So, where do we stand with respect to the science of the origin of the universe, and what implications can we draw from it? The observational evidence that’s consistent with known physics tells us that the universe started off small, dense, and hot — so much different than it is now! Compared to the estimated size of the observable universe today, we can conservatively say that when it began, it was at least 27 orders of magnitude smaller in linear dimensions (that’s a billion times a billion times a billion times smaller!). In a very practical sense, this amounts to a valid beginning.
For comparison, how much bigger are you than just one of the atoms composing the first cells from which you were made? Only about 10 billion times bigger than an atom (or, just 10 thousand times bigger than a human egg cell).
I think it’s fair to say that every living creature had a beginning, and the evidence of purposeful design in the formation of living things is undeniable. The arrangement of atoms comprise even the first cells on Earth was undeniably special, when compared to all the possible other arrangements these atoms could take. (I hope this is obvious!)
Extremely Special Conditions
As with life, the beginning of our universe entailed extremely special conditions, not only of the laws of physics, but also of the arrangement of its component atoms. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Roger Penrose has famously estimated1 the probability of this special initial arrangement to have the unimaginably low value of 1 part in 10 raised to the power of 10123. In his own words,2
The universe was very special at the Big Bang. It had to be so for there to have been a Second Law of thermodynamics, extending right back to the beginning.
With regard to the ultimate origin of the universe, Penrose isn’t averse to finding fault with the attempts of other respected physicists to circumvent an absolute beginning. Referring to Lee Smolin’s idea that black hole singularities produce new universes, and John Wheeler’s proposal that “some form of ‘quantum gravity’ allows a collapsing universe to bounce with modified fundamental constants of nature, Penrose states, “I have quite a lot of trouble with both the Wheeler and the Smolin proposals.”3
The Ultimate Singularity
It’s obvious, then, that the frontrunners of cosmological physics are espousing theories that lack support from one another. In an earlier article, I referred to a book highlighting the field of play regarding the ultimate singularity at the origin of the universe.
In the recently published book Battle of the Big Bang, the authors liberally describe the landscape of theoretical speculations vying to win acceptance for what happened before the Big Bang.
Roger Penrose’s own speculative theory of the origin (and end) of the universe goes by the description conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC), in which he suggests that the universe cycles from an infinitely expanded state to a singularity, beginning a new universe. As laconically evaluated in the Wikipedia entry devoted to his theory, “It has not been accepted in the wider cosmological community, and there is no generally-accepted observational evidence for it.”
Moreover, Penrose’s CCC theory is, for all its credentialed authorship, a mathematical formulation unsupported by confirming evidence from physical reality. As I pointed out in a previous article, equations by themselves do not make reality. And unless the equations have been confirmed by observation and experiment, we may legitimately question the validity of their predictions.
You Get to Make Up Your Own Mind
A recent article by astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel explains why he believes true singularities exist within black holes, regardless of any possible theory of quantum gravity. Siegel’s explanation may override the common objection by other theorists who attempt to avoid a cosmological singularity by appealing to the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics under these conditions. It may be that in approaching a singularity, general relativistic effects steamroll past any possible quantum mechanical manifestations.
From our perspective, restricted to being outside of the event horizon of all black holes, as well as from the perspective of any particle that crosses over to the inside of an event horizon, there’s simply no way to escape it: in a finite and relatively short amount of time, any infalling matter must wind up at a central singularity, whether a point or a ring. Although the physics that we know of does indeed break down and only gives nonsensical predictions at the singularity itself, the existence of a singularity truly cannot be avoided unless some wild, exotic, new physics (like tachyonic physics, for which there is no evidence) is invoked. Inside a black hole, a singularity is all but inevitable.
As I used to tell my students, “Where the experts disagree, you get to make up your own mind.” In such cases, carefully considering the evidence, being open to new ideas, and avoiding dogmatism seems most appropriate.
Does the scientific evidence relating to the beginning of the universe uphold the view of a cosmos initiated and designed by God, so that “what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”?4 In my opinion, the evidence is certainly consistent with the theistic view. And since the conditions prevailing in the early Planck era preclude observational confirmation, we can rest assured that no current or future scientific theory will ever overturn this conclusion.
Notes
- Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), Ch. 27.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 765.
- Penrose, The Road to Reality (2004), p. 761.
- Hebrews 11:3 (ESV).