Problems with the Big Bang Theory
This paper will look at the dominant theory on the origin of the universe, the big bang theory (BBT). We’ll define it and then look at some of the problems associated with it. As with any technical topic, I will try to make it understandable to people who have very little science background. I’m sure that some people will want this to be an extremely technical paper. This paper is not. For those people, I would suggest the book, “Dismantling the Big Bang” by Dr. John Hartnett and Alex Williams. Much of this material is taken from that book and my own physics and astronomy background.
The BBT states that all the matter/energy/space/time in the universe was compacted into a singular point known as the singularity. That is all the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. were all compacted into this very small singularity. Time and space were created here. Then that point expanded. It wasn’t an explosion but more like blowing up a balloon. The energy that was released eventually cooled down and formed galaxies, stars, planets and people. The universe is still expanding. Expanding into what, you may ask? We don’t know.
The BBT became the most dominant theory on the universe’s origin in the 1960’s. Since then, there have been several problems with it, such as:
– where did the original singularity come from?
– the singularity is so dense that the regular laws of physics break down.
– a singularity is very stable. It will not return to other states of matter, like a gas, liquid or solid.
Its important to point out these few things:
– the BBT does not concern itself with how the singularity came into existence. It’s only concerned with what happens after it started expanding.
– it states that the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal, it has not always existed. This presents scientists with a quandary, namely if the universe had a beginning, it may have had a beginner. It started 13.8 billion years ago.
– all this has lead some scientists to look for another “naturalistic” explanation for the singularity…one that doesn’t involve something supernatural. They have come up with several naturalistic theories, like the multi-verse theory, string theory and the oscillating universe theory. The only problem is that there is absolutely no observational evidence for any of these theories. They are guesses. The reason for their development seems to be a real reluctance on the part of some scientists for the universe to have a creator. Indeed, there doesn’t seem to be any way to get evidence for these theories as they are all outside the realm of our existence.
It seems that looking for naturalistic and supernaturalistic evidence would make the most sense, but scientists are only looking for naturalistic evidence. But this isn’t good science. They need to look at all the evidence, even the supernatural evidence. When you start with a naturalistic theory, you end up with only that. While a supernaturalistic explanation cannot be studied in a lab, its effects can be. And the probability of them occurring naturally without a supernatural intervention, can be studied.
There are only 3 kinds of causes that we can look at to explain our world/universe:
– chance
– necessity (the laws of nature)
– intelligent design
Chance says that given enough time, any improbable event becomes possible. But chance is not a creative force. Chance cannot violate the laws of physics. It can be applied to things that ‘can’ happen but it can’t make things happen that are physically impossible no matter how long you wait (pages 81-86 of the referenced book).
Necessity (the laws of nature)…there are so many of these laws but I’ll list just the major ones that apply to the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, etc. (pages 87-114 of the referenced book):
A… quantum mechanics…how matter operates at very small distances, like the distances of an atom.
B… the 4 fundamental forces of nature…all matter is held together by gravity, electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces. None of these forces creates anything. They just hold things together. The strong nuclear force holds the protons and neutrons in the nucleus together. The weak nuclear force is responsible for the radioactive decay of some elements & it holds the electron and proton together in a particle called a neutron., the electro-magnetic force holds the electrons and protons together and gravity holds the planets, solar systems and galaxies together.
C… gravity explains orbits, black holes, etc.
D…rotation and turbulence of fluids
E… the 4 dimensions of space (length, width & height) and time.
F… the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics. The 1st law says that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed while the 2nd law says that the amount of disorder in a system increases (this means that, left to itself, a system will always run down, like a wound clock runs down).
G…the shape of outer space/universe. Is it curved, saddle shaped or flat (like the surface of a gameboard)? We think it’s flat.
H…the cosmological constant helps to determine the shape of the universe. The universe’s shape is determined by the density of matter/energy in the universe. Its too complicated to go into here but the value that scientists have estimated for it and the observed value of it are way, way different. This is one of the ‘sore thumbs’ of cosmology. Professor Steven Weinberg has said, “The stupendous failure we have experienced in trying to predict the value of the cosmological constant is far more than a mere embarrassment…Clearly (our assumptions) are spectacularly wrong”.
