GOD'S FINGERPRINTS
Is it possible to empirically test the
cosmological model of the Creation, as described in the Bible?
Valentin Velchev
In 1931 the Austrian mathematician Kurt
Gödel drew the incompleteness theorems,
according to which the formal systems of logic and mathematics are semantically
inadequate and do not allow strict proof (or refutation). As a simple example
we could point out the impossibility to resolve the Zeno's puzzles - Achilles
(the fastest runner in the world) could not catch up with a tortoise if she
only started a few strides in front of him. Hitherto, no one could refute the
assertions of the philosopher of Elea in theory, but in practice even a small
child can easily cope with a similar problem. Therefore, today it is not enough
to create a scientific formulation, but there should be certain corollaries,
that allow an empiric verification of its genuineness.
The
most significant blemish of the Christian view on the Creation remains the
circumstance that this view is based primarily on the critics of the
evolutionary theory, and does not develop its own theory which should be
subject to verification. In this article we will try for the first time to present the Biblical model
that allows for its corollaries to be deduced theoretically with the aid of
physics and mathematics, as well as to be verified by observation, experiments,
computer simulations, etc.
I
The Big Bang Theory
It is well known that the Big
Bang theory rests on three observation pillars - the expansion of the Universe,
the cosmic background radiation, and the abundance of light elements. The
classic formulation of this concept, however, was not in the position to cope
with a number of challenges that it faces, for instance the problems of the cosmic horizon, the flatness of space,
magnetic monopoles etc. At the end of 1979 Alan Guth and Henry Tye, in one
of their articles, developed the so called inflation cosmology, which
eliminates the pointed difficulties standing in front of the standard
cosmological model. According to them, shortly after the Big Bang, the energy
of the Universe was carried by an inflatonic field with negative pressure.
Thanks to this field for a period of about 10-36 to 10-32 seconds,
the Universe inflated exponentially more than 1080 times. The field
gradually released the energy it contained in the form of almost homogeneous sea of particles and radiation, and later on the
Universe evolved according to the conventional scenario (see Table 1).
Time elapsed after the Big Bang
|
Event
|
Years before our age
|
0
|
Big Bang
(singularity)
|
13,82 billion years
|
10-36 to 10-32 sec.
|
Inflation
era.
|
|
10-33 sec.
|
Quark -
gluon plasma
|
|
10-5 sec.
|
Quarks unite
in protons and neutrons.
|
|
10-3 sec.
|
Synthesis of
hydrogen and helium atoms.
|
|
1 to 3 min.
|
Formation of
light elements up to boron.
|
|
380 thousand years.
|
The Universe
becomes transparent. Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is
released.
|
|
200-500 million years.
|
Birth of the
first stars and protogalaxies.
|
13,5-13,2 billion years.
|
3,3 billion years.
|
Formation of
mature galaxies, quasars and of the oldest stars in the Milky Way.
|
10,4 billion years.
|
8,1 billion years.
|
The Sun
System originates, including the Earth.
|
5,6 billion years.
|
Table 1
Fig.1 Evolution of the
Universe
During the first 7-9 billion
years the expansion of the Universe speed slowed down and after that it
gradually started to increase. To explain this phenomenon, the physicists
assumed the presence of the so called dark energy. (The observed quantity of
baryonic matter in the cosmos provide only 4,9 % of the critical density of the
Universe, dark matter adds around 26,8%, and dark energy – around 68,3%
according to the latest results by the cosmic probe PLANCK from 2013)
In May 2009 The European Space Agency (ESA)
took into orbit Herschel Space Observatory together with the telescope Planck,
whose resolution is 10 times bigger than that of WMAP. Another satellite
experiment is in plan – CMBPol (Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization
experiment). According to a number of inflation models, gravitation waves of the Big Bang should have left a mark on the polarization of the relic radiation.
Therefore, these satellites will not only read deviations in its temperature,
but will also measure its polarization (average direction of spins of
registered microwave photons). In this case, it is just the opposite, i.e. when
catching out primary gravitation waves the cyclic approach will be excluded,
and the inflation scheme will be proved.
Briefly,
we shall point out only some of the major flaws of the standard scenario.
Singular cosmic beginning requires rigorous
solution, which inflation is still not in a position to give, because it is
still not well integrated in String
theory, therefore it is not part of the merger of the quantum mechanics and the
General theory of relativity.
No one could say how the inflaton field
arises with a suitable form of the potential energy for inflation to emerge. We
don't know the exact parameters of the primordial explosion – when it happened,
how long did it take, what quantity of energy it converted into particles and
radiation, etc. Therefore, there is no way to avoid the impression that
physicists just tailor their concepts so that they coincide with the astronomic
observations.
The most significant failure of the Big
Bang hypothesis, however, still remains the issue of the baryon and lepton
asymmetries. Adding to this the
statistical absurdity for the produced protons and electrons to be precisely
equal quantities (otherwise all structures, excluding the atomic nuclei, should
be ruptured), it turns out that this concept could not be initiated at all,
since there is no way to rationally explain the appearance of the matter.[3]
Not less fundamental are the problems of
the theory as regards the incredibly complex construction of atoms, stars and
cosmic systems. Therefore, we should not
be surprised by some critics' opinion that although it solves some minor
issues, the contemporary Big Bang hypothesis in fact cannot find a satisfactory
explanation of the origin of the Universe.
The
empirical data, used to test the cosmological models, relate for the time from
the instant of the Big Bang until around 380 thousand years later, i.e. until
the origin of the CMBR. Here, however, we shall try to include also
the interval of 200-500 million years, when the first stars and protogalaxies
were born, until the formation of the mature galaxies – approximately 3,3
billion years after the start of the Universe (see Table 1).
II. Dialectical materialism.
There is no unanimous opinion on the
possible stages in the origination of galaxies. At the beginning of the 20th
century the great English astronomer J. Jeans suggested one of the first
hypotheses. He considered that at the beginning there existed space, uniformly
filled with rarefied gas. As a result of its gravitation shrinking and
rotating, separate nebula with regular spherical shape formed. After that,
while still shrinking, and consequently accelerating its rotation, each nebula
flattened to an elliptical disk. The gravitational fields of the neighbouring
nebulas provoked outflows of substance from the disk, which, during its
rotation, winds in spiral arms. The increased density of the gaseous matter in
these ramifications assists the initial formation of stars namely in them.
Hubble adds that the so formed spiral galaxies perhaps in the end destroy their
structure and die as irregular ones.
The exactly opposite view also
exists. According to the hypothesis of K. von Weizsäcker, at the beginning the
world represented a chaos of diffuse gaseous mater, placed in a strong
turbulence. This means, that everywhere in the initial "fog" rage
gigantic vortices, which cause the formation of the first clusters, the first
clouds of dust and gas with irregular form. The clouds rotate around their
axis, flatten and turn into spiral galaxies. Stars begin to form in the spiral
ramifications. In the course of time the spiral galaxies lose their arms and
turn into stable elliptical systems.
All kind of hypotheses were created which
show various possibilities for formation of galaxies and their transition from
one type into another. However, profound analysis and calculations make it
clearly understandable that none of them could not be considered particularly
convincing.[4]
If we assume the
naturalistic position, it states that celestial bodies and systems should have
formed through chaotic collisions with an arbitrary arrangement. In other words, within the period 200-500
million up to 3,3 billion years, one should expect generation of powerful
gravitation waves, because there
would be extremely frequent fusions between the bodies in the systems and
collisions between the protogalaxies, resulting in their expansion, as well as
to the formation of large-scale structures of the Universe (superclusters of
galaxies, etc.). Another question is whether the extremely beautiful and
complicated hierarchical arrangement of the celestial formations – on a
planetary, stellar, galactic level and etc., – as well as their enormous
stability in time, could be achieved accidentally, (calculations show for
example that the Milky way will remain stable for 1016 i.e. hundred
million billion years).
III.
Christian theism
The narration at the beginning of the
Genesis reveals that God created the matter out of nothing and
developed His grand design when building the Universe. We should be
aware that creating such a dynamic structure is an incredibly complicated task,
because in any one moment it is arranged differently and what is more, it
always keeps its equilibrium. Let us remind that only the Metagalaxy (the
visible part of it) contains more than 1022 bodies and more than 1011
cosmic systems (associations, clusters, galaxies, etc.), whose mutual impact
should be taken into consideration.
Trying to project the Milky way, for
example, with its over 400 billion stars (comprising of course a large number
of stellar clusters, planetary systems,
etc.), we will instantly fathom that things are extremely complicated. Every
member of the galactic "family", if we assume it as an absolutely
solid body (i.e. that does not experience any deformations), has degrees of
freedom, i.e. it could move in three different directions and to rotate around
three mutually perpendicular axes. In that case, in order to determine the
location of that body in space, the three coordinates and the three rotational
angles should be assigned some numerical values (observing also the speed of
change of these parameters in time). In order to have a precise solution of the
assignment, however, it should be specified that none of the celestial bodies
is absolutely solid. Modifications of its shape, high and low tides, change its
orbital speed and the direction of the rotational axis, and as a result mutual
attraction forces vary and the other bodies' orbits are disturbed. The following
has to be taken into account as well:
electric and magnetic interactions; mass loss rates (stars are constantly losing
part of their mass); the changing
gravitation field of the other objects in the systems should also be considered
(and for three bodies coordinates and speeds become already incalculable[5]);
resonances that appear from time to time (for instance, between satellites and
planets in the Solar system); the
impact of the interstellar medium;
some relativistic effects and many many other things, which are difficult even
to enumerate.
When searching for a common solution of the
problem of the combination of higher hierarchical formations (clusters and
super-clusters of galaxies) which build the Universe, here is what we have to
add to the specifics of its complexity. Let us assume that each celestial
system has an enormous number of N ordered states at various values of masses
and orbital characteristics of the bodies inside it. (We assume that this
number N is large, but not infinite, since the quantity of matter and the
dimensions of the real cosmic systems are limited.) When the systems are two
and we regard them as subsystems of one whole system, then, due to their mutual
influences, the multitude of ordered states of the whole systems shall
represent the section only of those ordered states, which are common for the
two subsystems. If the subsystems are three, the multitude of possible states
of the common system is further limited – up to those states, in which the
three subsystems shall be in equilibrium. Thus, the more subsystems we have,
the smaller remains the multitude of their common equilibrium states. So it's
easy to see why for the huge number of celestial systems in the world there is
only one single possibility, in which all of them are in harmony with one
another and build the overall dynamic structure of the Universe.
But, within the aforementioned arguments,
we did not take into account the changes that happen in each subsystem. If for
example one system consists of two subsystems, the order therein is not a
"mechanical sum" of two stable states of its subsystems. (Within the
hierarchical structures the whole is bigger than the sum of its
constituents.) The order in each
subsystem is now calculated as something qualitatively new, because external
impacts exercised by the other subsystem are taken into consideration. In that
case, the new order in each subsystem is not a subsystem of the multitude of
its stable states (since here only the influences between its own bodies are taken
into account). Generally, with every increasing of the number of subsystems, it
is not only the general order in the whole system that changes, but also the
order in each subsystem, since they are interdependent and interrelated and in
their connection, they should build a uniform overall system. So, if one has to
design the Universe as one uniform whole, then the implementation of this task
has to follow exactly a plan, that is set before and that which foresees
everything. Otherwise, this magnificent "architectural temple" would
possibly collapse very soon.[6]
The grand construction of the world made
Paul Dirac, one of the greatest experts in mathematical physics, to say: "One could perhaps describe the
situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order and He
used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble
attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the Universe, and as
we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the
universe better."[7]
(Of
course, God does not need to make calculations – He possesses the complete
knowledge, great wisdom and omnipotence, therefore He calls a perfect Universe
into being without any intellectual and creative effort!)
But as observations show, the
order in these systems is destroyed – stars do explode, galaxies collide, etc.
The identified changes result in drastic alterations of the interrelations
between the members within the systems, and finally they would lead to their
extinction. These implications conform astonishingly well to the Biblical
standpoint on that issue. It is written there that at the beginning "The
world is firmly established, it cannot be moved" (Ps. 95:10), but as a
consequence of man's sin, the whole creation was subjected to the "bondage
to decay", i.e. destruction (Romans 8: 20, 21)[8].
As is obvious, according to materialism the direction of the processes in nature should be from chaos
towards order, whereas theism
outlines precisely the opposite trend - from
order to chaos (which fully complies with the second principle of
thermodynamics – the law of increasing entropy)[9]).
In the 1970s, while
considering the initial conditions for the origin of the world, B. Collins and
S. Hawking, by a dew mathematical analysis show that "... a Universe that is not absolutely regular is unstable. In
other words, a Universe that was chaotic at its origin, subsequently would have
become even more chaotic".[10] The
result is the "domino effect" – In the course of time the chaos is
multiplied, i.e. the disorder and disorganization increase, until the order in
the whole system is utterly destroyed.
By applying the relevant mathematical
methods and suitable computer simulations, we could verify whether this
principle remains valid also for the more complex structures of the Universe –
planetary systems, stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc.
If we make a probability curve of the
distribution of the stability of the celestial systems (originating on an
accidental principle) in time, we could test whether it is valid with the
enormous number of observed galaxies – over 175 billion, which allows us to
perfectly test the statistical forecasts. For instance, it would be reasonable
to expect that a certain percentage of the galaxies will not succeed to achieve
stable dynamic equilibrium, and thus we should notice a great number of them in
a moment of collapse. It is another issue whether the galaxies will be able to
increase their dimensions as a result of consecutive collisions and to
rearrange themselves in new long living configurations, etc.
(Already at that stage we can say that the whole Cosmos is incredibly well balanced and ordered – colliding stars
and galaxies are quite insignificant in number – which suggest to us that it is
hardly accidentally organized!)
Fig. 2. The Hubble eXteme Deep
Field (HDF) comprises astronomical images of
the Universe, covering areas of the ultra deep cosmos, made by the cosmic telescope Hubble with an
exposure for over a two million of seconds.
