This Course Addresses 3 Of The University'S Transformative Learning: Fill & Download for Free

Currently, there are 5 hypotheses for the cause of Big Bang. In no particular order, they are:1. Logical and mathematical necessity. The equations and laws of the universe are so compelling that they forced the formation of a universe for them to describe.2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.3. Quantum fluctuation. Events at the quantum level are uncaused. The universe is a huge quantum event.4. No Boundary. This is a proposal by Stephen Hawking and updated with Turok. If all the dimensions of the universe were the same shortly after the Big Bang, you get a universe that doesn't have a beginning and therefore was never "created". It just IS.5. Ekpyrotic. The universe is the result of a random collision between two quantum membranes in 11 dimensions. The 11 dimension 'brane is equivalent to deity in that it has always existed.It is a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses with insufficient data to choose between them. None have been falsified, so all are still on the table as far as science is concerned.Contrary to Ricardo Bevilaqua, science has, and can, posit supernatural explanations (see below). No less a scientist as Stephen Hawking has said that deity could be the cause for the origin of the universe. This is 1 of 3 questions in science where it is still possible to posit a direct action by deity. (all the other cases, such as Special Creation of species, have been shown to be the result of secondary causes) The other question that involves the origin of the universe is: why does the universe have the order it does instead of some other order?Of these 5 possibilities, it seems to me that only deity and ekpyrotic are “so different from our reality”. We see quantum fluctuations within the universe. Virtual particles are a result of quantum fluctuations. We observe the effects of the physical theories; logical and mathematical necessity only imbues these theories with an ability we could not see within the universe. And No Boundary does not involve anything that is different from our reality, just that certain parameters at the start of the universe be particular values (the reason No Boundary is not accepted is that there is no reason those parameters must have those values. The values were arbitrarily chosen by Hawking to give No Boundary.)OTOH, none of use have experienced 11 dimensions. It is very different from our reality.Within Judeo-Christian theology, of course, Yahweh has always been claimed to be “beyond our reality”.Now, quotes:"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? and who created him?" Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 174."There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp 125-126

Space is expanding in 2 different ways. The Observable Universe is expanding every day and the Universe as a whole is also expanding (I prefer to call it stretching in this case to differentiate between the 2 kinds of Universe Expansion).The Observable UniverseThe observable universe is the part of the Universe we can actually see and it will NEVER stop expanding. This is because space is infinite and the speed of light is a finite number. The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, so light has only had enough time to travel 13.7 billion light years.The speed of light is 670,616,629 MPH! So 670 million MPH x 24 hours in a day = 16 BILLION miles (the distance light travels in a mere day). This means light would travel around earth just over 2 million times in a day; that shows you how much the observable universe is growing each day! It's easy to see why Miles are a useless unit when it comes to Space.How many Miles does the Observable Universe expand by each year?Well 1 light year. But how many miles are in a light year?16,094,799,096 (miles per day) x 365 days = 5,874,601,670,040 miles in a light year.Yes, that's almost 6 TRILLION miles in a light year. How do you comprehend a number that large? I see it as about 1/3 of America's debt...WOW we're in a lot of debt!So anyways because light travels ~6 trillion miles per year that is how much the Observable Universe is expanding by each year (it expands that much in every direction). It's easiest to think of it simply as a light year because miles are too small of a unit to comprehend distance in space.Just wanted to put into perspective truly how much the observable universe is expanding by each year.The Universe as a WholeThe Universe likely expanded to infinite size immediately after the Big Bang occurred. Often times we think of infinite as the largest thing we know of; however, the human mind can't understand the size of something so large because we can't compare it to anything. The human mind works off relativity. For example, when comparing the sizes of a lime and a grapefruit you can make comparisons like "the grapefruit is 2 times larger than the lime". It's easy at this point to make the conclusion that the grapefruit is large.But then if you take the same grapefruit and compare it to a basketball you'll say "Wow, the grapefruit is small; its barely 1/3 the size of the basketball!" This is because your mind perceives size and distance in terms of relativity; compared to a lime you assume the grapefruit is large, but when compared to a basketball it suddenly seems tiny.To further prove this point, assume you are looking at 3 males sitting next to each other. One of the men is 5'6" and 140 pounds, another is 5'8" and 150 pounds, and the last is 6'4" and 220 pounds. You can make the assumption that the man who is 6'4" and weighs 220 pounds is big because you are able to make the comparison between him and the 2 smaller men.My point is - there is no way to comprehend the size of the largest known object unless there is something similar in size to make a comparison.The Universe (infinite size) is the largest thing we know of, but the second largest thing we know of are galaxies. But because the universe is infinite, we could fit infinite galaxies in it.So, to understand something thats infinitely large we need to make it finite. The only way to make it finite is by finding something larger. For example, if we found a Universe that is 2x larger than our own then we could put a finite meaning on the size of our own Universe. However, if our Galaxy is truly infinite and has no end then there is no way to comprehend is size other than the fact that it simply doesn't end.You need to think of the Universe as infinite size which means it can't technically be expanding because it already has no end. However, the Big Bang sent all matter flying away from each other so the Universe is "stretching" as it ages; average distances between galaxies are increasing.It's important to realize here that AVERAGE distances between galaxies are increasing. Since galaxies attract each other and form local groups and local superclusters individual galaxies actually do not move away from each other; rather they move away from other groups and superclusters.For example, our local group consists of over 50 galaxies which are all gravitationally attracted to each other. The Milky Way (yes this is where we are) and Andromeda galaxy have a strong gravitational attraction and are currently on a collision course. We are travelling towards the Andromeda Galaxy at a whopping 500,000 MPH; oh no, we're ALL are going to die soon!!! (Just Kidding)Don't fret, because space is so large that even at a speed of 500,000 miles per hour it will be another ~2-3 BILLION years before the galaxies actually collide.Anyways, we are moving towards some galaxies in our local group but the overall space between galaxies is being stretched. It seems counterintuitive that we would be moving towards some other galaxies when overall space is stretching between galaxies, but we can thank gravity for that!Now Imagine ThisSo space and time are most likely infinite - there is no end to space or time. However, there is likely a finite number of events that can occur.What does that mean to you if space and time are infinite but events are finite? To me this would mean events would recreate themselves (and already have in the past) and will continue to in the future.Again, its hard to imagine because there are so many possible events that could have changed your exact life. What if your parents didn't meet? What if something crashed into Earth before life could form? What if you decided not to have kids? They're all possible events that would have to happen before the world could recreate itself exactly. But if space and time are infinite, then every event will have to happen at some point, unless there are also an infinite combination of events. Otherwise, the only reasonable conclusion is that events reoccur and recreate themselves exactly given enough time - which has NO END, so there IS enough time.Crazy Stuff! It's fun to think about.