Finally, there’s the intelligent design theory. It states that it’s to infer that some features in the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause instead of chance or an unguided process. The 3 “filters” for determining design are:
1…Is the object in question an automatic result of natural process? If so, it was a necessary outcome.
2…Is the object simple enough that its production is likely? If so, it has a chance of occurring.
3…Does the object exhibit some type of specific pattern or function that is independent of the object itself? If so, then the object is the product of design. Probabilities come in handy here. The probability of a certain outcome diminishes as the specified complexity of the object increases.
–Forensic science uses ID to distinguish between an accident and murder.
–Cryptography (code-breaking) is the science of detecting complex patterns in a signal to break a code.
–Archaeologists distinguish between natural and man-made artifacts.
–in physics, human life is highly sensitive to finely tuned physicals constants.
If gravity were a bit stronger, stars would be too hot and burn up too quickly.
If gravity were a bit weaker, stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite and the stars wouldn’t shine.
If the electromagnetic force were a bit stronger, chemical bonding would be disrupted and elements larger than boron wouldn’t exist.
If the electromagnetic force were a bit weaker, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemicals to exist.
If the ratio of the electron to the proton mass were a bit larger, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemicals to exist.
If the ratio of the electron to the proton mass were a bit weaker, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemicals to exist.
For a partial list of these, go to http://godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html.
–in astronomy, human life is also highly sensitive to these finely tuned conditions.
Complex life is only possible within the galactic habitable zone in our galaxy and solar system.
Too close to the galactic center and the radiation would kill you.
Too far away and you won’t have heavy elements needed to form rocky planets.
Too close to our star and liquid water would turn to a gas.
Too far away and liquid water would freeze.
Most stars in the universe are multiple star systems (you have 2 and 3 stars orbiting each other). Orbiting planets would be subjected to wide temperature variations, preventing life from existing.
Earth’s atmosphere has the right amount of oxygen in it. More oxygen and fires would start spontaneously. Less oxygen and we couldn’t breath in enough to live.
Earth’s magnetic field protects us from the Sun’s harmful solar wind.
Earth’s upper atmosphere contains less than one inch of ozone, which prevents the Sun’s harmful rays from frying our brains.
The Moon, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune serves like a giant vaccumn cleaner, sucking up the asteroids from smashing into Earth.
We could say the same things for chemistry, biology and all the other sciences.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature�s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”.
John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”
George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic and physicist/astronomer): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.”
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God � the design argument of Paley � updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”
Explain the Big Bang to me from the beginning:
A…all of the matter, energy, space and time start out in a very tiny point called a singularity. Its temperature and density are EXTREMELY high. Then it expanded. It didn’t explode, it just expanded, like blowing up a balloon. We don’t know how or why it expanded. It just did.
B…So right after this expansion happened, a 2nd bigger expansion happened. Scientists have had to say this because the temperature of the universe is uniform everywhere we look. Since explosions or expansions usually don’t happen uniformly (or isotropically), the little space there was had to have time to equilibrate or become even in temperature. It wouldn’t have had time to do this if the universe was bigger. This 2nd expansion is called “inflation”. It is nothing more than a fudge factor to make the CMBR (the temperature of the universe) the same everywhere.
C…then for the next 100,000 years or so, the expansion continued. Energy turned into matter and atoms began to form.
D…for the next 300,000 years or so, the radiation fog cleared. The universe is now a transparent mass of expanding gas, mostly hydrogen.
E…now, after about one billion years, the stars and galaxies begin to form.
F…five billion years or so is when the planets, Earth and life begin to form.
All this is referenced on pages 115-162 of the book.
Problems with the Big Bang theory:
A1…a singularity is extremely stable. Why would it suddenly expand?
A2…once matter is crushed to a singularity, it cannot return to another state. It would be impossible for it to expand.
A3…at this density of the singularity, the known laws of physics would break down. We don’t know where the singularity came from or why it expanded.
A4…the singularity’s existence and expansion is indistinguishable from a “miracle”.
B1…any expansion or explosion is not isotropic. It doesn’t evenly distribute its energy. But measurements of the CMBR (the temperature of the universe) is evenly spread throughout the universe. For this to happen, the universe had to be very small in size. It could do this over a very smaller size. Once equilibrium is attained, there needs to be a 2nd bigger expansion for the universe to be the size it is today. Scientists invented this 2nd expansion to explain how the energy could be evenly distributed throughout the universe now. As we said before, inflation is nothing more than a fudge factor thrown in to explain something that the BBT didn’t predict or cannot explain. No one knows what caused this inflation, how it inflated just the right amount and what caused it to stop. This expansion had to be the exact right amount or the energy/matter would have been crushed back to the original singularity again. The chance of it being the exact right amount of expansion is 1 chance in 1060 power or one chance in 1 followed by 60 zeros. Scientists have said that if you don’t have 1 chance in 1053 power or one chance in 1 followed by 53 zeros, it’ll NEVER happen…it’ll be impossible. This amount of accuracy (1 in 1060 power) begs for an intelligent designer.
The most precise machine ever built by humans is a gravity wave detector whose accuracy is one part in 1023 power. No one would ever suggest that such a machine was produced by an explosion. Yet big bangers would have us believe that an explosion beyond an explosion would produce a universe 1037 times more precise than intelligent human design could produce. 1037 is a trillion, trillion, trillion times more precise than the most precise machine intelligent humans can produce. Doesn’t seem possible, does it?
C1…when particles of matter are created from energy in a lab, they always produce equal pairs of matter and anti-matter. This process is known as quantum pair production. Anti-matter is matter, it just has opposite electrical charges from regular matter. Where matter is made up of a proton (+ charge) in the nucleus and an electron (- charge) orbiting around the nucleus like planets orbit around the Sun, anti-matter is made up of an anti-proton (- charge) in the nucleus and an anti-electron or positron (+ charge) orbiting around the nucleus.
But when matter and anti-matter particles collide, they produce a tremendous explosion of energy and their particles vanish. The particles were completely converted to energy. Another term for this reaction is annihilation. Matter and anti-matter annihilate each other.
So what, Dave? Our universe is made up entirely of matter. There’s no anti-matter anywhere. To get around this, big bangers say that maybe just a little bit more matter was produced and its this a mount of matter that makes up our universe. But the physics of quantum pair production doesn’t allow this. So scientists are really cheating to get the results that they want. And they accuse creationists of ignoring basic science.
D1…the CMBR, the left over temperature of the big bang, is almost absolute zero. One of our satellites (the WMAP) measures very tiny variations in the CMBR. Without going into detailed explanations, these very tiny variations indicate the existence of a cosmic North and South pole and a cosmic equator to our universe. Creationists predicted this if the Earth is at or near the center of the universe. The BBT cannot explain this or does it believe Earth is at or near the center of the universe (page 127 of the referenced book).
E1…the origin of the galaxies…the big question for the BBT is how to get an expanding mass of gas to stop expanding and start contracting in localized regions to form galaxies and stars? A 2nd question is how do you prevent the collapsing gas from disappearing into a singularity again? The scientists at NASA and even the late Stephen Hawking say that they have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed or how they evolved (page 129 of the referenced book). The BBT produces, at best, an expanding mass of gas. It doesn’t produce even one star let alone the billions of galaxies in existence. You would have to stop the expansion and get localized areas of contraction, then the matter may collapse into a black hole or a singularity again. The increased temperature of the particles fusing into each other would disperse the gas cloud, so you not only have pressure of the particles smashing into each other working against you but temperature also. Big bangers attempt to answer these questions but their answers are all insufficient. Their attempts merely illustrate how the ruling theory just glosses over evidence that contradicts it (pages 128-140 of the referenced book).
FYI…for those of you who know what quantized redshifts are, these lend support to the observation that Earth and our galaxy are at or near the center of the universe. The anisotrophy of the CMBR also leads to this conclusion (page 135-136 of the referenced book).
How stars form;
According to the BBT, stars form by gravitational collapse of gas clouds. As gas clouds collapse, temperatures rise. But this presents a big problem. As the temperatures rise, so does the pressure and its this pressure that halts the star’s collapse. The increased temperature also disperses the gas cloud. So you not only have pressure working against the collapse but temperature also. Scientists have to seek ways for this collapse to start again (page 141-146 of the referenced book). They have come up with some novel ways of doing this but they mostly all have other problems. Again, notice how the ruling theory either glosses over evidence that contradicts it or tries to explain it away by postulating bizarre, improbable or impossible ways of getting the result that they want (pages 140-151 of the referenced book).
