In 1687 Sir Isaac Newton published the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in which he laid out the mathematical principles behind how bodies move about in space and time. He also developed the laws of gravity, all of which paved the way for the modern era of physics and cosmology.
Newton’s law of gravity was straightforward: any two bodies will be attracted to each other. The greater the mass, the greater the attraction. An apple falls to the ground not because it must move “down”, but because gravity attracts the two bodies to each other. Since the earth is far more massive than the apple, it does not move towards the apple; rather, the apple moves towards the earth. The effect we see is that it “falls” to the earth.
Newton’s law of gravity applies to every single body in the universe, including stars and galaxies. Newton asked himself why the universe does not collapse in on itself. After all, every single star should be attracted to each other by gravity. Why hasn’t this attraction pulled all the stars together?
Albert Einstein’s equations of general relativity showed that there was an actual beginning to all space, matter, energy, and even time. His predictions were substantiated in 1929, when Edwin Hubble made the discovery that the universe is indeed expanding. Hubble viewed what is called the “red shift” of stars. Light is both a wave and a particle. As a wave, it has a certain frequency, just like sound. Low frequency light appears to us to be red, while high frequency is blue. Hubble, by analyzing the electromagnetic spectrum of the light of the stars, determined that the stars’ light were moving from bluish to reddish, indicating a lower frequency.
Now when a wave exhibits lower and lower frequency, that means that the object causing the wave is moving away (Doppler Effect). You recognize this whenever a car passes you. The increase in pitch is nothing more than the increase in frequency of the sound waves as the car gets closer, and the decrease in pitch after the car passes you is the decrease in frequency of the sound waves. Similarly, when stars move away, the frequency decreases.
Hubble recognized that the stars all over the universe are moving away from each other (and us) at tremendous speeds. In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) confirmed Hubble’s discovery. In fact, the universe is expanding, but it is doing so at an ever decreasing rate. These facts lead us to two inferences.
First, if you trace the expansion back in time, you can easily see that there must have been a point from which the expansion began. That is, at some point, the universe existed as nothing more than an infinitesimal point (a mathematical point). A mathematical point, if you recall, has no volume, no surface area - it is literally nothing. The late astronomer Carl Sagan wrote,
Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened - the Big Bang, the event that began our universe. Why it happened is the greatest mystery we know. That it happened is reasonably clear. All the matter and energy now in the universe was concentrated at extremely high density - a kind of cosmic egg, reminiscent of the creation myths of many cultures - perhaps into a mathematical point with no dimensions at all.,
Second, the expansion happened at a much more rapid pace than it does now, since the expansion rate is decreasing presently. There is one, and only one, phenomenon that exhibits both expansion and deceleration - an explosion. When a hand grenade explodes, the casing of the grenade expands outward. By way of contrast, an implosion is when something “expands” inward. Not only does the grenade casing expand outward, but it does so at an ever decreasing rate. Initially, the velocity of the shrapnel is very fast, but over time (granted, it is a very small amount of time) the rate decreases.
In other words, from pure nothingness, the universe exploded into existence. But there is still one more interesting feature about this explosion into existence. One of the fundamental properties of the universe is that we have one dimension of time. Time moves inexorably forward. Yet the Big Bang demonstrates that time once did not exist. Physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose demonstrated in the early 1970's that the creation of time was in fact one of the consequences of the Big Bang theory. Now, when it is shown that time itself actually began, that leads to some very interesting conclusions.
At some point this essay was in your hands. That means that it once was not in your hands. In other words, there existed such a situation that this paper simply did not reside in your hands. Now let us look at that from the perspective of the Big Bang. If time actually began at the Big Bang, then it once was the case that time itself did not exist. What are the implications of the non-existence of time? It means that the creation event that began the universe originated beyond the boundaries of time - that it what theologians call transcendence. Hawking writes,
Many people do not like the idea that time had a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang.
Notice what Hawking is saying. The Big Bang demonstrates scientifically that the universe - time, space, matter, and energy - literally began in an instant from nothing. This scientific data squares with the Christian concept of creation ex nihlo (out of nothing), as well as the existence of a transcendent Creator. Furthermore, many people, because they did not feel comfortable with the theological implications, attempted to elude the Big Bang theory altogether. The data, however, is simply too strong to escape the Big Bang. But couldn't it be possible for the universe to have just come into existence randomly? That could allow such skeptics a way out. Unfortunately for them, no such mechanism exists whereby an entire universe can just "pop" into existence from pure nothingness on its own.
And there is still more. Suppose, for example, that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the universe did happen to randomly come into existence. What would that universe look like? Here we must discuss the nature of the universe. Does it exhibit order or disorder? In 1961 physicist Robert Dicke recognized that life is possible in the universe only because of the special relationships between certain cosmological parameters. This is called the Anthropic Principle. Modern astrophysicist Hugh Ross has expanded on this theme. There are some 44 parameters, such as the expansion rate of the universe, the velocity of light, the ratio of electron to proton mass, the decay rate of protons, and many more. Interestingly, if any of these parameters were off by even a tiny bit (some of the parameters are precise to one part in 10 billion), then life would be impossible in the universe. Here are a few examples:
The force of gravity
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly
if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
The mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from the big bang; hence stars would burn too rapidly
if smaller: there would be insufficient helium from the big bang; hence there would be too few heavy elements forming
Uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would never have formed
if coarser: the universe would by now be mostly black holes and empty space
Polarity of the water molecule
if greater: the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life to exist; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
But, quite obviously, life does indeed exist. The likelihood that all these precise parameters happened by chance is effectively nil. Ross has calculated that the odds of life arising by purely natural processes are less than 1 in 10100,000,000,000. That is 10 to the power of 100 billion (or, 10 multiplied by itself 100 billion times). To put it in perspective, there are “only” 1080 elementary particles (protons, electrons, quarks, etc.) in the entire universe. The number 10100,000,000,000 is so big that it would take 15,000 Bibles just to write it out longhand!
Does the universe display order or disorder? The answer is self-evident. It exhibits not only small degrees of order; it exhibits unfathomable degrees of order.
But what is the nature of an explosion? Here is a simple experiment to try. Place a stack of TNT next to a garage, then light it. What happens? Will the pieces disperse and form an organized structure, or will it result in complete disorganization and chaos? Clearly, an explosion results in disorder, not order. So how could an explosion have created a universe of such intricate order? These facts have led many astrophysicists to the same conclusion made by Paul Davies, who conceded, "the impression of design is overwhelming." And cosmologist Bernard Carr wrote,
One would have to conclude either that the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidences or that the universe was indeed tailor-made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor!"
Those who oppose such conclusions have tried one of several courses. First, perhaps the universe has always "bounced" from one Big Bang cycle to the next, for all of eternity. If this is the case, then there would be no need to invoke a supernatural agent as the cause of it all. But is this a legitimate possibility? The answer is a resounding no, for the following reason: The second law of thermodynamics tells us that systems move from order to disorder, unless there is an input of energy. In any machine, the amount of energy output cannot be more than the energy input. There are, after all, no perfect machines. Any machine, therefore, costs more to operate, in terms of energy usage, than it produces. The more efficient the machine, the better this ratio becomes.
Now, if our universe is a perfect machine, than the "bouncing", or "oscillating" universe model could work. However, even if the universe were 99.9% efficient, then eventually, the universe would stop bouncing. Astrophysicists have calculated that the universe is not only not a perfectly efficient machine, it is far inferior to even the human body. Therefore, the universe simply cannot have been oscillating through one Big Bang cycle after another forever. This only pushes the problem back a step, because at some point, the universe must have actually begun from nothing.
A second option is one that renowned astronomer Carl Sagan tried:
If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?
The problem with Sagan's reasoning is twofold. First, his very own field - cosmology - has demonstrated that the universe actually began from nothing. To say, "why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed" is not particularly helpful, and it does not change the facts. He knew that the universe has not always existed. Second, he presumed that God is of the same "stuff" as the physical universe. But such is not the case. If space, time, energy, and matter actually began at the Big Bang, then the God who did the creating is not of the same "stuff", and is therefore not necessarily subject to the same laws of nature. The physical universe was caused, but God certainly need not be.
A third option is one that is more common today, and it is the idea of what is called a multiverse. A multiverse is essentially the existence of multiple, or even an infinite number of, universes. The idea goes like this.
The odds of a universe arising by pure chance that would be of such nature that it could support life are vanishingly small – if there is only one chance to do it. But what if there were more opportunities? What if new universes are continually being spawned? Given enough chances, even the most unlikely scenario would eventually arise. In order to win the incredible odds and get a universe that “works” (i.e., supports life), you might need an almost infinite – yes, perhaps an actual infinite – number of universes. And some, in fact, have proposed such a thing.
While it may solve the problem of a creator, a multiverse presents numerous other problems. First, it is untestable. A multiverse, by definition, is something beyond our own universe. If it was connected to ours, then it would simply be part of our universe and not something else. And scientists agree that anything beyond our universe is beyond our ability to test.
Second, a multiverse would require a more fundamental set of physical laws which spawns new universes. Think of a seemingly random set of 1,000 letters. How did they get there? If there is a program that says to produce 1,000 letters at random, the letters could be produced. Consider this explanation by Max Tegmark, of MIT:
A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long.
Do you see what the problem is here? An algorithm is a program that is designed. It may be simple, but it is nonetheless orderly. To solve the problem of an incredibly orderly physical universe by proposing a larger, orderly, physical multiverse that has the capacity to produce ours is to beg the question of the origin of the multiverse. The argument hasn’t advanced at all.
A third problem with the multiverse idea has to do with the concept of an actual infinite number of universes. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University argues that, “With an infinite number of universes, all possible arrangements of space, matter and time will occur an infinite number of times.”
Now, let’s think for a moment what this means. Vilenkin writes, “A striking consequence of the new picture of the world is that there should be an infinity of regions with histories absolutely identical to ours. That's right, scores of your duplicates are now reading copies of this article. They live on planets exactly like Earth, with all its mountains, cities, trees and butterflies. There should also be regions where histories are somewhat different from ours, with all possible variations.”
But if this is so, the number of sheer contradictions are also infinite. For example, there would be a universe where the non-existence of the multiverse that spawned it would be true. Moreover, there would be a world where time would run backward. There would be a world where all the miraculous things that Biblical skeptics have argued cannot happen (such as Jesus rising from the dead, for example) all do, in fact, happen. As such, there is literally nothing that would be out of bounds from a scientific or philosophical perspective.
I have one more thought on the idea of a multiverse, related to this concept of a literal infinite number of combinations of physical laws, and arrangements of matter. Let me offer a simple illustration to clarify the point. Imagine a six-sided die. If you roll numbers 1-5, various universes pop up, all looking a little different. But if you roll a six, that is the “death roll,” meaning that you’ve hit a combination that kills the entire game. If you roll the die one time, the odds are good that you’ll hit a number other than six, and the game can continue. If you roll it six times, it’s even money that one of those rolls will produce a six, but those odds could be beaten and you may not roll a six. If you roll it a hundred times, the odds shrink that you’ll somehow miss a six, but it’s still possible. This could continue with more rolls, and as the number of rolls increases, the odds of avoiding the death roll continue to shrink.
But if you roll the die an infinite number of times, you’re guaranteed to hit a six eventually. But what happens when you hit a six? The game is over instantly. And when that happens, you haven’t actually rolled it an infinite number of times; you’ve simply rolled it an awful lot of times, but it is nevertheless a finite number.
If Vilenkin is correct, and the existence of a multiverse necessarily implies an actual infinite number of universes, then eventually, the multiverse will hit the death roll, and the entire game is over; the multiverse will have hit upon a combination of physical laws and arrangements of matter that kills the entire process, and it will stop producing more universes. But when that happens, there are no more universes being produced.
The fact that we are here is proof that the death roll has not yet occurred, which proves that there are not a literally infinite number of universes out there. In fact, there cannot ever be an infinite number of universes because one of those universes would destroy the multiverse outright. Thus, Vilenkin and the multiverse theory is necessarily wrong, and we are back to the question of what created an orderly, yet finite, universe out of nothing.
Let me sum up what I have learned and attempted to convey. The universe once was a mathematical point - in other words, it had no volume and no surface area. From this mathematical point (nothingness), the universe and all its dimensions (time, length, width, and height) exploded into existence, forming an intricately balanced and orderly universe, perfectly fit for life.
That is the science behind the Big Bang. These are not the conclusions of theistic philosophy. Those are the raw facts. Now, let’s take a moment to consider the ramifications of these facts. First, the universe must have been created by something outside the universe itself. In other words, the universe, which at one point did not exist, could not therefore have created itself. This “creator” might or might not have been God, but there had to have been some creative force.
Second, the creator had to exist outside the boundaries of the universe. In other words, the creator has to be able to operate outside the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time that is our universe. This is what transcendence means.
Third, the creator had to be extremely intelligent in order to finely tune the universe with such intricate order. And fourth, the creator had to be incredibly powerful in order to make this all work.
So we see that the Big Bang itself has pointed us to a creator that is powerful, intelligent, and transcendent. Christianity has a name for such a creator: God. Many scientists, of course, choose to reject this logical conclusion of the data, but they have nothing else to put in the creator’s place. In conclusion, let me quote astronomer Robert Jastrow, who writes,
This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth….For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment