Susskind’s Response to Mithani and Vilenkin: Let’s Play Pretend

Alex Vilenkin has been a staunch supporter of a temporally finite universe.  In spite of the numerous papers and lectures he has given showing that the universe cannot avoid a beginning and the “eternal” models are only eternal into the future, many atheists refuse to acknowledge that all of physical reality had a beginning and are still arguing that it is has an eternal past.  Even Alan Guth, who is the “G” in the BGV Theorem, says they have been able to “prove” the universe had a beginning, yet he still thinks it may be eternal.  I have often wondered what other scientists say about Vilenkin’s work, since if he had made a significant error in his analyses of the other models, surely someone would have said something more than quibble over what constitutes a beginning.

I came across a short paper by Leonard Susskind where he responds to the paper, “Did the universe have a beginning?” by Mithani and Vilenkin which I summarized here (spoiler- the answer is Yes!).  Susskind is a popular physicist that makes frequent appearances on science programs like Nova.  In this paper, he “will argue the opposite point of view; namely, for all practical purposes, the universe was past-eternal.” 

 

He uses a thought experiment of a semi-infinite city called, Hilbertville, to represent the multi-verse.  It has a boundary at x=0, but the goes to infinity at x>0.  The observers of Hilbertville are trying to see the boundary of the city.  Those close to the boundary can see it, but those who are very far away cannot.  Since most of the observers will statistically be too far away to see the boundary of the city, he concludes the city may as well not have a boundary and the same goes for a beginning to the universe.

“Combing the Mithani-Vilenkin's observations with the ones in this note, we may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity.”

Susskind didn’t say Mithani and Vilenkin were wrong in their analyses of other model types.  Susskind agreed the evidence indicates there was a beginning.  Instead he said the beginning of the universe (or multi-verse) was probably so far in the past that the universe may as well be eternal for us observers on Earth.  That’s akin to saying ‘the evidence says there was a beginning, and while I acknowledge that’s the evidence, I can still pretend there wasn’t a beginning and ignore all implications of a beginning’.  Atheists get upset when Christians quote Romans 1 and claim they suppress the knowledge of God, but with a response like this, can you blame us?

 

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.”

What Comes from Nothing?

I asked my 7-year-old “What comes from nothing?” and was, well, not surprised by her answer.  “Nothing comes from nothing, Duh!”  Oh the hours of laughter our family has had over the word “Duh”, but that is something and I am writing about nothing….or am I?  Of course, my daughter is very smart, but she is only 7 and has no grounds to argue with a PhD theoretical physicist and cosmologist that says something can come from nothing.

It is a well-established metaphysical truth (and basic intuition that even a child can understand) that out of nothing, nothing comes.  So, I was a little surprised when many atheists online began to tell me that Lawrence Krauss has demonstrated that something can come from nothing and pointed me to the video below called “A Universe From Nothing”.  Krauss has since written a book titled the same.  Here is what Richard Dawkins wrote about the book.

 “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages.  If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology.  The title means exactly what it says.  And what it says is – devastating.”

Those are some strong words!  He must really be on to something if this book/video is really as devastating as the Oxford professor claims it is.  Here's the video for those who want to sit through an hour long science lesson with a lot of theistic derision. 

I was very curious how he got around the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms.  It was pretty clear how.  Here are some of my favorite quotes from the video: 

“by nothing I don’t mean nothing I mean nothing”

“nothing isn’t nothing”

“nothing weighs something”

“let’s calculate the energy of nothing”

“nothing is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence”

Nothing isn’t nothing?  Nothing weighs something???  Krauss says in the video that theists are experts at nothing, so since I am a theist, I can say with the authority of an expert that Krauss knows nothing about nothing! 

So what is this “nothing” Krauss believes produced our universe?  In empty space there is still energy present called the vacuum energy.  It cannot be seen and has not been directly detected, which is why it is also called dark energy.  Its value is known as the Cosmological Constant, which Einstein mistake nly put on the wrong side of the equation can called it his biggest blunder (even Einstein’s mistakes were brilliant).  How do we know dark energy exists if it cannot be directly detected?  Matter is attracted to other matter due to gravity.  If all we had in the universe was the matter we see, the universe would collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction.  We know the universe is expanding and energy is required to push matter apart; therefore, there is energy pushing the universe apart.  In 2003, WMAP measured the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation and determined that only 5% of the universe is made up of the matter we see (stars, galaxies, planets, etc), 24% is made up of dark matter, and 71% is made up of dark energy. 

Essentially Krauss is saying that 71% of the universe is nothing….except it weighs something, has energy, is full of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, contains quantum fields, and is pushing the universe apart.  Plus the laws of physics had to exist prior to the universe forming.  I’m curious as to why Krauss feels the need to change the definition of the word "nothing" if physics truly shows that God is unnecessary. 

David Albert, who is a professor of philosophy at Columbia University, wrote a scathing review here.  You know it’s bad when a fellow atheist says this:

“Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.”

Krauss’s response was to call him a “moronic philosopher”.

This is what happens when smart people are determined to deny that God exists and try to use science to falsify the creator of science.  They profess to be wise and become fools (Romans 1:22). 

The BGV Theorem

 

In 1927, Georges Lemaître (a priest) proposed the greatest cosmological theory of the last century:  The Big Bang Theory.  There have been numerous confirmations that the Big Bang Theory is true, such as the expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation.  This theory has caused a lot of heartburn to the scientific community, since it says that the universe had a beginning.  Atheists do not want the universe to have a beginning because this requires an external agent to cause the change in state and they know what the implications are.  Since the Big Bang Theory was first proposed, atheist scientists have desperately tried to disprove that the universe had a beginning, but unfortunately for them, one cannot disprove the creator of science by using the science he created. 

There have been many additional theories that have been proposed that attempt to incorporate the Big Bang Theory and an eternal universe in order to avoid a beginning.  They have all failed.  The nail was once again put into the coffin in 2003 by a theorem developed by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin known as the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem.  What they discovered is that any universe that is on average expanding cannot have an infinite past; there is a past boundary.  This rules out all models that try to avoid a cosmic beginning.  Here is the link to their paper and here is a video of Vilenkin explaining the theory.  Here is a quote from the paper.

“Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).”

 

What this is saying is that the only condition that needs to be present to show that ANY universe has a finite past boundary (a beginning) is that it must have an average state of expansion.  This applies to our universe or the multi-verse (if you have faith in such a thing).  There is no doubt in the scientific community that our universe is expanding.  This was discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 by looking at the red shift of distant galaxies and repeatedly confirmed.  Since then we have discovered that not only is our universe expanding, but the expansion rate is also accelerating. 

 

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man.  With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.  There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” – Alexander Vilenkin

Yet atheist scientists still have trouble admitting that the universe had a beginning and have proposed all kinds of nonsensical, non-falsifiable, faith-based theories to show that the beginning of the universe had a natural cause.  By refusing to follow the evidence, they are saying “Anything, but not God”.

“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. 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.”  - Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978)

 

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

 

Good luck to all who try to disprove this.

 

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.