Vilenkin and Mithani: Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

Frequently when debating with an atheist I will bring up the beginning of the universe as evidence for a creator and the typical response is, “We don’t know that the universe had a beginning.”  Their claim is that models exist that are eternal, so the universe may not have had a beginning.  So far, this claim has not been supported by the math.  Alex Vilenkin and Audrey Mithani wrote a paper called, “Did the universe have a beginning?” where they examine,

“three candidate scenarios which seem to allow the possibility that the universe could have existed forever with no initial singularity: eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe.”

 

                                          

Here is what they wrote about each type of model:

Eternal Inflation Models

These models theorize that there was a period of exponential inflation during the very early phases of the Big Bang.  These type of models solve several questions surrounding the standard Big Bang model, which makes it a likely candidate for being plausible.  One of the consequences of these models is that they predict a multi-verse.  Once started inflation will continue into the infinite future.  The science magazines love to talk about this prediction as possible evidence for a multi-verse, but there’s a catch; the BGV Theorem has shown that if on average the universe is expanding, the universe/multiverse had a beginning. 

“Therefore, although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past.”

Cyclic Models

Another type of model examined is the cyclic model.  These are the models that have an infinite series of big bangs followed by big crunches.  Entropy gives these models a couple of problems:

1).  With each bang/crunch cycle, the entropy continues to increase.  If the universe were eternal, we should have run out of usable energy and entered a state of “thermal death”.

2).  One way to avoid the thermal death scenario is to have each subsequent expansion get bigger and bigger for an infinite amount of time.  If this were to happen, the universe would on average be expanding more than it is contracting, which brings you back to the BGV theorem and a beginning.

Emergent Universe Models

In the emergent universe scenario, the universe is in a static quantum state until the “cosmic egg” decides to crack open.  This would bypass the requirement of the BGV theorem such that the average state of the universe would not be one of expansion.  In order for this type of model to succeed, a couple of conditions must be met.

“First, the universe should be stable, so that quantum fluctuations will not push it to expansion or contraction. In addition, it should contain some mechanism to exit the stationary regime and begin inflation.”

Vilenkin and Mithani demonstrate that quantum instability exists because there is a non-zero probability of quantum collapse, so the universe could not have existed in a quantum state for an infinite amount of time.

“Since the tunneling probability is nonzero, the simple harmonic universe cannot last forever…..there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse”

Summary

While in scientific terms we are not 100% certain that the universe had a beginning, since nothing in science is considered to be 100% certain, all of the evidence we have suggests that it does.  This paper demonstrates that “eternal” models can only be eternal in one direction; the future. 

“At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.  Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.”

Roger Penrose on entropy: How did he calculate that?

 

One of the fine-tuning arguments frequently used is the low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang.  This was calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1:10¹⁰¹²³.  How does he do this?  He explains it in his book, The Emperor’s New Mind.  Here is the section of the book that discusses it.   Penrose uses the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a particle in a black hole to determine the entropy of a particle at the singularity of the Big Bang as if the entire universe were a giant black hole.  He calculates this to be 10⁴³.  There are estimated to be 10⁸⁰ particles in the observable universe. 

 

10⁸⁰ x 10⁴³ = 10¹²³ . 

Entropy is on a logarithmic scale, so that is how he arrives at 10¹⁰¹²³. 

V = total phase-space volume available

W = original phase-space volume

V/W = 10¹⁰¹²³

 

Therefore, the accuracy of the low entropy value was 1:10¹⁰¹²³.  Penrose says,

“This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10<sup>123</sup> successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.”

 

If there are more particles in the universe than 10⁸⁰ (like an infinite number), all the more extraordinary!!

Sean Carroll pointed out in his debate with William Lane Craig that this low entropy value was not a requirement for life to exist and, therefore, should not be considered finely tuned by a creator.  As I discussed here, Robin Collins addresses this in his paper claiming that without a low entropy at the Big Bang, we would not know that our universe had a beginning and some of our fundamental laws of physics would not have been discovered.

