Was there a Big Bang?

Grab to eternal life!

Jesus is the way,
the truth, and the life

Chapter 2 –

Was there a Big Bang?

As we study how the universe begun, clearly the most common view nowadays is the so-called Big Bang theory that is also regarded as the standard theory. This theory is based on the idea that in the beginning, perhaps about 15 billion years ago, there was no universe as we perceive it: in other words, back then there were no stars, galaxies or any other celestial bodies – and, of course, no life. Everything was completely different from the current day and age.

It is believed that at this starting point, there were the materials now existing in the entire universe, condensed into one single point – a point that was perhaps the size of a pinhead (this idea is often expressed in the writings of firm believers in this theory). Neither material nor space existed outside of this tiny point.

Then, quite suddenly, something unexpected took place. The so-called Big Bang occurred and caused all the material to be hurled to every direction in space. The result was that there was no longer a starting point: instead, the gas from the point started to spread and inhabit ever-increasing space, until it started to condense at some points. It is generally thought that galaxies, stars, and other celestial bodies were then born from these condensations, until finally the universe as we know was born.

IS THE THEORY SATISFACTORY?

When reading some publications, one can easily get the idea that the Big Bang theory is a fact that has been proven to be true and there is no reason to doubt it. Among scientists and in textbooks, it is clearly regarded as the best model of how everything has begun.

   However, there are problems with the Big Bang theory. Some researchers have pointed them out and noted that the theory is by no means undisputed. They have understood that science is not able to explain the beginning of the universe. It is problematic because it cannot be experimentally proven, and it is also impossible because we cannot go back to the past. The Big Bang is only an unproven theory that is needed mainly because people do not want to believe in God’s Creation. The fact that the whole theory is on very shaky ground can be seen in the following quotes:

How did the universe finally come into existence? What happened precisely at the moment zero?

We do not know. The universe about to be born – whose all material, radiation, and space would have fit inside the full stop ending this sentence – was so extremely hot and dense that it cannot be described by any theory of physics. Physicists cannot tell anything about the world until at the stage when it was a few centimetres in size and a billionth billionth billionth billionth part of a second old.

We can only try and guess as comes to the events occurring before that. Some think that the universe was created, while others think that it was a question of a former space that had collapsed and now yet again began to enlarge. Yet others think that the universe came into existence from nothing. (5)

We cannot claim that science has solved the mystery of the universe once and for all. Far from it. So far, there are relatively few observations supporting the Big Bang theory, although some of them are very convincing. The majority of the researchers of the field regard the Big Bang theory as the model that can best explain these observations. In any case, we have not found a theory that could describe the first split seconds of the universe. We do not know how particles act and what kind of form the force of gravity gets when the particles have been packed into an extremely small space under enormous heat. The Big Bang is not a test that we could reproduce. (6)

Does THE red shift prove EXPANSION?

Concerning the Big Bang and expansion, it is an issue that we cannot detect with the naked eye or even with a telescope, no matter how much we look. Revolving and rotary movements of the bodies we can see – at least in the near space – but we cannot see expansion.

   Instead, some have thought that the best piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang is red shift, which can be observed in distant stars. It has been thought that when the spectrums of light in distant galaxies and stars move towards the red end of the spectrum, this indicates expansion. Red shift values of these celestial bodies should indicate their escape velocity and distance, so that all bodies are drawing away from us at a velocity proportional to their distance.

However, using the red shift as evidence for expansion is questionable. It arises, for example, from the following factors:

The light of all stars is not red shifted. The first problem with the red shift is that the light of all stars is not red shifted. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy and certain other galaxies show blue shifted light, which means that they should be approaching us. (It has been estimated that the Andromeda Galaxy is approaching us at 300 kilometres a second! On the other hand, the escape velocity of the Virgin Constellation should be 1,200 km/s and that of Quasar PKS 2000 as much as 274,000 km/s. Where do these more than a hundredfold differences come from, if everything began at the same point?) These kinds of exceptions indicate that there may be some other explanation to the red shift values than drawing away from us. Maybe the values have nothing to do with their movements.

The values of adjacent galaxies. Another problem with the red shift is that some adjacent galaxies may have completely different red shift values, even though they are in connection with each other and quite close to each other. If the red shift value could be really used to tell the distance, there is no way these galaxies could be close to each other: instead, they should be far away from each other. This indicates that the red shift must be caused by some other facts, such as internal reactions and radiation of stars, which can also be detected from the Earth.

   Because of the same matter some researchers deny the importance of the red shift. They say or doubt it having anything to do with expansion. In fact, the whole Big Bang theory is then without its most important evidence:

I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the red shift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only issue that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. Halton Arp of the Hale Observatory has emphasized that groups of galaxies can be found in space where some galaxies have quite different red shifts; if these groups are really composed of galaxies that are close to each other, they could hardly move at very different velocities. Furthermore, Maarten Schmidt noticed in 1963 that certain kinds of objects resembling stars had enormously high red shifts, up to more than 300 per cent! If these "quasars" are at the distances that can be deducted from their red shifts, they must radiate an extremely large amount of energy in order to continue being so bright. It is also very difficult to measure the correlation between velocity and distance when the objects are really far away. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)

Red shift periodically changing. One peculiarity with some quasars is that their red shift changes periodically – often in the course of one day: sometimes the value is higher, sometimes lower. Why are there changes like these?

If we were to draw a conclusion based on these changing red shift values, the conclusion would be that they are sometimes moving away faster, sometimes slower. However, this phenomenon has never been found in the universe. It is more probable, therefore, that changing red shift values are due to internal reactions or unknown physical phenomena and not any escaping motion, as far as these quasars are concerned. The next citation refers to this:

Even though the Big Bang theory has thus been supported by solid evidence, the issue cannot be regarded as solved yet, because the interpretation of red shift observation that is important from the point of view of the theory has been questioned, and the doubts have been confirmed by some recent observations. Perhaps the red shift is not caused by escaping radiation sources, but by some physical phenomena that are still unknown. This view can be justified most of all by observations made of the so-called quasars. Quick variations in the intensity of radiation of these objects were noted and thought to be caused by their red shifts, even though they were thought to be distant, quickly drawing away, and large material formations. Actions of this kind are very strange, because it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could affect those formations that are at least the size of the Milky Way in a couple of months. As comes to galaxies, the scale of their red shifts proved to be dependent on their type or position among all galaxies. Furthermore, cases were found in which objects with small and big red shifts seemed to be in physical connection, close to each other. (Antti Jännes, Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 1012)

What caused it? One important question regarding the Big Bang is what caused it? What started it?

If it is assumed that the state before the Big Bang was static and stable (the state would have to have been stable, because if there had been differences in temperatures and motion, they would have used up all the useful energy a long time before the supposed Big Bang took place), what was it then that caused the “bang” or explosion?

This is a good question, because if the state of an object or material has been immobile, static, and permanent throughout time, we cannot expect it to all of a sudden, by itself, turn into an orb, for example. This certainly would not take place: instead, everything would remain as it is.

The law of stability also proves the unchanged state; according to it, if the state of an object is to be changed, an outside power is always needed – the change will never take place by itself. This means that, for example, a stone on the ground will never start to move by itself: instead, it will remain where it is until some outside force moves it – for example, if someone lifts up the stone and throws it away. In the same way, a snow-capped area can never start to melt away by itself, but warmth is needed to start the process. Only when the Sun starts shining and warming it, will the snow start to melt, otherwise it would remain eternally unchanged. There are many more similar examples.

Martin Rees discusses this problem in the beginning in his book Avaruuden avainluvut (p. 109, 192) and how difficult it is to explain the supposed beginning of the Big Bang. He states that there is no explanation for it, because we do not know how it started (assuming that the Big Bang actually occurred, of course):

Even though the view of the beginning of the universe is logical, a few points still remain unexplained. The most notable of these is that this model does not give any explanation as to why the universe started to expand. (...) Instead, the model only describes what took place after the Big Bang, and does not mention how it started.

What annulled gravity? As regards the original state of the Big Bang it has been presented that “all material was once condensed into one point only” and that “the universe in its original state was super dense and hot – perhaps something like what in physics is called singularity or a point with extreme density” (the text in quotes is from Tieteen maailma: Maailmankaikkeus, “Encyclopedia of the Earth” p. 105, 106). In the same way, it has been explained that the original state of the Big Bang is similar to black holes, the only difference being that the former concerned the whole material of the universe, while the latter is only a local state. Both are presumed to be states in which density and the force of gravity are so enormous that no other power can conquer the force of gravity (for example Stephen W. Hawking, Ajan lyhyt historia, p. 62, 80). Escaping even at the speed of light, which is considered the fastest speed possible, would not have helped either, because the force of gravity would have prevented it, too. The next example of black holes refers to this:

Nothing can penetrate the inside of such a surface, not even light. Time and space have been twisted so much inside the surface that light rays unavoidably turn back. Getting out of a black hole is as impossible as traveling through time. (Martin Rees, Avaruuden avainluvut, p. 66)

A good question based on the previous passage is: what caused the explosion and expansion? If the force of gravity has prevented escape (= in other words, explosion), no explosion and expansion could even have occurred. This would have been impossible, because the very force of gravity that had shrunk all material into one point cannot suddenly change and become invalid.

Of course, there have been attempts to explain this by cosmic repulsion, for instance, but if all material had been condensed together because of the force of gravity so that no other power could conquer it, how then could the same force of gravity suddenly cease to function completely? The very physical laws that have shrunk the material into a tiny point cannot suddenly become invalid. If we were not to take this into account, we would in essence be claiming that these physical laws have no significance, even though they affect our daily lives. Such is not worth to take into consideration, if it is a question of real science:

Some researchers speak willingly about ”a wrong vacuum” that was in the beginning, and think that they can, in this way, explain the origin of energy and material by means of a so-called “inflation model”. This is a mathematical specimen of skill, and for it to be true, it would require changing of gravity into repulsion during “the first 10^-32seconds”. (7)

All from one point? The Big Bang theory entails that all material had in the beginning condensed into this one place, the volume of which was perhaps only the size of a pinhead, until the explosion took place. The next quote describes this:

All material that we know to be in billions of galaxies was pressed to a point the size of a pinhead. Our own Milky Way was smaller than an atom inside this pinhead. (8)

But what does common sense say? If we were to assume that a new universe like the present one could be born from a particle the size of a stone chip how many would believe it? How many ordinary men could deem it possible?

   So when you ask an ordinary person how possible it is that a new universe like the present one could be born from, for example, an ordinary chip of a stone (in the Big Bang theory, it is supposed that everything came into being from a pin-sized space) what would he answer?

- Approximately one hundred billion galaxies with one hundred billion stars in each

- Mountains

- Seas, lakes, and rivers, in which we can swim and fish

- Mankind

- Barking dogs

- Twittering birds

- Whining mosquitoes

- Our senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste

- Feelings, such as love, grief, anger, fear, pleasure

- Sun that sends out just right amount of warmth

- Rain

- Metals that can be used for shipbuilding

- Apples, strawberries, blueberries, peas

- Cuttlefish, whales, kangaroos, lions, hippos, cheetahs, crocodiles, ostriches, sheep, eagles, bats, butterflies, ants

- Giant sequoias and other beautiful trees and flowers

What would the plain man answer and how reasonable would he consider the whole issue when holding a chip of stone in his hand? Is it not likely that his answer would be something to the effect: “Don’t be crazy, that’s just an impossible idea! Such a universe cannot be born from a small stone. How could anyone believe in such foolishness?”

   Thus, quite a lot of faith is required to believe that all life, the diversity of nature and the whole current universe was born from this small point, the size of a pinhead. This is a real oddity. Generally, an explosion does not lead to any order, and if it we assume that all the things around us and the celestial bodies have come into being from one point, it is one of the greatest foolishnesses in the history of science.

---------------------------------------------------------------

red shift and its INTERPRETATION

One issue that has had much significance in the understanding regarding the age of the universe is the red shift. The red shift, or actually the value of its drawing away, has been used to support the idea of the supposed old age of the universe. It is based on an idea that the Big Bang truly happened and that expanding started from the Big Bang about 15–20 billions years ago. The velocity at which galaxies are drawing away from us now is believed to be about 15 km a second per a million light years.

   However, one should note that the value of drawing away before was ten times the current value, in other words about 170 km/s. In practice, this means that the beginning of the universe occurred less than two billion years ago, in other words, much more recent than the currently supposed age. For instance, in book Maailmankuvaa etsimässä, p. 80 it was written some decades ago:

Assuming the velocities of the orbs have been the same throughout the ages, 1,800 million years ago the universe was in one place.

Steven Weinberg also refers to the same issue in his book Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia (The First Three Minutes), p. 38, 41, 42. He states how the value of the drawing away has changed:

The most important change to Hubble's original conclusion concerns the reform of the distance scale between galaxies: the distances of the far galaxies are nowadays estimated at about ten times larger than in the days of Hubble. (...) Relating to this, it is historically interesting to note the fact that in the 1930s and 1940s, Hubble's constant was believed to be much larger, about 170 kilometers (105 miles) a second per a million light years. If we continue the earlier reasoning, we can calculate the age of the universe by dividing a million light years by 170 kilometers a second, that is approximately 2,000 million years, or even less if we take into consideration the decelerating effect of gravity. (...) The fact that the distance scale between the galaxies grew ten times larger in the 1950s eliminated the age paradox and was perhaps a prerequisite for the Big Bang theory becoming the standard theory.

So, we should note that the range of speed of the red shift is only based on interpretation, and it has not been proven and the actual speed is not known with certainty (as it is also questionable to use the red shift to support the idea of expansion). It could be any other figure and it could as well be used to support the idea of an old and a young universe. No convincing evidence of the correct figure is known.

   Perhaps one reason why the former figure did not meet the needs of scientists is that it could not be used to support the theory of evolution, i.e., it did not offer enough time for the supposed evolution: if the universe is only 1.8 billion years old, the supposed birth of life and evolution would have had to take place over a course of perhaps a few million years. This is due to the following issues, for example:

- It is thought that the first galaxies were born only approximately a billion years after the beginning. If we deduct a billion from 1.8 billion, only 0.8 billion or 800 million years is left.

- The current solar system is thought to have been born from some earlier star generation that has already been destroyed.

- It is believed that the crust of the Earth was so hot for 500 millions years in the beginning that there could not have been life back then. It is believed that life emerged only about 700 millions years after the beginning of the Earth. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä p. 82, 118 / Origins of Life)

Jari Iivanainen