In proposing new theories in physics, as in other fields, a scientist needs to maintain a posture of humility about the validity of any proposal until observational and experimental evidence clearly confirms it. One simple reason for this is that the universe isn’t subject to our beliefs or suppositions — it is what it is, not necessarily what we think it is. On occasion, a new theory turns out to match reality, but that is not always the case.
From the history of physics, a case where theory failed involved the extrapolation of 19th-century electromagnetic wave theory to try to explain the “simple” photoelectric effect. There were three separate experimentally observed behaviors of this effect, and not one of them aligned with theoretical predictions of electromagnetic waves. It was left to the fertile mind of a young Albert Einstein to introduce the quantum nature of light, which, when applied to the photoelectric effect, matched experimental results perfectly.
The truth of a speculative theory is easily arbitrated when its predictions can be tested in the laboratory with existing technology. The situation becomes more problematic when experimental tests lie far beyond the limits of current technology (or funding). Another challenge manifests when the theory relates to a one-time historical event.
The Origin of Everything
The prime example of all difficulties for new theories in physics relates to the ultimate origin of everything. We’re not talking about just the so-called hot big bang model, describing the expansion of our universe from a small, hot, dense state. Observational evidence confirms the predictions of this model, affirming that our universe has undergone a process of radical expansion and transformation from then until now.
However, when it comes to attempting to describe the unfathomably extreme conditions of the universe prior to the so-called Planck time of 10-43 seconds, theoretical physicists face a particularly daunting challenge. Concerning the development of theories applicable to the earliest moments of our universe, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose has written in his magnum opus, The Road to Reality (2004):1
But the Big Bang is a spacetime singularity, and our present-day theories are not able to handle this kind of thing.
With regard to the as-yet unattained goal of a theory of quantum gravity to describe spacetime singularities, Penrose states,2
The difficulty here is that, despite over fifty years of determined efforts to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics together, there is still nothing that even approaches a consensus as to the correct approach to the subject.
Rounding Off the Initial Singularity
Penrose further affirms the unsettled nature of theories of cosmological origins. He does so in expressing his objections to a leading theoretical foray into a quantum gravity scheme for circumventing the absolute singularity at the beginning of the universe. This theory, developed by James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, invokes a procedure that allows time to be taken as imaginary (in the mathematical sense), resulting in a rounding off of the initial universal singularity. Penrose critiques their approach as a “leap of imagination,” the fruitfulness of which “remains to be seen.”3 Overall, Penrose offers a somewhat dim assessment of the theoretical work of Hartle and Hawking:4
But I also have some considerable difficulties with this proposal….There is also the question of agreement with observation.
Penrose is not averse to criticizing other popular cosmological theories if they “have, as yet, not a great deal (if any) of significant and unambiguous support from observation.”5 In The Road to Reality, he takes on the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the early universe, and the related concept of spacetime inflation.
Regarding the inflationary picture of the early universe, Penrose boldly decares, “Despite its evident popularity, I wish to give my own reasons for casting considerable doubt on the entire idea!”6 He admits that he can’t say that inflation is wrong, but that he objects to the initial motivations behind the idea.
The Position of Traditional Science
In rising to the challenge of producing his own theory of the Planck era — that is, again, prior to 10-43 seconds at the beginning of the universe — Penrose reasonably takes the position of traditional science, to “seek some scientific/mathematical theory to explain the extraordinarily special nature of the Big Bang.”7 Admirably, Penrose acknowledges that one could consider the special conditions at the beginning of the universe to be “an act of God,”8 but that his choice to pursue science as far as it goes is motivated by his own inclination or “scientific attitude” — a position of honesty and humility. Other scientists feel differently, as I discuss in an earlier article.
Pointing as it does to the need for a transcendent cause of our universe (affirming the “God Hypothesis”), the singularity at the beginning of our universe has been viewed as a problem by skeptical physicists who have attempted to again espouse a naturalistic origin scenario.
Penrose’s predilection for pursuing esoteric mathematical extrapolations to explain the ultimate origin of the universe is understandable. But predilections, even in the direction of traditional science, do not establish truth.
The materialistic worldview unavoidably restricts the domain of one’s thinking to a limited subset of evidentially supported reality. The theistic worldview of Stephen Meyer and others, however, enables an exploration of the possibility of a divinely orchestrated origin to the entirety of physical existence. And recognizing this openness in no way diminishes their status as scientists or philosophers.
The history of scientific discoveries is replete with those who simultaneously believed in God as Creator and in an orderly physical universe governed by regular laws of physics set in place as God’s servants. In a kingdom, servants carry on with the everyday business of the physical realm. But sometimes the king takes matters into his own hands.
Notes
- Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 765.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 769.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 770.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 771, 772.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 775.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 753.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 764-5.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 764.