The Cyclic Version of Continuous Creation
The above three lines of evidence were in place by 1992, but some people kept on trying to avoid the conclusion that there was a creation. In 1999 Hoyle and others proposed a cyclic version of the expanding universe.[i] They called their proposal a “quasi-steady-state cosmology.” Their proposal also incorporates the “bouncing universe.”
In the universe according to Hoyle the part of the universe we inhabit (and the only part we can observe) is presently in an expanding phase. Hoyle predicts that eventually gravity will halt the expansion and start pulling the galaxies back together again. He says that we are on the rebound from the last bounce, but if the human race lasts long enough our posterity may eventually be in a contracting phase that will lead to the next bounce. Everything will become as compressed as things were when the expansion started. The present phase began with an event others describe as a big bang, and the phase will eventually approach what others call a big crunch.
When all the ashes of the burned-out stars are horribly compressed, the known laws of physics say that the universe will become one huge black hole. However, at this point Hoyle and his colleagues invoke some new physics. They say, truly enough, that we cannot achieve in the laboratory the temperatures and pressures that would be reached in the big crunch. Therefore we don’t know by experiment or observation how matter behaves under such conditions. Given this ignorance, Hoyle speculates that there may be other laws of physics, unknown to us, that prevail at extremely high temperatures and pressures. Normally, irreversible processes cause the universe to move toward increasing disorder, but the new physics might work the other way. These new laws might produce a kind of renovation, creating a new, highly ordered state of matter and energy. New physical laws may, so to speak, reverse the burning process and make fuel again from ashes. New order may appear spontaneously.
If the new laws of physics are like this and all of this happens, there will be new fuel for the next bounce of the universe. The reason Hoyle gives for this fantastic hope is that the present phase of expansion may have emerged from a similar, past event.
Does science warrant this hope, or is it just incurable romanticism? Can the phoenix rise from its ashes? We must credit Hoyle with optimism. He thinks the universe can make new fuel by crushing its own ashes.
To our knowledge no one has found a way to discover, test, and confirm the kind of physics that can make fuel from ashes. Was proposing it a last desperate attempt to hold onto the cyclic or “bouncing” universe and to avoid the philosophical implications of a beginning?
[i] Burbidge, Geoffrey, Fred Hoyle, and Jayant V. Narlikar, “A Different Approach to Cosmology,” Physics Today, 52 (Number 4, April 1999), pp. 38–44.
In the universe according to Hoyle the part of the universe we inhabit (and the only part we can observe) is presently in an expanding phase. Hoyle predicts that eventually gravity will halt the expansion and start pulling the galaxies back together again. He says that we are on the rebound from the last bounce, but if the human race lasts long enough our posterity may eventually be in a contracting phase that will lead to the next bounce. Everything will become as compressed as things were when the expansion started. The present phase began with an event others describe as a big bang, and the phase will eventually approach what others call a big crunch.
When all the ashes of the burned-out stars are horribly compressed, the known laws of physics say that the universe will become one huge black hole. However, at this point Hoyle and his colleagues invoke some new physics. They say, truly enough, that we cannot achieve in the laboratory the temperatures and pressures that would be reached in the big crunch. Therefore we don’t know by experiment or observation how matter behaves under such conditions. Given this ignorance, Hoyle speculates that there may be other laws of physics, unknown to us, that prevail at extremely high temperatures and pressures. Normally, irreversible processes cause the universe to move toward increasing disorder, but the new physics might work the other way. These new laws might produce a kind of renovation, creating a new, highly ordered state of matter and energy. New physical laws may, so to speak, reverse the burning process and make fuel again from ashes. New order may appear spontaneously.
If the new laws of physics are like this and all of this happens, there will be new fuel for the next bounce of the universe. The reason Hoyle gives for this fantastic hope is that the present phase of expansion may have emerged from a similar, past event.
Does science warrant this hope, or is it just incurable romanticism? Can the phoenix rise from its ashes? We must credit Hoyle with optimism. He thinks the universe can make new fuel by crushing its own ashes.
To our knowledge no one has found a way to discover, test, and confirm the kind of physics that can make fuel from ashes. Was proposing it a last desperate attempt to hold onto the cyclic or “bouncing” universe and to avoid the philosophical implications of a beginning?
[i] Burbidge, Geoffrey, Fred Hoyle, and Jayant V. Narlikar, “A Different Approach to Cosmology,” Physics Today, 52 (Number 4, April 1999), pp. 38–44.
Can New Physics Recycle the Universe?
Physics Today printed a reply immediately after the above proposal.[i] The author of the reply, Andreas Albrecht, noted that Hoyle and his coworkers “approach cosmology with a set of prior prejudices that take them far afield from the mainstream community of cosmologists. They hold on to views that, I must say, look pretty unreasonable to most of us working in the field. Nonetheless, I believe that convergence will eventually be possible.” The convergence Albrecht mentions is a convergence of views, not a convergence of the material of the universe into a Big Crunch. In September 1999 Physics Today printed one more exchange of replies and a rebuttal, without producing any notable difference in the opposing positions.[ii]
[i] Albrecht, Andreas, ‘Reply to “A Different Approach to Cosmology,”’ Physics Today, 52 (Number 4, April 1999), pp. 44–46.
[ii] “Letters: Proponents of Colliding Cosmologies Take Exotic Turns,” a letter by David M. Smith, a letter by C. Sivaram, and a reply by Burbidge, Hoyle and Narlikar, Physics Today, 52 (Number 9, September 1999), pp. 13, 15, and 78.
Physics Today printed a reply immediately after the above proposal.[i] The author of the reply, Andreas Albrecht, noted that Hoyle and his coworkers “approach cosmology with a set of prior prejudices that take them far afield from the mainstream community of cosmologists. They hold on to views that, I must say, look pretty unreasonable to most of us working in the field. Nonetheless, I believe that convergence will eventually be possible.” The convergence Albrecht mentions is a convergence of views, not a convergence of the material of the universe into a Big Crunch. In September 1999 Physics Today printed one more exchange of replies and a rebuttal, without producing any notable difference in the opposing positions.[ii]
[i] Albrecht, Andreas, ‘Reply to “A Different Approach to Cosmology,”’ Physics Today, 52 (Number 4, April 1999), pp. 44–46.
[ii] “Letters: Proponents of Colliding Cosmologies Take Exotic Turns,” a letter by David M. Smith, a letter by C. Sivaram, and a reply by Burbidge, Hoyle and Narlikar, Physics Today, 52 (Number 9, September 1999), pp. 13, 15, and 78.
Accelerating Expansion
Before Hoyle published his paper, evidence from the work of Saul Perlmutter[i] and others had already shown that the expansion of the universe, rather than decelerating under the action of gravity, is actually accelerating.
[i] Perlmutter, Saul, “Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe,” Physics Today, 56 (Number 4, April 2003), pp. 53–60.
No Big Crunch and No New Physical Laws
Some results reported in April 2001 still allowed a faint hope for a Big Crunch and perhaps even a cyclic universe. The coup de grace came when the project scientists of WMAP released 13 papers to Science on 11 February 2003. All teams unanimously concluded that there never will be a Big Crunch. That means that there will never be a chance for any new physics of extreme temperatures and pressures to turn ashes into fuel again and renew the universe.
Hoyle did not live to see these results. He died on 20 August 2001. What makes this especially sad is the seriousness with which Hoyle sought to deny that the universe had a beginning.
[i] Perlmutter, Saul, “Supernovae, Dark Energy, and the Accelerating Universe,” