gone to place the big-bang theory as the
main theory of the Universe.
This model of the universe fits very well with the claims of the
theologians in general, and with the claims of the Catholic Church in
particular.

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 SOCIALSCIENTIST

How large is the universe,what is its scale, does it go beyondthe

Milky Way? These questions did not have any answer until the
beginningof the twentiethcentury.As far back as in 1855 structures
had been identifiedin the sky that did not belong to our Milky Way.
Thesewere the nebulae,one of which was detectedby LordRosse to
have a spiral structure.It was conjecturedthat these nebulae might
themselvesbe objects like the Milky Way.
Fromthe time Galileopointedthe firsttelescopetowardsthe skies
and observed the moons of the planet Jupiter,great advanceshave
beenmadein the techniquesof observation.Not only havethe powers
of the optical telescopes increasedvastly, with telescopes of larger
and larger diametersand placed at high altitudes, the advances in
technology have helped us to use electromagneticwaves of wave
lengths other than of light to penetrate into the structure of the
universe.These have included investigationswith the help of radio
frequencies (radio telescopes and radio sources), infra-red and
ultravioletfrequenciesas well as X-ray and gammaray energies.
Eachadvanceof observationaltechnologyhas exposed largerand
larger sections of the Universe, and at each new level surprisingly
new propertieshave been revealed.The dialecticalprincipleof the
inexhaustibilityof matter is being daily confirmedby each opening
up of a new level. We shall use the term Metagalaxy to denote the
structurallevel availableto us today,and which extendsupto 15,000
million light years.
LARGENUMBERS,LARGEDISTANCES,LARGEMASSES
In astronomy and cosmology we have to deal with very large
numbers, distances and masses. For writing large numberswe use
the notation of powers of ten as in school algebra.Thus one million
is written as 106, and one million million as 1012. In the same way
very small fractionscan be written using negativepowers of 10. The
fractionof one millionthis written as 10-6,and one part in a million
million is written 10-12.
Large distances are expressed by taking standardsof measure
which are very large.One such standardis the light year (ly) which is
the distance travelled by light in one year. One light year is about
nine million million kilometers.Other measuresof distance are the
parsecand megaparsec.The parsecis the distanceof a star at which
would be substandedan angle of one second of arc by the radiusof
the Earth'sorbit. One parsec is slightly more than three light years.
One kiloparsecis one thousandparsecs,and a megaparsec(Mpc) is

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 63

one million parsecs. The Mpc is a suitable measure in cosmology.

As regards large masses like the masses of bodies like the stars
and galaxies, we use as unit the solar mass, namely, the mass of the
Sun, which is about 2x1032 grammes. Our galaxy (the Milky Way)
contains about a 100,000 million stars like the sun. It is bun shaped
with a diameter of nearly 100,000 light years. It is estimated that
there are nearly 3000 million other galaxies in the observable universe.
In parsecs, we could say that a typical galaxy has a diameter of
30 miloparsecs and a thickness of 10 kiloparsecs. The distance between
neighbouring galaxies could be in the order of 3 to 4 megaparsecs.
THE RED SHIFT AND THE MOTION OF GALAXIES
Light from the stars or other objects can be analysed by breaking
it up into spectra. We are familiar with the spectrum of white sunlight
when it passes through a glass prism. By the early 1930s the spectra
of some 90 nebulas had been studied by astronomers like Slipher,
Pease and Humason.
These spectra from distant galaxies, when compared with the
laboratory spectra, showed that the spectral lines from distant galaxies
were shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Using the Doppler
principle, which relates frequencies of light emitted by objects and
their speeds of motion, it was concluded that most of these distant
galaxies were moving away from our own galaxy.
From the red shift of the spectra we can deduce the speed at which
the objects are moving away from us. It was noticed that there were
hardly any galaxies with a blue shift, and most of the galaxies showed
a red shift. Hubble showed that the red shift was directly proportional
to the distance of the corresponding galaxy. This relation between
the red shift and the distance was given by Hubble in the year 1929.
It is called Hubble's law.
Without going into technical details of how distances of galaxies
are measured, we can say that the closer galaxies are moving away
from us at lower speeds and the distant galaxies are moving away at
very high speeds.
By 1932 work on the spectra of different nebulae had shown that
spectral shifts interpreted as velocities suggested that the vast majority
of nebulae had velocities of recession. Groupings of nebulae with
approximately the same velocities had been detected by Humason.
He had measured radial velocities in the following clusters: Virgo,
Perseus, Coma, the Pegasus and Leo. By 1931 Humason and Hubble
had confirmed the earlier law of 1929.

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 SOCIALSCIENTIST

The pictureof the universethat emergedby the 1930s was of an

expanding universe.The galaxies, which are actually systems with
tens of hundredsof millionsof stars,can each be treatedas a unit. In
a daring act of abstraction, we treat each galaxy as a point (a particle)
and its motion is described as a curve in space and time. These particles
(galaxies) are seen to be scattered uniformly in space, and the distances
between them are seen to be increasing at a uniform rate. These can
be pictured as spots on a balloon which is expanding. As the balloon
expands, the distances between the dots go on increasing, the closer
dots separating at a rapid speed. This was the image of the universe,
an expandinguniverse.
STEPIN UNDERSTANDING
REVOLUTIONARY
This was a revolutionary step in understanding the structure of
the world around us, as compared to the earlier image of a static
universe. Newton had himself considered a model of the universe in
which the stars formed an infinite fixed structure. But when he tried
to understand how the system would be static in spite of the attractive
force of gravity between the stars, he could not succeed.
Now Newton's theory of gravitation, although a very good theory
for all practical purposes, suffered from some weaknesses which were
exposed by Einstein. Einstein corrected Newton's theory of gravitation
by giving an alternative theory called the general theory of relativity.
Several phenomena which Newton's theory could not explain were
explained in the general theory of relativity.
It is to be noted that in 1915 when Einstein tried to apply his new
theory to the Universe as a whole, he also made the assumption that
the universe was static. His field equations could not explain why the
universe did not collapse under the force of its gravitational attraction.
He tried to fit his equations by introducing an extra term, the so
called lambda term, which represented a repulsive force. With this
lambda term added to his equations he was able to have a static
model of the universe.
In formulating such a model of the universe two assumptions were
made which simplified the work. The first assumption was that the
universe is homogeneous on the large scale. The second assumption is
that the distribution of the galaxies and matter on the large scale is
such that all directions are equivalent. This property is called isotropy.
Einstein'smodel of the universe was homogeneous, isotropic and static.
It must be remarked that in the year 1922 a Soviet mathematician
Alexander Friedmann found a new solution of Einstein's field

