BIG BANG RESEARCH PAPER

Aaron Smith
Mrs. Olson
English Composition 1023.01
October 20, 1999

To clearly define the big bang is no small task. As with many other theories in science, there are a number of different sub-divisions within the basic model. The following explanation of the events that might have transpired during the creation of the universe is a general guide-a sort of cosmic blueprint-that the vast majority of scientists today adhere to.

Approximately 15-20 billion years ago (Davies, About Time 152-156; Science and Technology Department of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh 29-30), a vast concentration of energy, space, and time exploded. The density of this concentration of energy at ground zero was 1,000 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion times that of water and its temperature was more than 100,000 billion billion billion degrees Fahrenheit (Schulman 3). A mere 1.0E-38 to 1.0E-35 seconds after this gigantic explosion, the four forces of nature (Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Electromagnetism, and Gravity) managed to separate into distinct entities (Heeren 145; Schulman 5-6). From 1.0E-37 to 1.0E-33 seconds after the big bang, the universe embarked on a period of exponential expansion known as the inflation period (Davies, The Last Three Minutes 28; Heeren 144). During this period, a particular area of space doubled in a fixed amount of time. This fixed amount of time is extremely short in most mathematical big bang models. The most popular model fixes this interval at a hundred trillion trillion trillion- trillionths (1.0E-35) of a second. After only a hundred of these intervals had passed, a region of space the size of an atomic nucleus would have inflated to over six trillion miles across (Davies, The Last Three Minutes 30).

Because of this gigantic increase in size, the infernal heat that had previously existed rapidly dispersed and the universe cooled down to almost absolute zero. However, the inflation period came to an abrupt end when a false vacuum (do not worry about what exactly a false vacuum is-just think of it as a room filled with natural gas, waiting for someone to strike a match) that had existed up to this point suddenly and explosively decayed. Everything was instantly reheated to a prodigious 1.0E29 degrees (Davies, The Last Three Minutes 35). Once again, everything became a white-hot soup of energy, but approximately one second after the big bang, that energy began to cool enough for elementary particles (protons, neutron, and electrons) to condense. These particles consisted of both matter and antimatter (Davies, The Last Three Minutes 26). Matter and antimatter have the peculiar property of annihilating each other in a burst of pure energy whenever they meet. Apparently, there was a slight preponderance of matter over antimatter created in the big bang. Otherwise, everything would have annihilated and the universe would consist of little more than photons (light) (Heeren 195). As it happened, a small amount of matter remained unscathed and went on to form the planets, stars, and galaxies that we see today (Heeren 194-196; Schulman 10).

One minute after the big bang, things had begun to cool enough for the first atoms to form (Schulman 12-13). Neutrons, electrons, and protons were finally moving slowly enough that they could begin orbiting one another. During the next three minutes, about one-quarter of the available matter was synthesized into helium atoms. The remaining protons floated, free and separated, into the depths of space (Davies, The Last Three Minutes 26). Things were relatively boring for the next few thousand years. Matter, energy, and space continued to fly off in all directions, but at a decreasing rate because of the ever-present force of gravity. Matters’ attraction to other matter created a cosmic break that began to slow down the big bang explosion. Approximately 300,000 years after the big bang, the remaining isolated protons attracted electrons and began to form hydrogen atoms. About four billion years would pass before matter had slowed down enough to collapse and form the first stars. Galaxy formation rapidly followed. Finally, about ten billion years after the big bang, our solar system condenses out of a vast collection of debris floating in space (Schulman 14-32).

My description of the big bang might be a little pedantic and hard to grasp, but I gave it to illustrate the complexity of the theory. No matter how frivolous or throwaway the name ‘big bang’ might sound to the average person, this is a theory grounded on firm scientific and mathematical principles. Having said that, there are a number of problems with the theory that scientists have pointed out. What follows is a compilation of those problems.

A primary complaint raised against the big bang theory has to do with the age of the universe. To understand why, one must first realize that the big bang model predicts a certain age for the cosmos. Generally, this age is stated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 15-20 billion years (Science and Technology Department of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh 29-30). Should the universe be shown to have a much younger age, the validity of the big bang theory would be called into question. This is exactly the question young-earth creationists ask when they put forth evidence that fixes the age of the universe to be relatively young-around ten thousand years old (Heeren 156).

