Continuous Creation
Always Expanding but Never Beginning
Other astronomers had already reacted in a different way to the finding that the density of luminous matter is too low to stop the expansion. The expansion forced Einstein to accept a beginning for the universe. But the idea of a beginning remained intolerable to some people. A few astronomers proposed ways the universe could be always expanding yet uncreated.
Hermann Bondi (Austrian-British mathematician, 1919–) and Thomas Gold[i] (Austrian-American astronomer, 1920–2004) accepted the evidence that the universe is expanding. To get around that observation and yet have an uncreated universe they proposed that matter must be created spontaneously and continuously to fill in the expanding spaces between galaxies with new galaxies. The rate of creation was only one new hydrogen atom per cubic meter every 300 000 years. They said, “Accordingly we cannot expect the process to be directly observable.”[ii]
Bondi and Gold insisted that the universe couldn’t have been created at any definite time in the past. If it were, that would mean that the results of scientific observations would depend on the time when they are made. The validity of this remark depends on the phenomenon one is investigating. One can run an experiment under controlled conditions in the laboratory. For instance, one can cause the collision of two particles, each of a well-known type. Under such conditions one expects the results to be independent of the day of the week or phase of the Moon when the experiment was done. However, if one is observing a process one has another expectation. The aspect of a young plant depends on the elapsed time since the seed germinated. If one weighs a baby every week during the first year of life, one certainly expects that the results of the scientific observations will depend on the week when they are made. Bondi and Gold were considering physical, not biological, phenomena. They didn’t think that the universe was developing. With a plant or a baby one is observing a process of development. Bondi and Gold’s objection really means that they didn’t accept any observable development in the universe as a whole.
Hoyle[iii] likewise postulated continuous creation that fills in the holes and provides new fuel for the universe. He advocated the spontaneous creation of neutrons rather than hydrogen atoms.
[i] Bondi, H. and T. Gold, “The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 1948, pp. 252–270.
[ii] Ibid. p. 266.
[iii] Hoyle, F., “A New Model for the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 1948, pp. 372–382.
Other astronomers had already reacted in a different way to the finding that the density of luminous matter is too low to stop the expansion. The expansion forced Einstein to accept a beginning for the universe. But the idea of a beginning remained intolerable to some people. A few astronomers proposed ways the universe could be always expanding yet uncreated.
Hermann Bondi (Austrian-British mathematician, 1919–) and Thomas Gold[i] (Austrian-American astronomer, 1920–2004) accepted the evidence that the universe is expanding. To get around that observation and yet have an uncreated universe they proposed that matter must be created spontaneously and continuously to fill in the expanding spaces between galaxies with new galaxies. The rate of creation was only one new hydrogen atom per cubic meter every 300 000 years. They said, “Accordingly we cannot expect the process to be directly observable.”[ii]
Bondi and Gold insisted that the universe couldn’t have been created at any definite time in the past. If it were, that would mean that the results of scientific observations would depend on the time when they are made. The validity of this remark depends on the phenomenon one is investigating. One can run an experiment under controlled conditions in the laboratory. For instance, one can cause the collision of two particles, each of a well-known type. Under such conditions one expects the results to be independent of the day of the week or phase of the Moon when the experiment was done. However, if one is observing a process one has another expectation. The aspect of a young plant depends on the elapsed time since the seed germinated. If one weighs a baby every week during the first year of life, one certainly expects that the results of the scientific observations will depend on the week when they are made. Bondi and Gold were considering physical, not biological, phenomena. They didn’t think that the universe was developing. With a plant or a baby one is observing a process of development. Bondi and Gold’s objection really means that they didn’t accept any observable development in the universe as a whole.
Hoyle[iii] likewise postulated continuous creation that fills in the holes and provides new fuel for the universe. He advocated the spontaneous creation of neutrons rather than hydrogen atoms.
[i] Bondi, H. and T. Gold, “The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 1948, pp. 252–270.
[ii] Ibid. p. 266.
[iii] Hoyle, F., “A New Model for the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 108, 1948, pp. 372–382.