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS
AND COSMOLOGY 65

equations without the lambda term. This solution represented a

universewhich was homogeneous,isotropic and was an expanding
model. This was prior to the discoveryof Hubble's law of the red
shift. Einsteinhimself hailed this as a great step forward. However,
for over a decade Friedmann'swork was not known to the western
world. In fact the expanding world model was rediscovered by
RobertsonandWalkermuchlater.Thesemodelsarethereforereferred
to as the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models.
What are the simplifyingassumptionsunderwhich these models
of the universe are constructed? Firstly, it is assumed that the
distributionof the galaxies in the universeis homogeneous.
The thirdassumption,calledWeyl'shypothesisis about the paths
of the galaxies treated as particles. It is assumed that the paths in
space-time are simple curveswhich do not criss-cross,and are such
that they allow us to definea world time coordinate.This world time
is called the epoch.
MODEL
FEATURESOF THE COSMOLOGICAL
What are the features of this cosmological model? We must
rememberthat this is a mathematicalmodel with parametersto be
filled in which are basedon physicalobservationof the world around
us. Forexample,thereis a parameterk to which we can assignone of
the three values, namely +1, -1 or 0.. For each of these values the
model will satisfy Einstein'sequations. Correspondingly,these are
actually three models from which we have to choose dependingon
detailed observationsof the red shift of distantgalaxies.
SinceHawkingis one of the most famouspropagatorsof the big-
bangtheory,we shalldescribethe threepossibilitiesin his own words.
AlthoughFriedmann foundonlyone,therearein factthreedifferent
kindsof modelsthatobey... theassumptions. Inthefirstkind(which
Friedmann found)the universeis expandingsufficientlyslowlythat
the gravitationalattractionbetweenthe differentgalaxiescausesthe
expansionto slow downand eventuallyto stop. The galaxiesthen
startto movetowardseachotherandtheuniversecontracts... Inthe
secondkindof solution,the universeis expandingso rapidlythatthe
gravitationalattraction canneverstopit thoughit doesslowit downa
bit... Finally,thereis a thirdkindof solutionin whichthe universeis
expandingonlyjustfastenoughto avoidrecollapse
All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature in common that at
some time in the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years
ago) the distance between the neighbouring galaxies must have been

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 SOCIALSCIENTIST

zero. At that time, which we call the big-bang, the density of the universe
and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because
mathematicscannot really handle infinite numbers,this means that
the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann'ssolutions are
based) predictsthat there is a point in the universewhere the theory
itselfbreaksdown. Sucha point is an exampleof what mathematicians
call a singularity
After describing this feature of all three mathematical models,
namely, infinite density at a certain time in the past, Hawking goes
on a journey of speculation and argues that time itself had a beginning.
he says:
In fact, all our theoriesof science are formulatedon the assumption
that space-time is smooth and nearlyflat, so they break down at the
big-bangsingularity,wherethe curvatureof space-timeis infinite.This
means that even if there were events before the big-bang,one could
not use them to determinewhat would happen afterward,because
predictabilitywould breakdown at the big-bang.Correspondingly, if,
as is the case, we could not determinewhat happenedbeforehand.As
far as we are concerned, events before the big-bang can have no
consequences,so they shouldnot formpartof a scientificmodel of the
universe.Weshould thereforecut them out of the model and say that
time had a beginningat the big-bang(emphasisadded).
Hawking comments that many people do not like the idea that
time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine
intervention. But he admits that the Catholic Church siezed on the
big-bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in
accordance with the Bible.
FAILED OPPOSITION TO THE BIG BANG
A simple view is that, because the galaxies are seen to be moving
away from each other according to Hubble's law, at some one instant
in the past they should all have been at one point, and hence the
density should have been infinite at this point of time and space.
However, this is not the argument of the big-bang theorists.
In fact, an attempt to avoid the conclusion of the big-bang was
made by two Russian scientists, Evgenii Lifshitz and Isaac Khalatnikov,
in 1963. They criticized Friedmann's model in which all the galaxies
are moving away from each other. In the real universe, the galaxies
also had a small sideways velocities in addition to the velocities from
a point. So in reality the galaxies need not have been at the same
place at any time in the past: they could have been only close to each

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 67

other. The galaxies could have come close together from an earlier
contracting phase, but instead of colliding they might have flown
past eachother,producingthe presentexpandingphaseof the universe.
Throughthis argumentit was attemptedto avoid the conclusionof a
big-bangin the past.
However, this argument is not good enough to avoid the
conclusion of the big-bang.There are some powerful mathematical
theoremswhichwereprovedby RogerPenrosein 1965 andby Penrose
and Hawking in 1970 which indicated that there should be
singularities even in the scenario presented by Lifshitz and
Khalatnikov.
BLACKHOLESTHEOREMS
Penrosewas working on the possible evolution of certain stars
after they have exhaustedall their sourcesof energyformation.It is
the heatenergywhich opposesthe tendencyof a starto collapseunder
the internal force of its own gravity. Once the source of energy is
depleted, gravitational attraction overtakes and the star starts
collapsing.Using Einstein'sgeneraltheory of relativity,accordingto
which gravitation is a purely attractive force, and some other
conditions called the energyconditions, Penroseprovedthat when a
star,havinga mass abovea certaincriticalmass, had exhaustedall its
sourcesof nuclearand other energy,it shouldgo into a gravitational
collapse. All particles of such a star would fall inwards due to
gravitationalattraction.Eventhe light emittedby such a star would
fall inward due to its powerfulgravity.
In fact, accordingto thistheorem,therewould be a surface.around
the star which would trap all the radiation of the star and all its
particlesinside the surface,and this surfaceitself would shrinkto a
point with all the parts of the star. Such an object was termed as a
black hole. A black hole would end in a singularity.
Accordingto this theory,blackholes could not be seen since they
do not emit light towards us. But their gravitationaleffects could be
felt. A black hole could attractsurroundingmaterialand suck it into
itself. Such suction of mattercould lead to high speeds and emission
of huge amountsof energyfrom the fallingmatter.This energycould
be observedin principlein the form of X-rays,etc. Astronomershave
identified some objects in the sky, which they claim could be black
holes. But no final identificationof a black hole has been made.