In his book It’s a Young World After All, Paul Ackerman articulates a number of ideas that argue for a young universe. One of these is the astonishing claim that the speed of light is not a constant. Ackerman claims that the speed of light has slowed down considerably since the beginning of time. Ackerman bases his observation on the work done by an Australian by the name of Barry Setterfield. Setterfield has compiled a list of speed-of-light measurements taken from the late nineteenth century up to the present, and has come to the conclusion that they show a gradual decrease in speed as time progresses. If his conclusion is correct, it draws into question a whole slew of dating techniques such as carbon dating and red shifting that predict the universe to be billions of years old (72-77).

Another problem that is commonly sited against the big bang theory is the presence of so much ‘clumping’ in the observable universe. By clumping, I mean the degree to which matter aggregates, or is attracted to, other matter; forming galaxies, stars, planets, comets, etc. According to the big bang theory, energy and matter were blown outwards in a homogenous mixture. At around the three hundred thousand-year mark, the universe had expanded enough so that this matter became spread extremely thin and diaphanous; radiation was free to move unhindered throughout space. This ‘background heat radiation,’ as cosmologists call it, is still detectable today. Highly sensitive infrared telescopes have detected a uniform temperature slightly above absolute zero that pervades all of space. The problem is that this background radiation is smooth to a least one part in a hundred thousand (Davies, About Time 146). Keeping in mind that the background radiation is a relic of what the early universe was like, this means that early conditions in the universe were extremely uniform and smooth as well. The problem is as follows: Physicists are at a loss to explain the amount of clumping (superclusters, globular clusters, galaxies, and stars) present in the universe based on the extreme uniformity exhibited by the background heat radiation. Paul Davies, a highly acclaimed science writer, explains it like this: “If there were clumps in the early universe, then they should show up as distinctive ripples in the heat radiation. This radiation seemed to be completely smooth (148).” Later on, I will discuss a possible answer to this problem.

Finally, there is the contention that the big bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. Without getting into too much detail, the second law of thermodynamics deals with the amount of disorder in a closed system. As an example, heat has a tendency to flow from a hot cup of coffee to the relatively cool air in a room until the coffee and the air attain a heat equilibrium (i.e. achieve the same temperature). The flow of that heat represent an increase in the entropy-a fancy name for disorder-of the system (the coffee and room air being the system in this case). The entropy has increased because the heat that has floated into the air is no longer available. No one can ‘scoop up’ that heat and put it back into the coffee. The reason why the big bang theory conflicts with this law is that the universe today seems vastly more ordered than it was during its earlier epoch. The conditions during the big bang essentially mimicked an explosion. As we all know, explosions are extremely disordered; chaos and confusion reign. Yet, out of this cosmic explosion, a vast array of intricate systems developed. Planets orbit stars, stars orbit galaxies, and even galaxies orbit one another to create gigantic superclusters, millions of light years across (Davies, About Time 152). Clearly, this amount of complexity could not have come about from an explosion. But does this mean that the big bang theory is completely wrong?

This century has seen a plethora of evidence to support the big bang theory. Beginning in 1929 with Edwin Hubble’s momentous discovery that, on average, all galaxies are flying away from each other at speeds that correlate to an exploding universe, siding with young-earth creationists or static-state theorists has been increasingly difficult (Davies, About Time 131). Contrary to popular opinion, the big bang theory was not instantly embraced by the scientific community. The prevailing view during the early twentieth century was that of an eternal or static universe. This view held that everything that we see in the night sky had always existed and remained stationary. Einstein himself, when he formulated his famous theory of relativity, was inclined to throw in a “cosmological constant” to make his theory fit a static universe (Heeren 109). Only after Hubble’s discovery, did Einstein toss out this unsightly term and embrace a universe with a definite beginning (Davies, About Time 137).

By far, the most compelling evidence in favor of a big bang event is Hubble’s discovery, in 1929, of an expanding universe. He discovered this by meticulously calculating and plotting the distances and velocities of stars and galaxies (Heeren 118-119). Hubble found galaxies in the universe are receding from each other in a proportional relationship: Hubble’s Principle. More distant galaxies are flying apart faster than nearby ones; an unmistakable effect that could only be caused by an explosion (Davies, About Time 131).

Another line of evidence that supports the big bang theory has to do with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. When Einstein published his theory in 1919, a static and eternal universe was the prevailing view among scientists (Science and Technology Department of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh 521). However, as the saying goes, “numbers don’t lie.” The general theory of relativity predicted that a more-or-less even distribution of matter in space would eventually collapse in on itself. A static universe-one where stars and galaxies had existed for eternity-was no longer an option. However, instead of following his theory to its logical conclusion, Einstein added the infamous “cosmological constant” to his equations. This new term temporarily solved the dilemma by effectively providing a force that countered the force of gravity; a sort of antigravity (Davies, About Time 136). Unfortunately, ten years later when Hubble made his monumental discovery, the cosmological constant proved to be unnecessary. Not only that, but mathematician Monsignor Lemaitre in 1927 showed that even with a cosmological constant added in, a static universe was impossible to sustain. Davies explains it like this: “The slightest disturbance would cause the universe either to collapse, or to embark on an unending career of runaway expansion, as either normal gravity or cosmic repulsion gained the upper hand ( About Time 137).” The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that the general theory of relativity specifically predicts an unstable universe. One that has a definite beginning and one which exhibits the physical characteristics seen in the observable universe today. How reliable is the theory of relativity? Suffice it to say that cellular phone operators, doctors, and physicists (amongst others) routinely use Einstein’s theory on a daily basis (Davies, About Time 55-58). The theory has been proven correct to within five places of the decimal, as accurate as measuring techniques allow (Heeren 108). The theory of relativity also spells the downfall of the varying speed of light hypothesis I discussed earlier. Einstein had the remarkable foresight to realize that the speed of light is the only constant in the universe. Time itself can fluctuate wildly in the presents of extreme speeds or gravitational fields but the speed of light remains the same for all observers.

The background heat radiation that I promised to explain can also be construed as evidence for a big bang event. When this phenomenon was first discovered, it was quickly heralded as the most convincing evidence yet, for the big bang. However, as I pointed out earlier, scientists were quickly baffled by the extreme degree of smoothness exhibited by the radiation. No one could figure out how such a ‘clustered’ universe that we see in the night skies could have formed from a seemingly homogenous explosion. The whole of cosmology seemed to be on the verge of total reformation. Perhaps the big bang theory was wrong after all? A huge breakthrough finally came in 1992. It was on April fourth of that year that the long-running data analysis from a satellite named COBE, was finally completed. COBE had been sent up two years prior to gather as many measurements as possible from the background radiation. The verdict delivered by COBE, when its calculations were completed, was that the background radiation was not completely smooth, as had previously been thought (Davies, About Time 146; The Last Three Minutes 25-26). The temperature variation is extremely subtle; about thirty-millionths of a degree (Davies, About Time 153). This small temperature variance is all that is needed, however, to put the big bang theory back on firm footing. As of today, no static model of the universe has been able to reliably explain the origins of this background heat radiation.

A rebuttal against the thermodynamic argument that I discussed earlier can be constructed. When looking up into the night sky, the universe gives the appearance of being highly ordered (or having little entropy). Looks can be deceiving, though. All those beautiful stars that can be seen with the naked eye are little more than gigantic balls of compressed gas. The extreme degree of compression that exists inside stars forces hydrogen nuclei to come in contact with each other and fuse into helium. This process emits prodigious quantities of energy; more energy per second than all of the world’s power plants produce in a year. However, this energy is highly disordered and streams away into the depths of space, never to return. Clearly, entropy is at a much lower level at the beginning of this process than at the conclusion. The orbits of celestial bodies around each other also do not violate the second law. Many well-respected scientists have testified for the complete compatibility between the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang theory (Alan 154; Davies, The Last Three Minutes 11).

Did the big bang actually happen? Unfortunately, a simple yes or no to this question is not possible. To prove a theory in science to be absolute fact, the theory must be repeatable and testable. The big bang theory fails this criteria because it is a historical event; one that can never be repeated in any test tube. Scientists will never be able to say with one hundred percent assurance that there was a big bang event. Instead, they must ask themselves what the probability is that the big bang happened. Based on the evidence, the odds are heavily in favor of a big bang creation of the universe.

The big bang theory makes specific predictions that I discussed previously. Hubble’s Principle, the general theory of relativity, and the background heat radiation only make sense only within the framework of the big bang theory. Christians must remember that the big bang in no way disproves the Bible. Quite the contrary; the big bang theory acknowledges a beginning to the universe. Because the universe had a definite beginning, there must have also been a First Cause. This First Cause must be perfect, omnipotent, and immortal; a clear description of the God found in the Bible. No more must Christians shudder in contempt whenever the big bang theory is discussed. Perhaps atheistic scientist should recant their beliefs when faced with the overwhelming evidence for the big bang.