It is not possible in the present state of nuclear physics to make a definite statement on the identity of the created particles. Neutron creation appears to be the most likely possibility. Subsequent disintegrations might be expected to supply the hydrogen required by astrophysics. Moreover, the electrical neutrality of the universe would then be guaranteed.[i]
[i] Ibid. p. 381.
Free neutrons spontaneously emit electrons and neutrinos, in the process becoming protons. Half of them will do so in 13 minutes. The electrons and protons attract each other and can form hydrogen atoms. Hoyle simplified Bondi and Gold’s idea of the continuous creation of hydrogen, which requires the simultaneous creation of two different particles, a proton and an electron, close enough so the proton can capture the electron and form a neutral atom.
Both of these proposals for continuous creation produce the so-called “steady state” universe. This means that, in the large, the universe does not change. Its overall aspect at any time is similar to its overall aspect at any other time. The universe expands, leaving larger and larger spaces between the galaxies, but new galaxies form and fill in the spaces. The average distance between galaxies therefore remains about the same.
In all fairness one must remember that Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle made their proposals in the middle of the 20th century, when telescopes could only see a couple of thousand million light years into the past. That was not far enough back into the past to observe systematic differences in the state of development of typical galaxies.
In the introduction to his article Hoyle acknowledged a discussion with Thomas Gold in which both were inclined to accept the continuous creation of matter. “This possibility seemed attractive, especially when taken in conjunction with aesthetic objections to the creation of the universe in the remote past. For it is against the spirit of scientific enquiry to regard observable effects as arising from ‘causes unknown to science’, and this in principle is what creation-in-the-past implies.”[i]
When he mentioned “aesthetic objections” he might as well have said “atheistic objections.” There is no problem with “causes unknown to science,” because causes presently unknown can be investigated and become known in the future. Hoyle’s objection appears to be against causes that are unknowable to science. If a capricious god like one of the Greek deities created the universe, he did so for reasons that only he knows. We can know those reasons only if the god chooses to make them known (or if the poet who wrote the account discusses the reasons). The Biblical Creator is not capricious. He Himself is law abiding, and Moses says He expects people to abide by law, too. The God of the Bible claims to have created nature as well as the universe. Nature includes physics, and the laws of physics are not capricious. If the Creator chose to use secondary causes when forming the universe, science can investigate those causes and reach conclusions about the way the universe works.
We have already seen scientific objections to the name “big bang” for the beginning. The name comes from Hoyle. Alpher and Herman recently said, “Hoyle was responsible for introducing ‘Big Bang’ as a descriptor of an evolving, expanding universe. He first used this phrase in a pejorative sense during a BBC radio broadcast. The name has outlived the steady-state cosmology that Hoyle and his colleagues advocated.”[ii] Below we quote Hoyle’s transcript of that broadcast.
[i] Ibid. p. 372.
[ii] Alpher, Ralph A. and Robert Herman, “Reflections on Early Work on ‘Big Bang’ Cosmology,” Physics Today, 41 (Number 8, August 1988), pp. 24–34.
Both of these proposals for continuous creation produce the so-called “steady state” universe. This means that, in the large, the universe does not change. Its overall aspect at any time is similar to its overall aspect at any other time. The universe expands, leaving larger and larger spaces between the galaxies, but new galaxies form and fill in the spaces. The average distance between galaxies therefore remains about the same.
In all fairness one must remember that Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle made their proposals in the middle of the 20th century, when telescopes could only see a couple of thousand million light years into the past. That was not far enough back into the past to observe systematic differences in the state of development of typical galaxies.
In the introduction to his article Hoyle acknowledged a discussion with Thomas Gold in which both were inclined to accept the continuous creation of matter. “This possibility seemed attractive, especially when taken in conjunction with aesthetic objections to the creation of the universe in the remote past. For it is against the spirit of scientific enquiry to regard observable effects as arising from ‘causes unknown to science’, and this in principle is what creation-in-the-past implies.”[i]
When he mentioned “aesthetic objections” he might as well have said “atheistic objections.” There is no problem with “causes unknown to science,” because causes presently unknown can be investigated and become known in the future. Hoyle’s objection appears to be against causes that are unknowable to science. If a capricious god like one of the Greek deities created the universe, he did so for reasons that only he knows. We can know those reasons only if the god chooses to make them known (or if the poet who wrote the account discusses the reasons). The Biblical Creator is not capricious. He Himself is law abiding, and Moses says He expects people to abide by law, too. The God of the Bible claims to have created nature as well as the universe. Nature includes physics, and the laws of physics are not capricious. If the Creator chose to use secondary causes when forming the universe, science can investigate those causes and reach conclusions about the way the universe works.
