A Brief Look at the Historical Development and Theological Implications of Cosmology
(Material summarized from Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing Co., Orange, CA 1989.)
By Dr. John Millam
Cosmology is the attempt to explain the origin and nature of the universe, including the earth, sun, moon, and stars. From the very earliest times, man has been fascinated with trying to understand and explain the universe and his place in it. Cosmology is not simply a scientific pursuit; it is deeply theological and philosophical in its implications. At its heart, cosmology is man’s quest for God and as such, the study of cosmology is deeply relevant to all people of all backgrounds.
Early Cosmology
The earliest known recorded cosmologies come from China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia and date to around 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. There are some 300 ancient creation stories from virtually every known ancient civilization. In addition to religiously and culturally based cosmologies, there have been a number of scientific and philosophical cosmologies as well. The Greeks, starting around 700 BC, are the best example of ancient observational astronomers. For example, the ancient Greeks were able to determine that the earth was round (Anaximander), to know that stars are far away (Aristarchus), and to measure the diameter of the earth and sun (Eratosthenes). Such astronomers held that the beauty and order of the universe was the result of divine craftsmanship. Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle (4th century BC), also taught their own views about the universe based on logic and ideas and similarly held a theistic view of cosmology.
Of these ancient cosmologies, almost all were theistic in their outlook and recognized that a deity or deities were the ultimate cause for the universe. These cosmologies also held that the universe was finite in both space and time. Three important exceptions to this understanding of the universe are noted here:
1) Many Hindu cosmologies taught a reincarnating universe model where the entire universe comes into existence, after a time collapses back into nothingness, and then comes back into existence. This life-death-rebirth cycle continues indefinitely, so the universe is infinite in age although each individual cycle would be finite in time. In fact, some actually taught that each life-death-rebirth cycle was 4.32 billion years long.
2) Two other Indian cosmologies, that of the Jains and the Mimamsa, argued that the universe was eternal and changeless.
3) Lucretius, a Roman in the 1st century BC, postulated an infinite number of universes each going through unending cycles of formation, dissolution, and reformation. With an infinite number of universes, at least some would have just the right life-sustaining properties and life could assemble under random natural processes. Lucretius’ theory was largely ignored by his contemporaries.
Early Judeo-Christian Cosmology
Around the 5th century AD, Lucretius’ atheistic cosmology enjoyed a brief resurgence, which prompted a reaction from Roman Catholic scholars. Since the Bible often appealed to the created order as proof for God’s existence and character, this atheistic cosmology conflicted directly with Biblical teaching. Augustine (354-430 AD) argued against this atheistic cosmology primarily by ridiculing their claim that the earth was round. Despite errors in Augustine’s arguments,[1] he won the day and the atheistic movement soon died out. He followed up by developing five “irrefutable” proofs for God’s existence.
1) Cosmological argument — the effect of the universe’s existence must have a suitable cause.
2) Teleological argument — the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
3) Rational argument — the operation of the universe according to order and natural law implies a mind behind it.
4) Ontological argument — man’s ideas of God, his God-consciousness, implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
5) Moral argument — man’s built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by innate awareness of a code of law, awareness implanted by a higher being.
Augustine’s Christian theistic view of cosmology soon dominated Western thinking and continued to hold sway for more than a millennium.
Later in the 12th century, a Jewish philosopher named Moses Maimonides proposed another argument for God’s existence. In his work, Guide for the Perplexed, he argued that God must be the “prime mover” or ultimate cause for motion in the universe. His argument hinged on the idea that all motion requires a cause and that an infinite series of causes is impossible. Therefore, for motion to exist there must be a “prime mover” or “primary cause” to initiate motion but does not itself need to be moved.
A century later, Thomas Aquinas extended and synthesized these ideas. Aquinas took Augustine’s cosmological argument and subdivided it into 5 sub-arguments following along the lines of Maimonides.
a) Where there is motion, there is a mover, and ultimately a first mover, itself unmoved.
b) Things here are produced by their causes; these causes in turn were produced by their causes, and so on. Ultimately, there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.
c) Contingent things depend as their ultimate explanation a non-contingent being.
d) Where there are degrees of perfection, there must be absolute perfection.
e) There are design and government in the world. Hence there are ultimately a first designer and a first governor.
The Golden Age of Science
Europe experienced a reawakening of learning starting in the 14th and 15th centuries, which lead to the rebirth of science in the 16th and 17th centuries. Some critical events that helped stimulate this revolutionary change:
1) Guttenberg developed the printing press (1456) which greatly increased learning and the dissemination of knowledge.
2) The Protestant Reformation is perhaps the most important cause for change. The Reformation emphasized the authority of scripture over the church and tradition. This help break the stranglehold the Catholic Church had on theology and learning. Rather than simply accepting an official church interpretation, the Reformation emphasized the individual studying the scripture directly. This emphasis on personal investigation rather than authority, spilled over into other forms of learning. Another central tenant of the Protestant Reformation was translating scripture into the language of the common people rather than in Latin. This put the scripture in the hands of all people, not just the clergy.
3) In the 13th century, Muslim scholars had exported to Europe new mathematics (trigonometry, algebra, and Arabic numerals) that they in turn had gotten from India. There was also a reintroduction of ancient writings that had been mostly lost in Europe during the Dark Ages but had been preserved by Catholic Monks in Ireland and by Muslims.
Dramatic advances in science reflect the dramatic changes occurring throughout Europe. Essentially every major branch of modern science can be traced to this time period. Some of the most important discoveries relevant to cosmology made at this time are:
1) Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) published posthumously his heliocentric model for the solar system in De Revolutionibus. The heliocentric model had the sun at the center of the solar system instead of the earth and the earth, like the other planets, revolved around the sun. The heliocentric theory directly refuted the model of Ptolemy (a geocentric model) and the Aristotelian philosophy that had been deeply incorporated into the church by the work of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
2) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) wrote supporting Copernicus’ heliocentric model and attacked the Aristotelian thinking of the day that was present in the universities and churches.[2] Galileo’s telescope for the first time showed blemishes on the sun (sun spots) and craters on the moon. The Catholic Church, based on Aristotelian philosophy, had argued that perfection was attributed to the heavens and imperfection to earth. Showing that heavenly body had imperfections, discounted that philosophy and established that bodies in the heavens have the same properties as objects on the earth.
3) Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) spent his lifetime making some of the most precise astronomical measurements of that time. His apprentice, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), made use of this data to derive his three laws of planetary motion: a) All planets move in elliptical orbits; b) planets sweep out equal area in equal time; and c) the square of a planet’s period is directly proportional to the cube of the planet’s distance from the sun. Kepler’s work gave direct support for Copernicus’ heliocentric model.
4) Isaac Newton (1642-1727) formulated his famous three equations of motion: a) a body in motion stays in motion and a body at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by a force; b) the force on a body equals its mass times its acceleration; and c) for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton also realized that forces here on earth applied equally to objects in space. Using earth bound measurements and Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, derived his law of gravitation. He was later able to show that Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion are the natural consequence of his law of gravitation and three laws of physics. Newton also revolutionized optics and invented calculus (along with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz). Newton is unequivocally the greatest scientist of his time and his work dominated science for the next 200 years and is still commonly used today.
Cosmology was dramatically reshaped by these discoveries. The solar system was discovered to be vastly larger than had been imagined. (Greek astronomers had discovered this, but that knowledge had been lost.) The universe was viewed as operating with mathematical precision under universal laws. These universal laws were seen coming from God and were discoverable though experiment, observation, and mathematics. While there was no formal cosmological model during this time, Newton speculated that the universe was infinite in size. He reasoned that in a finite universe, the force of gravity would cause the universe to collapse. In an infinite universe, there would be an equal amount of matter (and hence gravity) in all directions creating a balance and preventing collapse.
The Christian Origin of Modern Science
The golden age of science marks an explosive growth in scientific discovery that continues on today. This explosive growth was not simply an increase in technology or level of sophistication but was a paradigm shift from ancient to modern science. Modern science is distinct from ancient science by its use of the scientific method. The central elements of the scientific method are experiment, falsification, verification, and quantitative (rather than qualitative) analysis. This leads us to two questions (1) what gave rise to scientific method and (2) why did it appear first in 17th century Europe?