The picture called "Hubble
Extreme Deep Field" (Fig. 2) shows us more than 5,500 galaxies. The
most distant ones stand at about 13,2 billion ly (light-years). That distance
is confirmed by the galactic spectral lines as well, obtained with the
assistance of earth telescopes. Indeed, some of these lines are small, with odd
and weird shapes; we can see also mysterious quasars, but the predominant part
are exactly as the contemporary galaxies.[11]
If we assume that we have witnessed the
origin of one of the first protogalaxies (forming only 500 million years after
the Big Bang), collisions between the stars inside the protogalaxies and
between the protogalaxies themselves should be quite a normal phenomenon. (According
to the theory mature galaxies formed 2,8 billion years later – see table 1). We
have to set ourselves thinking why the observed picture is so much at odds with
our expectations?! I.e. why we do not observe the process of the formation of
the galaxies, and everywhere they appear to us in a totally completed shape?
This makes us ask ourselves whether scientists, with the aid of the next
generation of telescopes, might discover that all the galaxies have been
ordered at the very beginning of the Universe?! „The deafening silence” of the available gravitation waves detectors
bespeaks of exactly the same![12]
ІІІ
Biblical cosmological model.
The narration in the book of Genesis
heralds that the creation of the Earth and the celestial bodies happened in the
first and in the fourth creative
days:
"At
the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth. Now the earth was
formless and empty; darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit
of God was hovering over the waters. And God said: let there be light. And there was light. God saw
that light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called
the light "day", and the darkness he called "night". And
there was evening, and there was morning - the first day.
...................................
And
God said: Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky (to lighten the earth)
to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons
and days and years; and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light
on the earth. And it was so. God made two great lights; the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars; God set them in the expanse
of the sky, to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to
separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was
evening, and there was morning - the fourth day. "
According to the Christian theology God creates the worlds ex nihilo, i.e. out
of nothing. Almost all the interpreters of the Bible consider that by
"heavens" in the first verse one should understand the
invisible world where God's throne is to be found surrounded by the angels,
cherubs, seraphim, etc. This transcendental world is described in more detail
in the books by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Revelation and others, but we are not going to
dwell on that. As regards the work "earth" the views are split
mainly into two categories:
A) Some assume that apart from the Earth,
it denotes all the matter in the cosmos, for example gas and dust clouds. In
that case, by an order of God later on the celestial bodies should have formed
and must have started going round their orbits, forming planetary, stellar and
galactic systems.
B) Others find that the word "earth"
relates only to our Planet, and the Sun,
Moon and the stars appeared on the fourth day, consequently, the Universe
came into being all of a sudden completely ordered.
Empirical consequences:
1.) With the Biblical model we could use
the "Big Bang" to denote
the instantaneous creation ex nihilo of
the spatial and temporal material continuum, but in contrast to the standard
scenario, in our approach the Big Bang does not start from one point.
The mathematical attempt to combine the
General theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics convincingly
showed that there is no way for the Universe to have started from a point with
a zero-size and of infinite density, which poses the question what was its
original volume?
As of 2020 NASA and the ESA plan to launch
into orbit the most perfect gravitational waves detector – LISA (Laser
Interferometry Space Antenna). As some scientists phrase it: "It will be
able to take God's fingerprints left on the cosmos tissue as early as the first
moments of the Creation, so that we could understand how exactly the Universe
originated".[13]
2.) The Biblical model predicts that the
formation of the stars happened only once, at the daybreak of time. In that
case we should observe their nascence only in the earliest galaxies (or find
out that in the initial moment the Universe appeared completely ordered).
In 2018, with the joint efforts of NASA,
ESA and the Canadian Space Agency, the James Webb space telescope will be
positioned in heliocentric orbit; its mission will be to search for light from
the first stars and galaxies that have formed.
However, according to the classical theory, the
celestial bodies did not appear only in the initial ages of the origin of the
world, but they continue to form constantly nowadays. If that is so, the number
of stars to be found in a certain phase of their evolution will be
proportionate to the time which they spent in that phase. The protostar phase
is about one hundred times shorter than the time that stars stay on the Main
sequence. This indicates that the protostars observed must be about 100 times
less numerous than the normal stars. In the Milky way and the other over thirty
galaxies from the Local group one could see very well not only the nuclei and
the structural peculiarities, but also the individual stars, clusters, nebulas,
etc. The total number of stars therein is determined between 2000 and 3000
billion, thus, they provide a very good basis to make statistical conclusions
on how different phases from their evolution run. Simple calculations show that
within the Local group of galaxies we should find at least several dozens of
billions of protostars. How the
advocates of the classical concept of the stars evolution would explain their
shortage?[14] 
Fir.3 According to the latest
data, the Big Bang must have happened 13, 82 billion years ago. With the space
telescope Hubble today we can reach almost to the Universe
"boundary".
And why still no one could affirm with
certainty that he/she has seen the intermediate phases from the stars
"incubation", even when the whole part of the Universe that could be
observed is examined? The bigger the distance to the galaxies, the more the
processes that we perceive taking place there must have happened in epochs
further back in time. If we assume that the most distanced observed objects are
at about 13 billion ly, this would mean that
we could trace all the epochs of the development of the Metagalaxy for
that period of time (Fig. 3).[15] Thus, we
could witness the nascence of the stars, if it had happened somewhere in the
distant past even. But where is that
enormous number of protostars in the heavens?!
Already in the middle of 2009 the Herschel
Space Telescope was launched into orbit, studying the cosmos in the infra-red and the
submillimeter range, which allowed it to see through the dust disturbing
Hubble. In that way it could glimpse into the gas and dust clouds, from
which it is supposed that the stars originated, and to examine the
"conditions in the womb". Now, that its mission is
completed, after more than four years of almost continuous work, it did not
manage to take even a single picture in the whole Metagalaxy, on which
protostars are observed for sure with enough evidence?!
3.) Let us make another allowance, namely,
that it is possible that the cosmic microwave background radiation is a residue
of that "light", which
has illuminated the heavenly space in the first day of the Creation. If that is
really so, we could specify which of the two Biblical scenarios is more
probable to have realized in practice.
According to the first option, the Earth
and the gas and dust clouds appeared prior to the CMBR, and with the second one
– the whole matter in the form of readily evolved stellar systems comes after
it. Also, with a gradual construction of the bodies and formation of the cosmic
structures, the nature of the gravitational waves and fluctuations (and maybe
also the polarization) in the CMBR should differ from the ones in case the
Universe sprang up in a moment.
However, we should not forget that "God moves in mysterious ways!",
i.e. it is possible that God has implemented His design in a way which we could
not think of or predict at all.
Conclusion:
After the failure of hundreds (and now even
thousands!) of hypotheses on the formation of the Solar system, the stars and
the galaxies, it is reasonable to think that the dialectic-materialistic
approach is unacceptable as an explanation for the origin of the Universe!
Today, the Christian church faces the challenge, with the help of a team of
experts – cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, theologians,
etc. – to develop a detailed model of the Creation, which would allow an
empirical verification of its authenticity. From now on two crucial satellite
programs are to be implemented – LISA and James Webb, – which shall assist us
to the greatest extent to understand whether the balances are tipped to
naturalism or to theism.
We
definitely believe that science is the best ally of Christianity, as it offers
the most objective model for studying the structure and for establishing the
origin of the universe. Our expectation is that, after all, scientific
disclosures will affirm the truth about the creation of the world by an
intelligent God-Creator.
Read more:
Farewell, Darwin!
http://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2014/03/farewell-darwin.html
A debate with Stephen Hawking in his absence
http://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-debate-with-stephen-hawking-in-his.html
Notes:
[1] At
the beginning of ХХІ c. Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, within the frames of
the string theory, developed a radical incarnation of cyclic cosmology, this
time describing a flat universe. They
argue that our world is a three-brane, which collides another parallel universe
– three-brane, every several trillions of years. The "bang" of the
collision gives the rise of every new cosmological cycle.
[2] In 1998 two groups of astronomers, one led
by Saul Perlmutter from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the
other one by Brian Schmidt from the Australian National University,
communicated a thrilling discovery. While observing supernovas of Ia type,
located in galaxies standing at various distances from the Earth, the two teams
came to a very surprising conclusion: the expansion rate of the Universe not
only does not slow down (as theory foresees), but on the contrary – it is accelerating.
[3] Theory states that the initial Universe was
made entirely of high energy radiation, creating spontaneously particles and
antiparticles. Around one microsecond after the explosion the temperature
dropped below 1013К. Quarks and antiquarks decelerated and were
caught by the strong interaction which stuck them together in groups of three –
forming barions and antibarions, respectively. According to the statistical
law, however, it is expected that their number should have been equal and the
inevitable collisions between them would have led to complete annihilation. The
energy of the resulting radiation would have gradually dissolved with the expansion
of the Universe, wherefore no new couples of particles would have been born
i.e., no substance could be existent today.
Russian physicist Andrey Sakharov assumes
that in that epoch there was a violation of the so called СР-symmetry
(charge-particle symmetry), which resulted in disbalance – for every billion of
antibarions there are a billion and one
barions. After the big firework was exhausted, the surviving barions turned
into protons and neutrons, from which later on all atomic nuclei were built.
