While it is not necessary for the belief in a deity that the universe was born, once we have clearly illustrated that the universe is not eternal, it is extraordinarily difficult to reconcile the creation of the universe without a creator of the universe. Obviously this post is tracking toward a creator; however, this week I would like to focus on the more specific point that it is not reasonable to believe that the universe is eternal; therefore, it must have had a beginning.
GENERAL RELATIVITY
In the early part of the 20th century, Einstein proposed theories that were at best counterintuitive. Chief among them was his theory of General Relativity. General Relativity is a topic that is covered in graduate college courses over several semesters, so we obviously won’t be delving too deeply into the subject; however, we should take a look at some of the things predicted by this theory:
Space, time, matter, and energy are interrelated.
The universe should be expanding.
Space, time, matter, and energy (the components of the universe) had a beginning.
Einstein himself thought the consequences of his theory to be “irritating”. At the time he posited his theory, he was a pantheist (believer that the universe is an eternal God). So irritated was Einstein that he actually introduced his infamous “cosmological constant” into the general relativity equations. Later discovered to simply be bad mathematics, this constant would have nullified the aforementioned implications. Hubble (as in the telescope) was among the first to actually observe the “red shift” necessarily implied by an expanding universe. Still in disbelief, Einstein made the journey himself to look through Hubble’s telescope and verify his claim. Much to his chagrin, Einstein’s theory looks to be correct.
THE BIG BANG
The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted theory regarding the origin of the universe. It yields no answer to the philosophical questions like:
"Why are we here?"
"Is there a God?"
Rather, it is a theory based on the forensic evidence we have regarding the universe. Our measurements tell us that every massive object in the universe is moving away from a central point. The radiant energy we observe at the very edges of the universe is consistent with what we would expect from an explosion on the magnitude of the Big Bang. Everything points to the idea that all matter, energy, and space was located at a centralized point light years from our current position. In other words, all that comprises the universe exploded into being about 14 billion years ago.
For many years, many scientists did not view this as tantamount to saying that the universe was created. After all, the universe could just as easily slow its expansion and being to collapse upon itself. Then, matter and energy would rush in at somewhere around the speed of light until everything ended up at a single point once again. From there, the universe would simply bang again and the cycle would continue for eternity. In the last several decades, however, we have been able to more accurately see the physics of the universe's fringes. What astronomers have discovered is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. What does this mean? Basically it means that the universe shows no signs of slowing down and reversing course and thus no sign of collapse (The "Big Crunch").
If the universe will continue to expand throughout its lifetime, logic tells us that it had a single starting point in time. In other words, the universe had a beginning.
COSMIC RADIATION
In 1965, two scientists at Bell Labs, Penzias and Wilson, won the Nobel Prize for their accidental discovery of cosmic background radiation. Previously unseen, such radiant energy must exist if the universe actually began with a bang. One of the leading 20th century physicists, Robert Jastrow described the discovery this way:
The measurements showed that the earth itself could not be the origin of this radiation, nor could the radiation come from the direction of the moon, the sun, or any other particular object in the sky. The entire Universe seemed to be the source. The two physicists were puzzled by their discovery. They were not thinking about the origin of the Universe, and they did not realize that they had stumbled upon the answer to one of the cosmic mysteries. Scientists who believed in the theory of the Big Bang had long asserted that the Universe must have resembled a white-hot fireball in the very moments after the Big Bang occurred. Gradually, as the Universe expanded and cooled, the fireball would have become less brilliant, but its radiation would have never disappeared entirely. It was the diffuse glow of this ancient radiation, dating back to the birth of the Universe, that Penzias and Wilson apparently discovered.
The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) yielded data in 2008 that confirmed not only the existence of cosmic background radiation but also its predicted behavior (I’ll speak more to this in the next couple of posts). COBE left little doubt to the veracity of the Big Bang.
THOSE CRAZY LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Let me pose a hypothetical question: If I have been shrinking for all eternity, how tall am I? Mathematically, the question actually has an answer. If I said that my height was H, the amount I shrank each year was X, and time was represented by t, my current height would be H/(H + Xt). Now, since I have been shrinking for eternity, t would approach infinity. So, the equation basically becomes H/(Z →∞) which is equal to zero. My current height would be zero. Interesting hypothetical, Randy, but why in the world do we care?