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

BLACK HOLES AND THE BIG BANG

In the blackhole scenario,wherematteris going into a singularity
with the passage of time, we can imagine anotherpossibility.If we
take a cinematographic film of this process, and run the film
backwards, we shall see the picture of an expanding structure.
Mathematically,what this operation means is that we replace the
variablet for time by its negative,namely,by the symbol -t, to get a
notional time reversal.
Penrose and Hawking proved that the time reversedargument,
when applied to the black hole scenario,impliedthat a Friedmann-
like expandinguniversemust have begun in a singularity.Therewas
no escape from a singularityin the past of the Friedmannuniverse
underthe mathematicsof the Penrose-Hawkingtheorems.
Now, there is a certain fetish about mathematicsand theorems.
This is partly because of the fear of mathematicsthat most people
have from their school days. And when mathematical theorems
purport to prove something that the ruling classes desire, namely,
that people shouldbelievethat the universewas createdby a Creator,
then this fetish is made to masqueradeas science.
Let us quote from a technical paper from Hawking which not
only speaks about the singularitytheorems, but also about their
importance:
Thetheorems intwosituations.
predictsingularities Oneis inthefuture
in the gravitationalcollapseof starsand other massive bodies.The
othersituationin whichsingularitiesarepredictedis in thepast,at the
beginningof the presentexpansionof the universe.This led to the
abandonment of attempts(mainlybytheRussians) to arguethatthere
was a previouscontractingphaseand a non-singularbounceinto
expansion.Instead,almosteveryonenow believesthat the universe,
andtimeitself,hada beginning at thebig-bang.Thisis a discoveryfar
moreimportantthana few miscellaneous unstableparticles,butnot
one thathasbeenwellrecognized by Nobelprizes.6A

THE STEADY STATE THEORY

Regardingthe importanceof the belief in a Creatorfor the ruling
classes there can be no doubt, and from the trendof Nobel prizesin
the recent past one cannot rule out the recognition of this work
through Nobel prize awards. However,we wish to stronglycontest
the statementregardingthe estimateof the extent of the belief that
the universeand time itself had a beginningat the big-bang.
In fact, three top scientistswho differ with the big-bangtheory

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 69

and hold on to the steady state theory are Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey
BurbidgeandJayantV. Narlikar.Theyhaverecentlypublisheda book
which is a devastatingcriticismof the big-bangtheory.This book, A
Different Approach to Cosmology, is addressed to professional
astronomers,physicistsand the generalpublic.
Startingwith the beginningsof cosmology,they conduct a wide
rangingand deep review of the observationsmade right from 1945
to the presentday.Theychallengemanyconventionalinterpretations
made in the standardhot big-bangmodel.
In a very interestingcomment on the standardtheory (big-bang
model) they have given in their book a beautiful photograph of a
Britishcountrysidewith five hundredducks marchingalong a road.
In the caption to the picture they say: 'This is our view of the
conformist approach to the standardcosmology. We have resisted
the temptationto name some of the leadinggeese.'7
This comment is to be seen in the context of the difficulties
describedin the book in gettingtelescopetime for any scientistwho
takes a non-conformistline, and in the context of the tricks played
by MartinRyleand othersto demonstratethat the steadystate theory
had been disproved.There is an interestingepisode of Fred Hoyle
being cheatedinto attendinga meetingwhile an announcementwas
suddenly made of certain data of radio sources which purportedly
disprovedHoyle'ssteadystatetheory.Thisaccountof theradiosources
is givenin a chapterentitledThe Warof the SourceCountsand makes
for veryinterestingreading.It gives an idea of the desperateattempts
to kill the steady state theory: 'Ryle's supposed demolition of the
steady-statetheory was the major story on the front pages of the
Londoneveningpapersthat night, and the media bombardedHoyle
at home.' Hoyle, Burbidgeand Narlikarargue that the dependency
on the hot big-bang model has led to an unwarrantedrejection of
alternativecosmological models. Beforewe considerthe alternative
model presentedby them we shall discussthe weaknessesof the big-
bang model.
ON THE LOGIC OF THE BIG-BANG THEORY
The singularity theorems are mathematicaltheorems. Now a
mathematicaltheoremis a statementwheresome conditionsare listed
and underthoseconditionscertainconclusionsarederivedas following
logically. They are not descriptions of the world, but are logical
statementsgivingrelationsbetweenconditionsand theirimplications.
Now if we look at any of the singularitytheoremswe shall see

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 SOCIALSCIENTIST

thatthe conditionswhich areassumedinclude(i) the absolutevalidity,

underall conditions, of Einstein'sfield equationsof gravity,and (ii)
certain conditions, called the energy conditions regarding the
behaviourof some vectors. Both these are technicalmatters,and we
can omit details about the conditions. However, we must make it
clear that these are inputs in derivingthe conclusions of Penrose-
Hawking theorems.
Firstof all, the so called energyconditionsthemselvesdependon
the behaviourof matterunderpressureand high temperatures.The
relationbetweenhigh energydensitiesand pressuresis given by what
are called the equations of state. The energy conditions which are
used by Penrose and Hawking assume that matter behaves in a
'reasonable'way. For example, Hawking states: 'The weak energy
condition is obeyed by the classicalenergymomentumtensor of any
reasonablematter,such as a scalaror electromagneticfield of a fluid
with a reasonableequation of state'9(emphasisadded).
If we remember that Hawking and Penrose are speaking of
densitiesinside starswhich arecollapsingundertheir own weight, or
of the entire observablegalaxies lumpedup togetherin a volume of
say one cubic meter,then the assumptionof a reasonableequationof
state is totally unwarranted.It betraysa lack of understandingof the
basic finding that each law has its own measurein which it operates
and beyond which it cannot be extended. It betrays a lack of
understandingof the dialecticalprincipleof the inexhaustibilityof
matterin motion.
Criticizing an approach in which certain law of physics are
stretchedto limitswherethey haveneverbeentested,Hoyle Burbidge
and Narlikarstate in exasperation:'What do you do when thereare
no independenttests at the energylevel of 1014Gev to decide how
particlephysics operates?Unfortunately,ratherthan admittingthat
we reallydo not know,we areoftentold by those who believe,simply,
"Thisis the way it is".'10
Theseenergyconditionscan be questionedwithin the framework
of Einstein'stheoryof relativity.Forexample,when densitiesof matter
are higher than nuclear densities shock waves can be expected to
travelfasterthanlight.It is possibleto show thatundersuchconditions
the energyconditions do not hold."1
Thus one of the inputs in the singularitytheorems, namely,the
energy conditions, cannot be relied on in the stipulated levels of
pressuresand energydensitiesin the blackhole or big-bangscenarios.
Secondly,we look at Einstein'sfield equations.This is the major