F1…the origin of planets…rocky planets (like Earth, Mercury, Venus & Mars) formed by “cold accretion” or the “Nebular Hypothesis theory”. They formed out of the gas and dust left over from the gas cloud that produced the Sun. Pieces of dust and gas ‘fused together’. When enough of them ‘fused together’, you have a planet. The problem is at speeds of between 50-150,000 mph, these pieces don’t fuse together. They tend to explode with tremendous force. You can’t build a planet that way.
Another problem is momentum. Momentum is the mass of an object times its speed. Using the Nebular Hypothesis theory, most of our solar system’s momentum should be in the Sun, as its way more massive than all the planets combined. But observations show that 98% of the solar system’s momentum lies in the planets and not with the Sun. Once again, the evidence disagrees with the BBT.
Gas and ice planets (like Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune & Uranus) form from what is left over material from the Sun also. They are mostly made up of hydrogen and helium. Gravity condenses them to form, just as it did with the rocky planets. But remember, gas particles don’t stick together. Computer simulations show when you have a disk of gas surrounding a star, NOTHING HAPPENS. So once again, the BBT cannot explain planet formation (pages 151-1556 of the referenced book).
The origin of moons;
If planets don’t form out of gas and dust, moons have a harder time because they’re not as big as planets. Gravity is insignificant within a gas cloud to form anything. Professor Urey, known as the ‘Father of Lunar Science’ said, “It is easier to pretend the Moon is not in the sky than to explain how it came to be there”. He said “We will never be able to state with absolute certainty that we know the origin of the Moon” (pages 155-157 of the referenced book).
The origin of life on Earth;
Evolution says that life arose from non-living chemicals in a step-by-step progression. NASA says water is crucial to life evolving from non-life with the right conditions. But water actually prevents chemical evolution. Biologically useful molecules do not spontaneously form in water. There is much more to say about this topic but its not in the area of this paper. Go to my Recommended Resources to see other books & websites that deal with Evolution.
Summary of the Big Bang Theory:
Nothing in the known world of physics could produce the singularity. The BBT only begins after the 1st ‘bang’. The 1st bang wasn’t enough, so there had to be a 2nd bigger bang (inflation). As the inflated fireball inflated, it cooled down. Then the energy turned into matter. But this process would produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But the matter would be annihilated by the anti-matter. However, our universe consists only of matter. All we have at this point is an expanding cloud of gas.
Galaxies, stars, planets & people are formed by other processes such as gravitational collapse, cold accretion, etc. But we’ve already seen that these processes don’t and can’t work. In fact, there are no good naturalistic explanations for the formations of galaxies, stars, planets, people, etc. The BBT relies on a growing number of “fudge factors” (like inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc.) Without these fudge factors, the BBT wouldn’t survive. It’s very disturbing that professors at universities tell students that the BBT explains the origin of the universe when it most certainly does not.
There are other theories for the origin of the universe. Some of them are the Arpian theory, the Quasi-Steady State theory, Carmeli’s Cosmological General Relativity theory and Van Flandern’s Meta Model theory. These are discussed on pages 273-294 of the referenced book. A newer theory is Jason Lisle’s “Anisotropic Synchrony”. This isn’t discussed in the referenced book as it came out after Hartnett’s book was published. Dr. Hartnett talks about Dr. Lisle’s new theory at https://biblescienceforum.com/2015/03/09/synopsis-a-biblical-creationist-cosmogony/.
Dr. John Hartnett’s writings can be seen at https://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.php.
In this brief study, I have endeavored to show the weaknesses of the Big Bang theory, which is the dominant theory on the origin of the universe. For a more complete discussion on it, please read the referenced book, “Dismantling the Big Bang” by Dr. John Hartnett and Alex Williams. If you go to my home page at http://BSSSB-LLC.com and click on the “About Us” link, then scroll down and click on the “Recommended Resources” link, then scroll down to the Christian Books section, keep scrolling down until you see “Dismantling the Big Bang”. Click on it and it will take you to Amazon Books where you can buy it.
Happy reading,
Dave Maynard
https://BSSSB-LLC.com