Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning At All

Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
Umer Abrar
February 28, 2015
Physics-Astronomy


(Did the Qur-aan not relate ,“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them?" [21:30]).


A new theory claims that the universe may not have started with a bang. According to this new study, the universe was not ever a singularity or an infinitely minor and infinitely dense point of matter at all. In actual fact, the universe may have no start at all. Study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge, Canada, said "Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," This new notion could also clarify what dark matter is actually made of, Das added. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born nearly 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that occurs today was once squeezed into an infinitely dense, infinitely small, ultra-hot dot called a singularity. This little fireball then blasted and growth to the early universe started. This singularity comes from the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which defines how mass warps space-time, and from an additional equation (called Raychaudhuri's equation) that foretells whether the route of something will merge or diverge with time. Going backward in time, as claimed by these equations, all matter in the cosmos was once in a tiny single point — which is also known as the Big Bang singularity.


But that's not quite accurate. In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics essentially break before the singularity is touched. But researchers generalize backward as if the physics equations still hold, states Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University, who was not the part of this study.


Brandenberger also told Live Science "So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," There are other difficulties developing in physics — specifically, that the two most leading theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be merged to come up with single concept. Quantum mechanics states that the actions of tiny subatomic particles are basically uncertain. This against the Einstein's general relativity, which is deterministic, implying that once all the regular laws are identified, the future is entirely preset by the past, Das said. And neither theory clarifies what dark matter, an unseen form of matter that applies a gravitational pull on regular matter but cannot be identified by most telescopes, is actually made of.


Quantum modification


Das and his coworkers wanted a way to solve at least some of these problems. To do so, they considered an older method of picturing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics, an unseen variable rules the strange actions of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it offers a way to compute the path of a particle. By utilizing this old-fashioned method of quantum theory, the scientists calculated a small rectification term that may well be comprised in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would occur in deep time. So what’s the outcome? In this new formulation, there is no singularity at all, and the universe as we know it is infinitely old.


How to test this theory?


Das said that one way of understanding the quantum correction term in their equation is that it is connected to the density of dark matter, if so, the cosmos could be packed with a superfluid made of theoretical particles, for instance the gravity-carrying particles known as gravitons, or ultra-cold, ghostly particles known as axions. Das also said that One method to test the theory is to look at how dark matter is dispersed in the cosmos and comprehend if it matches the properties of the suggested superfluid


Nevertheless, the new equations are just one way to settle quantum mechanics and general relativity. For example, a portion of string theory acknowledged as string gas cosmology forecasts that the universe once had a long-lasting static period, while other theories forecast there was once a cosmic "recoil," where the universe first contracted till it touched a very small size, then initiated expanding, Brandenberg said.

This new theory was described in a paper published on Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and in an additional paper that is presently under peer review, which was issued in the preprint journal arXiv.


http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2015/02/big-bang-deflated-universe-may-have-had.html#.VQok4U_9m70
This post was written by Umer Abrar. To contact the author of this post, write to mirzavadoodulbaig@gmail.com

Islamic Theologies of Ahl as-Sunnah: Theological Indoctrination or Education?

Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---

February 6, 2015

Written by Moutasem Atiya

“Ahl al-Sunna consists of three groups – the textualists (Atharīs), whose imām is Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal; the Ashʿarīs, whose imām is Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī; and the Māturīdīs, whoseimām is Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī.”[1]

The statement above, made by the Ḥanbalī scholar al-Safārīnī (1114-1188/1702-1774) in his work Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār al-Bahiyya, should not come as a shock to anyone. There has always existed a strand of inclusivity within Islamic theology which has unfortunately been sidelined by the shrill voices of one-party enthusiasts. These voices of inclusion saw all three theological orientations as being acceptable responses to doctrinal questions based on independent reasoning (ijtihād), just as they recognized the validity of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The Atharī, Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools all rose in response to Muʿtazilīs and their critiques of what would eventually become orthodox doctrine.

In the mid-ninth century, the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Maʾmūn made official the Muʿtazilī doctrine. He instituted an inquisition (miḥna) which subjected all scholars of his time to questioning regarding theological doctrine. Those who opposed Muʿtazilī beliefs were severely tortured or killed. In response to Muʿtazilī influence three stances were taken, all developed over a 250 year span.

Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (161-241/780-855) adopted a literalist position in response to the Muʿtazilī inquisition. He asserted that only God and His Messenger  had the authority to speak on matters of creed and – in all but three instances – avoided delving into speculative theology in defense of orthodoxy. This literalist approach to textual understandings came to be known as the Atharī creed.

Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (260-324/873-935) and Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī (238-333/853-944) were the fathers of the other two schools of Sunnī theology. They differed with the Atharī school in their use of speculative theology (kalām) in rebuttal to Muʿtazilī positions. They also differed in their understanding of the Divine Attributes of God – the Ashʿarīs chose to interpret the Divine Attributes figuratively so as to maintain God's transcendence over His creation, while the Māturīdīs chose to surrender total understanding to God.

Altogether, these three schools arose in defense of orthodoxy against what was seen as Muʿtazilī heresy. As time passed, Muʿtazilī influence would wane while the Atharī, Ashʿarī, and Māturīdī systems gained greater and greater traction. As the influence of these three schools spread, so did their proponents. Theological debates began to be waged between the schools, just as they had been waged between the four schools of jurisprudence. Charges of heresy – in some cases arguably warranted – were leveled. The Ashʿarīs and Māturīdīs accused the Atharī camp of anthropomorphism, while the Atharīs accused the former groups of negating God's attributes. The schools spread across the Islamic world, as did their argumentations.

Flash-forward to America in the nineties

Young men and women inspired to study religion travel overseas – primarily to Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia – bringing back to the States a wealth of knowledge, but also sectarian-like adherences to one of the three theological schools. Educational institutes were built and party lines were drawn. Each school taught creed (ʿaqīdah) defining itself as Ahl al-Sunnah. I remember some of the confusion I personally felt during my days in college, in particular attending an MSA conference in which the two main speakers addressed the issue. One adhered to the Ashʿarī school while the other was an Atharī. Each lectured on their positions in absolutes, giving no room for the other's possible derivations. It caused great confusion in my heart and mind; I was young. I clearly remember a friend saying to me, “You know Moutasem, we will burn in hell if we get this wrong”. His statement shook my core. Looking back at those days I often wonder what the landscape would have been like if our educational institutes adopted a different approach to this subject. Instead of teaching one of the three theological positions in absolute, what if they taught them in terms of historical development, highlighting where and why each of the schools emerged. What if they educated instead of indoctrinated?

To be fair, Dr. Sherman Jackson's alim Program pioneered the historical educational approach to creedal studies, and he should be recognized for his forward thinking in that area. The approach of inclusivity has also been touted by Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, who has recently stated:

الأثريون والأشاعرة والماتريدية كلهم أهل سنة. هذا الشعار ينبغي أن نرفعه، وأن نوضح ألا هؤلاء خرجوا عن الأثر، وألا هؤلاء أيضا احتقروا الأثر؛ بل الأثر هو للجميع، والنصوص القرآنية تؤيد جميع هذه الاتجاهات.

“The Atharīs, Ashʿarīs, and Māturīdīs are all Ahl al-Sunnah. This is a slogan which we should proclaim, and we should clarify that neither of these camps [i.e. the latter two] has went against the text (al-athar), nor have they belittled the text. Indeed the athar is for all, and Quranic text supports all of these orientations”[2]

Defining Fault lines

I have come to the personal conclusion that the advancement of Muslims in America can only be realized when we define our own fault lines within our community, and do not let them be defined for us by historical and/or international standards. Though I may adhere to the Ashʿarī school of thought as codified by Imām Ghazālī (450-505/1058-1111), I do not look at my brothers and sisters of the Atharī school with a heart of suspicion or misguidance. I will not simply tolerate them, or sign a pact of non-aggression – that is not where our hearts should be in regards to each other. We need to have a mutual sense of love and respect for one another and mend this bridge of theological debate. As leaders and educational institutes, if we carry on making theology an issue of contention between each other, we will continually drag Muslim Americans through the same vicious cycle of fragmentation. I, for one, am unwilling to repeat the cycle.