1) Virtually All of the Early Scientists Were Devout Christians. Almost every major branch of modern science can be traced back to 17th and 18th century Europe. If we open a textbook on science and look at the men who founded and dominated each of these fields, we find that almost all were strong Christians. Some prominent examples include Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, and Carolus Linneaus. More extensive lists can be found elsewhere.[3]
2) Beliefs of Ancient Cultures Hindered and Stifled the Birth of Modern Science. The ancient Mesopotamian cultures, Indians, Chinese, Egyptians, Greeks, and Muslims all made impressive discoveries, yet as eminent historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki[4] explains, in each case science remained stillborn and never reached the maturity that occurred later in Europe. Why was science not self-sustaining in these societies? Why didn’t the Chinese, Egyptians, etc. develop the scientific method long before it came about in Europe? He identified elements of the worldview in each of these cultures that were responsible for keeping science stillborn. These include a cyclic view of history, pseudo-science (such as astrology), mysticism, deification of nature, denial of the reality of the world, and a lack of a balance between faith and reason.
3) Christianity Provided the Intellectual Foundation for Modern Science. Modern science flourished in Europe because the Christian worldview prevented or counteracted beliefs that had stifled science in other earlier cultures. In addition, Christianity provided the intellectual framework that directly led to the rise and continued growth of science. These contributions include an emphasis on testing, the world being created ex-nihilo by God, God as transcendent, a spiritual incentive to study nature, Protestant reform theology, a rejection of mysticism and astrology, and the nature of man.
Infinite Static Universe Model
| Immanuel Kant |
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is known today as the father of modern cosmology for his work in developing the first strictly mechanistic model for the universe. Previous to Kant’s work, in 1734 a Swedish mystic named Emanuel Swedenborg argued using Newtonian mechanics that a cloud of matter could condense to form a star and planets. The cloud would begin to collapse in on itself under the force of gravity but then flatten out into a rotating disk due to conservation of angular momentum. The center of the disk would then become a star and the remaining material would collect into small clumps or “kernels” and become planets. In 1750, Thomas Wright discovered that all observable stars in the sky are organized into the shape of a rotating disk or lens. This formation of stars is today referred to as the Milky Way galaxy in which our solar system resides. Then in 1755, Kant took the next step forward by noting that the disk shape of our galaxy as observed by Wright was very similar to the disk shaped proto-solar system proposed by Swedenborg. Kant, in his book Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, married the two ideas by proposing that the universe started as a giant “primal nebula” which subsequently collapsed under the forces of gravity. This collapsing nebula would then begin to rotate and flatten out to into a disk or lens shaped galaxy. Small clumps or “kernels” would then develop in the disk. These clumps would be the source material out of which a solar system could subsequently develop as described by Swedenborg. With one great sweep, Immanuel Kant attempted to describe how everything in the heavens could have formed using only Newton’s laws of physics. Within 50 years, Kant’s primal nebula theory dominated the fields of physics and astronomy.
Kant’s model for galaxy formation was quite modest and reasonable. Both Kant’s model for galaxy formation and Swedenborg’s model for solar system formation are essentially universally accepted today, some 250 years later. However, Kant was rigidly mechanistic in his interpretation and relegated God’s role in the universe to no more than the Prime Mover or cause for the universe’s existence. In his subsequent writings, Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgment, Only Possible Ground of Proof for the Being of God, Religion Within the Limits of Reasons Alone, and Dreams of a Spirit Seer, he laid out his philosophy; which started a philosophical revolution that subsequently dominated Western thinking and shifted it toward a non-theistic view of science and the world. A summary of Kant’s philosophy:
1) Man’s knowledge is limited to that which he can obtain through the five human senses.
2) A cause can never be proved from its effects.
3) Man has no innate ideas.
4) No existence beyond humanly experienced dimensions can be proved.
5) No absolute can ever be established to exist.
6) Miracles are illusory and cannot be proven.
All of Kant’s arguments are ultimately circular in their reasoning. All of his philosophical conclusions derive from a single unstated axiom – God does not reveal himself. Kant defended himself as being a theist, however, he limited any possible knowledge of God to what could only be known through the subjective moral disposition of man. As such, Kant’s theology was little more than moral anthropology.
| Figure 1: Kant’s Infinite Static Universe |
After laying out his philosophy, Kant returned to cosmology where he put the final touches on his cosmological model. Only 6 years after Kant’s original work, Jean Lambert (1761) proposed that our “island universe” (galaxy) was just one of many that had condensed out of a much larger collapsing nebula. This larger nebula could in turn be the product of an even larger collapsing nebula. This line of reasoning could then be carried on ad-infinitum extending on to infinity. (Unknowingly, Lambert had resurrected Lucretius’ infinite universe idea and gave it some scientific credibility.) Kant recognized that if the universe were finite in either time or space, then it would be possible to discover a “first event” or point of creation. This idea of being able to discover empirical evidence for creation (and hence a Creator) would be in violation of his fundamental unstated axiom that God’s existence is not provable. So on a philosophical rather than a scientific basis, Kant argued that the universe must be infinite in both time and space. A summary of Kant’s cosmology:
1) The development of the universe is strictly mechanistic.
2) The universe has no beginning in time.
3) The universe is infinite in extent.
4) Time and space are strictly relative.
5) Everything about and in the universe can be explained by the laws of physics.
A number of discoveries over the next two centuries lent support for Kant’s infinite universe cosmology. Evidence for Kant’s cosmology was in turn interpreted as support for Kant’s philosophical and theological views. Some supporting evidences:
1) In the 19th century, British Astronomer William Hershel mapped out how stars are distributed around the sun, which showed that our “island universe” (Milky Way galaxy) was indeed shaped like a lens confirming Thomas Wright’s theory.
2) Astronomers continued to build larger and larger telescopes and peered farther and farther out into space. No matter where they looked, things appeared essentially the same. Nowhere could they find evidence for an edge or end to the universe.
3) Newton’s laws of physics, upon which Kant built much of his model, continued to be affirmed, not just on earth but in space. The motion of planets in our solar system could be predicted with such precision that small discrepancies between the predicted motions and the actual motions of Uranus led to the discovery of the planet Neptune.
4) The only substantial objection to Kant’s infinite universe was the riddle of the dark night sky (later known as Olber’s paradox). Thomas Digges in 1576 and restated by Edmund Halley in 1715 argued that if the universe was infinitely large and stars are evenly distributed, then the total amount of light coming from the infinite number of stars would make the night sky bright, not dark! A number of arguments were advanced to resolve this riddle but the most prominent was the suggestion that light from distant stars was blocked by intervening dust. Evidence for the existence of large clouds of interstellar dust came from astronomers at the end of the 19th century.
To sum up, Kant overturned millennia of belief in theistic cosmology and shifted Western thinking toward agnosticism. Kant’s cosmology held undisputed dominance for the next 200 years. A summary of Kant’s influence:
1) Kant proposed a mechanistic universe in which God was relegated to being no more than the Prime Mover for the universe. This in turn gave impetus to atheistic movements where God was removed altogether.
2) Kant established the Copernican principle (now referred to as the mediocrity principle) which holds that there is nothing special about our planet, solar system, or galaxy. Just as Copernicus showed that earth was just one planet out of many (as opposed to being the center of God’s creation), Kant argued that our solar system was but one of a multitude. In an infinite universe, all order and design can be explained by chance since with infinite chances even the most remote possibilities become probable.
3) In addition to his cosmology, Kant had attempted to explain the origin of life through random mechanistic processes and so can be considered a proto-evolutionist. This would have had the effect of eliminating God’s role in the creation of life. Kant gave up on this attempt due to a lack of clear understanding of biological processes.
4) In the minds of his hearers, Kant had demolished the “irrefutable” philosophical proofs for God’s existence of Augustine, Maimonides, and Aquinas along with the newer rational support for God’s existence from Kepler and Newton.
5) He established materialism and anti-supernaturalism as the dominant worldview in western civilization.
Prelude to Modern Cosmology
Near the end of the 19th century, scientists increasingly believed that they had a complete set of physical laws for the universe.[5] It seemed to many at the time that there was nothing left to do in physics except to measure everything to more and more decimal places of accuracy. This smugly optimistic attitude of scientists was met by a growing undercurrent of experiments that did not fit into the accepted framework. This small trickle would soon grow into a raging torrent at the dawn of the 20th century. Three important discoveries leading to the overthrow of Kant’s infinite universe cosmology and the introduction of new laws of physics will be noted here.
1) Josef Stefan in 1879 and Ludwig Boltzmann in 1884 showed that warm bodies emit electromagnetic radiation according to their temperature.[6] Previous to this discovery, proponents of Kant’s cosmology had gotten around the riddle of the dark night sky (Olber’s paradox) by arguing that light from distant stars was blocked by intervening dust. This new understanding showed that if such dust existed, it would be slowly warmed by incoming light until it emitted as much light energy as it received. So, this law showed that Olber’s paradox had not in fact been resolved and that an infinite universe model was at odds with established facts. Ironically, this work was not applied to Olber’s paradox until 1960, long after the demise of the infinite universe model.
2) In 1871, Johann Friedrich Zöllner made the first attempt to calculate the total potential energy within an infinite universe. His conclusion was that the gravitational potential everywhere in the universe would be infinite, which would contradict all astronomical observations. (This problem is analogous to Olber’s paradox except with gravity instead of light. Unlike light, intervening matter does not block gravity so there was no way around this paradox.) Zöllner’s conclusions were largely ignored until it was brought up again by Hugo Seeliger in 1895 and Carl Neumann in 1896. Rather than abandoning the infinite universe model, many proposed that Newton’s law of gravity had to be modified at very long distances to get around the paradox without violating known nearby behavior.
3) In the late 19th century, light was assumed to propagate like a wave, completely analogous to sound waves (or other waves). Since sound waves require a medium (air) to travel through, it was assumed that light waves also required a medium and this hypothetical medium was called æther. (Sound cannot travel through outer space because there is no matter to act as a conducting medium but since we can observe stars, æther would have to be all-pervasive and not consist of matter.) For sound waves, its measured speed is the sum of the speed of sound in that medium and the observer’s velocity with respect to that medium. So, if we know the speed of sound for that medium, we can determine our local velocity. In 1887, two American physicists, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley used this idea to try to detect the motion of the earth with respect to the æther. To their astonishment, no motion was detected. The speed of light was measured to be the same no matter which direction they looked. This discovery could not be explained within the existing laws of physics, so scientists made many attempts to patch things up, but all these attempts failed.
General Theory of Relativity
| Albert Einstein |
In 1905, an obscure Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein took up the challenge of the Michelson-Morley experiment and resolved it by developing the special theory of relativity. Einstein’s solution was stunningly simple but revolutionary in its implications. It was Einstein’s equations of relativity (along with quantum mechanics[7]) that revolutionized physics and overturned centuries old ideas about cosmology.
Newton’s laws of motion held as its underlying assumption that all observers experience time and space in exactly the same way. This is a simple and straightforward assumption that dates back to Aristotle and before. Within this framework, one can go from the measurement of any observer to how any other observer viewed the same event. If time and space are fixed for all observers then other measured properties, such as the speed of light, must vary from observer to observer. This is exactly what the Michelson-Morley experiment expected and tried to measure but did not observe. So, Einstein broke from Aristotle and Newton and assumed that the speed of light was a constant for all observers (as found by Michelson and Morley) and hence that it was time and space that varied from observer to observer. In other words, two observers with identical watches but moving at different speeds would mark a different amount of time having passed by. From this assumption, Einstein was able to derive new equations of motion, which are called the special theory of relativity. Einstein also postulated that light did not need a medium and so disposed of the hypothetical æther.
Einstein’s equations were bold but were they true? For objects moving at normal speeds (i.e. much less than the speed of light), the theory of relativity predicts behavior that is indistinguishable from what Newton’s laws predicted. There were, however, several predictions that could be tested:
1) According to relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass will increase. Scientists were able to confirm this by measuring the mass of electrons at speeds up to 70% of the speed of light. Later studies confirmed the results to more than 99.99999% of the speed of light.
2) Several unstable particles, such as mesons, were known to decay into simpler particles at a known rate. When these particles are sped up to close to the speed of light, their decay time slowed down. This is known as time dilation and was predicted from the special theory of relativity.
3) Another consequence of relativity is that matter can convert into energy and energy into matter. This is summarized by Einstein’s famous equation, “E = mc2.” According to this equation, even a small amount of matter could give rise to an enormous amount of energy. Ernest Rutherford was the first scientist to confirm this result. Even more dramatic proofs of this phenomena can be seen today in nuclear reactors, nuclear bombs, and nuclear fusion in the sun.
After the overwhelming success of the special theory of relativity, Einstein was emboldened to extend his work to a more general case. The special theory of relativity was limited to systems moving at constant velocity with respect to each other but to be of real use it had to be able to describe accelerating systems. Published in 1915, this extended theory was called the general theory of relativity because it applied to all situations, whereas the special theory of relativity dealt with only certain cases. In extending his work to include acceleration, he also explained gravity as a natural byproduct. As with the special theory of relativity, it had to be tested before it could be accepted. Relativity passed all its tests with flying colors. Three major tests are listed here:
1) The general theory of relativity predicted the bending of light in the presence of a massive object. In May 1919, Arthur Eddington observed the position of stars near the sun at the peak of a solar eclipse. These positions could then be compared to their position of the stars at a different time when the sun was not there. Comparing the position of the stars with and without the sun showed that the star’s apparent position had indeed changed due to the gravitational presence of the sun by the amount predicted by relativity.
2) Kepler and Newton showed that planets should move along perfect elliptical paths. It had been well known at that time that the orbit of Mercury deviated from this path and that the elliptical path of Mercury shifted by a small amount over time. Astronomers referred to this phenomenon as perihelion advance. When Einstein’s equations were applied to Mercury’s orbit, it predicted this shift and by precisely the right amount. All planets were predicted to have this shift but that it would be largest for planets orbiting closest to the sun, which was later verified.
3) Gravity has an effect on the color (or frequency) of light. Objects moving away from a massive object have their color shifted toward the red end of the color spectrum and are said to be “redshifted.” Similarly, objects moving toward a massive object have their color shifted toward the blue end of the color spectrum (blueshifted). Physicists measured this effect and it matched what had been predicted by relativity.
The general theory of relativity passed every test that it was put to it with flying colors. Unfortunately, at that time the tests could only be accurately done to a few places of the decimal, so many held reservations about relativity. There are no such reservations about the reliability of the general equation of relativity today. In 1986, one experiment successfully demonstrated the correctness of the relativity dilation to 1 part in 1021 for a pair of binary neutron stars making relativity the most rigorously tested theory known to man. Relativity is properly referred to as a law of physics not simply a theory. (People still commonly refer to the “theory” of relativity, rather than the law of relativity, simply out of force of habit.)
“Big Bang” Model – Relativistic Cosmology
| Equation 1: Equations of Relativity Applied to the Universe[8] G = Gravitational constant (positive); p = total pressure; r = the density of matter and radiation; c = the speed of light; R = the radius of the universe. |
Once Einstein had developed the general theory of relativity, the next logical step was to apply these equations to the behavior of the universe. So in 1916, Einstein published his results, which showed that the universe must be expanding.
| Figure 2: Standard Big Bang Model |
According to these equations, the universe must be expanding outward and that the rate of expansion is slowing down (decelerating). The simplest analogy is a hand grenade exploding. After it explodes, the fragments fly outwards, but their outward journey is progressively slowed over time. Using this analogy, we can follow the fragments backward in time to where they come together at the point of explosion. For the universe, we follow it back in time as it gets smaller and smaller until it can get no smaller. This point, at which the universe can get no smaller, is called the singularity, where the entire universe would have been smaller than an atom. This singularity represents the time at which we cannot go farther back and so represents the beginning of the universe. From the point of beginning, we point our attention forward in time and watch the universe rapidly expand, with the force of gravity acting as a break on cosmic expansion, slowing the rate of expansion over time. A summary of the implications of relativity for the universe:
1) The universe must be expanding (or have expanded).
2) The universe must be old (but not infinitely old).
3) The universe must have a beginning.
These results contradicted Kant’s infinite universe model, which had been the accepted model for over 100 years. Fred Hoyle derisively called this expanding universe model the “big bang” as if it was just a giant firecracker. Hoyle rejected an expanding universe because of its theological implications (see below). Soon, however, the term “big bang” caught on in both the popular and scientific circles and is now the accepted name for the relativistic expanding universe model.
Einstein’s Reaction to the Big Bang
Einstein showed in 1916 that his equations of general theory of relativity predicted an expanding universe that must have had a point of beginning in the finite past. This conclusion deeply troubled him because conventional wisdom (i.e. Kant’s infinite static universe model) held that the universe was uncreated, but relativity argued that the universe was created. Einstein was reluctant to throw out centuries of belief in an infinite static universe, so he appealed to an unknown force of physics that would exactly counteract the force of gravity and keep the universe from expanding or contracting. He accomplished this through inserting an extra constant that was dubbed the “cosmological constant” that represented a repulsive force that could oppose the force of gravity. By choosing the just-right cosmological constant, the attractive and repulsive forces would exactly cancel leaving a universe that is neither expanding nor contracting. This model was philosophically pleasing to Einstein because it eliminated the origin of the universe and with it the necessity of God. He published this new work in 1917, just a year after his original work that had demonstrated that the universe should be expanding. The size of the universe according to this model would be unchanging (static) and the universe would have neither a beginning nor an end and so was substantively the same as Kant’s infinite universe model (Figure 1).
Russian meteorologist, Alexander Friedmann, discovered a simple algebraic error in Einstein’s derivation. Correcting the mistake revealed that equations of relativity indeed predicted an expanding universe. Friedmann wrote humbly to Einstein regarding the error and described the corrected solution. Rather than accepting correction, Einstein refused to respond to Friedmann and later published a statement that Friedmann’s results were “suspicious” and that his derivation was wrong. After Edwin Hubble’s publication of his “law of red shifts” in 1929 (see below), Einstein finally admitted his double error (his original derivation with the cosmological constant and his treatment of Friedmann) and acknowledged that the universe was indeed expanding.[9] In the end, Einstein discarded the cosmological constant and conceded that its introduction was “the greatest mistake of his life.” Because the universe has a beginning and hence was created, he grudgingly acknowledged “the necessity for a beginning” and “the presence of a superior reasoning power.” However, he steadfastly rejected the God of the Bible preferring the God of Benedict (Baruch) de Spinosa. His rejection of the God of the Bible was based on his inability to resolve intellectual issues, such as the question of evil and suffering and the question of man’s free will verses God’s sovereignty.
The Fate of the Universe — Friedmann’s Models
| Figure 3: Friedmann’s Models of the Possible Fates of the Universe |
When Alexander Friedmann corrected Einstein’s work in 1922, he reaffirmed that the universe was expanding and that it must have originated from a singularity. In addition to studying the beginning, he also looked at the possible fate of the universe. According the equations of relativity (Equation 1), the behavior of the universe was dominated by two measurable properties of the universe, the total pressure, p, and the density of matter, r. After the initial expansion, the total pressure term becomes negligible compared to the density term. As such, one could simplify the equations by dropping the pressure term and examining the fate of the universe as only a function of density term. (Friedmann did not include Einstein’s hypothetical cosmological constant in his work.) Given this, Friedmann predicted three possible fates for the universe:
Friedmann I: If the density of the universe were below a certain critical threshold, the gravitational force coming from the matter would be unable to halt the expansion of the universe and the universe would expand forever.
Friedman II: If the universe has exactly the right amount of matter; gravity will just be strong enough to halt the expansion of the universe. In such a case, the universe would cease to expand or shrink.
Friedman III: If the density of the universe were above the critical threshold, the force of gravity would be strong enough to halt the universe from expanding and cause it to collapse back in on itself in a big crunch.
Hubble’s Law of Expansion
| Figure 4: The Hubble Velocity Distance RelationshipThe velocities (km/sec) at which several galaxies are moving away from us are plotted against estimated distances. The cross represents the mean of measurements made on 22 other galaxies. All measurements shown here were made before 1929. |
Even with the mounting theoretical evidence for an expanding universe, many including Einstein were not convinced. Direct experimental evidence soon provided overwhelming evidence that the universe was expanding just as predicted by the equations of relativity. Back in 1914, Vesto Slipher had first observed several “nebulae” that were receding away from us at very high speeds. The speed (called the recession velocity) was determined by measuring the object’s redshift.[10] When Slipher first presented his findings, no one knew what to make of it. In 1923, Slipher’s graduate student, Edwin Hubble, set out to solve the mystery of the receding “nebulae.” Using the newly completed 100-inch telescope at Mt. Wilson, he discovered that the “nebulae” were in fact galaxies made up of billions of stars. Hubble went on to measure the distance to these newly discovered galaxies[11] and confirmed they were far outside of our own Milky Way galaxy. Armed with both distance and velocity measurements for a number of these objects, Hubble was able to show a direct relationship between them (see Figure 4). From this, he derived his famous Hubble’s law that states that the farther away an object is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. This was the first direct proof for an expanding universe and was in direct contradiction to both Kant and Einstein’s static models.
The observed relationship between distance and velocity not only showed that the universe was expanding but how it was expanding. The “big bang” was not an explosion that hurled matter out from a center but the stretching of the fabric of space itself as predicted by relativity. As the fabric of space expands, it carries stars and galaxies along with it causing objects to move away from each other. A simple analogy is a raisin loaf rising in a hot oven. As the bread expands, the raisins are carried along with the bread and are pushed away from each other.
Hubble’s law also gives another piece of critical information – the age of the universe. The ratio of the objects velocity to its distance is referred to as the Hubble constant. One divided by the Hubble constant is known as the Hubble age and is an approximate value for the age of the universe. (This estimate assumes that the universe expands at a fixed rate. Later, a refinement to this estimate was introduced to account for the gradual slowing of the expansion of the universe.) This was the first direct measurement of the universe’s age!
Crisis in Cosmology – The Age Dilemma
When Hubble’s expansion measurements were used to determine the age of the universe, it gave a value around 2 billion years old. This posed a severe problem because the earth could be reliably dated to around 4-5 billion years old using radioactive decay methods. How could the earth be older than the universe? Surely, one of the two values must be wrong. This dilemma prompted cosmologists in the 1930’s and 1940’s to try to adjust their models to get around the problem. Sadly, however, these scientists ignored the warning of Hubble not to over interpret his data. Hubble had recognized that the grave difficulties in measuring such enormous extra-galactic distances and hence knew that there were large uncertainties in the measurements (see Figure 4) as well as calibration problems leading to systematic errors.
It was not until much later (after the proposal of the hesitation and steady state models) that the cosmic age conflict was resolved. In the 1950’s, an improved understanding of Cepheid variable stars needed for making distance measurements as well as measuring more galaxies and with better telescopes raised the age of the universe to 6 to 8 billion years ago. Hubble’s student, Allan Sandage, also helped in refining the Hubble measurements and eventually doubled the estimated age of the universe. By the 1970’s, the estimated age of the universe settled to around 18 billion years old. Around this time, it became recognized that there needed to be a correction factor to account for the universe slowing down. The Hubble age estimate assumed that the universe was always expanding at its current rate. Using the equations of relativity, to determine how much faster the universe was expanding in the past, showed that the Hubble age estimate needed to be reduced by about 3 billion years, yielding the now accepted age of 14-15 billion years old.
| Figure 5: Lemaître Hesitation Model |
Lemaître Hesitation Model
In 1927, George Lemaître, a Belgian priest and astrophysicist who worked for Arthur Eddington, published a modified form of the standard big bang model. The motivation for his work was the perceived age dilemma coming from Hubble’s expansion measurements. Reconciliation between Hubble’s measurements and the established age of the earth could be accomplished by adding a brief pause in the expansion of the universe that would add to the Hubble age estimate and make it older than the earth’s age. Lemaître’s model started with a universe where the matter density was just sufficient to cause the universe’s eventual collapse (Friedmann III – Figure 3). To prevent actual collapse, Lemaître invoked Einstein’s mysterious cosmological constant (which was ignored in the Friedmann models). As the universe pauses for a time on the verge of collapse, the repulsive force of the cosmological constant would overcome the force of gravity and cause the universe to begin to expand again.
Lemaître’s model never became popular although it did inspire Eddington’s later infinite hesitation model. A number of scientific observations soon caused Lemaître’s model to be completely abandoned.
1) The number of galaxies and quasars with red shifts (z) greater than 2.5 is much too large to permit hesitation.
2) Hesitation models with long quasi-static periods are so unstable as to collapse.
3) The observed deceleration parameter in the expansion of the universe contradicts the acceleration required by hesitation.
4) Radioactive decay and color-luminosity diagrams for star clusters indicate that stars have existed for only a relatively short time (about 15 billion years).
5) Hesitation requires a non-zero value for the cosmological constant, yet no evidence for the cosmological constant existed.
Eddington Infinite Hesitation Model
Lemaître’s research advisor, Arthur Eddington was an atheist astrophysicist, and like Einstein, Eddington was deeply disturbed by the theological implications of a cosmic beginning. He recognized that Einstein’s infinite universe model was unstable[12] and at odds with established facts and so did not provide a way to avoid a creation for the universe. The universe had a beginning, yet perhaps, there was still a way to diffuse the problem. He was very vocal about his philosophical (rather than scientific) objections to the big bang origin of the universe. In particular, he recognized the significance the theological significance of a sudden beginning to the universe.
The difficulty of applying this case [Lemaître’s expansion] is that it seems to require a sudden and peculiar beginning of things.
Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. … I should like to find a genuine loophole.
He proposed a modification to Lemaître’s model that would provide the loophole that he desired. If the cosmological constant is fine-tuned to just the right value, Lemaître hesitation could be stretched out indefinitely. So, while it did not get around a beginning to the universe, the beginning would be safely relegated to the infinite past where its implications could be safely ignored. He also saw a second benefit of his model.
We allow evolution an infinite time to get started; but once seriously started its time-scale of progress is not greatly different from case (b) [Lemaître expansion].
So, while a Creator would be needed to start the universe, infinite time would allow evolution to replace God as the author of life.
| Figure 6: Eddington Infinite Hesitation Model |
Eddington’s model is a special case of Lemaître hesitation model, so the evidence against the hesitation model also ruled out Eddington’s model. Ironically, even given an infinitely old universe as proposed by Eddington, biological evolution would still not have an infinite amount of time to operate. An infinite hesitation requires that the cosmological constant exactly cancel the gravitational forces coming from matter. If anything interesting, such as galaxy formation or star burning, were to occur during the hesitation period, this would subtly change the gravitational forces and break the exact balance between gravity and the cosmological constant. So as soon as galaxy formation started the universe would begin to expand again ending the hesitation period. Since life requires the presence of galaxies and burning stars and since these could not occur during the infinite quasi-static period, the time during the hesitation period would present no opportunities for biological evolution. (Curiously, secular scientists never seemed to notice this flaw in Eddington’s logic.)
Big Bang – Hot verses Cold
Both Lemaître and Eddington’s hesitation models still required a beginning for the universe. According to the equations of relativity, the universe must start as a singularity that was infinitely hot and compact. At this point, the conditions of the universe would be so extreme that the laws of physics would break down and time and space would disappear. This “hot” beginning tells us that the universe was created and that the creative event was effectively beyond scientific inquiry. Eddington recognized the staggering implications of a “hot big bang” beginning and so suggested that the universe started at a small but finite size and hence eliminated the need for a creation event (and hence also for a Creator). Lemaître formalized his advisor’s idea by proposing the “cold big bang” origin to the universe. In this model, the universe starts as a “primal atom” or “cosmic egg” which has the mass of the entire universe and subsequently decays. Lemaître’s motivation, unlike Eddington’s, was to allow for a beginning of the universe that was open to scientific investigation.
Since hot bodies emit radiation, it was predicted that afterglow from a hot origin should be detectable and this afterglow was indeed discovered in 1965. A “cold” big bang could not explain this cosmic radiation, so a cold beginning for the universe was scientifically rejected. A summary of evidence against “cold” big bang scenarios.
1) Disintegration of a primeval atom provides no means to explain the observed abundances of the elements.
2) The cold big bang hesitation models offer no explanation for the observed background radiation, nor do they account for the observed entropy.
Steady State Model
| Figure 7: Steady State Model |
Another proposed solution to the cosmic age dilemma was the steady state model. In this model, as the universe expands new matter is spontaneously created to fill in the void, such that the density of matter in the universe remains constant. The introduction of new matter then drives the continued expansion of the universe, which in turn makes room for the production of new matter. This process can continue indefinitely, making the universe infinite in age. (This model was essentially a revival of the Indian cosmology proposed by the Jains and Mimamsa several thousand years before.) The most direct consequence of a steady state model is that the composition and distribution of galaxies and quasars should be approximately the same in all locations and for all times. This consistency (known as a “steady state”) is analogous to what we see in human populations. The relative population of young, middle-aged, and elderly remains roughly constant over time even though human beings are constantly aging. A constant (steady) state is maintained because new individuals are being born and others are dying keeping the relative populations in balance.
The first steady state model was proposed in 1918 by William MacMillan as an attempt to resolve Olber’s paradox. This model gained only passing attention at the time. In the 1920’s British astrophysicist Sir James Jean revived this idea to explain some perplexing observations. Some open star clusters were shown to be breaking up, which according to the existing models of open star clusters should take more than 1 trillion years to occur. Since this phenomenon was observed, it implied that the universe must be significantly older than 1 trillion years. The big bang model could not support such time scales, so Jeans proposed a steady state model. Later, however, it was discovered that the breakup of the open star clusters was caused by gravity from the galactic center not trillions of years, removing any need to appeal to a steady state model.
The steady state model did not receive prominence until 1948, when it received support from British astrophysicists Herman Bondi and Thomas Gold. Bondi, Gold, and others held to the Perfect Cosmological Principle (PCP), which states that the universe has certain unchanging aspects. That is, PCP holds that galaxies and other astronomical objects should appear the same both nearby and far away and seemed to be supported by existing observations. The PCP would be a natural result of a steady state model and would be inconsistent with a big bang universe. Shortly after Bondi and Gold published this work, Sir Fred Hoyle attempted to formalize it as a mathematical model by adding a “creation field” term to Einstein’s equations of relativity (Equation 1). This creation field would represent the continual introduction of new matter but would also help drive the expansion of the universe.
The authors of this model were very clear about the root cause for their support for this model. Herman Bondi, in his book Cosmology, made clear statements that his support for the steady state model was to get around the creation event of the big bang models rather than scientific evidence for his model. For example, he stated:
[With the steady state model] the problem of the origin of the universe, that is, the problem of creation, is brought within the scope of physical inquiry and is examined in detail instead of, as in other theories, being handed over to metaphysics.
Fred Hoyle was also very outspoken regarding his theological objections to the big bang cosmologies. In fact, it was Fred Hoyle who coined the term “big bang” as a way of ridiculing expanding universe models and those who held to those models. In the introduction to his 1948 paper, he states:
This possibility [steady state] seemed attractive, especially when taken in conjunction with aesthetic objections to the creation of the universe in the remote past. For it seems against the spirit of enquiry to regard observable effects arising from ‘causes unknown to science,’ and this in principle is what creation-in-the-past implies.
Later in 1985, Hoyle attacked Friedmann’s big bang models on the basis that a beginning implied a Beginner and hence a cause that is undiscoverable by science.
Many people are happy to accept this position [Friedmann’s] … without looking for any physical explanation of the abrupt beginning of the particles. The abrupt beginning is deliberately regarded as metaphysical – i.e., outside physics. The physical laws break down at t = 0, and do so inherently. To many people this process seems highly unsatisfactory because a “something” outside of physics can then be introduced at t = 0. By a semantic maneuver, the word “something” is then replaced by “god,” except that the first letter becomes capital, God, in order to warn us that we must not carry the enquiry any farther … I do not believe that an appeal to metaphysics is needed to solve any problem of which we can conceive. (italics in the original)
Hoyle made clear statements rejecting any model that implies an absolute beginning for the universe as well as specifically rejecting the God of the Bible. Rather than being an atheist, he was a pantheist, and equated the universe with God and as such, he frequently wrote of the “Universe” (capital “U”). If the “Universe” is God, then it can’t have a beginning. He wrote:
The attribution of a definite age to the Universe, whatever it might be, is to exalt the concept of time above the Universe, and since the Universe is everything this is crackpot in itself. I would argue the need for the Universe to take precedence over time as a knockout argument in favor of the negative answer to the above question. [That question: Did the whole universe come into being, all in a moment about 10 billion years ago?] … One could then dismiss cosmologies of finite age because they were offensive to basic logical consistency.
Hoyle clearly understood that the big bang origin of the universe had clear theological implications and that evidence for the big bang was an argument against his pantheism and for the God of the Bible.
Hoyle, like Eddington, saw the steady state model as a means to give evolution an infinite amount of time to operate and thus allow life to come about by purely natural processes. Considering the requirements of forming even the simplest living organism under ideal conditions without divine intervention, he concluded that a universe of only 10 to 20 billion years old was far to young.
I estimated (on a very conservative basis) that chance of random shuffling of amino acids producing a workable set of enzymes to be less than 10-40,000. Since the minuteness of this probability wipes out any thought of life having originated on the Earth, many whose thoughts are irreversibly programmed to believe in a terrestrial origin of life argue that the enzyme estimate is wrong. It is – in the sense of being too conservative.
As such, only in a truly infinitely old universe would there be sufficient time and chance to account for the appearance of life under strictly natural processes.
The steady state model was popular in the 1950’s and 1960’s but soon mounting evidence forced its supporters to abandon it. A summary of evidence against the steady state model:
1) The lack of very old galaxies in the vicinity of our galaxy negates an infinite age for the universe.
2) The lack of very young galaxies in the vicinity of our galaxy negates continual spontaneous creation.
3) The lack of red shifts beyond z = 4 implies a real limit for the universe far short of the visual limit expected for an infinite steady state universe.
4) A steady state universe lacks a physical mechanism (such as the primeval explosion) to drive the observed expansion of the universe.
5) The observed microwave background radiation (perfectly explained by the cooling off of the primordial fireball) defies explanation in a steady state universe.
6) The enormous entropy of the universe makes no sense in a steady state system.
7) In a steady state universe, spontaneously generated matter must come into being with a specified ratio of helium to hydrogen, and that ratio must decrease with respect to time in an entirely ad hoc fashion. Instead, the measured helium abundance for the universe has exactly the value that the big bang would predict.
8) The observed abundances of deuterium, light helium, and lithium have no physical explanation in a steady state universe. (Again, a hot big bang precisely predicts them.)
9) Galaxies and quasars at distances so great that we are viewing them from the remote past appear to differ substantially in character and distribution from nearby, more contemporary galaxies and quasars as to render the steady state models completely implausible.
Oscillating Universe Model
With the continued accumulation of evidence for the reliability of the big bang model of the universe and with its two main contenders (hesitation and steady state models) having fallen by the wayside, astronomers looked for still other ways to avoid the cosmic beginning. The agitation and frustration of cosmologists is best summarized by a quote from British physicist, John Gribbin.
The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical–perhaps even theological–what was there before the big bang? This problem alone was sufficient to give a great impetus to the Steady State theory; but with that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way round this initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a singularity, collapses back again and repeats the cycle indefinitely.
| Figure 8: Oscillating Universe Model |
This idea described by Gribbin is called the oscillating universe model. In this model, the universe expands from a small (but not infinitely small) size and expands outward (in accordance with Hubble’s expansion measurements). According to Friedmann’s models (see Figure 3), if there is enough matter in the universe, the gravitational attraction would eventually slow down and reverse the current expansion. The universe would continue to shrink to some small but finite volume and then by some unknown mechanism, the universe might rebound and begin to expand outward once again. This expansion, contraction, and rebound cycle could then be conceived of as repeating indefinitely, pushing the origin of the universe into the infinite past, where it could be safely ignored.
De Sitter officially proposed the oscillating universe model in 1931. This model was, however, first described by the ancient Hindu writers, some 4,000 years before. According to these writings, everything was said to move in eternal cycles of life, death, and rebirth (also known as reincarnation). The Hindu texts went so far as to give the length of the universe’s cycle at 4.32 billion years (which is amazingly within a factor of 10 of modern estimate for the age of the universe). A variant of this model was also proposed by Lucretius, a Roman atheistic philosopher, in the 1st century BC.
| Figure 9: Revised Oscillating Model |
In the same year that de Sitter proposed his model, Richard Tolman showed that an indefinitely reincarnating universe was impossible. The second law of thermodynamics ruled out such a possibility because an entropy increase during one expansion-contraction cycle would prevent it from returning to the same state that it started with. So, with each complete cycle, the increase in entropy would mean that there would be less energy available to halt the expansion of the universe. Each oscillation would expand farther before contracting again until there was a cycle with too little energy to halt expansion and would continue to expand forever (see Figure 9). Working backward in time, then, each oscillation would be smaller and smaller until it can get no smaller. As such, there would have to be an ultimate beginning only a finite number of cycles ago and the dreaded beginning would still be unavoidable.
Cosmologists continued to keep this model alive by attempting to develop quasi-oscillating universe models that would circumvent the entropy problem. These models, however, required very highly idealized and unrealistic conditions. All such models have failed to provide a means to reverse the cosmic collapse at the end of each cycle. For the most part, these objections were ignored or trivialized, and versions of the oscillating universe model remained in vogue. Starting with realistic conditions for the universe, Russian theoreticians, Igor Novikov and Yakob Zel’dovich in 1973 were able to show that there was no way to circumvent the entropy problem and hence no way to completely avoid an ultimate cosmic beginning. Still more problems were discovered in the collapse-rebound that caused Alan Guth and Marc Sher in 1983 to prove that an oscillating universe is truly “impossible.”
A summary of evidence against the oscillating universe model:
1) Cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe, if such did take place, would result in an ever-increasing radius, traceable back to a first cycle.
2) The observed density of the universe appears to be at most only one-half of what is needed to force a collapse.
3) The density implied by the inflationary model will not force a collapse
4) No physical mechanism is known that could realistically be expected to reverse a cosmic contraction.
5) Isotropic compression becomes violently unstable near the end of the collapse phase.
6) If the universe were to collapse, a bounce would be impossible because the universe is so entropic.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered faint microwave radiation coming from outer space that they could not explain. This observed radiation was the same no matter where in the sky they pointed their antenna or what time of the year that they observed. It was subsequently realized that this mysterious radiation actually represented a faint after-glow from the big bang explosion that had been predicted in the 1940’s by George Gamow, Ralph Alder, and Robert Herman. According to the hot big bang model, the universe started in a super-hot compact state from which it subsequently expanded and as it expanded it cooled. When the universe was about 300,000 years old, stable atoms formed for the first time allowing light to separate from matter. Gamow realized that the light released from this event would still be all around us today but would have cooled along with the rest of the universe to a few degrees above absolute zero. According to the laws of thermodynamics, hot objects emit radiation according to their specific temperature dependent power spectrum. The observed radiation perfectly matched that of an object radiating at almost 3 K (degrees above absolute zero) in agreement with Gamow’s prediction. Thus, the observed radiation strongly affirmed the hot big bang model while eliminating all cold big bang models, the hesitation models, and the steady state model.
Much later, three-dimensional maps of the locations of galaxies showed that galaxies were not evenly distributed but tended to organize into clumps. To explain clumping in the later universe, there had to be at least some clumping going on very early in the history of the universe. It was soon realized that this early clumping would be detectable today as small ripples or disturbances in the cosmic microwave background. The ripples represented patches that would be slightly warmer or cooler than neighboring areas. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was deployed to scan the heavens and look for even very small differences between the radiation coming from different directions.[13] The results released in 1990 showed that the microwave background radiation was perfectly smooth to 1 part in 10,000. This result caused a stir because it eliminated the simplest version of the big bang model. Some opponents of the big bang theory, however, misinterpreted this as a deathblow to all possible big bang models. The model that was eliminated was one that assumed that the universe only contains normal matter that interacts strongly with light. Even before that time, astrophysicists had been amassing evidence for the existence of exotic matter, which consists of particles that interact only weakly with light. For big bang models incorporating exotic matter, the expected ripples in the microwave background would be smaller than for normal matter only models. The reasoning is that galaxy clumping is determined by both the exotic and normal matter but the ripples in the cosmic microwave background depend only on the normal matter.
| Figure 10: COBE Satellite Measurements |
On April 24, 1992, the COBE satellite team released new results that were about 10 to 100 times more accurate than their previous 1990 measurements. These results showed definite ripples in the cosmic microwave background on the order of 1 part in 100,000 which corresponded to a universe that contains 9 times as much exotic matter as normal matter.[14] That is, scientists confirmed the existence of about 90% of the universe that is not detectable by telescopes while simultaneously explaining the observed galactic clumping. Several other discoveries that were announced shortly after the COBE satellite results provided additional independent proofs for the existence of exotic matter.[15]
The announcement of the microwave background ripples elicited euphoria among scientists and captured headlines around the world. Stephen Hawking declared that this was “the discovery of the century, if not of all time.” Similarly, Michael Turner, a University of Chicago astrophysicist, exclaimed, “The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of cosmology.” Why the excitement? The discovery resolved all the existing challenges to the big bang model and confidently established the big bang as the correct description for the beginning of the universe. Many astrophysicists immediately made the connection – big bang equals the universe created by God. For example, George Smoot, the project leader for the COBE satellite stated, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe… It’s like looking at God.” Science historian Frederic Burnham was quoted as saying that based on these findings, the idea that God created the universe was “a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years.” Still others challenged the findings and continued to oppose the big bang model. For example, the atheist astronomer, Geoffrey Burbidge, rebuked his fellow astronomers for having rushed off to join “the first Church of Christ of the Big Bang.” As an atheist, he made the clear conclusion that the big bang uniquely affirmed Christianity as true. (A longer discussion of the cosmic microwave background, the COBE satellite discovery, and the theological implications can be found in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO, 1993, chapters 4 and 5.)
The Hawking Singularity Theorem
| Stephen Hawking |
Despite the continued success of the big bang model and the failure of competing models, cosmologists continued to argue throughout the 1960s and 1970s that there must be a way around the singularity beginning of the universe. Most of these later models were based on the conjecture that matter in the universe was spread out very unevenly. They hoped that such distributions might correspond to a universe that started from something other than a singularity, but all of these models failed to do so. In 1967-1970, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and George Ellis penned three papers defining the singularity theorem, which demonstrated that any model based on what is known about the universe[16] must begin with a singularity regardless of how its mass is distributed, closing the door on these last holdouts.
The only possible escape from the singularity theorem was its dependence upon the general theory of relativity. (A deviation from any of the other 5 conditions for the singularity theorem18 corresponds to conditions that would be more disturbing than the big bang itself.) At that time, scientists were only able to test relativity to 2 or 3 places of the decimal, leaving room for cosmologists to speculate about small deviations from the predictions of relativity. Soon, however, the theory of relativity was confirmed to six places of the decimal, which removed all doubts about relativity. In 1986, a study on the dynamics of a binary pair of neutron stars was able to confirm relativity to 16 places of the decimal (i.e. 10 billion times more accurately than all previous tests) making it the most accurately tested law of physics known to man. All of these attempts to circumvent the singularity theorem have now been closed.
The singularity theorem is of far more importance than simply ruling out competing cosmological models; it is a theorem with far reaching theological implications! While general relativity showed that matter and energy must have a beginning, the Hawking singularity theory demonstrated that space and time must also have a beginning. In a universe where matter, energy, space, and time have a beginning then the cause for that beginning must exist outside of space and time!!! Or to put it another way, the origin of the universe is a transcendent creation event with the Creator transcending (existing outside of) space-time. No wonder, the reaction to the big bang model has been so intensely philosophical and theological. Of all the religions and philosophies of the world, only one – Christianity – teaches a God that created the universe (as opposed to creating within an existing universe) and operates outside of time and space. (See What the Bible Says about the Origin of the Universe on page 29.)
Quantum Cosmology
Physicists can accurately trace the physics of the universe back to 10-34 seconds after the big bang and some details may be traceable as far back as 10-43 seconds after the big bang. It is during this era that quantum mechanics plays a dominant role and requires that we modify our understanding of gravity during this time.[17] Models attempting to incorporate quantum mechanics alongside of relativity in describing the earliest stages of the universe are referred to as quantum cosmology. Since the conditions of the universe before 10-34 seconds are so harsh that we cannot properly describe them, some cosmologists have appealed to our ignorance as an opportunity to freely speculate about strange physics occurring during this brief era. These models fall into 5 basic categories and range from speculative to ridiculous.
1) Quantum fluctuations. Within quantum mechanics, even the vacuum of space is subject to small quantum fluctuations where a particle of matter and of anti-matter may come into existence together for a brief time before disappearing again. If a pair of particles can spontaneously pop into existence, then perhaps the entire universe can pop into existence.
2) Multiple universe (or multiverse) models. In these models, the very harsh conditions near the beginning of the universe correspond to conditions where space-time breaks down into quantum foam. This seething cauldron of space-time will periodically pinch off a small portion that will begin to expand into a full universe. From the perspective of someone in the universe, it would appear as if the universe exploded from a singularity. According to this model, the quantum foam would generate an infinite number of universes, of which ours was one that was lucky enough to have just the right conditions for life.
3) No Singularity. Some have suggested that the universe was brought into existence as a quantum mechanical fluctuation in a vacuum. According to these theorists, “nothingness” is “unstable” and so must spontaneously give rise to something (i.e. the universe) to become stable. There is an appeal to quantum mechanics here to explain the universe suddenly popping into existence in the same way that elementary particles may spontaneously (but temporarily) appear. The universe could pop directly into existence at a small size and then expand in a fashion identical to the big bang model.
4) Man as creator. According to quantum mechanics the act of observing a system changes the system. Some have mistakenly interpreted this to mean that man has the power to control the outcome of quantum events. Still others have gone so far as to push this effect backward in time. Thus, they speculate that man’s current act of observing the universe can affect the universe backward in time via quantum processes to cause the universe to have the right properties in order to eventually give rise to man. These ideas are purely metaphysical and have no basis in genuine quantum mechanics.
5) Universe becoming God. There is a growing body of evidence showing that the universe is just what it needs to be in order for there to be life anywhere in the universe at any time. This evidence argues that the universe was designed by God to allow for our benefit. One radical interpretation of the evidence for design is that man is evolving upward toward perfection in a state referred to as the Omega Point. At that point, all life would be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and will have the power to bring about its own existence. To put it simply, the universe created man, man created the universe, and together the universe and man will become God.
The best-known example of quantum cosmological speculation comes from none other than Stephen Hawking in research done in conjunction with American physicist James Hartle. Just like Einstein, Stephen Hawking (a Deist) is forced to look for a loophole around his own work in order to avoid acknowledging a Creator. In his theory, Hawking proposes that time is complex, being composed of real time (that we experience) and imaginary time.[18] By including complex time into the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics, the singularity of classical relativity is avoided and the laws of physics remain valid back to the beginning of the universe. The first implication of this theory is that the singularity of classical relativity (as required by the singularity theorem) would be avoided. However, this theory would not truly avoid the singularity but only push it back into imaginary time. The second implication is that the universe would have a beginning in real time but not in complex time and hence avoid the need of a Beginner for the universe. Again, his theory does not truly avoid a beginning but only pushes it back into imaginary time. Even if his equations were correct, it still wouldn’t truly avoid the singularity and the origin of space-time but only hides them out of site from human observers (who can only observe real time). Hawking’s speculation is in reality an appeal to metaphysics, not physics. There is no physical evidence or basis for his quantum mechanical speculation and is simply an attempt to avoid the theological implications of his own research. Moreover, the development of string theory (though unproven) has demonstrated that it is possible to have a theory the properly integrates relativity and quantum mechanics and maintains a coherent picture back to the beginning of the universe, which makes an appeal to Hawking’s metaphysical time unnecessary.19
Conclusions
In this paper, we have summarized the history of cosmology up to the present and have examined how cosmology has affected how people perceive theology/philosophy and how an individual’s theology/philosophy affects how they study cosmology. The recognition that cosmology overlaps with theology/philosophy can no longer be denied. (See An Agnostic Scientist asks, “Have Astronomers Found God?” on page 27.) Since Einstein showed that his general theory of relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning in the finite past, cosmologists have been trying to distance themselves from the origin of the universe. Einstein himself was willing to alter his own work on relativity (by adding a cosmological constant) in order to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. When his attempt failed, Einstein grudgingly accepted God’s existence (although he still rejected the idea of a personal God). Later, the hesitation, steady state, and oscillation models were proposed based on theological or philosophical ideas. Even the eminent physicist, Stephen Hawking came into conflict with the very profound theistic implications of his own work and (like Einstein) has resorted to trying to find loopholes in order to avoid it. Each of these alternatives has failed while evidence for the big bang has continued to grow stronger. Currently there are at least 30 different cosmological evidences that lend overwhelming support for big bang cosmology (see Scientific Evidence Supporting the Big Bang Model on page 28).
Further Reference:
Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz, Bruce and Stan’s Guide to How It All Began, Harvest House Publishers, OR, 2001.
–, God Said It and Bang! It Happened, Tommy Nelson, Nashville, TN 2001.
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe, Vintage Books, NY 1999.
Martin Gardner, Relativity Simply Explained, Dover Publications, NY 1997.
Fred Heeren, Show Me God, Vol. 1, Searchlight Publications, Wheeling, IL 1995.
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 2nd Ed., W. W. Norton and Company, NY, 1992.
Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, Promise Publishing Co., Orange, CA, 1989.
–, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd Ed., NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO, 2001.
An Agnostic Scientist asks, “Have Astronomers Found God?”
In 1978, Robert Jastrow wrote the book, God and the Astronomers, about the scientific and historical developments in cosmology up to that time. Even as an agnostic, he recognized the overtly theological implications of the current discoveries being made in cosmology at that time and the blatantly emotional and philosophical rather than scientific reactions of many of his fellow scientists to those discoveries. In a 1980, he wrote a summary article called “Have Astronomers Found God?”[19] where he made the following statement:
When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues may assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious maters. However, I am fascinated by strange developments going on in astronomy – partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of some of my colleagues.
The essence of these developments is that the universe had a sharply defined beginning – that it began at a certain moment in time. Was the creative agent one of the forces of physics, or was it, as the Old Testament Apocrypha says, ‘thy almighty hand, which created the world out of formless matter’? (Emphasis added.)
After describing the scientific evidence pointing toward the origin of the universe, he explains the crux of the reason why scientists were so eager to avoid at all costs the implications of the very work that they were so driven to discover. He writes:
Theologians are generally delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind – supposedly a very objective mind – when evidence uncovered by science leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession.
By “articles of faith” he meant the belief that science alone could answer every possible question. In his conclusion, he vividly articulates this point in the following way:
Now we would like to pursue that inquiry further back in time, but the barrier seems insurmountable. 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.
It should be noted that Jastrow has not backed away from any of his conclusions. In the 1992 release of the second edition of his book, God And the Astronomers, he included more recent events in cosmology and appended two articles dealing with theology (“The Theological Impact of the New Cosmology,” by Dr. John O’Keefe and “Judaism, God and the Astronomers,” by Prof. Steven Katz).
Scientific Evidence Supporting the Big Bang Model
1) Existence and temperature of the cosmic background radiation.
2) Black body character of the cosmic background radiation.
3) Cooling rate of the cosmic background radiation.
4) Temperature uniformity of the cosmic background radiation.
5) Ratio of photons to baryons.
6) Temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation.
7) Power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation.
8) Cosmic expansion rate.
9) Stable orbits of stars and planets.
10) Existence of life and humans.
11) Abundance of helium in the universe.
12) Abundance of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) in the universe.
13) Abundance of lithium in the universe.
14) Evidences for general relativity.
15) Space-time theorem of general relativity.
16) Space energy density measurements.
17) Ten-dimensional creation calculation.
18) Stellar ages.
19) Galaxy ages.
20) Decrease in galaxy crowding.
21) Photo album history of the universe.
22) Ratio of ordinary matter to exotic matter.
23) Abundance of beryllium and boron in elderly stars.
24) Numbers of Population I, II, and III stars.
25) Population, location, and types of black holes and neutron stars.
26) Dispersion of star clusters and galaxy clusters.
27) Number and type of space-time dimensions.
28) Masses and flavors of neutrinos.
29) Populations and types of fundamental particles.
30) Cosmic density of protons and neutrons.
This evidence is summarized from “A Beginner’s – and Expert’s – Guide to the Big Bang: Sifting Facts from Fictions,” by Hugh Ross, Facts for Faith (Q3 2000), p 14-32. Detailed explanations and scientific literature references can be found there.
What the Bible Says about the Origin of the Universe
The scientific discovery that the universe begins in a cosmic creation event – the big bang – dates to the early part of the 20th century. However, these scientists were not the first to correctly describe the origin of the universe. They were preceded by several millennia by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible correctly describes the transcendent creation of the universe, the beginning of time, and the expansion of the universe long before these things were rediscovered by modern science. Here is what the Bible has to say.
1) Transcendent Creation of the Universe.
The Bible repeatedly states that God created the entire physical universe (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18) and that He alone is responsible for the universe’s existence (Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-17). The use of the Hebrew word “create” in these passages teaches that God created the universe ex-nihilo (out-of-nothing). God didn’t merely shape matter within a pre-existing universe (as is taught in other religions) but that God called the universe into existence. Thus, God transcends the universe (i.e. God exists outside of and independently of the space-time dimensions of our universe).[20]
2) A Beginning to Time.
God is also described as acting and operating before time began (Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; Colossians 1:17; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; 1 Peter 1:20). God predates our dimension of time and called it into existence.[21] Thus God transcends time (i.e. He exists in at least 2 dimensions of time) in the same way that He transcends space. Being capable of acting and operating outside our single dimension of time means that God is capable of doing things that we cannot (e.g. operate in both our past and future) and that He himself does not need to be created.22
3) The Expansion of the Universe.
The most frequently mentioned description of the universe is that it is being stretched out. This is declared eleven times by 5 different Bible authors (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 and Zechariah 12:1). Seven of those verses describe (based on verb tense) the stretching out of the universe as a continuous ongoing event, while the other four describe the cause of the stretching was completed in the past.
This evidence is summarized from “The Big Bang – The Bible Taught it First!” Hugh Ross and John Rea, Facts for Faith (Q3 2000), p 26-31.
[1] Ironically, Augustine used the Bible to support his position but in fact his interpretation of Psalms 104:2 was faulty, and he ignored passages that teach the sphericity of the earth, such as Isaiah 40:22.
[2] Galileo is best known for being tried and condemned by a church court for his support of Copernicus’ theory. While the church deserves condemnation for its participation in the trial, the actual story is more complex than is often portrayed. It was Galileo’s scathing criticism of the Aristotelian based works of his university colleagues, not the church itself that prompted this sad series of events. A combination of Galileo’s harsh style and the university’s defense of its entrenched philosophy led many of them to retaliate against Galileo. Unable to deal with Galileo directly, they managed to convince the church leaders that Galileo’s ideas were a danger to their authority. (For more details, read C. E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts Between Science and the Bible, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1986.)
[3] D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN 2001, pp. 91-106. D. Graves, Scientists of Faith, Kregel Resources, Grand Rapids, MI 1996. Henry M. Morris, Men of Science/Men of God, Master Books, El Cajon, CA 1991.
[4] Stanley Jaki, Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe, Scottish Academic Press, 1974. See also, R. Hooykaas, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.
[5] That is, Newton’s laws of motion, Newton’s law of gravity, Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism, and the laws of thermodynamics
[6] Cool objects emit this radiation in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is invisible to the human eye. For very hot objects, this radiation will spill into the visible range causing them to glow. For example, a light bulb consists of light given off by a very hot Tungsten filament.
[7] Quantum mechanics was introduced in the 1930’s and was just as revolutionary as the theory of relativity. Since quantum mechanics deals primarily with the very small, it will not be discussed in this paper.
[8] This equation is simplified from Einstein’s original work and contains a correction that was pointed out by Alexander Friedmann.
[9] Einstein’s curious reactions are described in Robert Jastrow’s book, God and the Astronomers, p. 19-21.
[10] According to relativity, an object moving away from the observer will have its color shifted toward the red end of the spectrum and conversely if it is moving toward the observer, its color will be shifted toward the blue end. The faster the object is moving, the more the color will be affected. This is analogous to the Doppler effect for sound waves whereby the pitch appears to be higher or lower depending on if the object is moving closer or farther away.
[11] Hubble measured the distances to the nearby galaxies using Cepheid variable stars. Cepheid variable stars vary in brightness in a fixed cycle. By measuring its period of oscillation, one can compare it against theoretical models to determine its absolute brightness. The absolute brightness tells us how much actually leaves the star, which is then compared to how much light is actually observed giving us the distance.
[12] It was realized that Einstein’s infinite universe model required the cosmological constant to exactly cancel gravitational attraction. Galaxy formation and star burning would cause small changes in the gravitational forces that would break this balance.
[13] Before looking for smoothness, other known sources of microwaves had to be identified and subtracted off. Known contributions come from our motion with respect to the cosmic background (called the dipole anisotropy) and several other galactic sources.
[14] This 9-to-1 ratio will need to be adjusted slightly to account for other factors. We can none-the-less confidently say that there must be between 2 and 10 times as much exotic matter as normal matter.
[15] These include gravitational lensing and measurements of boron and beryllium in very old stars.
[16] The specific conditions of the singularity theorem are: (a) The space-time manifold for our universe satisfies the equations of general relativity. (b) Time travel into the past is impossible (time goes one way only). (c) Principle of causality is not violated (no closed time-like curves). (d) Mass density and pressure of matter never become negative. (e) There is enough matter present to generate a trapped surface. (f) The space-time manifold is not too highly symmetric.
[17] Our current understanding of gravity (based on relativity) is not compatible with our understanding of quantum mechanics. This only affects our understanding of the early universe due the unusually extreme conditions near the singularity beginning. String theory has been proposed as a comprehensive theory that would seamlessly integrate relativity and quantum mechanics and allow us to study the universe all the way back to the beginning. String theory is very new and is still unproven. For information on string theory on a popular level, read B. Greene, The Elegant Universe, Vintage Books, NY 1999.
[18] Complex here refers to the mathematical notion of complex numbers. Complex numbers contain both a real and an imaginary component. Imaginary refers to the mathematical notion (square root of –1) not the metaphorical meaning.
[19] Robert Jastrow, “Have Astronomers Found God?” Readers Digest, July 1980, p 49-53.
[20] For a more thorough discussion of the implications of God’s transcendence, see Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO 1996.
[21] Long before the advent of modern science, theologians (such as Augustine in the 5th century) recognized this Biblical doctrine.