• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An Article I Read On Yahoo

James Is Back

CF's Official Locksmith
Aug 21, 2014
17,895
1,344
53
Oklahoma
✟47,480.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
First I could have posted this in the N&CE forum but I wanted to get a Christian perspective on this. Here is the article:

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
By Tia Ghose February 28, 2015 9:00 AM

If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.

"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.

The new concept could also explain what dark matter — the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up most of the matter in the universe — is actually made of, Das added

Big Bang under fire

According to the Big Bang Theory the universe was born about 13.8 billion years ago. All the matter that exists today was once squished into an infinitely dense, infinitely tiny, ultra-hot point called a singularity. This tiny fireball then exploded and gave rise to the early universe.

The singularity comes out of the math of Einstein's theory of general relativity which describes how mass warps space-time, and another equation (called Raychaudhuri's equation) that predicts whether the trajectory of something will converge or diverge over time. Going backward in time, according to these equations, all matter in the universe was once in a single point — the Big Bang singularity.

But that's not quite true. In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached. But scientists extrapolate backward as if the physics equations still hold, said Robert Brandenberger, a theoretical cosmologist at McGill University in Montreal, who was not involved in the study.

So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.

There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled.

Quantum mechanics says that the behavior of tiny subatomic particles is fundamentally uncertain. This is at odds with Einstein's general relativity, which is deterministic, meaning that once all the natural laws are known, the future is completely predetermined by the past, Das said.

And neither theory explains what dark matter, an invisible form of matter that exerts a gravitational pull on ordinary matter but cannot be detected by most telescopes, is made of.

Quantum correction

Das and his colleagues wanted a way to resolve at least some of these problems. To do so, they looked at an older way of visualizing quantum mechanics, called Bohmian mechanics. In it, a hidden variable governs the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles. Unlike other formulations of quantum mechanics, it provides a way to calculate the trajectory of a particle.

Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time.

The upshot? In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old.

A way to test the theory

One way of interpreting the quantum correction term in their equation is that it is related to the density of dark matter, Das said.
If so, the universe could be filled with a superfluid made of hypothetical particles, such as the gravity-carrying particles known as gravitons, or ultra-cold, ghostlike particles known as axions, Das said.

One way to test the theory is to look at how dark matter is distributed in the universe and see if it matches the properties of the proposed superfluid, Das said.

"If our results match with those, even approximately, that's great," Das told Live Science.

However, the new equations are just one way to reconcile quantum
mechanics and general relativity. For instance, a part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic "bounce," where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding, Brandenberg said.

Either way, the universe was once very, very small and hot.

"The fact that there's a hot fireball at very early times: that is confirmed," Brandenberg told Live Science. "When you try to go back all the way to the singularity, that's when the problems arise."

The new theory was explained in a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv.


Why are some scientists determine to disprove God's existence? This theory is just as bad as the BBT. Our finite minds can't comprehend infinity so why even bother
:doh:
 

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've seen these as well.

Makes me wonder what all the compromising apologists are going to do, being they've foolishly based their apologetics on the Big Bang. Guys like WL Craig come to mind, as well as the recent movie God is dead. If it turns out secular scientists move away from the Big Bang, I suppose the movie itself will die a death of relevancy.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A word of caution: university press departments hype studies performed by their faculty and students beyond what is appropriate. The article points out that the paper is still under review, but even if it gets published, subsequent studies may find fatal flaws in the methods. So, this _may_ overturn one of the biggest theories in physics, but more likely we'll never hear about it again. Overzealous university PR is more likely than the overturning of a well-attested theory. Again, it may kill the Big Bang, but let's see what happens with the peer review process.

As relates to theology: suppose the Big Bang is undermined and goes away in favor of a model in which the universe extends backwards through time, infinitely. This is actually something that the Church had to consider after the first crusades, as writings which had been lost to Europe were brought back and translated into Latin. Among the writings was a work by Aristotle in which he argued for an infinity of causes stretching back through time -- an infinitely old universe.

St. Thomas Aquinas, building on and responding to work done by Muslim Kalam theologians, showed that if God were beyond the universe, He might yet underlie even an infinity of causes. In that case, creation would include even the principles of cause and effect. An infinitely old universe, therefore, was not incompatible with the doctrine of creation, provided it be understood that God was the source of all cause and effect.

I couldn't say what this would do to any particular apologetics. Probably, a lot of people would have to rethink their approaches to the ontological proof for the existence of God.

That God created all things is something we have from Scripture. Every interpretation of Genesis affirms this, so it's hardly controversial in this subforum. However, it begs the question of whether it is reasonable to infer the existence of God by looking at nature? Passages like Psalm 19:1 ("... The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.") suggest that one can recognize God's work in nature, but that is not the same as saying that one can expect to "discover God" by looking at nature. After all, if indeed there is a chain of causes extending backwards to infinity, one who knows God can be awed and inspired by the chain in light of the knowledge of its Maker, whereas one who does not know God can only see the chain.

Personally, I think this is true, whether the Big Bang happened or not. Those of us who know God will look at nature and see the same things as those who don't know Him, but we will see handiwork where they will not. As someone who is interested and involved in science, I love to read about what the current thinking is (reiterating the word of caution, above), but I'm not sure it really changes anything from a theological standpoint.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Among the writings was a work by Aristotle in which he argued for an infinity of causes stretching back through time -- an infinitely old universe.

I'm familiar with Aristotle's prime mover argument and there is nothing about the age of the universe in his prime mover argument.

St. Thomas Aquinas, building on and responding to work done by Muslim Kalam theologians, showed that if God were beyond the universe, He might yet underlie even an infinity of causes. In that case, creation would include even the principles of cause and effect. An infinitely old universe, therefore, was not incompatible with the doctrine of creation, provided it be understood that God was the source of all cause and effect.

God is always separate from the created universe, the very concept of holiness is predicated on it. This separation is also called the aseity or utter independence of God. At the same time God transcends all of time and space, thus God is omnipotent and omnipresent. God is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, this is stated plainly by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas in no uncertain terms.

Obviously, the age of the universe would be irrelevant given no more the a discussion of cosmology arguments. The only way the age of the universe becomes in issue is in an exegesis of Genesis 1 as it relates to the doctrine of creation. The text may well imply a young earth and a recently created universe, it simply doesn't require it. The creation of life on the other hand is another matter entirely.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
44
Cambridge
Visit site
✟39,787.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm familiar with Aristotle's prime mover argument and there is nothing about the age of the universe in his prime mover argument.

Not his prime mover argument. I was talking (mistakenly) about his Physics (Book III). What I recalled as him arguing for an infinity of time was actually him representing the arguments of the Pythagoreans. I've gone back and checked and discovered my mistake (link). As applies, below, you are right that he didn't believe that there were any infinities.

God is always separate from the created universe, the very concept of holiness is predicated on it. This separation is also called the aseity or utter independence of God. At the same time God transcends all of time and space, thus God is omnipotent and omnipresent. God is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, this is stated plainly by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas in no uncertain terms.

You are right that St. Thomas certainly thought that time was not infinite. However, he observed that even if he were wrong about created infinities, there would still be God's absolute infinity beyond that. (link -- see Article 2)

Obviously, the age of the universe would be irrelevant given no more the a discussion of cosmology arguments. The only way the age of the universe becomes in issue is in an exegesis of Genesis 1 as it relates to the doctrine of creation. The text may well imply a young earth and a recently created universe, it simply doesn't require it. The creation of life on the other hand is another matter entirely.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The Big Bang (or lack thereof) doesn't deal with the origin of life.
 
Upvote 0