Oh, it’s actually very simple…..allow me to briefly point out the harsh, cold facts.1.) RESEARCH FUNDING: An entering faculty at Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IITK) , one of India’s premier institutions of higher education, gets roughly 25 lacs (3 lacs initiation grant + 22 lacs for equipment) to create a research group. Here’s the link: http://www.iitk.ac.in/dofa/benefits.htmlDuring my MSc. at Imperial College London , this was my experimental setup:See that high-speed camera on the top-left? It costs around 40 lacs. JUST THAT!The entire setup exceeds 3 crores, probably more, and this is just one of the setups of one of the research groups, of one of the departments of one of the campuses of the Imperial College.2.) STUDENT FUNDING: Let’s talk about PhD. funding. At top Indian educational institutions, a PhD. student is paid very meagerly.My basic PhD. funding at the University of Toronto is way higher than what many IIM graduates earn post their MBAs. Of course, there are other additional benefits like TAship, health insurance, conferences etc. that the college bestows. I assume its the same with top US institutions like Stanford, MIT or Harvard.I hope you get the point! Universities in India need to start valuing their students!3.) A BORDERLINE RIDICULOUS ADMISSION PROCESS: An EXCEEDINGLY STUPID ,multiple-choice type based competitive exam determines the admissibility of a student in an academic institute, and the stream is decided by well-meaning, but ridiculously uninformed parents / relatives / well-wishers.Any attempt of the child to study something that is not in tune with the views of these “elders” is met with scorn, ridicule, mockery and plain contempt!4.) RESERVATIONS GALORE (literally EVERYWHERE):Reservations for SC / ST / OBC / PD / Women / NRIs / Management etc. in most colleges of India.Oh wait, you’re a general candidate? Guess what, you’re the minority, ha-ha!I kid you not, being a General candidate these days is NOTHING SHORT of a curse. I’ve seen people screwing up their IIT exams and then playing their reservation card to get seats at IITs. It just isn’t fair when someone is given an undue advantage like that, while others strive hard to achieve their dreams!5.) OTHER ISSUES: Poor payment to faculty (which is why we cannot attract the top minds), lesser academic flexibility for students to choose courses, inefficient administrative bodies that hassle students unnecessarily etc.Let the Indian government address these issues, and we will have an MIT / Harvard / Stanford up and running in India in no time!Am I suggesting the impossible? Not particularly: Look at how the Indian School of Business established itself globally by addressing the very problems I have mentioned above. ISB overtook the IIMs and many foreign B-schools too.The silver lining: WE CAN BETTER OUR UNIVERSITIES IF WE WANT TO!Upvote if you like! Follow me for more. Constructive comments are welcomed!EDIT 1: It has been 24 hrs and I NEVER expected this to get such a massive reaction on Quora, crossing 1.1k upvotes. So while I CANNOT comment and respond back to everyone, here are the general follow-up clarifications:1> I have nothing against the IITs / IIMs or any Indian universities, I am saying in no way that they are bad.But YOU CANNOT HAVE an institute like MIT, Harvard or Stanford unless you address these problems! That’s the truth. Deal with it!2> I strongly still believe that we still follow the “isolated-bubble” syndrome, staying content and happy in a smaller playing field, without really venturing forward to see just how much the world has proceeded forward. And its high time we change that…3> I seem to have opened up a Pandora’s box of mixed reactions, and I can understand why some people will vehemently defend their stance (most notably as they belong to some of the colleges I have referenced in my answer).Nevertheless, I stand firm in my conviction, and as evidenced by the upvotes, my answer reflects the voice of the majority and is not restricted to only the elite colleges of our country.Thank you and have a good day!