The
evolution of theories about the origin of the universe has surely proceeded
at a rapid pace upon
entering the 20th
Century. New telescopic devices permitting people to see parts of the universe
never
before imagined, in
new ways never before conceived, have advanced man's theoretical capabilites
on
explaining the origin
of the universe, a task that has been a part of intelligent man's life
for thousands
of years. However,
up until very recently, perhaps even this century, most of the theories
of origin have
been religious in
nature.
When we speak of having a religious nature, we speak of faith. Religious
beliefs are held upon faith;
no rational explanation
is required or sought after. Examples would inlcude the origin myths of
the
ancient Greeks, whose
fiery gods battled and bore children and eventually formed the universe
as we
know it today, or
the origin myths of the Judeo-Christian tradition, whose god spoke, and
beheld a
universe before him,
or even the origin stories of the Hopi Indians whose ancestors descended
from a
first man in a world
far below the present one and who climbed up through four successive worlds
along a reed and emerged
into the world we know today. As one would observe who studied the various
origin myths of the
world, the majority are deeply dependent upon a faith in the existence
of a Divine
Being, a First Creator
who started it all but who cannot be seen. Such faith is not dependent
upon
scientific proof of
such a Divine Creator. These are the stories that explain how our universe
came to
be, the work of Divine
purpose.
Zeus, god of gods
Genesis, the Old Testament Ascension of the
Hopi people
But
what about today? What
about the men and women of the 20th Century, those who live in
advanced nations,
whose cultural meanings are derived from rigorous scientific proof and
rationality?
When man can no longer
have faith without reason, what is he to believe? Especially, what is he
to
believe about his
origin, and the origin of the universe in which he lives? Can he continue
to put faith
in a divinity he cannot
see, in a god whose presence is not needed to explain the mechanisms and
mysteries of nature?
Can he function without reasonable explanations of the world around him?
I do
not believe so, at
least to a certain degree, and this is confirmed in 20th Century man's
desperate dash
to explain the world
in one big swoop, with one big theory, with one unifying notion of the
universe,
from its largest masses
to its smallest particles. And the idea of a Divine Being is nowhere to
be found.
However, despite modern man's attempts to incorporate all of his knowledge
under the faculty of
reason, he can never
function entirely without faith, a faith in the things he can never know
in his
lifetime. He must
always accept that his powers of reason are limited, that
not everything can be
explained,
as close as his theories may come. Even the modern theories of the origin
of the universe,
the origin myths of
20th Century man, cannot explain everything in accordance with scientific
proof,
and therefore must
rest, however, softly, upon his faith. Let us examine the modern story
of the Origin
of the Universe.
The story is told, by such modern-day astrophysical and mathematical prophets
as Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and others, of a time when the universe
was nothing like it is now-- galaxies had not formed, planets were not
in existence, even the elements which we recognize so easily today were
not even in their stages of infancy. Nothing was like it is now. The universe
was unrecognizable, because essentially, it did not even exist. Let me
explain how these conditions first came to appear possible in the minds
of astronomers.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble made the incredible discovery that wherever one looks
in the sky, one can see that distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from
each other. In other words, the universe is expanding. At earlier times,
it follows, all the matter in space would have been much closer together
than it is now. In fact, it would have all been in the same place. But
could this make sense?
Since then, astronomers have hypothesized the circumstances of how the
matter in the universe went from being very close together to very far
apart, as it is perceived today. The predominant theory to emerge is known
popularly as the Big bang theory. Here is the picture of the origin of
our universe that it paints…
At some point in the history of time, perhaps some ten to twenty billion
years ago, all of the matter in the universe was extremely close together.
In fact, it was so close together that it was all in the same place, the
exact same point. This point, of infinitesimally small size, had infinite
density. The curvature of space-time was infinite. Essentially, the universe
was curved into itself. At such a point, the general theory of relativity
breaks down, according to its own principles, and all the laws of science
known to man today break down with it. Mathematicians call this type of
point a singularity. The singularity at the beginning of the universe was
in a condition for which man has no ability of prediction. Our mathematical
and physical laws cease to apply, and we can neither say what will come
after nor what came before.
At this point, man’s ability to describe the state of the universe is extremely
limited. The laws of physics under such a condition are not known. Indeed,
nothing then would be recognizable to man, or comparable to the state of
the universe which he observes today. Therefore, man cannot say why the
events which happened next did so; he can only say that they happened….
For an unknown reason, the universe suddenly began to expand.
An expansion would automatically result in a decrease in temperature. Thus,
the condition of the universe began to change immediately, and slowly the
particles which we recognize today began to take shape and form.
10-43 seconds after the big bang, still under very high energy,
particles such as quarks, electrons, antielectrons and some possible others
began to form. Their behavior of decay and collision at this time is still
very much unknown, but theories such as the Grand Unification Theory attempt
to describe the activity of particles at such high energy.
10-34 seconds after the big bang, quarks and antiquarks are
formed at a high rate as a result of the collisions of particles at such
high energies. These particle/antiparticle pairs were produced at the same
time that some were being annihilated. However, for whatever reason, they
were being produced much faster or with more frequency than they were being
annihilated. The universe, at this point, is now the size of an orange.
By the time 10-10 seconds has elapsed, the antiquarks, as a
result of collisions with quarks, have been completely annihilated and
have disappeared. These collisions also resulted in the formation of photons.
Also at this time, protons and neutrons have formed.
Finally, one full second after the initial moment of expansion, at a temperature
of approximately ten billion degrees, the universe began to take a recognizable
form: there were mostly photons, electrons, and neutrinos, and their antiparitcles,
along with some protons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons started
to bind together to form the nuclei of elements we know today as hydrogen,
helium, lithium, and deuterium (heavy hydrogen).
With three minutes passed, at a dropping temperature of one billion degrees,
the matter that has already formed couples together with radiation. This
radiation is still detectable today.
Jump forward now 300,000 years, and the expanding universe still does not
resemble the universe in which we live. Matter and radiation begin to decouple
as electrons bind with nuclei. There is now background radiation.
Jump forward again one billion years and finally things begin to take shape.
Clusters of matter form quasars, protogalaxies, and stars which burn hydrogen
and helium forming heavier nuclei, and newer elements.
Finally, we stop at about 15 billion years after the big bang, possibly
our present day, and what do we have? Solar systems have condensed around
stars. Atoms begin to link to form complex molecules. Some of these molecules
link to form living matter.
The universe is still expanding, possibly even accelerating. The expansion
of the universe is modeled after the expanding surface of a balloon. Galaxies,
like points on the surface, would be expanding away from every other point,
such that no one point is the center. (Source for previous info: Hawking,
Stephen, A Brief History of Time, 1988.)
Whew…..!! The
story is undoubtedly a long journey. This is the origin myth of modern
man, unlike any other myth in the history of mankind. What are the implicatiosn
which this theory has? What are its qualities? How is it similar to ancient
stories of creation, and how is it different?
As I mentioned before, the theory of the big bang essentially is not dependent
at all upon the existence of a supreme Deity. While it does not prove that
such a Divinity does not exist, it surely makes a case for the universe
in which one is not necessary. I would like to quote Stephen Hawking on
the matter, a matter which he has surely considered deeply with every irreverent
insight he has had over time. In his A Brief History of Time, he
writes, "Existence [prior to the Big bang] can be ignored because it would
have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning
at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined...One
could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the
big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though
there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that
it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude
a creator..." (p. 14-15) So what does it mean if the modern origin myth,
unlike almost every other in the past, is not based upon the action of
a Divine being? Has modern man lost all ability and desire to have faith?
Must he believe things based solely upon reason, that is, what can be proved
with rational thought and scientific proof? At first, it may appear so.
Many people like to imagine that science and reason are incompatible with
faith. In fact, many people simply like to imagine that modern man has
deteriorated in his capability for irrationality and imagination. However,
these modern theories, like the big bang theory, are incredible works of
imagination! Surely, they find their value in their correspondence to experential
fact, by what science can prove, by what it can predict, but it came from
one man's mind! These theories do not explain everything! In fact, some
of them open up more mysteries than they solve. It is upon faith which
theories like the big bang rest. We have faith in the matthemtical systems
which derived it; we have faith in the observations which confirmed it;
we have faith in the laws of science which supported it. In the end, we
have faith in ourselves, in our own capabilites of reasoning and imagining.
We have faith in the human being. The big bang theory, while it differs
in the fact that it is a stated theory (that is, open to debate and change)
rather than a myth (like ancient lores, which were accepted as truth),
is very similar to ancient cosmologies of the origin of the universe. Indeed,
they all appear fantastical when we reflect upon them.