Gentle readers are likely aware that the present state of knowledge in physics accords well with biblical cosmology: the Big Bang works out to something strongly reminiscent of Genesis 1:1.
But dissent is not just a religious phenomenon. It is even more a scientific one.
Enter Oxford's Roger Penrose, who posits that certain circles of uniformity in the cosmic background radiation are vestiges of black holes in the previous universe. That is to say, the universe cycles around: starts with a bang, ends with a collapse, and then starts again.
We, of course, are unqualified to discuss the physics of the hypothesis--hopelessly so. We'll simply note what any thoughtful person can note.
First, both Penrose's hypothesis and the prevailing one involve leaps of logic yet unproved experimentally. Everyone would do well to remember that science is always provisional, even if it tends over time to describe reality with increasing accuracy.
Second, apologists of the great Eastern religions and related worldviews are just as anxious to cite Penrose apologetically as Christians are to cite the Big Bang. Check out the comments on the Economist article linked above. The Marxists and Hindus have already declared intellectual victory on this one, novel hypothesis. For the public, science is only interesting if it makes for cool gadgets or revises our story of ourselves.
Third, we imagine that the outcome on this issue will not settle the religious and philosophical questions of cosmology. A pulsating universe need not pulsate eternally, for example, any more than a Big Bang universe need not be the only universe that exists. Behind every empirical observation and its explanation lie other possibilities than can alter its significance.
None of this is to say that Big Bang cosmology is irrelevant to Christian thinking. The fact that the universe seems once not to have existed and then to have begun to exist, culminating in the existence of bloggers, is still potentially significant as the hypothesis that best explains what we observe presently. But those of us who understand it in accord with the good news of Jesus do so because that good news also explains a host of other experiences, all of which contribute to the reason (a word deliberately chosen) for our belief. The Big Bang is not the keystone of our apologetics but a strand in the web.
7 comments:
My belief is that most of these "scientific" conjectures are just that, conjectures. Sure, there are some pretty smart people doing a lot of really difficult mathematical equations and then drawing conclusions from them, but knowledge of processes does not always equate to observable reality (see Mythbusters).
I'm especially inclined to believe this because I posited in H.S. that if in fact the universe is expanding from a single point without outside forces working on it, then our current understanding of the laws of physics demand that the universe will eventually collapse on itself. That was 15 years ago. A few years ago a scientist (I believe he was Russian) came out with a paper that I assume does the math to make the same point. The foundation to the argument you are referring to.
I'm not trying to say I'm a genius, just that these concepts aren't.
Your HS paper would depend on the amount of matter in the universe and the rate of expansion, we would assume, and conventional physics presently says there's not nearly enough mass to effect a collapse. Here we have a variation based on a different observation, we think.
Nevertheless, your point is well taken that any such hypothesis awaits verification through testing, if it is indeed capable of making testable predictions.
Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches.
Penrose agrees with this assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.
To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will eventually convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of it. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link.
I should also emphasize a point that you originally made: a refutation of classical big-bang cosmology would not entail a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain, and Penrose—in spite of all his brilliance (and he truly is brilliant)—has said nothing about that particular question.
Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches.
Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.
To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.
I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than one.
Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches.
Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.
To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.
I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than one.
Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches.
Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.
To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.
I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than one.
Recent evidence suggests that the rate at which the universe is expanding is increasing. (Cosmologists postulate "dark energy" to "explain" this phenomenon.) So most cosmologists have abandoned the idea that the universe will end in a big crunch or that it will oscillate indefinitely between big bangs and big crunches.
Penrose agrees with that assessment. His theory is that the universe undergoes an indefinite series of big bangs without any intermediate big crunches. As the universe ages, it becomes less and less organized. Black holes, meanwhile, convert more and more of its matter into radiation. The end result is a maximum state of entropy, in which the entire universe consists of a uniform state of radiation. At that point, the known laws of physics break down into a singularity (devoid of space-time) that results in another big bang. In other words, the universe evolves from one big bang to another without intermediate big crunches.
To his credit, Penrose recognizes that there are some gaps in his theory. For one thing, there’s no evidence (so far) that black holes will inevitably convert all matter into radiation. For another, there’s no reason (yet) to think that a singularity must result in a big bang. But it’s interesting to find out that (apparently) there is at least some evidence in favor of the Penrose hypothesis. If the evidence holds up under scrutiny, maybe it will help put an end to all the string theory/multiverse nonsense that has dominated recent cosmology. One can only hope. In the meantime, thanks for the link. I was unaware of the (alleged) empirical evidence.
I should emphasize, however, as you've already noted, that the success of the Penrose hypothesis would in no way constitute a refutation of classical apologetics. The question of why there’s something rather than nothing would still remain. An endless series of big bangs would be in no less need of explanation than only one.
Post a Comment