We have already seen scientific objections to the name “big bang” for the beginning. The name comes from Hoyle. Alpher and Herman recently said, “Hoyle was responsible for introducing ‘Big Bang’ as a descriptor of an evolving, expanding universe. He first used this phrase in a pejorative sense during a BBC radio broadcast. The name has outlived the steady-state cosmology that Hoyle and his colleagues advocated.”[ii] Below we quote Hoyle’s transcript of that broadcast.
[i] Ibid. p. 372.
[ii] Alpher, Ralph A. and Robert Herman, “Reflections on Early Work on ‘Big Bang’ Cosmology,” Physics Today, 41 (Number 8, August 1988), pp. 24–34.
The older ideas—that is to say, the ideas of the 1920s and 1930s—…fall into two groups. One of them is distinguished by the assumption that the universe started its life a finite time ago in a single huge explosion. On this supposition the present expansion is a relic of the violence of this explosion. This big bang idea seemed to me to be unsatisfactory even before detailed examination showed that it leads to serious difficulties.[i]
[i] Hoyle, Fred, The Nature of the Universe, American edition (New York: Harper & Brothers, 7 October 1950), p. 119.
In the above quotation the phrase “big bang” might be no more than a colloquial way of referring to the “single huge explosion” Hoyle mentions earlier. The book is, after all, a transcription of radio broadcasts, with some supplementary notes. However, in the following quotation from a few pages later, probably originally in the same broadcast, the phrase “big bang” mocks the idea of a beginning.
Some people have argued that continuous creation introduces a new assumption into science—and a very startling assumption at that. It is certainly a new hypothesis, but it only replaces a hypothesis that lies concealed in the older theories, which assume, as I have said before, that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past. On scientific grounds this big bang assumption is much the less palatable of the two. It is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms. Continuous creation, on the other hand, can be represented by precise mathematical equations whose consequences can be worked out and compared with observation. On philosophical grounds too I cannot see any good reason for preferring the big bang idea. Indeed it seems to me in the philosophical sense to be a distinctly unsatisfactory notion, since it puts the basic assumption out of sight where it can never be challenged by a direct appeal to observation.[i]
[i] Ibid. p. 124.
Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle wrote at a time when physicists thought that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles. Now we know that protons consist of two up quarks and a down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks. The three quarks making up a proton or a neutron must be of three different “colors.” Six kinds of gluons, working in pairs, hold the three quarks together. Each gluon has a “color” and “anti-color.” For example, one of a pair of gluons must be “red” and “anti-blue,” and the other must be “anti-red” and “blue,” to bind a red quark with a blue quark. We need nine different particles to make a neutron, and ten counting the electron to make a hydrogen atom. The cause that would produce a neutron or hydrogen atom ready-made is much more complex than collisions of gamma rays, which produce more elementary particles.
Hoyle chose his continuous creation scheme on the basis of “aesthetics,” supposedly what appealed to him as beautiful, perhaps because he thought it was the simplest solution. There is no logical connection between simplicity and reality. If we discover that reality, in its most fundamental form, is simple, that is nice, because then we may be able to solve the equations we write about it. But if many aspects of reality are simple in their fundamental form, we should ask, “Whose preference made it that way?” The answer certainly cannot be “ours.”
Objections to Continuous Creation
Hoyle made many philosophical objections to the idea of a beginning. He claimed that his idea, continuous creation, was mathematical, precise, and scientifically testable by comparison with observation. In retrospect we can say that scientists did test Hoyle’s ideas, and made many objections to them. Here are some of the objections.