Thermodynamics is an aspect of physics that deals with the energy of a system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics concerns the notion of entropy. Entropy is somewhat difficult to describe in full without getting terribly mathematical; however, the basic idea of entropy is that any system with no external energy acting on it works toward equilibrium. If we look, for instance, at two pots of water - one near boiling and one just above freezing - what happens when we combine the two pots? They come to one temperature. The new pot is neither near boiling nor near freezing. If you then separate the water again, they maintain their equilibrium temperature. Neither returns to its original state. This is entropy in a nutshell. All systems come to equilibrium.
So, let’s compare our incredible shrinking Randy to entropy. If the universe (another system) were trending toward a state of equilibrium for eternity, where would the universe be? At equilibrium! What do we see instead? Stars burn at millions of degrees. The majority of space is right around -230 degrees within our solar system and closer to -273 degrees in the expanses between the stars. The universe is nowhere near the homogeneous state to which it is trending. Therefore it cannot have been trending for all eternity.
Physical laws and theories tell us that the universe had a beginning. Seemingly every new discovery serves to substantiate these physical laws and theories. At the end of the day, it would simply be unreasonable to believe in the eternal universe.
ASIDE: There are numerous other theories regarding the universe’s origins, though none of them generally considered credible for various reasons. I opted not to pick and choose which theories to discuss but I would be happy to explore any alternatives you might suggest in the Comments section.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
I am going to re-read this again tomorrow. It seems to be an excellent summary of the progress of cosmology over the last hundred years. This is fascinating stuff and I appreciate reading it from a friend who's so knowledgeable in physics. Thanks, Randy!
Two questions (layered with questions!):
1. Does the occurrence of the Big Bang qualify as an absolute beginning? Wasn't it just that everything was so super close together that it exploded outwards? Weren't all the basic materials in the universe today already present? I understand that an inevitable "Big Freeze" will happen if the universe continues to accelerate in its expansion. If this Big Freeze is eternal, is that an end? So was the Big Bang a beginning out of nothing, or just an explosion of everything (that already existed)?
2. I like the idea of the Big Bang being a beginning, I'm not opposed to it at all (not that this makes much difference), but even if it is the beginning, why does this make a Creator necessary? You're implying that something must have always been here. Something must have always existed. Why?
Assuming the Big Bang was the beginning of everything, there are two options.
A. Everything began
B. Something was already there (A Creator) so the universe hasn't always been around, but something has.
Why is B more likely than A? Aren't they both quite arbitrary scenarios and beyond our ability to comprehend?
Steven,
You're jumping ahead of me :) Next week we'll address additional evidence for creation that coincides with the temporary universe.
As to your first point, I think you answered your own question. If we have been moving toward the Big Freeze for eternity, we would be at the Big Freeze... so the universe cannot have started at some infinite point in the past. We cannot point to a finite future based solely on cosmological arguments.
Now, I expect you to list some other universe theories for me... I will be very disappointed otherwise.
I understand your point and it's a good one. But just because the Big Bang created a circumstance leading us towards the Big Freeze, does that mean that the Big Bang was the beginning of everything?
I'm not suggesting an eternal universe, I'm just curious what you think things were like before the Big Bang.
Also, I know I must be getting ahead of your timeline, but still, doesn't a belief in a Creator mean that you believe in an eternal universe? not the universe that we know today, but an existence nonetheless? Isn't the belief in a Creator sort of a refusal to accept the non-eternal universe?
once again, nice work on the post. I enjoyed it.
OK, other universe theories. I haven't been reading on this lately, but what about the multiverse? The idea that universes appear and cancel themselves out constantly until just the right circumstances occur for one to last for a while. Basically universes act like subatomic particles, I think.
I'll be reading some more soon, hopefully!
Good post Randy.
In regard to Steven’s question (Weren't all the basic materials in the universe today already present?), I think it is proven that NOTHING existed before the big bang. At least nothing that we know of and consider natural, nothing that exists in this universe. So whatever existed before is by definition supernatural.