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 71

ingredient in the construction of the singularity theorems. Now

Einstein'stheory of gravitation,generalrelativitytheory (GRT)is a
very great step forward from the earlier Newton's theory of
gravitation,andthis theoryhas beenverifiedto veryimportantlimits.
At these limits Newton's theory is seen to be inadequate and the
GRTis seen to be correct.In the advanceof humanknowledgein the
area of gravitationthe GRT is a revolutionarystep forward.
However,thereare severalweaknessesof the GRTwhich are not
well known. Instead of going into an analysis of these weaknesses,
whichwe havedone elsewhere,12 we justlist a summaryof ourcritique
of the GRT:
Theseincludethefollowingfacts:thatin thetheorythereis no lawof
conservationof energy-momentum whenwetakethegravitational field
thereisnoexplanation
intoconsideration; forthepropagationof energy
bygravitational waves,whichis beingobservedin recentexperiments;
thetheorycontradictstheveryproposition whichwasitsstartingpoint,
namely,theequalityof inertialandgravitationalmassesof anyobject;
and thereoccursin the theorythe 'crisis'of singularities
associated
withthedevelopment of thelatestagesintheevolutionof certaintypes
of stars,wherematteris expectedto fall inwardto infinitedensities
withina finiteintervalas measuredin propertime.
THEORYOF GRAVITATION
THE RELATIVISTIC
The relativistic theory of gravitation (RTG) is a new theory
developedin the past three decadesby Denisov, Logunov and other
soviet mathematicianswhich overcomes these defects of Einstein's
theory. This new theory takes Einstein's theory forward, just as
Einstein'sGRTtook Newton's theoryforward.The RTGexplainsall
the observationswhich are explained by the GRT, but it does not
suffer from the above mentioneddeficienciesof the GRT.
Without going into the details of the new theory we shall state
that it differs from Einstein's theory mainly in the fact that the
gravitationalfield is describedvia a symmetricsecond rank tensor
and constitutes a real physical field, like the electromagneticfield,
which cannot be made to vanish by a mere transformation of
coordinatesas in Einstein'stheory.
While in Einstein'stheorythe equationsof the gravitationalfield
are ten in number,in the RTGthere are four more equations,which
go to concretizeand specifyEinstein'sequationsand give them a new
meaning.The solutions of these new equationsare differentfrom the
usual solution and it avoids some of the difficulties of the usual
solution.

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 SOCIALSCIENTIST

Accordingto this theorygravitationalattractionturnsto repulsion

when the potential exceeds a certain limit. Thereforeinstead of the
gravitationalcollapse of astronomicalobjects typical of Einstein's
theory,a new mechanismof energyreleaseis described.'Smallradial
perturbationsof an astronomicalobject occurringat a criticalvalue
of the average gravitational potential will inevitably lead to an
expansionof matteraccompaniedby an ejectionof partof the object's
mass and an energyrelease.'13
As regardscosmology and the varioustheoriesof the universe,if
the field equationsof the relativistictheory of gravitation(RTG)are
appliedto the homogeneousand isotropicmodel the conclusionsare
differentfrom the big-bangtheory.The conclusions are that (i) the
universeis infiniteand flat, and (ii) the universeexists for an infinitely
long time, oscillates,andwhat is moreimportant,the densityof matter
in such a universewill always be finite.
Thus the extrapolationbackwardin time which is arguedout in
the big-bangtheoryis unwarrantedand incorrect.The argumentthat
the universestarted out from a single point of infinite density is an
example of unjustifiedextrapolationof laws beyond their measure
of validity.It is like taking a small bit of a spiral,thinkingthat it is a
straightline, and extendingit into an infinitestraightline. This is the
image that Leningave when he warned us of rectilinearity.
SIDEOF THE BIG-BANG
THE OBSERVATIONAL
Having exposed the weaknessin the logical derivationof the big-
bang conclusion, we shall now consider the experimental and
observationalside. The big-bangis unable to answer severalsimple
questions.Hawkinghas himselfconfessedto someof theseweaknesses
of this theory. In this book A Brief History of Time he lists the
following:
1) Why was the early universeso hot?
2) Why is the universeso uniformon a large scale?
3) Why did the universestart out with so nearlythe criticalrate
of expansion that separatesmodels that recollapsefrom those that
go on expanding for ever, so that even now ten thousand million
years later,it is still expandingat nearlythe criticalrate?
4) Despite the fact that the universe is so uniform and
homogeneouson a largescale, it containslocal irregularities,such as
stars and galaxies. These are thought to have developedfrom small
differencesin the density of the early universefrom one region to
another.What was the origin of these fluctuations?

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 73

In orderto overcomethese difficulties,a numberof deviceswere

invented,for example,the hypothesisof an inflationaryexpansionof
the universein its earlystage.Manyoof theseartificialattemptsremind
us of the ancientattemptsmade to save the geocentrictheory of the
world. The ancient philosophersHipparchusand Ptolemy invented
cycles and epicylesby the dozen in orderto explainthe motion of the
sun, moon, stars and planetsarounda presumedstatic Earth.It was
the Copernicanrevolutionthat finally laid these cycles and epicycles
low.
In spiteof all suchdevicesthe big-bangtheoryis not ableto explain
several experimentalresults. Three examples of such failure are (a)
the failureto derivethe ratio, Y, of Hydrogento Helium seen in the
universewhich is approximately0.25, (b) the inability to derivethe
ratio betweenbaryonsand photons, and (c) the failureto explainthe
actualstructureof the backgroundcosmicradiation.Theseand several
other results are fully explained by the quasi steady state theory of
Hoyle, Burbidgeand Narlikar.
Hoyle, Burbidgeand Narlikar14have this to say regardingthe
explanation of Y and the cosmic backgroundradiation in the big-
bang model:
Settingasidethedetailsof thecalculationof Y... it becameestablished
thatonlyif the energydensity of radiationin the earlyuniversewas
verylargecomparedwiththe rest massenergyof mattercanY= 0125
be obtainedprimordially.Untilthen the opposite,thattherestmassis
muchgreaterthanradiation, hadalways assumed
been intheFriedmann
models.

So longas the energyof the earlyuniverseis dominatedby radiation

equation(9.2)canbeconsidered to hold,or (9.1)in themoreprimitive
theoryof 1950.Butthenextstepis completely ad hoc.Andit remains
justas ad hoctodayas it wasin 1950.The mass densityof stablenon-
relativisticparticles,explicitlyneutronsandprotonsin the theoryof
1950, decreaseswiththeexpansionof theuniversityproportionately.
They took mass density = 1.70 x 10-2x t-3/2gm per cc, (where t is
the age of the universe in seconds,) the coefficient 1.70 x 10-2 being
the ad hoc step. There is nothing in the big-bangtheory,even in its
most advancedform, which fixes the value of this coefficient.It is a
free choice that is hopefullyadoptedto makethings come out right.
In particular,it has been usedto makethe calculatedvalue of Y agree
with the observationalscenario..."
Regardingthe cosmic backgroundradiationand its treatmentin

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 SOCIALSCIENTIST

the big-bangtheory,Hoyle, Burbidgeand Narlikarhavethe following

comment:
"It is common to find that studentsemergefrom a cosmologycourse
in moderntimesbelievingthatthe big-bangtheoryexplainstheobserved
microwavebackgroundandthat it also explainsa cosmic heliumvalue
with Y close to 0.25. This is to distort the meaningof words... Thus
the radiation- dominatedearly universeis an axiom of modernbig-
bang cosmology, and the supposed explanation of the microwave
backgroundis a restatementof that axiom." (pp 96, 97)
These are the hard facts surrounding the hot-big-bang theory.
The observation of the microwave background, which was hailed by
screaming headlines in newspapers as the discovery of the Holy Grail
or as seeing the face of God, has turned out to be the Achilles heel of
the big-bang theory which had argued for a moment of creation of
the Universe and suggested the need for a Creator.The big-bang theory
needs to be rejected.
II

THE STEADYSTATECOSMOLOGYAND THE C-FIELD

Before we come to the cosmological theory which is an alternative
to the big-bang cosmology, namely, the original steady state theory
and the modified quasi steady state cosmology (QSSC), we should
clarify that our opposition to the big-bang theory arises from its
unscientific approach of extending laws of physics to untested limits
and its failure to explain important phenomena. Our opposition to
the big-bang theory does not come because of the concept of creation
that is used in this theory.
The word 'creation' is used in common parlance in several ways.
For example, when we speak of the creation of a pitcher by a potter,
we mean a human process, where using raw materials like clay, one's
hands and brain, the potter brings into being an object which was
not in existence earlier. In this sense of the word creation, a conscious
human being is assumed to play an active role in the creation of a
pitcher.
Another sense in which we use the word creation is in physics
when we talk of pair creation in an electromagnetic field. From an
electromagnetic field of a certain strength a pair of particles, an
electron and a positron, are formed.
This is a process where matter changes form from an
electromagnetic field form to a particulate (substance) form. Here

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 75

the existence of the electromagneticfield prior to the creation of

particles, and the particle pair thereafter,are both independentof
any human being or of human consciousness.In fact, this example
illustrates the concept of the materialityof the process of particle
formation.
Leninhas giventhe followingdefinitionof materialityand matter:
'Matteris a philosophicalcategorydenotingthe objectiverealitywhich
is given to man by his sensations,and which is copied, photographed
and reflectedby our sensations,while existingindependentlyof them.'
Regardingthe formsin whichmatterexists,dialecticalmaterialism
makes it clear that as man progressesand his technology evolves,
newerand newerforms of matterare discoveredand recognized.It is
significant to note that at a time when professional scientists like
Mach were denying the existence of atoms since they could not be
perceived, Lenin not only acceptedthe reality of the atom and the
electron, but was one of the first to emphasizethe need to recognize
the variousformsof the existenceof matter.He expressedthis through
his proposition on the inexhaustibilityof matter and its forms of
motion.
It may be recalledthat in the late nineteenthcentury,new physical
phenomenawere discovered,suchas radioactivityX-raysandcathode
rays.
New theories of matter had emerged and old concepts held by
classical physics were found to be inadequate.It called for a new
approachto the definitionof matter.Sucha definitionwas offeredby
Leninin the above statedformulation.It was basedon an acceptance
of the infinitediversityand inter-relationshipswithin materialobjects
in general.This infinitediversityof the formsof matterwas expressed
by him in the following words: 'It is, of course, sheernonsenseto say
that materialism... necessarilyprofessed a mechanical,and not an
electromagnetic,or some other,immeasurablymorecomplex, picture
of the world of moving matter'(Ibidp. 260).
And on the tentative nature of our consideringat any point in
time what constitutesthe essenceof matter,Leninsays:
The 'essence'of things,or 'substance',is also relative;it expressesonly
the degreeof profundityof man'sknowledgeof objects:whileyesterday
the profundityof this knowledge did not go beyond the atom, and
today does not go beyond the electron and the ether, dialectical
materialisminsists on the temporary,relative,approximatecharacter
of all these milestonesin the knowledgeof naturegained by man (Ibid
p. 240).

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
76 SOCIALSCIENTIST

Here we wish to prefaceour accountof the steadystate theoryof

cosmology by makingan importantproposition,namelythat the C-
field of the steady state theory is one more form of the existence of
matter that is revealed to us by the extremely violent explosive
processes, having energiesof the order of 106?0 ergs, that have been
recently discovered in the nuclei of galaxies. It representsa new
milestone in the knowledge of naturegained by man.
THE EARLIERSTEADYSTATETHEORY
The steadystate theorywas presentedas an alternativeto the big-
bangtheoryway backin 1948. Thistheorywas propoundedbyThomas
Gold and HermannBondias well as by FredHoyle independently.
Gold and Bondi criticizedthe big-bangtheory on the following
ground. The big-bangtheory spoke of the evolution of the Universe
from a dense point of infinite density.In this theory,while using the
Doppler effect in arguments,it was being assumedthat the atoms of
distant galaxies which emitted their light thousands of millions of
years ago, and are being observedtoday, obeyed the same laws of
physics as the atoms today in our laboratories.How could the same
laws be obeyed in the past and today in a universe which was
changing? Hence it was being assumed that the universe was
unchangingin its characteristicsover millions of years and should
have the same featuresin all epochs.
Gold and Bondiexpressedthis implicitassumptionin the form of
an explicit condition describingthe propertyof the universein the
large.Theyassertedthat,in additionto the two featuresof the Universe
observed on the large scale of megaparsecs,namely, homogeneity
and isotropy,the Universeshould have one more feature,that is that
it should have the same characteristicsat all epochs. This third
assumptionis called the perfectcosmologicalprinciple.
The three assumptionsabout the observableuniverseon which
Gold and Bondi built up their steady state cosmology are therefore:
(1) The universe is homogeneous on the large scale (of
megaparsecs);
(2) The universeis isotropic,that is, it is the same in all directions;
(3) The perfectcosmologicalprincipleholds, namely,the universe
in its laws have the same featuresat all epochs.
Now one of the featuresof the universeis its densityon the large
scale. The above assumptionsof Gold and Bondi implied that the
densityof the universe(the largescale distributionof matterper unit
volume)should be the sameat all epochs.However,sincethe galaxies

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 77

are moving away from each other accordingto Hubble's law, this
means that in order that the density could remain constant new
galaxies should be formedwhile old galaxies move away. Only this
would ensurethat the densityremainedconstant in all epochs. This
is the basic idea of creationin the steady state cosmology.
Fred Hoyle tackled this problemfrom a new angle. He actually
calculatedthe amount of matterthat was requiredto be createdper
second per cubic centimeterin order to maintain a steady density
while the universewas expanding.Having found this rate of matter
creation,he then modifiedEinstein'sequationsof gravitationin order
to ensurethat the law of conservationof matterand motion was not
disturbed. He posited a new field called the C-field which would
explain the creation of matter.Hoyle's C-fieldwas a reservoirfrom
which mattercould be created.
NEGATIVEENERGY
If this reservoiris consideredto have positive energy,then the
creationof matterfrom this reservoirwould reduceits energy,finally
depleting the reservoirto zero energy.However, if -it is a reservoir
with negative energy, then withdrawingenergy from it for matter
creationwould only make the reservoirfurthernegative.Hoyle used
the concept of negativeenergyin orderto come out of the problemof
havingto creatematterconstantlyfor the formationof new galaxies.
We have separatelydealt with the questionof negativeenergy15.
We describednegativeenergyin the following words:
of natureshouldleadoneto thelaw
Lenin'slawof theinexhaustibility
of motionwould
that matterin motionis inexhaustible.Inexhaustibility
meanthatby withdrawing energyit wouldnot be possibleto reduce
matterto a stateof motionlessness,wheretheinternalmotionis zero.
Thisimmediately suggeststhepossibilityof inexhaustible
reservoirs
of
energyin nature.Thepresenttheoriesof thenucleiof galaxiesarenot
able to accountfor the tremendousoutburstsof energyfromthese
nuclei.
Gravitationalfieldsappearto beseatsof tremendousamountsof energy.
Thisis reflectedin thenegativesignwe giveto thepotentialenergyof
gravitation.TheHoyle-Narlikar theoryrelatesthe formationof new
galaxiesto thewithdrawalfromthisnegativereservoirof energy.
Theconceptof negativeenergyis alsousedin someof thetheoriesof
the positronand in the calculationsby Hawkingregardingthe way
energyis withdrawnfrom a blackhole throughpair production.
Negative energy, it appears, reflects the infinity of motion of matter.

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
78 SOCIALSCIENTIST

Using the concept of the C-field having negative energy,Hoyle

was able to explain how the densityof the universecould remainthe
same in spite of its expansionaccordingto Hubble'slaw.
Some featuresof the C-field have been describedin a very clear
and simple mannerby JayantNarlikar16.
Hoyle calledthis reservoirthe C-field.It has the simplestphysicallaws
imaginable- even simplerthan those of the electromagnetictheory.. .
Technically,the C-fieldhas no mass, no chargeand no spin. It comes
into effect only at the time when particlesare created.Whenevera
particlewith a certainenergyis created,a C-fieldof equalbut negative
energyis also radiated.The overall energyis thereforeconserved. . .
Hoyle's formulationthereforeprovided a theoretical descriptionof
matter creation with mathematicalequations. The frameworkused
was that of Einstein'sgeneralrelativity,with the modificationthat the
C-field is also included . . . This solution has an advantage over the
big-bang models in that there is no singular point where the
mathematicaland physicaldescriptionsbreakdown.

NEW VERSIONOF THE STEADYSTATETHEORY

Hoyle's steady state theory has been extended further by including
an oscillatory effect to the steady state model. One of the properties
of the C-field is that the C-field has a repulsive gravitational effect. A
region of space-time containing C-field radiation will repel matter.
Thus, in the C-field modified Einstein's equations matter just cannot
collapse to form a black hole because repulsion would set in before
that. In an important paper17Hoyle and Narlikar showed that such
singularities cannot arise: 'The singularity does not arise, however, in
the modification of the theory proposed in C-field cosmology.'
As we have pointed out earlier, the Relativistic Theory of
Gravitation (RTG) suggests an oscillatory model of the universe. This
aspect has been incorporated in the latest version of the steady state
cosmology proposed by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar and termed as
the Quasi steady state cosmology (QSSC).
Many years ago the Soviet astronomer Victor Ambartsumyan had
pointed to extremely energetic phenomena in the universe. He had
pointed out that the usual models for the formation of stars and
galaxies, through the condensation under gravity of cosmic dust, and
called the condensation models, failed to explain several newly
discovered phenomena. He said:
'as our knowledgeof the Universerapidlybecomesbroaderand deeper,
we are not only discoveringever new, often surprising,propertiesof