Lack of Experimental Evidence
There is no experimental evidence for continuous creation. If we could completely evacuate a cubical box that measured 100 meters on a side, Hoyle would expect after a year to find three hydrogen atoms in it. Carrying out such an experiment is far beyond present technical capabilities. The best vacuum ever created has many leftover gas atoms inside. Sealing the box against leaks so well that no extra atoms could get inside is practically impossible. If the box were located on Earth the possible implosion from atmospheric pressure would threaten communities far and wide. Experimentation therefore cannot falsify the theory of continuous creation. That always makes a theory suspect.
Astronomers, however, have to deal with interior stellar conditions that cannot be duplicated in Earth-bound laboratories. They rely on observation to confirm their theories. What observations might confirm or disprove the idea of continuous creation?
Distant Galaxies Look Newly Formed
If matter comes into existence continuously then there should be a wide distribution of ages for stars and galaxies, just as human communities have a mixture of old, middle-aged, and young members because mothers are constantly giving birth to babies.
If historians were analyzing photographs of representative members of a rugged frontier community in the western part of the United States, and the oldest photographs showed no elderly people at all, then the historians would rightly conclude that early conditions in frontier communities were very rigorous and that only strong young people could found them. But if the historians looked at a similar series of photographs of a European community, the presence of elderly people would show that European civilization is much older than photography.
Telescopes can now see almost ten times farther than they could in 1948 when Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle proposed their theories. We can now affirm definitively that the farther away galaxies are, the newer they look. This is what we expect if the most distant galaxies were recently formed when the universe was new. But if new galaxies are constantly appearing to fill the growing spaces between old galaxies, then some of the most distant galaxies should look old. Observation therefore contradicts continuous creation.
Nucleosynthesis of Low-Mass Elements
When Hoyle made his proposal for continuous creation in 1948, he was committing himself and others to find a way to use stellar interiors to make, in the observed abundance, both the lightest elements and the heavy elements. Hoyle contributed significantly to the theory of nucleosynthesis, but neither he nor anyone else was able to find the desired solution. Continuous creation of hydrogen atoms does not explain the abundances of the heavy forms of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), nor the abundances of helium and lithium, but a hot, dense beginning does.
The Fluctuations
In 1964 Penzias and Wilson observed the cosmic microwave background. Afterwards some researchers recognized the background as one of the fundamental secrets of the universe. In 1989–1992 the Cosmic Background Explorer photographed the fluctuations in the background. The principal investigator, George Smoot[i], presented the data in April 1992. The results showed that the primitive universe was almost uniform. Calculating the small differences of temperature between regions produced a patchwork map. Some regions were denser and hotter than others. Other regions were slightly more rarefied and cooler. Smoot was so enthusiastic about the fluctuations that he said, “If you are religious, it is like looking at God!”[ii]
The fluctuations are essential to the cosmology of the expanding universe. If the cosmic background were perfectly smooth there would have been no centers of gravitational attraction to form the present inhomogeneous structure we see in the universe. Continuous creation in a steady-state universe does not explain the cosmic microwave background or the fluctuations in the background. We have seen that the background is the first light of the first morning. It is a curtain of light that marks the limit of visibility, close to the beginning of the universe. We would not see it if the universe had no beginning.
In summary, we have presented three lines of evidence against continuous creation. The youthful appearance of all distant galaxies, light-weight element abundances, and the microwave background with its fluctuations are all consistent with a beginning for the universe and inconsistent with continuous creation.
[i] George F. Smoot (American cosmologist, 1945–) and John C. Mather (American astrophysicist, 1946–) shared the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for this discovery.
[ii] Schwarzschild, Bertram, “Mather and Smoot share Nobel physics prize for measuring the cosmic microwave background,” Physics Today, 59 (Number 12, December 2006), pp. 18–22.
Hoyle chose his continuous creation scheme on the basis of “aesthetics,” supposedly what appealed to him as beautiful, perhaps because he thought it was the simplest solution. There is no logical connection between simplicity and reality. If we discover that reality, in its most fundamental form, is simple, that is nice, because then we may be able to solve the equations we write about it. But if many aspects of reality are simple in their fundamental form, we should ask, “Whose preference made it that way?” The answer certainly cannot be “ours.”