In response to the multiple universe theory, a few points that resonated with me (taken from Frank Turek):
1. There is absolutely no evidence for it. It is a metaphysical theory that would literally take pure blind faith to believe in.
2. An infinite number of finite things is impossible. There cannot be an unlimited number of limited universes.
3. Even if other unviverses existed, they would need fine tuning to get started just as ours did, so this theory doesn’t eliminate the need for a designer.
4. This theory is so broad that any event could be explained away by it. We just happen to be in the universe where (fill in the blank) occurs.
Turek concludes, “Such a theory is, of course, nonsense and its obvious absurdity reveals how strong the evidence for design really is. Extreme evidence calls for extreme theories to explain it away.”
“Why is B more likely than A? Aren't they both quite arbitrary scenarios and beyond our ability to comprehend?”
To me its just like the old watch example. When you find a watch lying on the beach, you assume it had a watch maker. It is more likely that the universe was created because every design has a designer. I can’t see how “something from nothing” could ever be more likely than “something from something.” It would again just be blind faith in a theory.
I’m not sure about the first part of your post Kristen. My understanding of the Big Bang is that the universe, as we know it, started from a point of extreme heat and density. It didn’t happen from nothing. I need to read more about it.
I’m not sure that Turek is on the same page with what I brought up. But still quickly.
1. This is theoretical physics. It’s mostly about making the universe make sense mathematically and then experimenting to prove it (when possible). I’m pretty sure the idea of the multiverse is an implication of trying to explain quantum theory in our universe. Just a theory.
2. I may not be well acquainted enough with math to understand this.
3. The multiverse scenario I was referencing says that universes are created and destroyed constantly, but occasionally one occurs which can last for a while like ours.
4. I think this one is taking the argument a bit too far. We live in the physical universe we live in. He might be discussing more the idea that everything that can possibly happen actually does happen and that there are infinite parrallel universes constantly being created.
The argument from design (watchmaker) suggests a lack of imagination. The universe did not have to be this way. It just is this way. Everything could have been completely different. And it’s far from perfect. Difficulties like physical disabilities, suffering, natural disasters, etc. accompany the wonderful aspects of creation (sunsets, flowers and beer).
Also, if the watchmaker made the watch, then who made the watchmaker? Surely the watchmaker is more complex than the watch. Why does it make more sense to believe the watchmaker had no maker as opposed to the watch?
I believe that both starting points - eternal God or a Beginning - require blind faith. If it seems more likely that there is a God to you, I believe that a better argument might be from the perspective of human emotion. Why does it seem to make more sense? Is this evidence that there is a God? Or is it just the human tendency to anthropomorphize everything? “If the universe began, surely something like us did it.” Does this mean that it’s true, or does it mean that humans are constantly trying to put themselves at the center of everything? I don’t know the answer.
We can rule out eternal steady state theories through the arguments you put forth in this post. But does this mean that we know that the universe had a beginning or does it mean we know that the universe was once in a vastly dense, vastly energetic state?
Does the big bang theory really speak to origins? It is more fitting to say that the big bang theory is an explanation using the available facts where the arrows of explanation point back to this vastly dense, energetic state… and that is where the theory stops - with no comment on origin.
Reason points to a position of agnosticism with respect to the origin of the universe. We do not have a complete data set. Speculation, faith based beliefs, theoretical work, etc… all have their place, but it is not yet *reason* that delivers conclusions with regards to anything preceding this dense, energetic state.
We are in a position of inquiry and not yet at a position of conclusion. After accepting the big bang theory, we are left with the question: "why was entropy so low preceding the big bang?"
This is where the theoretical work comes in, the conjectures, the faith based myths, etc. Theoretical physicists are working on mathematics that describe multiverses (parallel or serial), some speak of dimensions that are difficult to grasp, other gratuitously posit a creator – just passing the buck and creating an infinite regress. None of this yet constitutes concrete evidence.
With hard work and a lot of luck, we may find ways to gather evidence that helps to explain why entropy was so low at that time. It may be that evidence describes a creator that precedes this state of extremely low entropy. It might also be that something yet to be detected beyond the fringes of the (our?) universe transferred enormous amounts of energy to the universe in a collision. It could be a discovered or yet to be discovered process of creating that does not involve a creator.
Great questions!
NOTE: For purposes of keeping this relatively short, I'll refer to anything outside of the universe as "the great beyond".
To be clear, I have not yet brought a creator into the progression of evidence. I'm not avoiding it; rather, it is important that I hold off until next week (and likely the week after) when I can present some additional evidence. The purpose of this post is to refute the idea of an eternal universe.
Steve,
I have never read anything on the idea of multiverses. Based on your brief description, it sounds as though multiverses are just a happening in the great beyond and our universe is just one of those happenings. I assume that the thought with acting "like subatomic particles" is that each universe behaves somewhat akin to matter and antimatter. I can't really speak to the theory, but the difficulty here is that I don't think it's really opposed to the ideas in this post. It's like I posed the question "why did the apple fall from this tree?" and you answer, "Apples fall from trees all the time." True though that may be, the question still remains. It sounds as though we are in agreement that this universe had a beginning.
Skyhook,
You made several comments that will have to wait to be addressed; however, I would like to address your introductory question: "But does this mean that we know that the universe had a beginning or does it mean we know that the universe was once in a vastly dense, vastly energetic state?"
Frankly, I don't see the difference. One thing that often gets dismissed in universe theories is that we have a phenomenal understanding of how our universe works. Yes, there are massive amounts of information yet to be uncovered, but we have an understanding of things today that allows scientists to posit theories such as String Theory or Multiverse Theory and we can predict the behavior of the universe in its first billion years (something that has been substantiated through observation).
We know, for instance, that densely-compacted matter would act in a certain way. You describe a universe embryo that is immensely dense and immensely energetic. If the components of this proto-universe are truly the same as the components of our universe, there is no reason to think that it would stay in such a state. After all, it would be victim to the same physical laws we observe today... the laws that would necessitate that it explode from its compacted state into the universe we observe today.
Conversely, if the proto-universe somehow was subject to a different set of physical laws and it existed in steady state and had no external forces acting upon it, there is no reason it would ever leave a state of stability unless something external to it caused it to do so.
Either scenario would fly against what we know of physics today and that is really a moot point because either scenario would still require a catalyst to initiate the universal expansion.
Basically, we come back to the same place. The universe still must be created from this proto-universe. An event separate from the mere existence of the universe must cause the universe to expand. Whether 14 billion years ago there existed a steady-state proto-universe or there existed nothingness, we can still say that the universe we know with the set of physical laws we can observe had a definitive beginning and that this beginning necessitates a cause.
Randy - that all sounds great, very cool. I think your reasoning makes sense. But still, I think that whatever WAS before the Big Bang is beyond our abilities to know right now.
And is your last statement true? If the beginning necessitates a cause, then what caused THAT cause? If nothing, then why does our universe need a cause?
Either there was an actual beginning or there was a Being already present, or there was a set of circumstances in another universe that created this universe. or other possibilities? who knows?
*Edit: Is there anyway we can fix typos without deleting the entire comment?
Randy, could you offer us an operational definition of universe? I would hate to see us all talking past each other because we each have a different understanding of the word.
I am glad you introduced an embryo analogy. I think it might help me explain what I am trying to say. Let us say that alien scientists come to visit the planet Earth. They hover their spacecraft over a rural farm area and beam up a chicken, only being spotted by ol’ man McGee after his bottle of gin had long run out.
Once in the spacecraft, the alien scientists begin to observe the chicken. With their sophisticated tools of observation, they are able to predict the behavior of the chicken up to the very first days. They know that if the laws they used to arrive at the chicken embryo hold up, this embryo will not stay an embryo, but will grow up to be a chicken. They also *guess* that if embryonic laws are different from what they know, external forces would be required to cause the embryo to become a chicken. I stress guess because if the laws are different or unknown, how can you reasonably say anything about what might be required?
This is all the information the alien scientists have as this point. In both scenarios, the aliens do not know anything about what happens prior to the embryonic stage. While we here on Earth know that the embryonic stage is near the beginning of this chicken, the aliens cannot say the same. This is only because we have been able to observe what happens prior to the embryonic stage.