The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability

The recent debate with Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig on February 21, 2014 had a different format than most debates.  Craig and Carroll debated on a Friday night, but then each brought two other people with them to write companion paper’s to support/refute the various positions and give a talk the following morning.  Sean Carroll brought Tim Mauldin and Alex Rosenberg.  William Lane Craig brought Robin Collins and James Sinclair.  I haven’t had time to look at the debate in depth yet, but on the surface it was a great exchange with lots of scientific details.  Sean Carroll held his own quite well, and holding your own against WLC is almost a default victory.  Not all of the videos are posted yet.  I can say the talk Tim Mauldin gave was a snooze….a giant ‘we don’t know anything and don’t need God either’. 

William Lane Craig

Sean Carroll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the arguments Craig uses that points to an intelligent creator is the fine-tuning for life.  Carroll claims we have no evidence to suggest the universe is fine-tuned for life.  An example he uses is Roger Penrose’s staggering calculation for the minimum entropy value at the Big Bang….1:10¹⁰¹²³.  You could put a zero on every particle in the observable universe with more to spare.  It’s an unfathomably small number!!!  Carroll claims that the entropy of the early universe did not need to be that low for life to form, so it is actually an argument against the fine-tuning by a creator.  Queue Robin Collins.

Robin Collins

Robin Collins is an expert in the fine-tuning of universe.  His talk is not out on video yet, but he has published his companion paper called “The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability”.  He calls it the Discoverability Thesis.

 

“Discoverability Thesis: This thesis is that the universe is non-accidentally structured in such a way as to be highly discoverable.”

 

 

In other words, not only is the universe fine-tuned for life, but it is also finely tuned to allow for intelligent agents to be able to understand it.  Many of the fundamental constants and early universe conditions are not necessary for life, but are necessary if we are to be able to learn about the universe and life.  Collins claims to have found at least a dozen examples of fine-tuning for discoverability.

The low entropy condition at the Big Bang is one of them.  Carroll is correct in saying that the entropy could be higher and still support life, but having a low entropy helps our discoverability in two ways:

1)     A low entropy allows us to see other galaxies and a larger universe.  Without a low entropy, we would only see our galaxy.  We wouldn’t know that the universe was expanding or that it had a beginning.

2)    Without a low entropy in the beginning, the universe would not have a uniform distribution.  We wouldn’t be able to discover some of the fundamental laws that govern the universe, like General Relativity which assumes a uniform distribution throughout the universe.

The beginning of the universe points to a transcendent cause.  A universe that follows laws and can be rationally understood indicates a rational mind formed those laws. 

Another example of tuning for discoverability is the constant, α, that governs the electromagnetic force. 

“A small increase in α would have resulted in all open wood fires going out; yet harnessing fire was essential to the development of civilization, technology, and science – e.g., the forging of metals….. Going in the other direction, if α were decreased, light microscopes would have proportionality less resolving power without the size of living cells or other microscopic objects changing (when measured in atomic units).”

So a larger α means no open wood flames and a smaller α means we would not be able to examine living cells, both of which are very significant to discoverability and technological advancement.

Another example of fine-tuning discoverability is radioactive decay compared to the strength of gravity.  This allows us to study geology, archeology, and paleontology….all crucial in learning about life, the Earth, and history.

“the ability to use radioactive dating – which plays a crucial role in geology, archeology, and paleontology -- depends on the density of radioactive elements in the crust of the planet on which observers evolve. As the strength of gravity is decreased (e.g., as measured by the force between two protons a unit distance apart), the density of radioactive elements must decrease to keep the number of volcanoes per unit area from increasing, which would decrease livability.”

Some atheists, including Carroll, have claimed that extra, unnecessary particles show that the universe was not created by an intelligent agent since a designer would not include such unnecessary features.  This is merely a “Naturalism of the gaps” argument….. ‘I don’t know why a creator would do this, so there is no creator’.  One example is the muon.  Collins argues that the muon has played a very important role in our ability to learn about our universe and other particles.  He sites this article in Symmetry Magazine:

“The muon is one of 16 fundamental particles that make up everything—all matter, all forces, all energy—in the visible universe….The muon’s puzzling appearance and subsequent identification as a unique and autonomous particle perplexed scientists and revolutionized the field of particle physics. It was the precursor to the three generations of matter and opened the door for the discovery of quarks and other particles.”

“Today scientists can manipulate the muon and use it as a tool not only for particle physics research but also for cosmology, archeology and public safety. They have used muons to test special relativity and time dilation and to probe the interiors of pyramids for secret chambers. Today scientists use muons to image novel materials such as high-temperature superconductors, to study chemical reactions, to look for hidden nuclear weapons and even to determine things as delicate as the size of a proton.”

There is even talk of building a muon collider.  For an unnecessary particle, a lot has been learned because of it and this isn’t the end of what we will learn from the muon! 

Collins goes on to discuss the cosmic microwave background radiation and the dark energy coincidence problem, but that will have to be another post.  Needless to say, his paper is full of good info!!

How does the discoverability point to an intelligent creator?  If the entropy were higher, we would not know that our universe had a beginning and required a transcendent cause.  We also would not know some of the fundamental laws that govern our universe, which a rational universe provides evidence for a rational creator.  If the constant that governs the electromagnetic force, α, were higher, we wouldn’t have fire or anything that results from fire.  If α were lower, we would not be able to see living cells in a microscope.  If you want to know why that points to an intelligent mind, see Steven Meyer’s video on the cell.  Radioactive decay has allowed us to study geology, archeology, and paleontology….all crucial in learning about life, the Earth, and history.  The muon has opened the door to understand our universe at the particle level.

The more I learn, the more Romans 1 amazes me.  God truly has revealed his existence through what he has made.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy only increases in a closed system.  In very simple terms, nature tends towards equilibrium which results in going from order to disorder.  The disorder cannot be reversed unless you have both an outside force and a specific mechanism to restore that order.  If you are missing either one of these, the direction of heading toward disorder cannot be reversed.  Some believe this is where the arrow of time comes from. 

 

Here’s an example of the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics in action.  Take a glass of water and put a drop of blue dye in it.  The blue dye is concentrated and starts in a more orderly state.  Once it hits the water, it begins to diffuse through the water until it is equally and uniformly dispersed throughout the glass.  The blue dye has gone from a more ordered state to a more disordered state.  The solution has reached equilibrium.  This is the natural tendency.  To get the blue dye back to a more orderly state, an outside force is needed (heat) and a mechanism to restore the order (distillation/evaporation). 

Another thing to note is that it’s the difference in state that allows the change to take place; the blue dye vs the clear water.  This difference in state that can cause change can be referred to as a driving force.  Once the equilibrium has been reached, the color cannot become darker or lighter without either adding more dye or more water.  A driving force must be applied to bring about a change.  Another example would be having water at 50 degrees and wanting to heat it.  In order to do this, you need to add a heat source of a higher temperature, such as putting a pot on a stove.  The heat transfers from the burner to the pot/water until equilibrium is reached, where the heat entering the system and leaving the system are the same and the temperature cannot increase anymore.

 

For our universe, the drop of blue dye represents the singularity of the Big Bang (crudely, since the singularity wasn’t a pellet of energy).  It was the minimum entropy or maximally ordered state.  The entropy value has been calculated. 

The expansion of our universe is like the diffusion of the dye in the water.  The difference is the water was contained in a glass, where our universe continues to expand. 

As this expansion continues, our universe will go more and more to an equilibrium state and the energy will equalize to the point of being ineffective.  There will not be a driving force to bring about a change in state and we will enter the Heat Death state.  The stars will burn out and all life will cease.

What does this mean? 

One of the implications is that the universe had a finite beginning.  If our universe did not have a finite beginning, we should have entered the Heat Death state an infinite time ago.  A beginning of the universe requires an outside cause to bring about the change in state.   

 

Maybe we are one of many universes spawned by the multi-verse which reset the entropy.  The 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics would apply to the multi-verse as well, so the multi-verse should have entered the Heat Death state an infinite time ago.  One of the ironies of the multi-verse (there are many) is that the same laws of physics that describe our universe had to pre-exist for the formation of our universe, but that’s a different post for another day.