On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:07:08 GMT, Gary Collins wrote:
>
>GC>The following snippet appeared in this week's New Scientist. It
>seems to have some relevance to recent discussions re. inflationary
>universe theory, etc. What do you physicists / cosmologists out
>there think?
[...]
GC>In the beginning
>
>By Marcus Chown could the universe have been its own mother? Two
>physicists in New Jersey say that this may be a more satisfying
>way of explaining the origin of the Universe than any alternatives
>dreamt up so far.
>
>Physicists have huge problems trying to work out how the Universe
>got going ("The day time began", New Scientist, 29 April 1996, p
>30). Some say the question of what happened before the beginning
>of time, space and matter is like asking what is south of the South
>Pole. Others argue that the Universe has existed forever, or
>somehow popped into existence out of nothing.
It's good to see that a scientific journal is at least admitting that
there are "huge problems trying to work out how the Universe got
going"!
But by "satisfying...alternatives" they mean satisfying to a
materialist- naturalist whole holds the apriori philosophy that
"matter is all there is" (materialism) and that "nature is a closed
system of cause and effect which cannot be influenced by anything
outside it" (naturalism). Accordingly, any "alternatives that are
not "satisfying" to one who holds that apriori philosophy (such as
creation ex-nihilo by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator) are rejected
out-of-hand without even being considered.
GC>"We suggest that the Universe emerged from something rather than
>nothing--and that that something was itself," says Richard Gott III
>of Princeton University in New Jersey. This strange suggestion is
>a spin-off from the theory of inflation which purports to describe
>what happened immediately before the big bang.
>
>In inflation, an unusual state of the vacuum grows rapidly and
>exponentially. One version is "chaotic inflation", suggested by
>Andrei Linde of Stanford University in California, in which
>inflating regions spawn others of their kind. "These are baby
>universes which bud off from the Universe like the branches of a
>tree," says Gott.
Unfortunately for this view, "inflation" looks like being ruled
out by more accurate observations from the Hubble space telescope:
"If the results hold up as the groups add more supernovae to their
samples, they could have a major impact on how theorists picture
the universe's first few moments. Already, as word of these
developments makes its way through the astrophysics
community, the findings are adding to a growing sense that the
simplest version of the reigning cosmic creation theory, known as
inflation, may not work. Inflation traces key features of the
universe to a burst of exponential growth in the first fraction of
a second after the big bang, and its simplest version predicts a
universe that contains just enough matter for gravity to stop the
big-bang expansion...' (Glanz J., "New Light on Fate of the Universe",
Science, Vol. 278, 31 October 1997, p799)
GC>Gott and his colleague Li-Xin Li say it's possible that a branch
>of spacetime could loop backwards to rejoin the tree trunk. "Such
>a thing is possible because Einstein's general theory of
>relativity permits closed time-like curves--loops of time," says
>Gott.
>
>Gott and Li found that a time loop could have existed before the
>big bang without violating any laws of physics.
The universe popping into existence last Tuesday, complete with 5
billion human beings and an apparent history, does not violate any
laws of physics either. In any event, one must first explain where
these "laws of physics" came from. Maybe its "laws of physics all
the way down", like the turtles in the story that the cosmologists
Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe tell:
"A male lecturer had spoken about the nature of the Earth and
planets. Afterwards, an old lady came up to him from the audience,
claiming she had a theory superior to the one he had described. 'We
don't live on a ball revolving around the Sun,' she said, 'we live on a
crust of earth on the back of a giant turtle.' Wishing to humour the
old lady the lecturer asked, 'And what does this turtle stand on?' 'On
the back of a second, still larger turtle', was the confident answer.
'But what holds up the second turtle?' the lecturer persisted, now in a
slightly exasperated tone. 'It's no use, mister,' the old woman replied,
'it's turtles all the way down.'" (Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C.,
"Evolution from Space", 1981, p149)
GC>Space would have been in a loop of time, perpetually re-creating itself.
>If so, the Universe could be viewed as having given birth to itself.
This is a prime example of verbal self-deception. Nothing can
recreate itself. If something needs to be created it cannot exist.
If it already exists, it can't be created. For the space to create
itself it must exist and not exist at the same time, which is
absurd. Sproul puts it well:
"For something to come from nothing it must, in effect, create itself.
Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility...For something to
create itself, it must have the ability to be and not be at the same time
and in the same relationship. For something to create itself it must be
before it is. This is impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and
gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is
impossible for light and heat. It is impossible for God. Nothing
anywhere, anytime, can create itself. A being can be self-existent
without violating logic, but it cannot be self-created." (Sproul R.C.,
"Not a Chance", 1994, p12)
GC>Gott says that asking what the first event in the Universe was
>becomes meaningless. "Every event in the Universe could have an
>event preceding it," he says.
It seems to me that if an effect can be its own cause, anything would
be possible, and science would be impossible. I regard this as yet
another desperate attempt to avoid what is plain to all men (Rom
1:19-20, that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth." (Genesis 1:1).
GC>One consequence of the idea is a natural explanation for the
>so-called arrow of time. Theories of general relativity and
>electromagnetism do not rule out the idea that waves can affect
>events that occurred in the past. For instance, they do not forbid
>light from travelling back in time.
>
>Yet in our Universe light always travels with us into the future.
>The reason, say Gott and Li, has to do with what would happen to
>waves that regressed in time in the kind of universe they
>envisage. "They would travel back to the epoch of the time loop
>and circle forever, constantly reinforcing each other," says Gott.
>Such a universe could not exist, Gott concludes, because the time
>loop would quickly become unstable.
What is this saying? Time could run backwards but the only universe
that are stable have time running the way we observe it to be
running? So must we also add to this hypothesis, auxiliary hypotheses
of multimple-universe ensembles and the anthropic principle for good
measure? If so, the words of physicist-priest John Polkinghorne
concerning the many-worlds hyothesis apply here too:
"Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not
physics but, in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely
scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By
construction these other worlds are unknowable by us. A possible
explanation of equal intellectual respectability - and to my mind
greater economy and elegance would be that this one world is the
way it is because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who
purposes that it should be so." (Polkinghorne J., "One World: The
Interaction of Science and Theology", 1987 SPCK: London, p80)
GC>"This whole area of cosmology is incredibly speculative," comments
>Astronomer Royal Martin Rees at the University of Cambridge. "But
>I think this is a fascinating contribution."
It seems these days one can publish anything "incredibly speculative"
on the origin of the universe, except the possibility that God might
have brought it into being!
GC>Gott and Li say that they have only begun to explore their idea
>and much more work needs to be done....New Scientist, 24 January 1998
I can't help thinking that a major reason for ignoring the God
hypothesis, is that such "incredibly speculative" theories generate
scientific "work", which keeps cosmologists' kids fed and the
mortgage paid!
Regards,
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------