The point is that there should have been
lepton asymmetry in which the number of the surviving electrons was exactly the
same as the number of the produced protons (so that atoms are electro-neutral),
which is a statistical absurdity. (If there existed just a slight predominance
either of the positive or negative charges, they would have repulsed with a
power that exceeds 1036 times gravitation and they would have
ruptured all structures in the world that we know, excluding atomic nuclei,
because in the nuclei the strong interaction is about a hundred times greater
than electromagnetic one.)
[4] An enormous part of the people have the
firm belief that the Big Bang theory very well explains the birth and the
arrangement of the Universe. We have to note, however, that according to the
experts' opinion, this is not so at all! M. Harwit unambiguously admits:
"The Universe that we see when we look at its furthermost horizons, contains
(over) one hundred billion of galaxies. Each of these galaxies possesses one
hundred billions stars (on average). That is a total of 1022 stars.
It is the secret shame of contemporary astrophysics that we do not know how
even a single star of all these happened to form." (Martin
Harwit, "Book Reviews", Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.)
J. Trefil does not conceal his regret:
"The problem regarding the appearance of the galaxies turns out to be one
of the most thorny ones in cosmology. By all rules, they should not exists, but
there they are. It is hard to render the deepness of the disappointment which
this inexplicable fact brings about among the scientists." (James Trefil, Dark Side of the Universe 1988, p. 55.)
In his book "The Universe in
Time", p.302, P. Maffei writes: "A meeting was held on 14 and 15
February 1979 between specialists, organized by U.H McCray and M.J. Rees from
the British Royal Society with the purpose of discussing the origin and the
first phases of the evolution of the galaxies. As McCray himself wrote later
on, "when the discussion started, it is almost sure that none of the
people present could claim he knew how galaxies formed; those, who were present
at the closure could not do that, either.""
One critic notes on this occasion:
"When you open an ordinary scientific book in astronomy you will be
showered with pictures of gas clouds and protostars; you will discover the
theories regarding the origin of the Universe and the stars, stated with great
confidentiality.
However, if you visit a closed conference
or symposium, you will find embarrassed people, desperate theories, scientific
facts that refute these theories, lack of alternative explanations, atmosphere
of hopeless despair before the unproven or unprovable concepts, and not
solutions or scientific experiments that could relieve the situation."
In that case there are two options:
1) The problem of the origin of the
galaxies shall find an explanation in the future.
2) The extremely complicated structure of
the Universe is not due to self-organization of the matter, while for the
building of the Universe it is compulsory to have intelligent intervention.
[5] Discarding the other details we will
describe briefly how strenuous things are, even only as regards gravitation. To
that end, we shall use a quote from an astronomy textbook: "The most
famous problem in celestial mechanics is the
problem of the three bodies, which attracted (and still does!) the
attention of great mathematicians and astronomers. This problem is as follows:
coordinates and speeds of three bodies with known masses are given for a
certain initial moment; the positions and speeds of the bodies should be
determined for an arbitrary moment.
The treatment of the problem for n bodies
is analogous.
In fact, it is not bodies but material
points that are reviewed. In spite of that, it would be enough to imagine that
each material point is influenced by the complexly changing with time
gravitational field of the other points, which could lead to close
approximations, so that it is clear that the solution describing the incredible
variety of the consequences of these approximations would have an extremely
complicated form.
It could be shown that only 10 integrals
are known in the problem of the n bodies. Since for three bodies we have 18
differential equations of first order, while only 10 integral constants could
be determined, then the problem seems insolvable. ...
The general problem of the three bodies was
analytically solved in 1912 by the Finnish scientist Sundman, who showed that
it is possible to have development of the coordinates of the three bodies, the
distances between them and the time t in sequences by the degrees of auxiliary
variable, which are absolutely convergent. In 1931-1933 the French scientist
Beloritzki found that in order to obtain the positions of the big planets with
the accuracy of the astronomic almanacs, sums containing not less than 108
000 000 terms should be used from Sundman's sequences. (This figure goes
beyond the boundaries of our imagination – author's mark V.V.) It could be
considered that an analytical solution of the problem of the three bodies was
found, but it has only theoretical, and by no means practical meaning."
(Nikolov, N., M.Kalinkov. "ASTRONOMY", publisher "Sv. Kl.
Ohridski", Sofia, 1998, p. 76, 77.)
[6] Atoms are the main building "bricks"
in nature, because they come into the composition of substances, objects and
living organisms. It is very hard to believe that such elegantly calculated and
exquisite structures were assembled by accident
from the raging elements of the
initial chaos of the stellar wombs. It makes an impression that a great set of
conditions – interactions, laws, constants, etc. – as well as the parameters of
the "elementary" particles should be within precisely defined
boundaries, otherwise everything will "fall apart" in the micro
world. The atom, being composed of dynamic particles in its nucleus and the
electron shell, is analogous to the celestial systems to a certain extent, but
its brilliant construction is aided also by the rather great number of
"miracles" of quantum reality.
[7] P.A.M. Dirac, "The
Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature," in Scientific American,
May 1963, p. 53.
[8] The Universe, the living creatures and the
human were in an unbreakable connection with God during the Creation, therefore
they could probably exist forever. After Adam's fall this connection was broken
and degrading process occurred in the whole Universe, which lead to its ageing
and death. (Likewise, when a landlord leaves his home it starts slowly to fall
into ruins.)
[9] Roger Penrose wrote: "But in order to
make the Universe in a state of low initial entropy ... the Creator has to hit
a considerably small volume of the phase space". His calculations took him
to the conclusion that "the Creator's goal" should have been accurate
up to 1 to 10 to the power 10123, which is 1, followed by 10123
zeros – "a figure that is impossible to write in the usual decimal way,
because even if we assign one zero to every elementary particle in the Universe
there won't be enough particles for that purpose". (Penrose, R. THE
EMPEROR'S NEW MIND, published by Sv. Kl. Ohridski, Sofia, 1998, p. 415.)
[10] See the book by the Italian astronomer
Paolo Maffei "Universe in time", published by Nauka i izkustvo,
Sofia, 1989, p. 321.
When these pictures are being commented
upon, the focus is usually placed on the fact that the size of a great part of
the galaxies presented thereon is hardly about 1% of the size of the Milky Way,
and others are so blue that they must be extremely poor in heavy elements. Some
cosmologists believe that such objects are a key moment for the disclosure of
the mystery regarding the first evolutionary steps in the formation of the
Universe. Rychard Bouwens, University of California, states: "Deep
observations provide new evidence of the hierarchical model of the gradual
formation of the galaxies, in which small objects build up mass, or merge to form
bigger objects, over a smooth and systematic, but dramatic process of
collisions and agglomeration."
Similar argument, however, is not
convincing enough, especially after three scientists from the
Universities of Yale, Prinston in the USA and Leiden in the Netherlands,
observed a galaxy, named 1255-0, at a distance of 10,7 billion ly,
which is 4 times as massive as the Milky Way, but whose size is 6 times less.
This discovery shows that as early as the beginning of the time there existed
enormous galaxies, which did not need to increase their size, devouring like
cannibals their self likes. The astrophysicist Carl Glasbruk predicted that
hundreds of galaxies reminding of 1255-0, will be discovered during the coming
years, and commented: "This is as if to establish that ancient Rome had
the same number of inhabitants as today's London, including the suburbs".
Let us add that the number of the
supernovae in the Universe not significant to state that supernovae explosions
spread the elements heavier than iron-56. That is why the quoted comment
obviously says nothing of the fact that one part of the primary galaxies are
not poor in heavy chemical elements at all, i.e. the focus is placed only on
the data which conform to the theory (something that is quite common as a
practice).
[12] At the moment, six of the current
gravitation waves detectors operate synchronously and thus their sensitivity
allows to register signals coming from a distance up to about 100 million ly,
whose range covers thousands of galaxies like ours. According to the theory,
stars are forming continuously also until today (see the text further down), as
a consequence of gravitation fragmentation of interstellar clouds of gas and
dust. We could expect that due to the unbalanced forces of mutual attractions
there will be frequent mergers between the forming protostars (and thereby also
generation of gravitation waves) - in the worst case at least 20-30 per year.
(The figure is highly lowered in favour of evolutionists – in fact, by rough
calculations, these should be dozens and hundreds times more.) For nearly 7
years faultless operation of the detectors, however, not single event of these
was registered!
The only gravitation waves are indirectly
measured by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor when observing unstable double
system of neutron stars (and not of protostars), located at about 16,000 light
years from us. Their orbits slowly fall apart due to the loss of energy
radiated in the form of gravitational waves, which in some time will lead also
to their inevitable collision.
[13] The experiment LISA consists of a group of
three satellites, which will travel around the Sun in an orbit that is
distanced about 45 million kilometre from the Earth's orbit. They will form an
equilateral triangle with a side of 5 million kilometres, and each will be provided
with lasers which will be used to perform permanent communication between them.
LISA will be so accurate, that it will be able to catch the shockwaves from the
first trillion part of the second after the Big bang. (For comparison, the
cosmic background radiation measured by WMAP comes
from 380 000 years after the beginning, when it is considered that atoms
started to form)
[14] All astronomers (atheists included)
agree that in all the galaxies, only a negligible fraction of objects show
signs of protostars. Furthermore, these are controversial, since similar
effects can be observed in stars from the Main Sequence. The complete lack of
protostars shows that the theory of stellar evolution fails completely.
