The Creation Wiki is now operating on a new and improved server.
Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from? (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- Cosmologists cannot explain where space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came from.
Source: Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 20.
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Some questions are harder to answer than others. But although we do not have a full understanding of the origin of the universe, we are not completely in the dark.
While evolutionary cosmologists suggest some solutions, they are all problematic at best.
We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe.
But to get more space from the expansion of the universe, there must be some initial amount of space regardless of how small. The problem is where did the initial space come from that is now being stretched in the expansion of the universe. In applying the expansion of the universe to the origin of space, Talk Origins is proposing the equivalent of trying to making a sheet of rubber by stretching it from nothing.
The total energy of the universe may be zero.
This is nothing but a mathematical trick to try to get around the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. It invokes negative energy, but such a concept violates the very concept of energy, since it would require a force to push a mass in the direction opposite to the direction in which energy is applied. In other words, this proposes a type of energy that manifests behaviors in a way opposite to what is meant by energy.
Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations . For example, it is possible that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time.
Interesting notion but the problem is that this idea separates space and time in violation of Special and General Relativity. In fact that is the problem with all these ideas. As Walt Brown correctly stated "A satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others." None of the above proposals do that.
Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle or at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, creating the universe anew.
The problem with the "eternal cycle" idea is that this model runs counter to observation. It requires a minimum amount of mass density, and the observed amount of mass fall far short of the minimum. Cosmologists and physicists in fact do not have any articulate consensus on "how" or "why" the "Big Bang" itself may have occurred, so this idea is even more speculative.
As to the "long intervals" and "collisions" with a "mirror universe", these are speculations that involve good imaginations but little science, necessarily invoking unknown entities. Time and space have meaning within our universe, and "collisions" would necessarily have to occur within the phenomena that relate to our universe. Also this means accepting proposals of such "explanations" of the observable, from speculations about the non-observable, and having no more rational logical strength than the Creation models.
One should keep in mind that our experiences in everyday life are poor preparation for the extreme and bizarre conditions one encounters in cosmology. The stuff cosmologists deal with is very hard to understand. To reject it because of that, though, would be to retreat into the argument from incredulity.
Walt Brown is simply stating a fact.
2. Creationists cannot explain origins at all. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility.
Saying "God did it" is as much of an explanation as explaining the existence of a watch by saying that it was made by a watch maker. Neither is a complete explanation, but they are both starting points. Starting with God moves the origin outside of space-time, and provides a source. Given this starting point, it is possible for science to shed some light on the details.
At this point in science, also, postulates about an oscillating universe, and multiple universe collisions, and other metaphysical explanations accepted by some cosmologists, have much less explanatory power.
It does not address questions of "how" and "why,"
This is exactly what all "spontaneous origins" theories have lacking, and is the point of this issue.
As to how, starting with a God outside space-time provides at least two possibilities.
- God formed space-time and energy from a substance that exists in eternity.
- When Quantum physics is applied to this question, it suggests that the universe is more like a computer simulation, with God as the programmer.
As for why, the Bible explains why God did it.
It raises questions such as "which God?"
No, it does not since there is really only one God and the Bible tells us about him, and this is a belief rooted in factual evidence. Besides since mainstream creation science is based on the Bible this is nothing but a Straw Man.
"how did God originate?"
The Bible makes it clear that God had no beginning. This is supported by both Special and General Relativity. Special Relativity shows that time is an integral part of the structure of the universe, and just the perceptions of a sequence if events. The result is that any thing outside the universe would be timeless or have its own time. Furthermore General Relativity by requiring at least one additional dimension beyond space-time, shows that there is an outside. Such an out side would be timeless and by definition, it would be what the Bible refers to as eternity. So God exists outside space-time, thus talking about God's origin is meaningless.
In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.
Creationist cosmologists are far out in front of evolutionary cosmologists, since creationists have an absolute starting point outside space-time, while evolutionists need to start with in space-time and as such they can't reach a real origin of space-time.