http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1123
Big Bang or "Big Crunch"?
Q.
Some scientists have suggested that the Universe started via the “Big
Bang,” and will collapse via a “Big Crunch.” Then the whole process will
start all over again. Does such a concept have any merit?
A.
The origin and destiny of the Universe always have been important
topics in the creation/evolution controversy. In the past, evolutionists
went to great extremes to avoid scenarios that suggested a Universe
with a beginning or ending, because such scenarios posed bothersome
philosophical questions (“What came before the beginning?” or “What will
come after the ending?”). Only theories that guaranteed an eternal
Universe were worthy of consideration.
BACKGROUND
One theory offered in an attempt to establish the eternality of the
Universe was the Steady State model of Sir Fred Hoyle and his
colleagues. Even before he offered this unusual theory, however,
scientific evidence had been discovered which indicated that the
Universe was expanding. Hoyle set forth the Steady State model to: (a)
erase any possibility of a beginning; (b) bolster the idea of an eternal
Universe; and (c) explain why the Universe was expanding. His idea was
that at certain points in the Universe (which he labeled “irtrons”),
matter was being created spontaneously
from nothing. Since this
new matter had to “go” somewhere, and since two objects cannot occupy
the same space at the same time, it pushed the matter that already
existed further into distant space. Hoyle asserted that this process of
matter continually being created (the idea even came to be known as the
“continuous creation” theory) avoided any beginning or ending, and
simultaneously accounted for the expansion of the Universe.
For a time, Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis was quite popular.
Eventually, however, it was discarded for several reasons. Cosmologist
John Barrow suggested that the Steady State theory sprang “from a belief
that the universe did not have a beginning.... The specific theory they
proposed fell into conflict with observation long ago” (1991, p. 46).
Indeed, the Steady State theory did fall “into conflict with
observation” for a number of reasons. First, new theoretical concepts
being proposed at the time were completely at odds with the Steady State
model. Second, empirical observations no longer agreed with the model
(see Gribbin, 1986). And third, it violated the First Law of
Thermodynamics, which states that neither matter nor energy may be
created or destroyed in nature. Therefore, the Steady State model was abandoned.
The Big Bang model replaced the Steady State theory by postulating that
all the matter/energy in the observable Universe was condensed into a
particle smaller than a single proton (the famous “cosmic egg”). The Big
Bang model, however, suffered from at least two major problems. First,
it required that the “cosmic egg” be eternal—a concept clearly at odds
with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. John Gribbin, a highly regarded
evolutionary cosmologist, voiced the opinion of many when he said: “The
biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe
is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the
bang?” (1976, pp. 15-16).
Second, the expansion of the Universe could not go on forever; it had
to end somewhere. The Universe had a beginning, and would have an
ending. Robert Jastrow has addressed both of these points: “And
concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that
the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the
Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must
have been a time when it was fully wound up” (1978, pp. 48-49). Matter
could not be eternal, because eternal things do not run down.
Furthermore, there was going to be an end at some point in the future.
Such a scenario is unacceptable to evolutionists. Jastrow himself
admitted: “Astronomers try not to be influenced by philosophical
considerations. However, the idea of a Universe that has both a
beginning and an end is distasteful to the scientific mind” (1977, p.
31). To avoid any vestige of a beginning, or any hint of an ending,
evolutionists invented the Oscillating Universe model (also known as the
Big Bang/Big Crunch model, the Expansion/ Collapse model, etc.). Dr.
Gribbin suggested: “[T]he best way around this initial difficulty is
provided by a model in which the Universe expands from a singularity,
collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely” (1976, pp.
15-16).
That is to say, there was a Big Bang; but there also will be a Big
Crunch, at which time the matter of the Universe will collapse back onto
itself. There will be a “bounce,” followed by another Big Bang, which
will be followed by another Big Crunch, and this process will be
repeated
ad infinitum. In the Big Bang model, there is a permanent end; not so in the Oscillating Universe model, as Dr. Jastrow explained:
But many astronomers reject this picture of a dying Universe. They
believe that the expansion of the Universe will not continue forever
because gravity, pulling back on the outward-moving galaxies, must slow
their retreat. If the pull of gravity is sufficiently strong, it may
bring the expansion to a halt at some point in the future.
What will happen then? The answer is the crux of this theory. The
elements of the Universe, held in a balance between the outward momentum
of the primordial explosion and the inward force of gravity, stand
momentarily at rest; but after the briefest instant, always drawn
together by gravity, they commence to move toward one another. Slowly at
first, and then with increasing momentum, the Universe collapses under
the relentless pull of gravity. Soon the galaxies of the Cosmos rush
toward one another with an inward movement as violent as the outward
movement of their expansion when the Universe exploded earlier. After a
sufficient time, they come into contact; their gases mix; their atoms
are heated by compression; and the Universe returns to the heat and
chaos from which it emerged many billions of years ago (1978, p. 118).