Moutasem Atiya is the co-founder and President of Al-Madinah Institute.  He resides in Maryland with his wife and three children while continuing his Islamic Education under the supervision of Shaykh Mokhtar Maghraoui.  He can be found on twitter @MoutasemAtiya 

[1] Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Safārīnī, Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār al-Bahiyya wa Sawāṭiʿ al-asrār al-Athariyya li-Sharḥ al-Durra al-Maḍiyya fī ʿAqd al-Firqa al-Marḍiyya (Damascus: Muʾasasat al-Khāfqīn wa Maktabatuhā, 1982), 73.

[2] “Naẓarāt fī Manhaj al-Imām al-Ashʿarī,” al-Mawqaʿ al-Rasmī li-Maʿālī al-ʿAlāma ʿAbd Allāh bin Bayyah, http://www.binbayyah.net/portal/research/611.

http://muslimmatters.org/2015/02/06/islamic-theologies/

The Tomb of Alexander the Great

Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---

(Could this or is Cyrus the Great related to the story of Thul Qarnayn?)

Behind Tomb Connected to Alexander the Great, Intrigue Worthy of "Game of Thrones"

By Heather Pringle

for National Geographic

Published November 21, 2014

(As archaeologists dig deeper into the burial mound, ancient sources tell a tale of family drama and palace intrigue.)

 

Suspense is rising as archaeologists sift for clues to the identity of the person buried with pomp and circumstance in the mysterious Amphipolis tomb in what is now northern Greece. The research team thinks the tomb was built for someone very close to Alexander the Great—his mother, Olympias; one of his wives, Roxane; one of his favorite generals; or possibly his childhood friend and lover, Hephaestion.

 

Over the past three months, archaeologist Katerina Peristeri and her team have made a series of tantalizing discoveries in the tomb, from columns sculpted masterfully in the shapes of young women to a mosaic floor depicting the abduction of the Greek goddess Persephone. The tomb's costly artwork all dates to the tumultuous time around the death of Alexander the Great, and points to the presence of an important person.

 

Alexander himself was almost certainly buried in Egypt. But the final resting places—and the rich historical and genetic data they may contain—of many of his family members are unknown. The excavation at Amphipolis is bound to add a new chapter to the history of Alexander the Great and his family, a dynasty as steeped in intrigue, conspiracy, and bloodshed as the fictional Lannisters in the popular television series Game of Thrones. Among Alexander's family, "the king or ruler who ended up dying in his bed was rare," says Philip Freeman, a biographer of Alexander the Great and a classical historian at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa.

 

Palace Intrigues

 

To understand these palace intrigues, one must begin with Alexander's father, Philip II, who ascended the throne of ancient Macedonia in 359 B.C. At the time, Macedonia was a modest mountain realm north of ancient Greece, but Philip had big dreams. He transformed Macedonia's army from a band of ragtag fighters into a disciplined military machine, and he armed it with a deadly new weapon, the sarissa, a long lance designed to keep enemy troops from closing in on his phalanxes.

 

A natural-born conqueror, Philip led his army to the west, crushing and intimidating the major Greek city-states until all had surrendered to his rule. "Philip II was a traditional warrior king," says Ian Worthington, author of By the Spear: Philip II, Alexander the Great, and the Rise and Fall of the Macedonian Empire. "He was always in the thick of battle."

 

By custom, Macedonia's kings married multiple wives, often for the purposes of sealing political alliances with powerful neighbors. Alexander's mother, Olympias, was a daughter of the king of Molossia, a realm that encompassed part of modern Albania, and she claimed descent from the legendary Greek hero, Achilles. She was one of Philip's many wives, and according to ancient historians, she schemed relentlessly at court to put her son on the Macedonian throne. Some historians even suspect that she poisoned Alexander's older half-brother, impairing his mental faculties.

 

For a time, her intrigues seemed to succeed. Philip groomed the young Alexander as his heir, providing the boy with a first-class education from a renowned tutor, Aristotle, and encouraging his prowess as a warrior.

 

But important Macedonian nobles at Philip's court viewed Alexander as half foreign and possibly illegitimate. By the time Alexander reached his late teens, Philip seemed to share these doubts. He took a new Macedonian wife, and during a drinking party, Philip allowed Alexander's legitimacy to be publicly questioned. Then Philip drew his own sword on Alexander, a mortal insult.

 

Philip later tried to patch things up, but he had created a dangerous enemy. Exactly what happened next is the subject of debate, although the bare facts are well known. In 336 B.C., Philip threw a lavish public wedding for one of his daughters and invited members of neighboring royal houses to attend this state occasion.