Here is where the operational definition of universe comes in handy. How much of a definite beginning are we talking about? If we are talking about the beginning of this chicken, evidence of sexual reproduction will be required. But once we have that, we learn what is taking place is the combining and shuffling of already existent genes. If they already exist, are we really at a beginning? Maybe it is more appropriate to call the moment of this chicken’s conception an arbitrary beginning rather than a definite beginning.
Back to the universe.
We have evidence of an immensely dense, energetic state. We know that if the known laws hold up, just being in this state requires an explosive event. If the known laws do not apply, we cannot we say anything definite about what is required to set off the explosive event. In both cases, we have no historical information about the content of the dense, energetic state.
Since we do not have data to describe the universe prior to its “embryonic” stage, I find it unreasonable to call it a definite beginning. However, I think we can find common ground in that the big bang event marks a definite change of state. It is the definite beginning point of our current knowledge and it is the definite beginning of a remarkably higher state of entropy. If you want to talk about causation or anything prior to this embryonic state, you will have to bring new evidence, or you will have to leave reason behind.
Skyhook,
Interesting analogy. You're going to be fun.... I’m having difficulty addressing this in metaphorical chicken format, so I hope you’ll excuse that I’m moving directly to the discussion at hand. An "operational definition of the universe," eh? Let's use the definition: That which is comprised of matter, antimatter, energy, space, and time (or the elements of Einstein's General Relativity equations). Relativity predicts the behavior of the universe and is consistent with the universal laws and theories I am using here, so I think it only right that we use it for our operating definition.
With that, I think that we can say that something definitive did happen at the universe’s inception. Let’s look again at our three options:
1. There was nothingness prior to the universe
2. There was a proto-universe that did follow the physical laws we know to govern the universe.
3. There was a proto-universe that did not follow the physical laws we know to govern this universe.
I think that we are all in agreement that nothing can come from nothing, so option (1) would necessitate a catalyst.
We addressed option (2) and basically stated that if the proto-universe was governed by universal laws, it would never exist in a steady state; as such option (2) would basically revert to option (1).
Now, if we look at option (3), we can assume one of two things:
A. There was a catalyst that prompted the proto-universe to transform into our universe.
B. There was no catalyst and the proto-universe transformed into our universe spontaneously.
So, were down to catalyst versus option (3B). What are we really saying when we assert that the proto-universe (without a catalyst) transformed itself into our universe?
I. Not only did there exist a supernatural (by definition) proto-universe, but also that
II. This proto-universe altered its physical laws without a catalyst in order to transform itself into our universe?
I think that in assuming such a thing, we are saying basically that the proto-universe was in fact NOT subject to its physical laws; else, it could not alter its physical laws. So, this proto-universe then would have dominion over its physical laws. In order to alter its own physical laws, would not this proto-universe then be a supernatural, sentient being and therefore be a god unto itself? Aren’t we then saying that the proto-universe itself was the catalyst?
Every reasonable scenario seems to lead us to a catalyst. This catalyst would mark the beginning of the universe as defined above.
You mentioned that I would “have to bring new evidence, or …leave reason behind.” Remember that we’re only on Week 3. If I hinged my beliefs on only this, you would be right to call them into question. So far, I’ve asserted only that truth is absolute, that reason is our tool for discovering the truth, and that the universe (as defined above) had a definitive beginning. 49 blogs to go. You’ll enjoy Thursday’s post, I think.
I’m having a blast, by the way… any idea what percentage of people like to discuss physics/metaphysics on this level… or on any level for that matter?
As to Blogger: Unfortunately, I have no idea how to manipulate the edit functions in Blogger; however, from my experience I will say that it's best to pull up a Word document (this one has been up for two days… I’ve been busy) for any comments of more than a paragraph. Then you can delete and just re-copy if need be.
Steven,
I'll address the causer of the causer of the causer of the causer... probably next week, but certainly by week 5. It depends on how long the Week 4 post ends up. It gets interesting and difficult when we begin to speak of the eternal. Time, after all, is only KNOWN to exist within the universe and we cannot know existence without time. I hope that Thursday's post helps to provide sufficient evidence of a universe that was not happenstance.