Here is what Dr. Jason Lisle wrote in his
article "Celestial stars confirm the Biblical story of the Creation":
"Therefore, many of the scientists-creationists are convinced that under
the usual circumstances spontaneous formation of stars is not possible. Despite
all statements of the opposite, we have never witnessed the formation of one
new star.5
......................................................
5 Astronomers some times talk about "areas of star
formation", as if their existence has already been proven. An amateur
would assume that astronomers actually observe how stars are formed in these
areas. But this is not so. These areas contain hot blue stars which, by an
assumption of astronomers, have formed not long ago from the collapsing
cloud."
[15] Here we do not say that we could trace the
individual life of the galaxies (or the stars therein), only that they are all
seen in some past moment from their existence. For instance, if a galaxy is
located at a distance of 250 million ly, we will perceive it as it was 250
million years ago, because this is the time required for its light to reach us.
In other words, objects that are located at different distances are observed in
different periods in the past. In that sense we say that we could witness
(almost) all the epochs from the evolution of the Metagalaxy. And, if the
number of the stars in it is about 1022, in that case the number of
the protostars should be about 1020, i.e. one hundred billion
billions – a number which is too significant to leave them unnoticed?!
Recommend:
Farewell, Darwin!
http://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2014/03/farewell-darwin.html
The Possible Reasons - Reflections And Emotions
http://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-possible-reasons-reflections-and.html
Farewell, Darwin!
http://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2014/03/farewell-darwin.html
The Possible Reasons - Reflections And Emotions
http://kosmos-21.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-possible-reasons-reflections-and.html
Bibliography:
(links to cited websites –
Vesti.bg, Wikipedia etc. are not included in the reference list)
1. THE BIBLE - The Holy Writ
of the Old and the New Testament, Synodal Publishing house, 1992.
2. Velchev, V. FAITH AND
SCIENCE, Pokrov Bogorodichen Foundation, Sofia, 2010.
3. Gilmore, R. ALICE IN
QUANTUMLAND, published by Litera Prima, 2002.
4. Greene, B. THE ELEGANT
UNIVERSE, published by Iztok-Zapad, Sofia, 2004.
5. Greene, B. THE FABRIC OF
THE COSMOS, published by Iztok-Zapad, Sofia, 2005.
6. Kaku, M. PARALLEL WORLDS, IK BARD LTD.,
Sofia, 2004.
7. Kaku, M. PHYSICS OF THE IMPOSSIBLE, IK
BARD LTD., Sofia, 2010.
8. Kalinkov, K. PROBABILITY
THEORY AND STATISTICS, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, 2002.
9. Maffei, P. UNIVERSE IN
TIME, DI Nauka i izkustvo, Sofia, 1989.
10. May, B., P. Moore, K. Lintott BANG! - Complete History of the Universe,
SIELA, Sofia, 2007.
11. Morris, H. SCIENTIFIC
CREATIONISM, published by Nov chovek, Sofia, 1995.
12. Nikolov,
N., M. Kalinkov. ASTRONOMY, publisher Sv. Kl. Ohridski, Sofia, 1998.
13. Panchev, S. THEORY OF
CHAOS, AI Prof. Marin Drinov, Sofia, 2001.
14. Penrose, R. THE EMPEROR'S
NEW MIND, published by Sv. Kl. Ohridski, Sofia, 1998.
15. Slavov, B. INTRODUCTION TO
THEORETICAL NUCLEAR PHYSICS, published by "Sv. Kl. Ohridski, Sofia, 2009.
16. Tomilin, A. ENTERTAINING
COSMOlogy published by Narodna
mladezh, Sofia, 1975.
17. Tomilin, A. ENTERTAINING
COSMOGONY published by Narodna mladezh, Sofia, 1979.
18. Wertheim, J., C. Oxlade, C. Stockley,
ILLUSTRATED PHYSICS DICTIONARY, KK Trud, Sofia, 2005.
19. Williams, W. NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE
PHYSICS, published by Sv. Kl. Ohridski, Sofia, 2000.
20. Hartree, D. ATOMIC STRUCTURE
CALCULATIONS, IIL, Moscow, 1960.
21. Hawking, St. A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME.
From the Big Bang to Black Holes, IK BARD LTD, Sofia, 2010.
22. Hawking, St., L. Mlodinov THE GRAND
DESIGN, IK BARD LTD, Sofia, 2012.
23. Ham, K., „THE BOOK OF
ANSWERS 1”, Master Books, 2006.
24. Jason, L. Celestial stars confirm the Biblical story of
the Creation
* Most of the quotations in this paper are
translations from Bulgarian and not the original texts of the authors.
Този коментар бе премахнат от администратор на блога.
ОтговорИзтриване