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICS AND COSMOLOGY 79

alreadyknown objects (e.g. the flare activity of many stars), but are
also discovering objects qualitatively different from anything that
astronomydealt with before. .. mentionshould be made, first of all,
of the activityof the nucleiof galaxies.The nucleiof galaxiesarebodies
of hithertounknowntype, in which theretake place extremelyviolent
non-steady-stateprocesses,accompaniedby the generationof fantastic
amounts of energy (1059 - 1062 ergs, according to present day
evaluations).
Ambartsumyan says:17'All of the described phenomena involving
the activity of galactic nuclei would be impossible if the nucleus
consisted only of stars and diffuse matter.' The view was, therefore,
formed in 1955-57 at the Byurakan Observatory to the effect that
galactic nuclei contain small-sized bodies that exceed the mass of
ordinary stars by many orders and are different in their physical nature
from stars and diffuse matter. These very dense and probably
superdense bodies are a new form of matter perhaps completely
unknown to modern physics. They are capable of division into parts
moving away from each other at great velocities, and emitting massive
clusters of matter. To do that, they must contain vast quantities of
energy in potential state.
In their recent book, A Different Approach to Cosmology,2 the
three astrophysicists Fred Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar describe such
phenomena. They explain how the big-bang theory is unable to
describe these new phenomena in a consistent way. In chapters 11
and 12 of their book the authors list new observational evidence (a)
in the form of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs), and (b) in the matter of
ejection of coherent objects from galaxies. In particular they discuss
in detail ejection phenomena and their energetics.
The authors give a summary of three papers18 19, 20 recently
published by them in which the quasi steady state theory has been
developed. Their starting point is the idea first suggested by
Ambartsumyan which we have presented above.
They state:
There is much evidencethat coherentobjects- galaxies, quasi-stellar
objects, etc., do not originatefrom initial densityfluctuationsin the
universe, but are generatedand ejected from galactic nuclei as was
originallyproposedby Ambartsumyan.
That the rapidreleaseof largeamountsof energyfrom galacticnuclei
arisefromcreationprocesses.Theseare processeswith some similarity
to what is supposedto happen in the big-bang,but they are taking
place here and now in the modernuniverse.'

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80 SOCIALSCIENTIST

The authors describe the creation events and process in the

following words:
'In our opinion, astrophysicalobservationspoint strongly to points
Xo at whichsucheventsoccuras beinglocatedat thecentresof galaxies.
Followingcreationevents,the C-fieldparticlesobeythewaveequation...
andareconsequentlymassless,whereasthe positivecomponentconsists
of radiation and matter . . . the positive components are not able to
escape as freely as the C-field particlesdo. Thus towards the outer
regions of an expandingcreationevent there is a strong preferential
tendency for the negative component to run ahead of the positive
component,leavingan interiorwith an excess of positive energyand
thereforebuildingtowardsa blackhole condition.It is this preferential
escape of negative energycomponentthat in our view producesthe
near-blackholes found at the centresof galaxies.
There is good evidenceto show that mass concentrationsfrom 106
solarmassesto 1010solarmassesactuallyexist at the centresof galaxies.
We can see now how from creationevents, these concentrationscan
have been formed, without having to argue that extendedclouds of
gas or starssomehowmanageto falltogether.The concentrationsoccur
becauseof the preferentialescapeof negativeenergycomponentsfrom
such events." (Ibidp. 241-43)
The quasi-steady state theory is able to explain the observations
that we have referred to above in our critique of the big-bang theory.
The cosmic background radiation is explained in the QSSC not
in terms of a big-bang and a singularity, but in terms of stellar
energetics. They show how stellar radiation gets thermalized into a
black-body pattern through the process of absorption and radiation
by large carbon and iron molecules (carbon whiskers and iron
whiskers). The variations in the cosmic background radiation which
have been discovered recently can be better described by the QSSC.
The counting of radio sources, stellar and quasi-stellar objects
which emit radio waves and are detected by radio telescopes, also
reveal that the big-bang theory fails to account for the new
observations.
The authors show that the QSSC accounts for the genesis of the
microwave background, the form of the radio source counts, and the
marked reduction in the number of objects, galaxies, and QSOs
beyond the red shift of 2.5 to 3.
They conclude their discussion with the following observation:
'We have therefore deduced, first the energy of the microwave
background - the temperature already obtained in chapter 8 - and now

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 81

also the amplitudeof its fluctuations.So how much does this set the
QSSCahead of the big-bang?By the standardscurrentlyoperativein
big-bangcosmology,in whichnothingconnectedwith the background
has been proved,but only assumedad hoc, a very long way indeed.'
Thus we have a theory, namely, the quasi steady state cosmology,
which explains all the observations which the big-bang theory attempts
unsuccessfully to do, including the question of the high energies
generated in the galactic nuclei. Where the big-bang theory flounders
hopelessly in the matter of the structure of the background radiation,
the QSSC comes forward with a clear explanation. In addition to
these reasons, there are philosophical reasons as well to commend
this theory.
TWO ASPECTSOF DIALECTICAL -
MATERIALISM
MATERIALISM AND DIALECTICS
On the philosophical plane, we wish to point out that the QSSC
goes to support both the features of the philosophy of dialectical
materialism. These two features are: (i) materialism; and (ii) dialectics,
of which the main essence is the interpenetration of opposites.
The new theory does not leave room for any 'Creation' of the
universe. There is no scope in the QSSC for such distortions as
interpreting the observation of the cosmic background radiation as
'seeing the face of God'. In the QSSC we have a materialistic
explanation of phenomena without the intrusion of God, that is, a
description of the world without any foreign admixture. In fact, this
is precisely Engel's definition of the materialistic world outlook: 'The
materialistic outlook on nature means no more than simply conceiving
nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture.'21
Dialectical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature
material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute
different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and
interdependence of phenomena, as revealed by the dialectical method,
are a law of development of moving matter. Dialectical materialism
holds that the world develops in accordance with the laws of
movement of matter and stands in no need of a 'universal spirit'. The
big-bang theory is in need of a universal spirit, and therefore fails the
test of dialectical materialism. The quasi steady state theory stands
fully to support the materialist position.
We would also point out that the QSSC reveals the dialectical
character of the phenomenon of gravitation, which had been long
ago predicted by Engels. Under extreme conditions gravitational