I just watched a 36-year-old, washed-up quarterback throw his third touchdown of the first half of the NFC Championship. No God?
"I think that we are all in agreement that nothing can come from nothing" - Randy
except God, right?
And if you're a Cardinals fan, there's a God. If you're an Eagles fan, it may be something else....... ;)
It's the "come from" part that we'll discuss over the next few weeks. A temporal thing must obey the Law of Causality. But an eternal thing? What is "cause" when there is no time?
If a tree fell in a place where the physical laws we know to govern this universe do not apply, would it make a sound?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not enough information to say either way.
4. Jell-o
______________
OK, I was a bit dramatic in the last post...“ol’ man McGee…the chicken…leave reason behind…” I am just trying to be fun. With hindsight, I should have instead mentioned considering the possibility of reasonable doubt.
A point of reasonable doubt is found in #3 regarding a proto-universe that did not follow the physical laws we know to govern this universe. You offer a dichotomy; either a catalyst prompted the transformation or it happened spontaneously. My reason for doubting that these are the only available choices is found in the premise: “…did not follow the laws we know to govern this universe.” These two choices are derived from using the known laws. Where we don’t have known laws that describe cause and effect, it not reasonable to narrow the choices down to two. To talk about causes or requirements for causes requires knowing something of the governing laws.
Nevertheless, what happened in the gaps beyond what is known should not stand in the way of moving forward. I look forward to reading Thursday’s blog.
I have found just a handful of people in real life that like to discuss at this level of detail. There are a great deal more available for discussion online.
I believe I understand what you’re saying here… that the proto-universe was not subject to any known laws and therefore not necessarily succeptible to logic and reason or cause and effect. I’m not sure exactly what you are saying differs from the scenarios I laid out, though. Are you envisioning a situation in which the proto-universe was subject to physical laws that enabled it to change its physical laws? Perhaps my either/or scenario was not inclusive enough, but I believe I’m missing the nuance that you’re speaking to.
I want to hear more on your (3C) alternative; however, I think we’re still embarking upon the good ole “moot point”. If this proto-universe followed such extraordinarily diffent laws that it was neither subject to physical effects as we know them nor cause and effect nor logic and reason, it could hardly be considered the same entity as our universe. Ours is subject to all of those things. So, I think we could still say with confidence that our universe had a beginning. This supernatural proto-universe would simply be our catalyst.
Let me know if I am indeed missing your argument altogether.
It reads to me like you both have very good points.
Randy is looking backwards at the Big Bang from the perspective of our current position.
Skyhook is trying to "get inside" a possible perspective from before the Big Bang.
And Steven is currently listening to Count Basie - a great Big Band
You guys both have interesting and valid perspectives!
I would add that I don't think we have really disagreed on anything to this point. There was perhaps a little ambiguity, but I think that we're all in agreement that our universe (the one with matter, energy, space, and time which is succeptible to physical law) had a beginning. That is a vital point going forward.
As defined, the universe does have a beginning. Going backward through time, we come to a point where our known laws do not yield meaningful results. This is a beginning. At this point, I don’t know that anything definitive can be said about any events after our known laws break down (traveling backward through time).
I think are agreeing mostly. The only place I have difficulty with what you are saying is when you evoke the catalyst/creation requirement. If you will, allow me to use an example from our universe that follows known laws. If this example works well, hopefully you will see why I prefer to say it is unknown what caused the transformation rather than say a catalyst definitely caused it. Especially once you consider the unlimited possibilities of unknown laws.
A carbon-14 atom transforms into a stable nitrogen-14 atom through beta decay. Simply put, we reach a point where our tools detect one more electron (going back through time). It is at this point we can say we are at the beginning of nitrogen-14. However, I don’t think it is necessary to posit a catalyst, creator, or anything else here. This beginning occurred through a known process. There is no reason to believe that there are not unknown processes that leave us at a beginning without the requirement of a catalyst, creator, etc… Obviously beta decay is not the process in question, but the possibility of a process that yields beginnings without catalysts cannot be ruled out.
I think this is as far as this point goes for me. Excellent comments gentlemen.
Post a Comment