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 began.

  However, we must note that there are many problems with this 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:

 

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. (4)

 

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. (5)

 

Does THE red shift prove EXPANSION?

 

It has been thought that the best piece of evidence supporting the big bang is red shift that can be observed in distant stars. It has been thought that when the spectrums of light in distant galaxies and stars have moved towards the red end of the spectrum, this is an indication of 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 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, indeed, see - at least in the near space). Also, the use of the red shift as a piece of evidence supporting the expansion is an issue not even all the researchers accept. They deny it having anything to do with expansion (as others deny background radiation having anything to do with the big bang):

 

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)

 

The light of all stars is not red shifted. The second problem with the red shift is that the light of all stars is not red shifted. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy (It has been estimated that the galaxy should be 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 has begun at the same point?) and certain other galaxies show blue shifted light which means that they should be approaching us. 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 the internal reactions and radiation of stars, which can also be detected from the Earth.

 

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.

  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 the changing red shift values are due to internal reactions and not any escaping motion, as far as these quasars are concerned.

 

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 as comes to the big bang is what caused it, in other words, 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.

  For example, Martin Rees discusses this problem of 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 comes to 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 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 travelling through time. (Martin Rees, Avaruuden avainluvut, p. 66)

 

A good question based on the previous is: what caused the explosion and expansion? If the force of gravity has prevented escaping (= 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:

 

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 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^-32 seconds”. (6)

 

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. (7)

 

Does it not, however, require quite a lot of faith 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? 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 a very bold assumption indeed.

  We can imagine that by taking a small stone (or perhaps a pin) into our hands, and by believing hard that from it a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars in each can be born. In the same way, we could assume that oceans, people, animals, flowers, mountains, and all that can be seen around us can be created from the same stone. (This is actually the whole concept of Darwinism and the our whole current scientific theory in brief.) If we really believe all of this and expect this could happen, we must either have a lot of faith or then we must simply be wrong and misguided.

  In any case, assuming that the big bang theory is true, the following things should have emerged from a space the size of a pinhead. Have they really come from such a small space?

 

- 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