The description provided by Dr. Jastrow is that commonly referred to in
the literature as the “Big Crunch.” But the obvious question is—after
that, then what? Again, Jastrow explained:
No one knows. Some astronomers say the Universe will never come out of
this collapsed state. Others speculate that the Universe will rebound
from the collapse in a new explosion, and experience a new moment of
Creation. According to this view, our Universe will be melted down and
remade in the caldron of the second Creation. It will become an entirely
new world, in which no trace of the existing Universe remains....
This theory envisages a Cosmos that oscillates forever, passing through
an infinite number of moments of creation in a never-ending cycle of
birth, death and rebirth. It unites the scientific evidence for an
explosive moment of creation with the concept of an eternal Universe. It
also has the advantage of being able to answer the question: What
preceded the explosion? (1978, pp. 119- 120).
COMMENTS
Several questions arise. First, of what benefit would such events be?
Second, is such a concept testable scientifically? Third, does current
scientific evidence support such an idea?
Of what benefit would a Big Bang/Big Crunch/Big Bang scenario be?
Theoretically,
as I have noted already, the benefit to evolutionists is that they do
not have to explain a Universe with absolute beginnings or endings. A
cyclical Universe that expands and contracts infinitely is much more
acceptable than one that demands explanations for both its origin and
destiny.
Practically, there is no benefit that derives from such a scenario. Astronomer Carl Sagan of Cornell University noted:
...information from our universe would not trickle into that next one
and, from our vantage point, such an oscillating cosmology is as
definitive and depressing an end as the expansion that never stops
(1979, pp. 13-14).
Could the Oscillating Universe model be tested scientifically? Gribbin felt that it could.
The key factors which determine the ultimate fate of the Universe are
the amount of matter it contains and the rate at which it is
expanding.... In simple terms, the Universe can only expand forever if
it is exploding faster than the “escape velocity” from itself.... If the
density of matter across the visible Universe we see today is
sufficient to halt the expansion we can observe today, then the Universe
has always been exploding at less than its own escape velocity, and
must eventually be slowed down so much that the expansion is first
halted and then converted into collapse. On the other hand, if the
expansion we observe today is proceeding fast enough to escape from the
gravitational clutches of the matter we observe today, then the Universe
is and always was “open” and will expand forever (1981, p. 313).
Does scientific evidence support the theory of an “oscillating”
Universe? The success or failure of this theory depends, in part, on the
amount of matter contained in the Universe, since there must be enough
matter for gravity to “pull back” to cause the Big Crunch. This is one
reason why cold dark matter is so important. Dr. Gribbin has said:
“This, in a nutshell, is one of the biggest problems in cosmology today,
the puzzle of the so-called missing mass” (1981, pp. 315-316). In
discussing the Oscillating Universe model, astronomers speak of a
“closed” or an “open” Universe. If the Universe is
closed,
theoretically the Big Crunch could occur, and an oscillating Universe becomes a viable possibility. If the Universe is
open,
the expansion of the Universe will continue and the Big Crunch will not
occur, making an oscillating Universe impossible. Joseph Silk remarked:
“The balance of evidence does point to an
open model of the
universe” (1980, p. 309, emp. added). Gribbin commented: “The consensus
among astronomers today is that the universe is
open” (1981, p. 316, emp. added). Jastrow observed: “Thus, the facts indicate that
the universe will expand forever”
(1978, p. 123, emp. added). Recent evidence seems to indicate that an
oscillating Universe is a physical impossibility (see Chaisson, 1992).
Evolutionary cosmologist John Wheeler has drawn the following
conclusion based on the scientific evidence: “With gravitational
collapse we come to the end of time. Never out of the equations of
general relativity has one been able to find the slightest argument for a
‘re-expansion’ of a ‘cyclic universe’ or anything other than an end”
(1977, p. 15). As Ross has admitted: “Attempts...to use oscillation to
avoid a theistic beginning for the universe all fail” (1991, p. 105). No
one yet has improved on Genesis 1— “In the beginning, God created....”
REFERENCES
Barrow, John D. (1991),
Theories of Everything (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press).
Chaisson, E.J. (1992), “Early Results from the Hubble Space Telescope,”
Scientific American, 266[6]:44-51, June.
Gribbin, John (1976), “Oscillating Universe Bounces Back,”
Nature, 259:15-16.
Gribbin, John (1981),
Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe (New York: Delacorte).
Gribbin, John (1986),
In Search of the Big Bang (New York: Bantam).
Jastrow, Robert (1977),
Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jastrow, Robert (1978),
God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton).
Ross, Hugh (1991),
The Fingerprint of God (Orange, CA: Promise Publishing).
Sagan, Carl (1979), “Will It All End in a Fireball?,”
Science Digest, 86[3]:13-14, September.
Silk, Joseph (1980),
The Big Bang (San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
Wheeler, John (1977), “Genesis and Observership,”
Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel).
