* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download What Do We Really Know About the Universe?
Survey
Document related concepts
Fermi paradox wikipedia , lookup
Dark energy wikipedia , lookup
Astrobiology wikipedia , lookup
Extraterrestrial life wikipedia , lookup
Shape of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Expansion of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Outer space wikipedia , lookup
Observable universe wikipedia , lookup
Cosmic microwave background wikipedia , lookup
Ultimate fate of the universe wikipedia , lookup
Fine-tuned Universe wikipedia , lookup
Astronomical spectroscopy wikipedia , lookup
Lambda-CDM model wikipedia , lookup
Flatness problem wikipedia , lookup
Structure formation wikipedia , lookup
Physical cosmology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? By David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. Email [email protected] ? ? HOW DO YOU ? KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW? Or at least what you think you know? ? ? ? WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK: Evolution is science... Creation and Intelligent Design are religion. EVOLUTION: Initial Disorganization with later increase in complexity and unlimited diversification. Not just change, but change in the direction of increasing complexity. Simple to Complex. T I M E Evolutionary “Tree” All life came from one simple cell CREATION: Initial Complexity with later deterioration and diversification within limits. Not just change, but change in the direction of decreasing complexity. Complex to Simple. T I M E Creationist “Forest” All life came from multiple complex ancestors. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING? 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know this car will give you years of faithful service! THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1. Define the problem. What do you want to know? (E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”) 2. Gather information about the subject. (AUTHORITY) 3. Formulate a hypothesis. 4. Devise a way to test the hypothesis. 5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE) 6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report your results so others can repeat the test. REASONS TO BELIEVE OTHERS WHO TRY TO PERSUADE US OF WHAT THEY “KNOW” IS IT BECAUSE: (1) They claim to have personal experience, OR (2) They appeal to an authority we trust, OR (3) We have checked out their logic and found it trustworthy? OR are we willing to trust their (4) intuition, (5) wishful thinking, or (6) bluffing? Present + Repeatable + Observable = SCIENCE Past + Non-Repeatable + Eyewitness Account = HISTORY Past + Non-Repeatable + No Eyewitnesses = BELIEF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE: 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. THE TWO TYPES OF LOGIC 1. INDUCTIVE. Look at many phenomena and try to discover a pattern that points to a general principle. Inductive logic tries to determine the most reasonable (most likely) conclusion. This is the heart of the scientific method. 2. DEDUCTIVE. Start with general principles accepted as true and apply them to specific cases. Deductive logic tries to establish absolute truth, i.e., the conclusion MUST be true. “SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES: Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth. Testing was unimportant to them. Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today), whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe, west Asia, and Africa. EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC “Scientific” ideas of Aristotle TAUGHT AS FACT in European Universities for 2000 YEARS: 1. The earth is the center of the solar system. Falsified by Copernicus. 2. Heavier objects fall faster. Falsified by Galileo. 3. All objects possess an innate tendency to come to rest. Falsified by Newton. “PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT” Honest scientists will not claim to have absolutely proven ANYTHING (even the Law of Gravity!) using the scientific method. All we can legitimately say is that every time we have observed something in the past it’s always worked the same way, so we expect that it will continue to work the same way in the future. CONTRASTING LOGIC The conclusions of INDUCTIVE logic result from examination of observable phenomena (a posteriori). They are testable and open to modification. The premises of DEDUCTIVE logic may come from inductive conclusions, or they may just be statements accepted as self-evident (a priori). They are not necessarily the result of testing. THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE: There is no way to repeat the beginning of the universe. We have to look at circumstantial evidence to see what seems to be the most reasonable explanation. Anyone who claims to know absolutely what happened is not following inductive logic; they must be using DEDUCTIVE logic only. But can there be problems with deductive logic? CONVERSES IN LOGIC If I am at Mount Everest, then I am at the highest mountain in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at the highest mountain in the world, then I am at Mount Everest. ALSO TRUE. A converse is reliable ONLY if there is an exact one-to-one match between the “If” and “Then” parts - a biconditional (“if and only if”). INVALID LOGIC If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls. FALSE. (not reliable) A converse is NOT reliable if there is more than one possibility. PROPER LOGIC FLOW AT ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFALLS IF AT VICTORIA FALLS IF AT NIAGARA FALLS IF AT KAIETEUR FALLS IF AT ANGEL FALLS IF AT OTHER LARGE WATERFALL The Invalid Logic of Evolutionary Exclusivism If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls. FALSE. (not reliable) If evolution is true, then the universe and life would exist. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If the universe and life exist, then evolution is true. FALSE. (not reliable) All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the invalid use of a logical converse. POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE UNIVERSE EXISTS ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMS If P is true, then Q is true. P is true. Therefore, Q is true. (Major premise) (Minor premise) (Conclusion) live on earth then Q if P To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the inner circle (“if”) is automatically inside the outer circle (“then”). live in U.S. live in La. if live in New Orleans Syllogisms can also be chained (transitive logic). EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a dog, then it barks.”) Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido barks. Not if Fido is a Basenji! Basenjis do not bark. If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable. POSTULATES - Statements that are taken as self-evident and accepted without proof. Euclid’s Parallel Line Postulate says that for any line, there can be only one parallel line through a point not on the first line. Point not on the first line Only one parallel line First line BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Lobachevskyan and Riemannian geometry say that space is curved, so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.” One says space is negatively curved so that there are an infinite number of parallel lines through a point not on a line. The other says space is positively curved so there are no parallel lines. All lines intersect at infinity. EACH OF THE THREE IS THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: CREATION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God’s involvement with nature has been trivial. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. Known as either NATURALISM, MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM. This is as far as Intelligent Design goes. (The intelligence could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster!) Creation specifies that the intelligence is God. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED! "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Richard Lewontin, The New York Review, Jan. 1997 NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD 1. Only seen by what He does INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsible for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELFEXISTENT. IF THERE IS NO GOD, THEN WHAT? What if there is no God? Then the universe would have to be the result of a series of forces, processes, and events operating with no particular purpose for billions of years. We could call the whole series “evolution,” “quantum fluctuation,” or “accident.” Let’s use the term “Random Chance,” with the understanding that it represents the whole multibillion year series of forces, processes, and events. Let’s see the characteristics that Random Chance would have to have. NECESSARY CHARACTERISTICS GOD RANDOM CHANCE 1. Only seen by what He does INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsible for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made Him - SELFEXISTENT. 1. Only seen by what it does INVISIBLE. 2. Established natural laws, so is not subject to those laws SUPERNATURAL. 3. Preceded the universe ETERNAL. 4. Influence extends throughout the universe - OMNIPRESENT. 5. Directly or indirectly responsible for everything that has ever happened - OMNIPOTENT. 6. Nobody made it - SELFEXISTENT. There is no possibility that some Godlike entity does NOT exist. IS ALL TRUTH SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE? Okay, prove scientifically that you love your husband / wife / mother etc. Likewise, our inability to prove there is a God does not mean He does not exist; our inability to prove there is not a God does not mean He does exist. WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK: Evolution is science... Creation and Intelligent Design are religion. But in what way is believing in the IMPOSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design any more scientific than believing in the POSSIBILITY of Intelligent Design? Either way it’s a matter of philosophy, not science. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: CREATION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God’s involvement with nature has been trivial. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only! “... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233 "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept. 1999 How many non-barking dogs does it take to show that maybe Fido doesn’t bark? This is why materialists fight so hard against Intelligent Design. If there is even one thing that can’t be explained by natural processes, then their fundamental premise is false! BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: CREATION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God’s involvement with nature has been trivial. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. 3. Since evolution has never been seen in human history, it must be very slow. The universe and earth have to be billions of years old. 3. Creation does not automatically require a specific age. a. Recent Creation: The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old. b. Gap Theory & Progressive Creation: Because evolutionists must know what they are talking about, the earth has to be billions of years old. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: CREATION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY? BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: CREATION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 6. Authority. a. Recent Creation: The Bible is the final authority in everything. b. Gap Theory: The Bible is the final authority on most things, except the age of the earth and the origin of death. c. Progressive Creation: The Bible is the final authority only on some spiritual matters. 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. 6. Scientists are the final authority in everything. Which scientists? The ones that agree with you! (At least until they change their minds next week.) LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. So, back to our first question: WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1. Define the problem. What do you want to know? (E.g. “Does music affect how plants grow?”) 2. Gather information about the subject. (AUTHORITY) 3. Formulate a hypothesis. 4. Devise a way to test the hypothesis. 5. Observe the results of the test. (EXPERIENCE) 6. Draw a conclusion (INDUCTIVE LOGIC) and report your results so others can repeat the test. Things to Which We Can Directly Apply the Scientific Method: Phenomena we can directly observe and test. • Chemical composition or magnetic fields of bodies in the solar system. We can analyze either by close flybys or actual landings. • Positions and motions of planets, moons, etc. – direct telescope observation. • Radiation output, etc. – direct measurements. • Distance to stars up to about 50 light years away – calculated by parallax. • Chemical composition of the photosphere of sun and stars – spectroscopic analysis. SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS Each element’s unique arrangement of electrons produces a pattern (spectrum) of colored lines as its electrons jump between higher and lower energy levels. Lines are bright as the electrons emit energy or dark as they absorb it. Above: Black and white graph of the spectrum of hydrogen. Below: Emission spectra of three common elements showing colors. Emission spectrum of Hydrogen Emission spectrum of Fluorine Emission spectrum of Oxygen HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT’S IN A STAR? • In a laboratory, we see an emission spectrum of bright lines against a dark background. • However, the interior of a star is so hot that the electrons are knocked completely away from the atoms. (This is called a plasma.) The star’s light is NOT from electrons jumping between specific energy levels, so it is a continuous white light. • Light from the interior must pass through the star’s outer regions (its photosphere) on its way to us. This part of the star is not as hot, so some of the atoms do have electrons. • These electrons absorb specific colors as they move to higher energy levels. • What we see on earth is like a photographic negative. Instead of an emission spectrum of bright lines against a dark background, we see an absorption spectrum of dark lines against a bright background. This enables us to identify elements present in the star’s outer layers. Things We Cannot Legitimately be as Confident About: Phenomena for which we have indirect data, but we cannot directly observe and test. • Interior structure of stars and planets. Since we cannot directly see inside we devise models. However, we must recognize that the models may need to be revised. • Meaning of anomalous red shifts. We directly measure the shifts, but we must then interpret what they mean. Are all red shifts due to linear motion? Could gravitational / relativistic red shifts be involved? • Presence of planets around distant stars. We measure a tiny amount of “wobble” in the starlight, which we then interpret to mean that an orbiting object is pulling the star. Are there other possibilities? Possible Explanations for “Wobble” of Starlight Red Shift Varies PLANET IN ORBIT BROWN DWARF IN ORBIT UNKNOWN FACTORS MEASUREMENT ERRORS PULSATION OF STAR Can we be absolutely certain? THINGS WE CANNOT TEST (Deductive Logic Only): Phenomena we cannot directly observe, for which we devise models that we also cannot directly test. • Origin of the matter and energy that comprise the universe • Underlying geometry of the universe • Age of the universe • Mechanisms involved in a Big Bang • Mechanisms of galaxy and cluster formation • Origin of the solar system and its parts Origin of the Elements 1 2 H He HYDROGEN 1 3 4 5 LITHIUM 7 11 BERYLLIUM 9 12 BORON 11 13 Li Be Na Mg SODIUM 23 19 MAGNESIUM 24 20 21 6 7 CARBON 12 14 NITROGEN 14 15 B C N 8 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SILICON 28 32 9 O F Ne OXYGEN 16 16 Al Si P ALUMINUM 27 31 HELIUM 4 10 FLUORINE 19 17 NEON 20 18 S Cl Ar PHOSPHOROUS SULPHUR 31 32 33 34 CHLORINE 35 35 ARGON 40 36 K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr POTASSIUM 39 37 CALCIUM 40 38 SCANDIUM 45 39 TITANIUM 48 40 VANADIUM 51 41 CHROMIUM 51 42 MANGANESE IRON 55 56 43 44 COBALT 58 45 NICKEL 59 46 COPPER 64 47 ZINC 65 48 GALLIUM 70 49 GERMANIUM ARSENIC 73 75 50 51 SELENIUM 79 52 BROMINE 80 53 KRYPTON 84 54 Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe RUBIDIUM 85 55 STRONTIUM 88 56 Cs Ba CESIUM 133 87 BARIUM 137 88 YTTRIUM 89 La-Lu 57- 71 ZIRCONIUM 91 72 NIOBIUM 93 73 MOLYBDENUM TECHNETIUM RUTHENIUM RHODIUM 96 99 101 103 74 75 76 77 PALLADIUM SILVER 106 108 78 79 RADIUM 226 INDIUM 115 81 TIN 119 82 ANTIMONY TELLURIUM IODINE 122 126 127 83 84 85 XENON 131 86 Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn HAFNIUM 178 104 TANTALUM 181 105 TUNGSTEN 184 106 RHENIUM 186 107 OSMIUM 190 108 IRIDIUM 192 109 PLATINUM 195 Ac-Lr Fr Ra 89-103 Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt FRANCIUM 223 CADMIUM 112 80 RUTHERFORD- DUBNIUM IUM 261 262 GOLD 197 MERCURY 201 THALLIUM 204 LEAD 65 66 67 207 BISMUTH 209 POLONIUM 210 ASTATINE 219 RADON 222 etc. SEABORGIUM BOHRIUM 263 264 HASSIUM 265 MEITNERIUM 268 58 59 61 CERIUM 140 90 PRASEODYM- NEODYMIUM PROMETHEUM SAMARIUM EUROPIUM GADOLINIUM TERBIUM IUM 141 144 147 147 152 157 159 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 57 La LANTHANUM 139 89 Ac ACTINIUM 227 60 62 63 64 68 69 70 71 THULIUM 169 101 YTTERBIUM LUTETIUM 173 175 102 103 Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho E Tm Yb Lu DYSPROSIUM HOLMIUM ERBIUM 162 165 167 98 99 100 Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr THORIUM 232 PROTACTINIUM 231 URANIUM 238 NEPTUNIUM PLUTONIUM 237 244 AMERICIUM 243 CURIUM 247 BERKELIUM 247 CALIFORNIUM EINSTEINIUM FERMIUM 251 252 257 MENDELEVIUM 258 NOBELIUM LAWRENCIUM 259 260 90 elements are known to occur on earth. Elements 43, 61, and 93 and above (shown in red) are known only in artificially manufactured form, though #43 is seen in some stars. We need to explain the origin of the 90 naturally occurring elements. Naturally Occurring Isotopes Name of Isotope Atomic Number Mass Number Protons Neutrons hydrogen-1 hydrogen-2 hydrogen-3 helium-3 helium-4 NONEXISTENT lithium-6 lithium-7 NONEXISTENT beryllium-9 boron-10 boron-11 carbon-12 carbon-13 carbon-14 nitrogen-14 nitrogen-15 oxygen-16 oxygen-17 oxygen-18 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 etc. 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 5 5 6 6 7 8 7 8 8 9 10 A Big Bang could not produce any element heavier than Lithium. WHY SUCH A BIG DEAL? Somewhere around 99% of the observed matter in the universe consists of H-1 and He-4. There are only a few possible ways to combine two of these atoms. • Two H-1 nuclei (two protons) cannot stay together without the presence of at least one neutron. (There is no such thing as He-2.) Even then, He-3 comprises only 0.000138% of the Helium known. • A H-1 and He-4 nucleus together would have mass 5. Oops, it doesn’t exist either. • Two He-4 nuclei would have a mass of 8, but that doesn’t exist either. A Big Bang would have expanded too fast to combine more than two particles at a time, and there are no other combinations of two. We are blocked at every turn when trying to make heavier elements out of the two elements that would have been present in a Big Bang. Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Stars Once all the hydrogen in the core of a star is used up, the star is supposed to experience a “helium flash” in which it suddenly fuses two helium nuclei into Be-8, three into C-12 (“triple-alpha”), and four into O-16. THREE PROBLEMS: (1) Be-8 decays instantaneously and would be unavailable as a building block for heavier elements. (2) The process has never been seen. Even if it did occur, it would be undetectable. There is no evidence that it has ever happened. It is an a priori assumption needed for materialistic evolution to be true. (3) Atomic nuclei are so tiny that the chance is extraordinarily small for two to collide, let alone three or four. Problems with Synthesis of Heavier Elements in Supernovae Supernovae are believed to reach temperatures thousands of times hotter than normal, high enough to synthesize the rest of the elements. These elements are supposedly flung into space, then recycled into new stars. TWO PROBLEMS: (1) The earliest stars should have been composed of nothing but hydrogen and helium. However, we have never seen a single metal-free star, even among the very “oldest” ones. (2) Since gravity drops off by the square of the distance between objects, it would be far too weak to pull the parts back together into a new star. The material should just float through space. No evidence here either - just a desire to have materialistic evolution be true! IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE? The most fundamental assumption of evolution is that everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. But what if something can’t be explained by natural processes? YES IT CAN! We make up a story then use faulty logic to say, “Because we can make up a story, therefore our story must be true.” The Story of the Supernovae and the Elements Once upon a time there was a big supernova. It produced many atoms of heavy elements, but they were spreading throughout space. Then a second supernova took place light-years away. The shock wave from the second supernova traveled trillions of miles and pushed the expanding cloud from the first supernova back together into a ball. It became a new star that now had heavier elements. The process repeated over and over, spreading heavy elements to every single star we’ve ever seen. The End. Do you believe that a shock wave from trillions of miles away can make an expanding cloud collapse into a ball? Do you believe every observable star in the universe would be affected? The Origin of Fried Eggs WAS THERE A COOK, or... did a supernova release a burst of energy that bounced off a satellite... hitting a chicken that exploded and sent a superheated egg sailing onto a plate? OCCAM’S RAZOR: “Entities Should Not Be Multiplied Beyond Necessity.” A principle of logic that can be paraphrased as, “The simplest explanation that fits all the facts is usually the best.” Not a hard and fast rule, but a good guideline. The fewer stories you have to make up, the better. (K.I.S.S.!) A Priori Assumptions of Materialistic Cosmology 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: Since the Big Bang, God has had little involvement with nature. 2. The earth cannot occupy any special place in the universe. (The Cosmological Principle) 3. In order to explain the earth’s apparent position somewhere near the center of the universe, space must not be threedimensional. It is four-dimensional and curves back on itself. 4. Four-dimensional space has no center or edge. It is unbounded. 5. Space is defined by the presence of matter. Where there is no matter, there is no space. None of these is provable. They are accepted as self-evident. Classical Physics Euclidean Geometry Relativity - NonEuclidean Geometry • • B B • A According to classical physics, if the universe expanded it did so through three-dimensional space. Points A and B move apart through space. A• The universe does not expand through 3-dimensional space because the universe is space. There is no “outside” because “outside” indicates a place in space, which does not exist past the edge of the expanding universe. Space expands, but points A and B keep their same relative positions. FOUR DIMENSIONAL SPACE Imagine a 2-dimensional ant trapped inside the surface of a piece of paper. He has no concept of “up” or “down.” Even if the paper is curved into a sphere, he has no way to know it because he can only see his immediate area. Big Bang cosmology says that we are the ants, but we don’t know it because we are trapped inside the 3dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional “hypersphere.” Space is curved, but we can’t detect it. UNBOUNDED SPACE A 2-dimensional ant confined to the surface of a sphere could never reach the center or the edge because from his perspective the surface has no center or edge. To him, it is unbounded. If space is a hypersphere, to its 3-D never find the because neither would have to 4-dimensional we are confined surface. We can center or the edge exists. 4-D space be unbounded. THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE No matter where the ant goes, things look pretty much the same in any direction. There is no referred frame of reference. Likewise, Big Bang theory assumes that no matter where in space we go, things on a large enough scale will look pretty much the same in any direction. This is philosophy, not science. If there is a preferred frame of reference, the big bang and some (not all!) parts of the theory of relativity are wrong. 2 Types of Evidence Used to Support the BIG BANG: 1. Red Shift of Starlight 2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) SO WHAT’S A “RED SHIFT”? Reports of the universe expanding are based on colors (wavelength) of light from stars shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Almost all astronomers interpret this as a Doppler shift due to the stars moving away from us. Actual wavelength of star’s light Normal absorption spectrum Seemingly stretched-out wavelength due to motion away from us - exaggerated for purpose of illustration “Red-Shifted” absorption spectrum Seemingly compressed wavelength due to motion toward us - exaggerated for purpose of illustration “Blue-Shifted” absorption spectrum Possible Explanations for Red Shifts Red Shift Exists DOPPLER EFFECT TRANSVERSE EFFECT UNKNOWN FACTORS GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT RELATIVISTIC EFFECT Would we even know how to interpret a Doppler shift if space is four-dimensional? QUASARS: A BIG LITTLE PROBLEM! Quasars are extremely bright, but their rapid pulsation indicates that they are relatively small. Because of their high red shifts, they are believed to be among the most distant objects in the universe. NASA photos of a quasar supposed to be 1.5 billion light years away The Stefan-Boltzmann law says energy output is proportional to an object’s surface area and the fourth power of the temperature. There is no known way an object as small as a quasar could get hot enough to be so bright if it is really billions of light years away. Either we are wrong about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, derived from observation, or else we are wrong about the meaning of red shifts for at least these quasars. How can we be sure about the meaning of red shifts for anything, then? QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS If the universe is the result of a Big Bang, then stars and galaxies near us should have very low red shifts, while those far away should have high shifts. For objects in between, there should be a continuous distribution of red shifts. THERE IS NOT. Red shifts occur in discrete intervals calculated at about 72 km/sec. Evolutionary astronomy has no explanation for this phenomenon. Some Intelligent Design advocates point out that the quantization of red shifts would make sense if the earth were near the center of a 3-dimensional (non-Big Bang) universe. QUANTIZED RED SHIFTS 10 However, an observer near the center would see red shifts in discrete intervals. The distribution would look something like this: Number of Galaxies Number of Galaxies If the universe expanded uniformly through 3-dimensional space, an observer not near the center would see a continuous • range of red shifts determined by the distance of each galaxy emitting light. About 2 million light years from the center, the distribution of red shifts should look something like this: 10 5 0 5 0 62 64 66 68 Distance in M Light Years • 62 64 66 68 Distance in M Light Years This is exactly what we see. It looks like the earth is near the center of the universe! A CHALLENGE TO MATERIALISM: Come up with an alternate explanation for the quantization of red shifts. 2 Types of Evidence Used to Support the BIG BANG: 1. Red Shift of Starlight 2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) Energy Level of the CMB The present energy level of the CMB is about 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. • At the time of the Big Bang, theory says that the temperature would have been billions of degrees. Matter and energy would have been freely changing back and forth. • As the fireball expanded, the matter and energy would have cooled like the gases in a refrigerator. • After 300,000 years matter and energy would have “decoupled” so that the energy went right through matter without affecting it. • The energy level of the radiation would have been about 3000K at the time. • In order to explain the change from 3000K to 2.73K, we have to say that the energy was absorbed by the fabric of space as it expanded. This, too, requires expanding 4-dimensional space. It is not possible in 3 dimensions. Distribution of the CMB Computer generated image of cosmic microwave background radiation released by NASA in 1992 based on COBE data. The image is deceptive. The “hot spots” are greatly exaggerated due to computer manipulation. The CMB is almost perfectly uniform, to within 30 parts per million. A Possible Factor in the CMB: Blackbody Radiation Wavelength distribution of the CMB, 2.726 degrees above absolute zero. (Based on COBE data.) Under laboratory conditions, such a distribution usually indicates “blackbody radiation” caused by objects emitting energy at the same rate they absorb it. Could space dust be contributing to the CMB? INFLATIONARY MODEL To account for the “Horizon Problem” – the discrepancy between the smooth background radiation and the “lumpy” distribution of matter -- many believe that there was an inflationary period between 10-43 and 10-34 seconds after the Big Bang during which space expanded at 1020 times the speed of light and lumps formed. This is incompatible with the Law of Conservation of Momentum and Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion. There is no known physical cause for the expansion to speed up and then slow down again -- only an a priori assumption needed for the Big Bang to be correct. Inflation is also insufficient to account for the amount of clustering observed. With the amount of matter known in the universe, it would take 60 billion years to reach the present level. (Hence, the invention of “dark matter.” COLD DARK MATTER There is nowhere near the amount of matter needed to pull together galaxies, galaxy clusters, and so on. In order to hold to materialistic Big Bang cosmology, we have to believe that 90 to 99% of the matter in the universe is invisible. As alternatives, some have proposed String and Texture theories. These depend on the existence of “Higgs Fields,” hypothetical force fields that appear and disappear as necessary to make the mathematics of a Big Bang work. Isn’t the Scientific Method supposed to be based on OBSERVATION? The Origin of Fried Eggs WAS THERE A COOK, or... did a supernova release a burst of energy that bounced off a satellite... hitting a chicken that exploded and sent a superheated egg sailing onto a plate? Conservation of Angular Momentum Any rotating object possesses momentum. As the object’s speed of rotation decreases lar momentum. As the speed increases. Suppose a galaxy diameter, and rotating If we move back through time must have been smaller and angular momentum from the rotating faster and after the Big Bang, it faster than the According to the this is a physical a property known as angular diameter increases, its in order to conserve angudiameter decreases, the were only a billion miles in at only one mile per hour. toward the Big Bang, it smaller. Since it had all its beginning, it had to be faster. At some point shortly would have had to be rotating far speed of light. observations of physics, impossibility. PROBLEMS WITH “LITTLE BIG BANGS” If there were several “little big bangs” that interacted with each other, this could overcome the problems of conservation of linear momentum and angular momentum. However, 1. Each singularity would be the result of a quantum fluctuation. The results of such fluctuations should be random and unpredictable. Yet we see the same types of matter and energy everywhere we look throughout the universe. 2. The Big Bang says that there was nothing outside the explosion, not even space. Space is 4-dimensional. However, “Little Big Bangs” would have occurred at many different locations, meaning that space already existed before they exploded. Space would have to be 3-dimensional. 3. We must discard the First Law of Thermodynamics over and over, each time one of the smaller singularities appeared. The Most Fundamental A Priori Assumption of Materialistic Cosmology: Everything must be explainable by purely natural Processes. But there are no KNOWN natural processes that might have produced matter and energy, or that might have caused the singularity to explode, or that might have caused inflation, or that might have caused clustering, etc. We can choose to believe in unknown NATURAL processes, or unknown NON-NATURAL processes. Either way, it’s a step of faith! HOW ABOUT THE SOLAR SYSTEM? Can we explain its origin by known natural processes? COMPOSITION OF THE PLANETS The standard scenario for the origin of the sun and planets is the collapse of a planetary disk. If this is the case, the chemical composition should be similar throughout the solar system. Mercury Venus Earth Jupiter Saturn Mars Uranus Neptune However, NASA space flights tell us that each planet is made of a mix of elements different from all the rest and from the sun. This is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis. ANGULAR MOMENTUM The sun possesses 99% of the mass in the solar system, yet the planets possess 98% of the angular momentum. Mercury Venus Earth Jupiter Saturn Mars Uranus Neptune There is no known way that a rotating disk of gas and dusk could distribute its angular momentum so unevenly. This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis. ORBITS OF THE PLANETS Each of the planets orbits the sun in a different plane. • Pluto, Mercury, and earth’s “twin,” Venus, are the most inclined with respect to our own orbit. • Venus rotates backward from the rest; Uranus rotates almost perpendicular to its orbit. • At least 11 moons orbit opposite their mother planet’s rotation. • The moons of Uranus orbit almost perpendicular to the rest of the solar system. This, too, is incompatible with the “planetary disk” hypothesis. COULD THE PLANETS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED BY THE SUN’S GRAVITY? Suppose you had a turntable with a magnet at the center and nine individually adjustable rotating rings. Could you roll a steel ball bearing onto the turntable and get it to orbit by exactly balancing the magnetic force with the outward momentum? MAGNET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Got one in orbit? Now do it 8 more times, one for each planet, without disturbing the first ball. Got your 9 planets in place? Now do it about 4 dozen more times, one for each moon. BUT WAIT! You have to do it in 3 dimensions, not two! Even with all our technology, there is no way we could put together an arrangement as complex as the solar system. Yet it is supposed to be the product of Random Chance. Back to our first question: WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE? Not very much! Most of what we think we know is deductive logic, based on a priori assumptions. Are you willing to examine your assumptions to see if they make sense?