 

As part of the festivities, Philip planned to stage public games at daybreak in the theater at Aigai, his capital city. He strode into the stadium, wearing a white cloak over his shoulders. On one side was Alexander; on the other was his new son-in-law. Philip waved away his bodyguards, and as he stood at the center of the theater, the large crowd began to roar with approval.

 

"That was the last thing he ever heard," says Worthington. An assassin stepped out from the crowd and stabbed Philip to death as the guests watched in disbelief. In the ensuing bedlam, the murderer, a man named Pausanias, bolted from the theater toward a spot where horses were tethered and waiting for him. But just as Pausanias was about to escape, he tripped and fell, and three of Philip's bodyguards speared him to death.

 

Conspiracy Theory

 

Did Pausanias act alone? Some ancient texts suggest that he did, assassinating Philip in a jealous rage. Many of the ancient Macedonian nobles were bisexual, and Philip was no exception. He had taken Pausanias as his lover, and when he tired of him, he discarded the young man and even allowed others to sexually abuse Pausanias. So Pausanias may have murdered Philip in an act of revenge.

 

But several clues point to a conspiracy, says Worthington. Pausanias, for example, fled to a spot where multiple horses were waiting, suggesting that several people had made plans for escaping the crime scene.

 

"I think Pausanias was manipulated to kill Philip," says Worthington, who suspects that Olympias and Alexander played key parts in the assassination. Both mother and son had been deeply insulted by Philip. In addition, they may have feared that Philip's young Macedonian wife would produce a Macedonian heir more acceptable to the local nobility. The only way to prevent this would be to eliminate Philip. So Worthington theorizes that Olympias and Alexander poisoned Pausanias's mind and encouraged him to murder Philip.

 

Other classical historians aren't so sure Alexander was guilty of patricide. Nevertheless, says Luther College's Freeman, "if you put Alexander on a couch today and tried to analyze him, you could have a lot of fun."

 

The King Is Dead, Long Live the King

 

With Philip gone, Alexander had to convince the Macedonian court that he deserved to be king. He planned a costly funeral for his father, cremating the body on a massive funeral pyre and constructing an elaborate tomb for Philip on the outskirts of Aigai (the modern Greek town of Vergina), some 100 miles from Amphipolis. As Macedonia's aristocracy looked on, Alexander buried his father "like a Homeric hero," says Ioannes Graekos, an archaeologist and curator at the Royal Tombs Museum in Vergina.

 

Inside the tomb, Alexander interred a gold chest containing Philip's skeletal remains, as well as a host of royal treasures, from a gilded crown to a golden scepter, a gold cuirass, and a gold- and ivory-adorned deathbed. Over the doorway, the young king had artists paint a hunting scene showing Alexander and his father closing in on a lion.

 

"Only royalty can hunt lions, so Alexander was honoring his father, but he was also honoring himself," says Terence Clark, an archaeologist at the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau, Quebec, who, along with National Geographic and others, is helping to organize a major new traveling exhibition on the heroes of ancient Greece, including Alexander the Great. "It's a definitive statement that Alexander is now in charge."

 

But despite his appearance of confidence, Alexander still feared rivals at court. He ordered the deaths of his cousin Amyntas and of one of Philip's young wards. And his mother, Olympias, took care of enemies among the royal women. According to at least one ancient text, she forced Philip's young Macedonian wife to commit suicide and arranged for the murder of her rival's daughter. Olympias, says Elizabeth Carney, a classical historian at Clemson University in South Carolina and biographer of Alexander's mother, was "a political woman."

 

That left just the army. Alexander had to convince Macedonia's generals and soldiers alike that he was a commander like his father. So he embarked on a series of military campaigns, quelling rebels in the Balkan region, crushing the city-state of Thebes, and leading his army to one victory after another. By the time he turned 21, Alexander was firmly in control of Macedonia and Greece, and ready to embark on the conquest of Persia.

 

Alexander extended his rule to lands as far south as Egypt and as far east as India, creating one of the greatest empires of the ancient world. His closest companion was his lover Hephaestion, a Macedonian general, and when Hephaestion finally succumbed to a mysterious ailment in 324 B.C. on an eastern campaign, Alexander was nearly undone by grief. According to the ancient writer Plutarch, he had Hephaestion's doctor crucified and massacred an entire tribe in the region to provide offerings for Hephaestion's spirit.