Objections to Continuous Creation
Hoyle made many philosophical objections to the idea of a beginning. He claimed that his idea, continuous creation, was mathematical, precise, and scientifically testable by comparison with observation. In retrospect we can say that scientists did test Hoyle’s ideas, and made many objections to them. Here are some of the objections.
Lack of Experimental Evidence
There is no experimental evidence for continuous creation. If we could completely evacuate a cubical box that measured 100 meters on a side, Hoyle would expect after a year to find three hydrogen atoms in it. Carrying out such an experiment is far beyond present technical capabilities. The best vacuum ever created has many leftover gas atoms inside. Sealing the box against leaks so well that no extra atoms could get inside is practically impossible. If the box were located on Earth the possible implosion from atmospheric pressure would threaten communities far and wide. Experimentation therefore cannot falsify the theory of continuous creation. That always makes a theory suspect.
Astronomers, however, have to deal with interior stellar conditions that cannot be duplicated in Earth-bound laboratories. They rely on observation to confirm their theories. What observations might confirm or disprove the idea of continuous creation?
Distant Galaxies Look Newly Formed
If matter comes into existence continuously then there should be a wide distribution of ages for stars and galaxies, just as human communities have a mixture of old, middle-aged, and young members because mothers are constantly giving birth to babies.
If historians were analyzing photographs of representative members of a rugged frontier community in the western part of the United States, and the oldest photographs showed no elderly people at all, then the historians would rightly conclude that early conditions in frontier communities were very rigorous and that only strong young people could found them. But if the historians looked at a similar series of photographs of a European community, the presence of elderly people would show that European civilization is much older than photography.
Telescopes can now see almost ten times farther than they could in 1948 when Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle proposed their theories. We can now affirm definitively that the farther away galaxies are, the newer they look. This is what we expect if the most distant galaxies were recently formed when the universe was new. But if new galaxies are constantly appearing to fill the growing spaces between old galaxies, then some of the most distant galaxies should look old. Observation therefore contradicts continuous creation.
Nucleosynthesis of Low-Mass Elements
When Hoyle made his proposal for continuous creation in 1948, he was committing himself and others to find a way to use stellar interiors to make, in the observed abundance, both the lightest elements and the heavy elements. Hoyle contributed significantly to the theory of nucleosynthesis, but neither he nor anyone else was able to find the desired solution. Continuous creation of hydrogen atoms does not explain the abundances of the heavy forms of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium), nor the abundances of helium and lithium, but a hot, dense beginning does.
The Fluctuations
In 1964 Penzias and Wilson observed the cosmic microwave background. Afterwards some researchers recognized the background as one of the fundamental secrets of the universe. In 1989–1992 the Cosmic Background Explorer photographed the fluctuations in the background. The principal investigator, George Smoot[i], presented the data in April 1992. The results showed that the primitive universe was almost uniform. Calculating the small differences of temperature between regions produced a patchwork map. Some regions were denser and hotter than others. Other regions were slightly more rarefied and cooler. Smoot was so enthusiastic about the fluctuations that he said, “If you are religious, it is like looking at God!”[ii]
The fluctuations are essential to the cosmology of the expanding universe. If the cosmic background were perfectly smooth there would have been no centers of gravitational attraction to form the present inhomogeneous structure we see in the universe. Continuous creation in a steady-state universe does not explain the cosmic microwave background or the fluctuations in the background. We have seen that the background is the first light of the first morning. It is a curtain of light that marks the limit of visibility, close to the beginning of the universe. We would not see it if the universe had no beginning.
In summary, we have presented three lines of evidence against continuous creation. The youthful appearance of all distant galaxies, light-weight element abundances, and the microwave background with its fluctuations are all consistent with a beginning for the universe and inconsistent with continuous creation.
[i] George F. Smoot (American cosmologist, 1945–) and John C. Mather (American astrophysicist, 1946–) shared the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for this discovery.
[ii] Schwarzschild, Bertram, “Mather and Smoot share Nobel physics prize for measuring the cosmic microwave background,” Physics Today, 59 (Number 12, December 2006), pp. 18–22.