Common Thoughts 17




It was infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense. What was? We don’t know. This “we-don’t-know-what” was just there, not in space because there was no space. Wow! I can’t get my head around that.

“Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.” So says Discover in their explanation of the big bang theory. “The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy – nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don’t know. We don’t know where it came from, why it’s here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn’t exist and neither did we.” Discover also says this.

What do we know?

  • It all started (supposedly) 13.799 billion years ago. That’s a hellava long time ago.
  • It is further said that pre-homo sapiens began roaming the earth 2.5 million years ago.
  • The first civilization (Sumerian) did not form until about 3,200 BC (or if you are modern, BCE).
  • It is assumed that galaxies are distributed uniformly and the same in all directions, meaning that the Universe has neither an edge nor a center. Now that’s really interesting. If no matter where I am on the earth and I look up the distance between me and the end of the universe is the same no matter where I’m on earth. Wouldn’t that sorta suggest the earth is at the center? But we are told no, we’re not.
  • The Big Bang theory says that there is a fixed amount of energy and matter. From this we get the first law of thermodynamics which states that the total energy of an isolated system is a constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed. So all the energy in the universe was compacted in that infinitesimally small, hot, dense primal light. There is a second law of thermodynamics that states that the state of entropy (the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity) of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time.
  • The universe is filled with galaxies, the galaxies filled with solar systems. A galaxy is a gravitationally bound system of stars, stellar remnants, interstellar gas, dust, and dark matter.
  • Our solar system is in the Milky Way (yumm, good candy bars). The Solar System also consists of moons, comets, asteroids, minor planets, and dust and gas. Everything in the Solar System orbits or revolves around the Sun.
  • After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled, allowing the first subatomic particles to form and then simple atoms. Giant clouds later merged through gravity to form galaxies, stars, and everything else seen today

You get the idea. In the beginning there was light and light is energy and energy is hot. Light is an electromagnetic wave emitted by electrons in atoms. Atoms are made up of protons and neutrons, the nucleolus. The number of protons in the nucleus defines to what chemical element the atom belongs. There is a lot of attraction and repulsion going on, crashing causing new things to form and deeper and deeper in the atom are quarks and actions that no one can predict.

Did you know that “the idea that the universe started as an incredibly hot, incredibly dense point exploding into reality was first proposed by Georges Lemaître (1894–1966), a Roman Catholic priest and astronomer. The astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) lampooned the idea, calling it the “Big Bang” theory. He meant it as an insult. Hoyle was an atheist and an eternalist. He worried that the Big Bang supported the Christian creationist position.” (From Thinking Fair: Rules for Reason in Science and Religion by Lucas Mix.) “Eternalism” is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. All that we see was eternally there, not developing in time.

“Time acts as a closed bubble contemporaneous with the current physical universe.” For Stephen Hawking, this means that God is not necessary; the universe is fully self-contained.

Not every scientist accepts the big bang model, but whatever, no one knows for sure, they weren’t there and can’t go back in time to see it happen. We theorize that if you collapsed all that is in the universe it would all fall back into the infinitesimally small amount of hot light where it all began. Was this light always there? How could there be substance inside nothing? I keep wondering that if space is being created as this balloon expands how does that happen? It’s hard to imagine that all that we see and don’t see but know something is there came out of that small amount of light. Cosmologists and astrophysicists only know a small part of the universe and see far more than they can explain, except dark energy must be involved. The definition of dark energy is: “I don’t know what the hell is happening but we’ll call it dark energy because it makes us sound like we know something.”

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty.” The Hebrew words here are Tohu wa bohu, or Tohu va voh, typically translated as “formless and empty” or “chaos and desolation.”

I don’t expect scientists to get behind the opening words of Genesis, it’s outside their discipline. The scientific method of learning is:

Mutual Observation—proper objects of study are real things, external to the observer and accessed by the senses:

Symmetry—things observed here and things observed there will be observed in the same way:

Hypotheses—propositions about the world that either come from or predict observations:

Iteration—science happens when we repeat the process over and over again. God can’t be put into “iteration” and while we can observe what he does we can’t observe him or him doing it. So, I don’t expect science to validate God.

But I don’t expect to be mocked by the likes of Stephen Hawkins and the Science Guy. Lucas Mix in his book, Thinking Fair: Rules for Reason in Science and Religion, writes this about what scientists are finding the deeper they observe:

“Fundamental particles already have some fairly counter-intuitive properties. We think of them as probability distributions—in other words, fundamental particles exist over a range of possible states, rather than just sitting there like a billiard ball waiting to interact with another objects. Alternatively, we think of fundamental particles as vibrations or fluctuations in a field, but we cannot say exactly what that field is. How are fluctuations in something, what is that thing? If smaller pieces make up fundamental particles, will they have even more counter-intuitive properties? Worse yet, the math is getting more and more complicated the farther down we go. How far are we willing to go to get a comprehensive theory and who will be able to understand it?

Could we be looking at God, the ground of Being? Don’t know. Makes you wonder, though.