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
82 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

attractionchanges into its opposite, repulsion. This is what the C-

field does to Einstein'sfieldequations.As we have seen,the relativistic
theoryof gravitation(RTG)also predictsthis. This is in fact the basis
for the oscillatorymodel of the universe.
Engelswas consideringthe dialecticalprincipleof the unity and
struggleof opposites,andhe was studyinggravitationfromthis angle.
Present day astronomerswill see how fresh and relevant are the
following remarksmade by Engelsin 1885:
Engelssays:
Gravityas themostgeneraldetermination of materiality
is commonly
accepted.Thatis to say,attractionis a necessarypropertyof matter,
butnot repulsion.Butattractionandrepulsionareas inseparable as
positiveandnegative,andhencefromdialecticsitselfit canalreadybe
predictedthat the truetheoryof mattermustassignas importanta
placeto repulsionas to attraction,anda theoryof matterbasedon
mereattractionis false,inadequateandone-sided.22
The quasi steadystatetheoryconfirmsin the realmof gravitation
this very important principle of dialectics, which is termed as the
unity and struggleof opposites.
Thus the QSSCsupportsboth featuresof dialecticalmaterialism,
namely,the materialisticworld outlook and the dialecticalprinciple
of interpenetrationof the opposites of attractionand repulsion.
NOT A FINAL THEORY
We close this articleby stating that the QSSCis not yet the final
theory of the universe.There are phenomenawhich cannot still be
explainedeitherby the big-bangtheoryof the quasisteadystatetheory.
Someof thesephenomenaarestatedby Hoyle, BurbidgeandNarlikar
in chapter23 of their book entitledSome UnsolvedProblems.
Dialectical materialisminsists on the approximateand relative
characterof every scientifictheory of the structureof matterand its
properties.As we havealreadyexplainedin an earliersection,theories
reflectthe technicallevel of our graspof nature.
The direction of future researchin cosmology will depend on
certain social conditions as well as on the adoption of a proper
philosophicalpositionregardingthe problemof studyingthe Universe.
As regardsthe social question, Hoyle, Burbidgeand Narlikar have
clearly brought out the difficultiesencounteredby those who want
to challengethe dominantphilosophyof the big-bang.The attackon
the steady state theory right from its inception, the tricks and ruses
used, are all describedin this book. There is also the question of

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 DIALECTICSAND COSMOLOGY 83

democratic access to the data base which is being created and

maintainedat high cost.
As regards the philosophical stand to be adopted, we would
strongly recommendthe position of dialecticalmaterialism.It must
be emphasisedthat the currentterminologicalconfusion of the term
'Universe'with the 'materialworld' cannot be accepted. The term
'Universe'is regardedas a generic cosmological term: it denotes a
physicalsystemof maximumorderand scaleknownto contemporary
cosmology.The term 'materialworld' is philosophicaland is used in
the sense of 'matter',for which we have alreadygiven the definition.
As Ambartsumyan had stated, 'the universe that we grasp by
Friedmann models are based on the observed homogeneity and
isotropy.This part of the world which we can observe,namely,upto
a distanceof aboutfifteenthousandmillionlightyears,may be called
the Metagalaxy.'
As regardsthe finality of the Friedmannmodels, Ambartsumyan
states:
Mostof thesemodelsarebasedon theassumption thattheUniverseis
homogeneous. Inotherwords,theyignorethefactof theinsularstructure
of ourmetagalaxy, of matterin it.
of thediscretedistribution
This discretecharacteris reflectedin the extremelyinhomogeneous
distributionof starsinthegalaxies.Fortheirpart,thegalaxiesthemselves
(whichin mostcasesmaybe consideredfairlyautonomous,isolated
systems)arenotdistributed inspaceat alluniformly - theyformgroups
andclusters ... Theoftenexpressed viewpointthatthespatialdistribution
of thesegroupsandclusters isratherconspicuously homogeneous, cannot
beaccepted. Thereareweightygroundsforconsidering thattheclusters
of galaxiesformsuperclusters. Indeed,we maysuspecttheexistenceof
inhomogeneities of evengreaterscalein thedistributionof matter.
Modelsof a homogeneousUniverseare thus opposedby the real
Universe, whose fundamentalproperty is an inhomogeneous
distribution of matter.Thisis a factthatcannotbe ignored.
This quotation sums up our position regardingthe future tasks
beforecosmology.It is only by firmlyacceptingthe dialecticalprinciple
of the inexhaustibilityof matterin motion that we can hope to make
furtheradvancesin cosmology.

REFERENCES

1. Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988.

2. Hoyle E, Burbidge G. and Narlikar J.V., A Different Approach to Cosmology,

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
84 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

Cambridge University Press, 2000.

3. Alexandrov, A.D., In Lenin and Modern Natural Science, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1978, p. 225.
4. Theckedath, K.K., Dialectics, Relativity and Quantum, National Book
Agency, 1999.
5. Lenin, V.I., Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
6. Lenin, V.I., Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 363.
6A. Hawking, S., in Hawking and Penrose: The Nature of Space and Time, Oxford
University Press, 1996.
7. Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology, p. 188.
8. Ibid p. 71
9. Hawking, S., in Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, p.
13.
10. Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology, p. 183.
11. Theckedath K.K., Superluminal Matter and the Dominant Energy Condition,
Bulletin of the Bombay Mathematical Colloquium, Vol. 3, Number 3, August
1986.
12. Theckedath, K.K., Dialectics, Relativity, Quantum, pp. 155-67.
13. Denisov, V.I. and A.A. Logunov, The Theory of Space-Time and Gravitation,
in Logunov (ed.) Gravitation and El particle Physics, Mir, 1983, p. 127.
14. Ibid, pp. 96, 97.
15. Theckedath, K.K., Dialectical Contradiction in the Sciences, Social Scientist,
Vol. 121, June 1983, pp. 59, 60.
16. Narlikar Jayant V., The Strucrure of the Universe, Oxford University Press,
1978, p. 135.
16A. Hoyle E and Narlikar J.V., 'On the avoidance of singularities in the C-field
cosmology', Proceedings of the Royal Society, A Vol. 278, pp. 465-78, 1964.
17. Ambartsumyan, V. and V. Kazyutinsky, The Revolution in Contemporary
Astronomy and Problems of World Outlook, in Philosophical Concepts in
Natural Science, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 1977, p. 57.
18. Hoyle, E, Burbidge G. and Narlikar J.V., Ap. J. 410, 437, 1993.
19. Hoyle, E, Burbidge G. and Narlikar J.V., M.N.R.A.S. 267, 1007, 1994.
20. Hoyle, F, Burbidge G. and Narlikar J.V., A & A 289, 729, 1994.
21. Engels, Frederick, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German
Philosophy, Progress Publishers, 1969, p. 222.
22. Engels, F., Dialectics of Nature, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972, p. 244.

This content downloaded from 178.250.250.21 on Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:01:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions