DOCSLIB.ORG

The Big Bang

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Big Bang The Big Bang Colossian 1:15-17 – Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him and he is before all things and in him all things hold together. A Little History In the mid-20th century science faced a conundrum. The recent advances in modern science were describing a universe that was far larger than anyone had ever expected. Modern cosmology showed that our galaxy was some 100,000 light-years across and had somewhere on the order of 300,000,000,000 stars. Not only this, but the universe had numerous other galaxies ridiculously far away from our own. Current number suggest that there are somewhere along the lines of 300,000,000,000 galaxies in our universe each with approximately 300,000,000,000 stars. These numbers suggest that there are some 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in our universe! Louis Giglio has a video called Indescribable that talks about the size of the universe and what that says about God. I highly recommend it. One problem that came with a universe of this size was how to understand the motion of the galaxies. There were two basic options. The universe was either static or it was dynamic; the galaxies are either in motion or not. The prevailing view of the cosmos was a steady-state view where the stars were fixed in their positions. However, this didn’t work well with the new size of the universe. The problem is gravity. Gravity is an attractive force1 between any two objects of mass. It is the reason that we are attracted to the surface of the earth. It is also the reason that we have the tides, as the moon’s gravity exerts a force on the waters of the earth. The problem with a static view of the universe can be demonstrated with a thought-experiment. Imagine two billiards balls on a billiards table. The attractive force between them is negated by the pull of the earth and the friction of the table surface. If these same two balls were placed in empty space, far from any other massive objects, then one would find that the attractive force of gravity would slowly bring the two balls together. This is the main issue with having a static universe that is as big as we now know it is. A static universe would not be static for long, because gravity would soon cause the galaxies to start moving towards each other. There were some early scientists who suggested models of the universe that would allow for the massive number of galaxies but with none of them in motion, but these had their own problems and didn’t fit the empirical evidence well. So it was determined that the universe must be in some sort of motion. There were three main options, either it was expanding, contracting, or moving randomly. Well Edwin Hubble, the scientist the satellite is named after, began studying the problem of the motion of the universe and rather than finding the various galaxies in random motion, he found that they are all moving away from each other, and from us, at a rate proportional to their distance from us. Stephen Hawking likens this to a balloon, with many dots on it, inflating. 1 Newton described it as a force, but according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity it is actually a curvature of 4- dimensional space-time. This distinction is negligible for the analysis above. At any point each dot is moving farther away from every other dot. In the same way the universe is now understood to be expanding with every galaxy moving farther away from every other galaxy. If the universe is expanding then it makes sense that in the past it would have been smaller than it is now, and in the deep past it would have been smaller yet. Well this naturally leads to some point where the universe was at its smallest, and it is at that point that we have what is called the Big Bang. It is a fairly logical progression from the discovery of the expanding universe to some sort of initial starting point. Interestingly the idea of the universe having a starting point met some resistance in the field of Science because it smacked of theism. Many scientists were uncomfortable with the Big Bang Theory because it suggested a creator. How odd it is that now Christians are the ones who are quickest to dismiss the Big Bang Theory. The Anthropic Principle “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork” – Psalm 19:1 In reference to Genesis 1, premier Old Testament scholar Gerhard von Rad wrote, “Theology found in the science of that time an instrument it could use unhesitatingly to unfold the content of faith”. If we had that same liberty, and I think we do, then using the science of our day (Big Bang, Evolution and all) as an instrument to unfold the content of faith would look very much like the Anthropic Principle. The anthropic principle grew up over time with a number of scientists who found that some of the physical constants that determined the shape that the universe took were very tightly constrained. In other words, there are certain attributes of the universe, such as gravity, that require very specific values in order for the universe to eventually produce life. This is sometimes referred to as ‘fine-tuning’ and it suggests to many that there is more than just wild chance steering the universe. Polkinghorne writes “The universe was billions of years old before life appeared on it, but it was pregnant with that possibility from the beginning”2. The anthropic principle gives us a view of a creation that started with the Big Bang and was slowly guided towards carbon-based life and finally humanity. It gives us a history of creation in which God is actively involved in the everyday workings of the world. It has been said that the anthropic principle is a kind of anti- Copernican revolution, meaning that where Copernicus found that humanity was no longer the geographical center of the universe, the anthropic principle suggests that humanity is the teleological (purpose-oriented) center of the universe. It establishes humanity’s unique status in the cosmos. There are a number of books that describe the various ideal situations that combine to form the anthropic principle. The classic text is by Frank Tipler and John Barrow and is called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which is over 700 pages and is rather dense. More popular books have been published on the topic by Martin Rees and Paul Davies, but these are not written from an orthodox Christian point of view and I have yet to find a full-length book that approaches the concept from a Christian perspective. Francis Collins discusses it briefly in The Language of God, and John Polkinghorne builds it into many of his books, but these are fairly truncated accounts. A quick, concise read is John Polkinghorne’s Faraday Paper No. 4 available online, called The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate. It gives a good overview of what the anthropic principle says and how it points to God. 2 (Polkinghorne, The Anthropic Principle and the Science and Religion Debate - Faraday Paper No. 4 2007) How it works The anthropic principle suggests that the universe is fine-tuned to support carbon-based life and specifically humanity. It suggests that chance alone cannot explain the incredible precision inherent in some of the qualities of the universe. Here are some examples; there are many more that could be listed. Stephen Hawking writes that the initial energy of the Big Bang had to be ridiculously precise. Modern Science tries to understand how the universe looked right after the Big Bang using computer models. They have found that the initial rate of expansion of the universe had to be very precise, otherwise gravity would have won out and collapsed everything again. In fact, from Hawking says that this rate of expansion could not have been off by “1 part in a hundred, thousand, million, million” (1/100,000,000,000,000,000) otherwise the whole universe would have recollapsed.3 Francis Collins adds to this that “if the rate of expansion had been greater by even one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form”.4 So from the very beginning of the universe we can see God’s hand at work. God’s involvement continues however, the weak nuclear force is a force that works in nuclear reactions. There is very little wiggle room in the strength of this force. If it were smaller then water could not form, and stars could not burn long enough to sustain life. If it were larger, supernova explosions could not happen and carbon would not appear anywhere in the universe except within stars. This last one has dramatic effects on the ability for life to exist in the universe. Without carbon there can be no carbon-based life-forms and only stars provide the right environment for the production of carbon. (This implies that we are all made from stardust which is pretty fun.) There is a popular story about the scientist Fred Hoyle who was trying to understand how the carbon molecule was formed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - IS the UNIVERSE SPECIALLY DESIGNED to SUPPORT LIFE? by William Reville, University College, Cork
    THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - IS THE UNIVERSE SPECIALLY DESIGNED TO SUPPORT LIFE? By William Reville, University College, Cork. Scientists are often impressed by how finely-tuned the world is for the existence of life. If any of a large number of fundamental physical properties of the world were slightly different, biological life would be impossible. The observation that we inhabit a world which is uniquely suited to us has led to the development of a scientific principle called the anthropic principle. This principle asserts that we see the universe the way it is because we exist. There are two forms of the anthropic principle, a weak form and a strong form. Most scientists find the weak anthrophic principle to be a useful methodological principle, but few scientists believe in the strong form of the principle. Others claim that the anthropic principle is not a scientific principle at all, but is just an irritating tautology. The principle is lucidly described in Theories of Everything by J.D. Barrow (Clarendon Press, 1991). The weak anthropic principle recognises that the fact of human existence requires certain conditions to be met regarding the past and the present structure of the universe. In other words, the conditions we observe in the universe must be such that allowed carbon-based observers like ourselves to arise and evolve within a certain time-frame. This time-frame must reside in a window of opportunity bounded at the late end by the death of the sun and, at the early end, by the requirement that the elements that compose our bodies must be present.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenosis and Nature
    from John Polkinghorne, ed., The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. Eeerdmans Publishing Co., and London: SPCK, 2001, pp. 43-65. Kenosis and Nature HOLMES ROLSTON, III Every commonplace detail of nature, every stone and tree, includes an immense richness and variety of lesser detail: in every fragment of it a thousand million lesser fragments cohere and interact. Loves Endeavour, Love's Expense, p. 84 Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. John 12:24 1. Selfish Genes, Selfish Organisms, and Survival of the Fittest If one compares the general worldview of biology with that of theology, it first seems that there is only stark contrast. To move from Darwinian na- ture to Christian theology, one will have to change the sign of natural his- tory, from selfish genes to suffering love. Theologians also hold that, in regeneration, humans with their sinful natures must be reformed to lives that are more altruistic, also requiring a change of sign. But the problem lies deeper; all of biological nature can seem to run counter to what Jesus teaches: that one ought to lay down one s life for others. In nature, there is no altruism, much less kenosis. 43 HOLMES ROLSTON, III Life, coded by the genes, is always encapsulated in particular organ- isms. In biology we find, at once and pervasively, the organism as a bounded somatic "self" — something quite unknown in physics, chemis- try, astronomy, meteorology, or geology. The general Darwinian interpre- tive framework moves from the coding genes to the coping organisms and sees organisms so constituted genetically that self-interested (typically la- beled "selfish") behavior is inevitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial Note To: Brandon Carter, Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology
    Gen Relativ Gravit (2011) 43:3213–3223 DOI 10.1007/s10714-011-1257-8 GOLDEN OLDIE EDITORIAL Editorial note to: Brandon Carter, Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology George F. R. Ellis Published online: 27 September 2011 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 Keywords Cosmology · Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data · Anthropic principle · World ensemble · Golden Oldie Editorial The anthropic principle is one of the most controversial proposals in cosmology. It relates to why the universe is of such a nature as to allow the existence of life. This inevitably engages with the foundations of cosmology, and has philosophical as well as technical aspects. The literature on the topic is vast—the Carter paper reprinted here [10] has 226 listed citations, and the Barrow and Tipler book [3] has 1,740. Obviously I can only pick up on a few of these papers in this brief review of the impact of the paper. While there were numerous previous philosophical treatises on the topic, stretching back to speculations about the origin of the universe in ancient times (see [3]fora magisterial survey), scientific studies are more recent. A well known early one was by biologist Alfred Russell Wallace, who wrote in 1904: “Such a vast and complex uni- verse as that which we know exists around us, may have been absolutely required … in order to produce a world that should be precisely adapted in every detail for the orderly development of life culminating in man” [50]. But that was before modern cosmology was established: the idea of the expanding and evolving universe was yet to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilSci Archive 1 Jesús Mosterín ANTHROPIC EXPLANATIONS IN COSMOLOGY In the last century cosmology has ceased to be a dormant branch of speculative philosophy and has become a vibrant part of physics, constantly invigorated by new empirical inputs from a legion of new terrestrial and outer space detectors. Nevertheless cosmology continues to be relevant to our philosophical world view, and some conceptual and methodological issues arising in cosmology are in need of epistemological analysis. In particular, in the last decades extraordinary claims have been repeatedly voiced for an alleged new type of scientific reasoning and explanation, based on a so-called “anthropic principle”. “The anthropic principle is a remarkable device. It eschews the normal methods of science as they have been practiced for centuries, and instead elevates humanity's existence to the status of a principle of understanding” [Greenstein 1988, p. 47]. Steven Weinberg has taken it seriously at some stage, while many physicists and philosophers of science dismiss it out of hand. The whole issue deserves a detailed critical analysis. Let us begin with a historical survey. History of the anthropic principle After Herman Weyl’s remark of 1919 on the dimensionless numbers in physics, several eminent British physicists engaged in numerological or aprioristic speculations in the 1920's and 1930's (see Barrow 1990). Arthur Eddington (1923) calculated the number of protons and electrons in the universe (Eddington's number, N) and found it to be around 10 79 . He noticed the coincidence between N 1/2 and the ratio of the electromagnetic to gravitational 2 1/2 39 forces between a proton and an electron: e /Gm emp ≈ N ≈ 10 .
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle Author(S): John Earman Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol
    North American Philosophical Publications The Sap Also Rises: A Critical Examination of the Anthropic Principle Author(s): John Earman Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Oct., 1987), pp. 307-317 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20014208 . Accessed: 03/10/2014 09:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Illinois Press and North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 158.143.86.112 on Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:49:20 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions American Philosophical Quarterly Volume 24, Number 4, October 1987 THE SAP ALSO RISES: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE John Earman I conclude from these accidents of physics and mological Principle, charges that their "FAP" (short an astronomy that the universe is unexpectedly hospit? for future anthropic principle) is more accurately able for creatures tomake their home in. place living dubbed "CRAP" (completely ridiculous anthropic a scientist trained in the habits of and Being thought principle).
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropic Attitudes
    thesis Anthropic attitudes Is the universe the way it is to ensure making it with life in mind not do the best the emergence of life — and, ultimately, The best clarification job possible? Moreover, those who invoke a conscious, human life? This assertion, of what the anthropic Creator would almost certainly do so even known as the anthropic principle, has if life turned out to be consistent with any been supported by a number of prominent principle means choice of the parameters of the universe. scientists and philosophers. They see it as might take the form of Hence, fine-tuning seems to have little to perhaps the only conclusion to draw from do with this belief. the fact that life, at least as we know it, could mild satire. On the multiverse idea, Landsman not possibly exist if fundamental aspects of argues that it actually only explains fine- the universe were just a tiny bit different. restores the religious perspective to tuning if one makes a host of further The uncharged neutron, for example, science, seeing evidence of God and the strong assumptions. One might add hat is heavier than the charged proton — and centrality of human life in the universe. the science behind the multiverse notion is thank goodness. If it weren’t, the instability Tipler even wrote a book entitled rather extravagantly speculative. Put string of the proton would destroy chemistry based The Physics of Christianity. theory and inflationary cosmology together on the electromagnetic interaction. Yet the A second common response, perhaps and you have a theory claiming to predict neutron–proton mass difference can’t be too just as radical, supposes that our Universe almost anything one might possibly see, large, for otherwise nuclear fusion would not is just one among innumerably many which seems like a step away from science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anthropic Principle and Multiple Universe Hypotheses Oren Kreps
    The Anthropic Principle and Multiple Universe Hypotheses Oren Kreps Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Anthropic Principle .............................................. 3 The Improbability of a Life-Sustaining Universe ....................................................................... 3 Does God Explain Fine-Tuning? ................................................................................................ 4 The Anthropic Principle .............................................................................................................. 7 The Multiverse Premise ............................................................................................................ 10 Three Classes of Coincidence ................................................................................................... 13 Can The Existence of Sapient Life Justify the Multiverse? ...................................................... 16 How unlikely is fine-tuning? .................................................................................................... 17 Section 2: Multiverse Theories ..................................................................................................... 18 Many universes or all possible
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J
    Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal Issue 27 Article 14 Winter 1-1-2004 A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J. Davis Brown University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmnj Part of the Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Commons, Mathematics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Davis, Philip J. (2004) "A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology," Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal: Iss. 27, Article 14. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/hmnj/vol1/iss27/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Claremont at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Humanistic Mathematics Network Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 A Brief Look at Mathematics and Theology Philip J. Davis "Such a really remarkable discovery. I wanted your opinion on it. You know the formula m over naught equals infinity, m being any positive number? [m/0 = ]. Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by naught? In which case you have m equals infinity times naught [m = x 0]. That is to say, a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the Universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?" Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point, (1928), Chapter XI. I Introduction We are living in a mathematical age. Our lives, from the personal to the communal, from the communal to the international, from the biological and physical to the economic and even to the ethical, are increasingly mathematicized.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fine-Tuning of the Constants of Nature
    universe Article Do We Live in the Best of All Possible Worlds? The Fine-Tuning of the Constants of Nature Thomas Naumann ID Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Platanenallee 6, 15738 Zeuthen, Germany; [email protected]; Tel.: +49-33762-77262 Received: 14 June 2017; Accepted: 26 July 2017; Published: 1 August 2017 Abstract: Our existence depends on a variety of constants which appear to be extremely fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life as we know it. These include the number of spatial dimensions, the strengths of the forces, the masses of the particles, the composition of the Universe, and others. On the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the death of G.W. Leibniz, we discuss the question of whether we live in the “Best of all possible Worlds”. The hypothesis of a multiverse could explain the mysterious fine tuning of so many fundamental quantities. Anthropic arguments are critically reviewed. Keywords: multiverse; anthropic argument; fine-tuning 1. The Best of all Worlds—From Leibniz to Einstein The Electress of Brandenburg and later Queen of Prussia Sophie Charlotte was a lifelong friend to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who died 300 years ago. They inspired the king to create the Kurfürstlich Brandenburgische Societät der Wissenschaften zu Berlin in 1700. Leibniz became the first lifetime President of this academy renamed in 1701 to Royal Prussian Society of Sciences and known today as Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Since Leibniz tended to never finish his many activities and to spread his ideas over thousands of loose notes, the Queen asked him to summarize his world view in a popular pamphlet.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergent, Self-Explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and Christian Response
    S & CB (2012), 24, 33–53 0954–4194 PAUL HIMES The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and christian Response Physicist Paul Davies has emerged as one of the most popular scientists of the twenty-first century, despite his critique of the scientific establishment and its perceived failure to account for the origins and rational nature of the universe. Davies argues that the scientific consensus on cosmology rests on faith, both in its failure to provide an ultimate explanation for the origin of the universe and in its blind acceptance of its rational laws. As an alternative, Davies postulates an ‘emergent’ universe which contains the cause of its own existence and which renders unnecessary any sort of a personal deity. Yet Davies’s alternative falls short of providing a satisfactory cosmic explanation. Davies himself cannot adequately account for the principle of backward causation which creates his universe, and thus his paradigm still relies on a transcendent principle that remains unexplained. Furthermore, Davies’s objections against a personal god can be answered on philosophical grounds. Thus Davies’s hypothesis does not provide a superior alternative to the Christian view of God. key words: Paul Davies, physics, universe, emergent, self-causation, quantum mechanics, cosmology, time, teleology, cosmological argument, fine-tuning introduction Douglas Adams’ classic Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy tells the story of an advanced civilisation that builds a magnificent supercomputer for the sole purpose of providing the ultimate answer to the meaning of ‘life, the universe, and everything’. After millions of years of calculation, the an- swer, much to the confusion and frustration of the advanced civilisation, turns out to be ‘42’.1 Physicist Paul C.
    [Show full text]
  • Debating Design from Darwin to DNA
    P1: IRK 0521829496agg.xml CY335B/Dembski 0 521 82949 6 April 13, 2004 10:0 Debating Design From Darwin to DNA Edited by WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI Baylor University MICHAEL RUSE Florida State University iii P1: IRK 0521829496agg.xml CY335B/Dembski 0 521 82949 6 April 13, 2004 10:0 published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB22RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Cambridge University Press 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Printed in the United States of America Typeface ITC New Baskerville 10/12 pt. System LATEX2ε [TB] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication data available ISBN 0 521 82949 6 hardback iv P1: IRK 0521829496agg.xml CY335B/Dembski 0 521 82949 6 April 13, 2004 10:0 Contents Notes on Contributors page vii introduction 1. General Introduction 3 William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse 2. The Argument from Design: A Brief History 13 Michael Ruse 3. Who’s Afraid of ID? A Survey of the Intelligent Design Movement 32 Angus Menuge part i: darwinism 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Works of Love
    reader.ad section 9/21/05 12:38 PM Page 2 AMAZING LIGHT: Visions for Discovery AN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN HONOR OF THE 90TH BIRTHDAY YEAR OF CHARLES TOWNES October 6-8, 2005 — University of California, Berkeley Amazing Light Symposium and Gala Celebration c/o Metanexus Institute 3624 Market Street, Suite 301, Philadelphia, PA 19104 215.789.2200, [email protected] www.foundationalquestions.net/townes Saturday, October 8, 2005 We explore. What path to explore is important, as well as what we notice along the path. And there are always unturned stones along even well-trod paths. Discovery awaits those who spot and take the trouble to turn the stones. -- Charles H. Townes Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. 3 Welcome Letter................................................................................................................. 5 Conference Supporters and Organizers ............................................................................ 7 Sponsors.......................................................................................................................... 13 Program Agenda ............................................................................................................. 29 Amazing Light Young Scholars Competition................................................................. 37 Amazing Light Laser Challenge Website Competition.................................................. 41 Foundational
    [Show full text]