B i g B a n g ’ s L i t t l e P r o b l e m
”For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of his 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 small band of theologians, who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow
The fact that the universe appears to be expanding leads cosmologists to conclude the universe was created by a hot, explosive event they call the “Big Bang.” However, there are some questions with regard to this theory, beginning with the little problem of the “singularity,” that infinitely dense, infinitely hot mass which science says caused the explosion. How did it get there in the first place, and where did all the heat come from? And then there’s the big problem of time; when did it exist, and how? In the process of considering these and other limitations of a hot bang theory, another possibility of creation comes to mind—a cold bang that requires no pre-bang mass or time, but simply requires God.Science says, rightly in my view, that the universe is expanding. But even with our light-sensitive technology, how do we really know? If we are indeed peering across billions of light years of space as they say, looking backwards into time at light reaching our telescopes from an expanding universe, then is it not possible that the expansion we see coming from the past is no longer happening back there right now? What is happening out there in the distant galaxies will surely not be seen for another few billion years. So how can we be so sure of an ever-expanding universe, merely by observation? What we see now is really ancient history. For all we know, the universe could already be collapsing. I am only trying to make the point that there are some things in science that cannot be fathomed by calculation based on observation. Observation as scientific technique cannot go far enough. It needs the partner of Einsteinian intuitive observation (looking through the mind’s eye) based on sound philosophical theory establishing principles which then can be confirmed through scientific observation.
Pure scientific observation is not enough to complete the cosmological quest. Telescopes which can only register starlight reaching us now from billions of years ago cannot possibly know what is happening to those stars where they are now. It is not that telescopes are wrong in what they observe; they are just physically too time bound. Of course, empirical research in cosmology is always physically time bound and thus always limited.
The startling reality of Einstein’s achievements is that he leaped ahead of empirical science through his unique intuitive approach. His inspired deductive powers gave mankind an understanding far ahead of mere mortal observation. The reason Einsteinian science is so important as a partner to observation is that there is a natural limit to human observation, a barrier beyond which we cannot go. Because we are time bound, there is a limit to what we can see, and thus, Einsteinian second sight, not being time bound, can penetrate the natural barrier of space/time and fathom the mysteries that elude our telescopes.
At the risk of belaboring the point, let me put this another way. What if there were an astronomer on some far flung planet in space, billions of light years away, looking at us with our light that has traveled all that distance in time to him? Could he not conclude that our movement is away from him, due to light’s red shift? Could he not be under the same impression as we are in perceiving a young universe in its early stages? So which way is the past? And which way is out? It’s all relative to who does the looking.
There is no way of knowing by observation what is happening out there now. As far as past and future are concerned, it is not possible to know about a “beginning” from our frame of reference. We simply don’t know where it is or which way it is. It matters not that we on Earth are moving out with this so-called universal expansion. The fact remains that we are looking out at billions of years of ancient cosmological events, and they (if alien astronomers exist), looking back at us, would see us as nearer to the beginning of the creation event.
Now, the universe may well be expanding, but as I said, some things cannot ever be known by calculation from observation, simply because a calculation based upon such things as “which way is past” is flawed.
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
Let us look at the basic problem of an atheistic Big Bang Creation Theory which begins with “something” infinitely dense and infinitely hot—whatever that means—with no explanation about what it really is, whence it came, or how it actually came into being. It is claimed that the entire universe sprang from what physicists call a singularity, perhaps “something” only as large as the period at the end of this sentence. Whatever the size, the very concept of an already existing “something” (large or small) is a contradiction in terms of science. In a real beginning, none of the laws of science would have existed. There was no such thing as size, dimension, mass, time, length, depth, width, heat, not to mention the dynamics of what they call a “bang.”
A mass of infinite density, infinite temperature, infinitely small and compressed, is an already existing creation. So we must ask ourselves this question: What is this “thing”—infinitely small, dense, and hot—that already existed before the “Big Bang”? From where did it come, and how did it exist without time and space in which to exist? Nothing can exist in this dimension without space/time to precede its existence.
Order to Chaos to Order?
A clump of infinite density cannot possibly explain creation. Who or what made this lump so compressed that when it was unleashed or unlocked, it exploded into the infinite expanse of the universe? What is the mechanism that triggered the bang? Again, we are alluding to laws of science that didn’t yet exist. And what is the underlying law of a chaotic explosion like the Bang? Can lightning strike a junkyard and create a brand new Mercedes? Where is the meaningful unfolding order, the scientific progression of causes and effects? A big bang is an explosive/destructive thermodynamic event. It is a blowing up, a flying apart process; it is a breaking up or down process; it is an “expanding” descent from “order” to chaos, from hot to cold. According to the laws of thermodynamics we should be going from efficiency to inefficiency, leading to a dying universe. (I am not saying the laws of thermodynamics don’t apply; they just don’t apply to the initial process of creation.)
But what process am I really describing? Behold, a creation made of an endless procession of wonders. Not a universe breaking down, but one coming together, unfolding logically from one principle into another—hydrogen becoming stars, and stars giving light as they change their hydrogen fuel into the heavier elements, the substance of which planets and living things here on earth are made. And before hydrogen? A similar process of unfolding, creating the tiniest particles, the building blocks of the elements themselves, and all following a pattern formed out of an initial, orderly, creative principle, rather than a destructive, chaotic event.
The “Big Bang” Time Problem
The problem of time is twofold. First, for a Big Bang creation event to happen, time would have to precede the event. The question is: How does it do that? What is the dynamic that would cause the existence of time before any creation event? Scientists are not clear on this question. They have another problem with time. In their concept of a Big Bang creation event, the Bang would cause time “wind” to ripple or blow in an outward motion from the center of the explosion. In other words, although omnidirectional from a center frame of reference, from our point of view time would have to be consistently one-directional. And yet, I believe I can show time as a consistently omnidirectional wind, meaning it comes from all directions at once—the effect being that time predictably slows down as we move in any particular direction. If the Big Bang model were true, the effect on time would be quite different. The reason is that if time were one-directional, and you were driving with the time “wind” in the same direction, time would begin to slow down as you caught up with the time wind. However, if you traveled in the opposite direction towards the “Big Bang center,” then the time wind would have to “blow harder” against you, and hence time would move faster, relative to you. This does not happen. A clock ticks consistently slower in every direction that one chooses to travel through space. Therefore, time cannot be one-directional.
Furthermore, how can we explain a Big Bang creation event without time preceding it? Events can happen only in time. Were there no time, there could be no procession of causes and effects. For a Big Bang to occur, time had to precede the event—and that’s impossible. Why? Because even if it did exist before the explosion, how could time escape the phenomenal gravity that would inevitably result from such an inexplicably dense mass—so dense, in fact, that it is not really “mass” as we know it?
Consider the mind-boggling gravity of a black hole, believed to be a star collapsed in on itself; this pales by comparison to the “original” density we are discussing. And yet, a black hole is supposed to be mass of such inconceivable density and compression that a teaspoon of such matter might weigh five million tons on earth. Its gravity is so powerful that everything—matter, light, even time itself—gets sucked in, disappearing down a drain hole where all known laws of science cease, and nothing more happens.
But no matter how dense a black hole might be (and they say there are quasars that can swallow whole galaxies), nothing that we know of could possibly compare with the gravitational pull of that mythical, original singularity that supposedly caused the Big Bang. What physicists describe as infinitely hot, infinitely compressed, infinitely dense, unimaginably small, etc., this pre-bang density would have a gravity of such magnitude that nothing could possibly escape it, not even time. What “pushing out” force can overcome such a “pulling in” gravity?
Of course, all this theorizing ignores the simple question: Who or what created the original density? Something already created certainly can’t be called a creation event. Clearly they are saying that the universe had a beginning; but then by all logic, it should have a Beginner, an uncreated Creator. After all, the laws of science are profoundly suggestive of an ordering Mind. And yet science keeps leaving Him out of the event by starting the universe with an already existing “lump.” Is the “lump” itself to be considered the Prime Mover of all existence and maker of the laws thereof? Can you seriously imagine all the profound complexities of the universe coming from a mindless lump?
Universal Geometry of Motion and Stillness
This book is about creation through an energy field scintillating in the darkness, creation out of what appears to be a nothing before time began. Black holes are not necessarily destructive; rather, they may be expressions of creation happening billions of years ago, witnessed now through our telescopes. Creation, I say, is a geometric symphony, an endless variation of motions and stillnesses. Here, the word nothing is quite precise, because matter is composed of an extra-dimensional no-thing, yet-to-be things. The key principle presented here is that matter and the progression of matter are made of an unrolling variation of one geometrical theme—original motion and stillness (energy and the apparent absence of energy). While motion can exist only with a relative stillness to define it, perfect creation stillness is able to exist without motion; all other “stillnesses” are relative stillnesses, which is to say they are in motion. All the building blocks of nature have some kind of nucleus-center that is relatively still compared with the motions around it. Just as these relatively still “centers” are essential for the existence of matter, so is a perfect inertial center also essential for the existence of the whole universe.
If the universe is in motion (and we know it is), then there must be an absolute rest to define that motion. This absolute stillness surrounded by the “all” of absolute motion establishes a pattern followed by the rest of the universal building blocks, from atoms to planets. Atoms and planets involve relative motions with relative stillnesses at their centers; however, in the case of the creation event, this still center is not relative but must be a pivotal point of absolute rest—The Absolute Rest Center—the unmoved Mover of all things that are created and that move.
Can a solar system exist as a complete whole without a central and (relatively) still sun? Would it remain a solar system? Obviously not. Can wheels turn without an axle? Can atoms exist without their nuclei? Would they remain atoms? No, they would be reduced to something less than themselves. Everything orbits, circumorbits, cycles, or circles around some kind of center-event-cause. Even plants and other living things revolve in life and death cycles.
Can you think of anything in your life, or in this universe, that doesn’t involve such a system? Even man’s life ought to revolve around, and be centered in, his Creator. The redeemed, spiritually in-breathed man (God-centered) manifests the ultimate physical and metaphysical cycle, the living, breathing poetry of ultimate motion and rest.
The question once again is, can the universe, in absolute motion, exist without an absolute inertial rest to define it? In the context of Einstein’s theory, the answer is no, for in his view nothing can be considered to be in motion unless it’s compared to something relatively at rest.
Plato said that time and the succession of change is the moving image of eternity according to number. The absolute place of Universal Stillness, which gave birth to Original Motion, is the model from which all relative motions and relative stillnesses derive. Without these centers of relative stillness defining the motions that become the geometric progression called creation (a universe made of an infinite variety of interconnecting, spinning, orbiting, circumorbiting balls), there could be no creation.
The Geometry of One
The ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras maintained that “one” is not a number, but the underlying continuum initially containing and giving birth to all numbers. And that “one” is the underlying unity and starting point for all systems, the root nature of all things, ourselves, the earth, and the universe. Modern science confirms his mathematics of creation. Of what, may we ask, are the elements comprised? Numbers, atomic numbers. A hydrogen atom differs in properties from a lead atom only because its nuclear properties differ, meaning the number of “moons” (electrons) that are circumorbiting an equivalently numbered, but differently charged nucleus. The essences themselves aren’t different, only their charge and their numbers.
The energy essence that makes up the electrons of the hydrogen atom is the same as the essence of those of the lead atom—electrons are electrons in both. And the same with the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. It is only the numbers that change the properties of the respective elements, giving them spectacular new forms and functions, from the giant redwood tree to a sparkling diamond. What I am saying is that from the first “One” in the beginning, everything is everything else in a creation symphony, a geometry of never-ending, complex, orbiting numbers—just as Pythagoras’s never-ending complexity of numbers developed out of the simplicity of one. It is the geometric growth of one added to itself, and so on, in a spectacular creative flow—and not a “bang” produced by a lump.
Copyright © 1996 - 2000 Foundation of Human Understanding
The book “Finding God in Physics” is probably available at your nearest bookstore.If they don’t have it, please encourage them to stock it!