 

Things Fall Apart

 

By the time of his own death at age 33, Alexander was still in the east, planning the conquest of Arabia. He clearly preferred the thrill of battle to the numbing minutiae of governing. He had taken at least two foreign wives, but had produced no legitimate heir to his massive empire and had given little apparent thought to the matter of succession. Soon after he died of a mysterious fever in Babylon, his generals, nobles, and family members began fighting bitterly over the succession. In the end, his vast empire was divided as spoils of a civil war, and his entire direct line was wiped out.

 

Alexander's mother met her end at the hands of a ruthless Macedonian noble, Cassander. To clear the path to the Macedonian throne, Cassander took Olympias prisoner during a siege and executed her. Then, like Alexander himself, he set about eliminating other potential plotters. He imprisoned Alexander's most important foreign wife, Roxane, and his posthumous son, Alexander IV, at Amphipolis—and had them both secretly murdered in 311 B.C. With the dirty work done, Cassander ruled the kingdom of Macedonia until his death in 297 B.C.

 

Most archaeologists today are convinced, based on historical accounts, that Alexander himself was buried somewhere in Egypt, quite possibly in the city that bears his name today, Alexandria. But researchers have yet to find the tombs of Olympias, Roxane, Hephaestion, and many of his generals. Perhaps the archaeological team clearing the mysterious tomb at Amphipolis will yet find the remains of one of them.

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141121-amphipolis-tomb-alexander-great-greece-archaeology/

 

---

 

Ancient Greek Tomb Of Alexander Era: Mystery Deepens Over The Skeletons And Bones Found

 

By Kalyan Kumar

21/1/15

International Business Times (AU)

 

Considerable mystery surrounds the disclosures about a vast tomb in Greece, built during the period of Alexander the Great, with archaeologists now claiming that they have found ancient remains of five people. Ever since the tomb was discovered in 2014, there has been intense speculation that it may have been built for Alexander the Great, for his mother or a General in his military. But the disclosure of archaeologists on Monday that they unearthed bones of five people, including a woman above the age of 60, a newborn baby, two men aged between 35 and 45, overturned many of the hitherto held assumptions. The ruins of another body, believed to be of an adult, could not be verified in terms of its age.

 

Intriguing Excavation

 

The ancient tomb dates back to 300-325 BC and was located at the Kastas hill in Amphipolis, reported The Telegraph. Alexander died in 323 BC, at the age of 32, in Babylonia, and his body was supposed to have been transported to Alexandria for burial.  Inside the tomb, archaeologists also found some marble statues of sphinxes and a mosaic pavement that depicted the abduction of Persephone by Hades, who was the king of the underworld.

 

According to the experts, the bones of one of the men had cut marks, possibly from a sword or a dagger, adding a new twist to the occupants of the necropolis.  A Daily Mail report said there is also speculation whether the woman buried at the Amphipolis site was Roxana, Alexander's Persian wife. It quoted the Culture Ministry, which said the woman was approximately 5ft 1inch tall.

 

Great Warrior

 

Born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BC, Alexander, despite of his short life that ended at the young age of 32, became world famous for his heroic military expeditions across the Persian territories of Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. He came and literally conquered the lands he surveyed. The warrior's greatest victory was at the Battle of Gaugamela, now in northern Iraq, in 331 BC. His triumphant treks across Persian territories made him known as Alexander the Great. After the battle in Gaugamela, Alexander led his army further 17,800 km and found 70 cities. The expedition led to Alexander creating an empire that stretched across three continents-- from Greece to Egypt and further to Indian Punjab.

 

Creating one of the largest empires in the world with territories that stretched from the Mediterranean to the Indus, Alexander became a military legend of all times. But the death of Alexander also unleashed a bitter succession war to take control of the empire. During the war, Alexander's mother, widow, son and half-brother were murdered near Amphipolis. Now the mystery is whether the tomb in questions is housing those bodies.

 

(The writer can be reached with feedback at kalyanaussie@gmail.com)

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ancient+Greek+Tomb+Of+Alexander+Era%3a+Mystery+Deepens+Over+The...-a0398184949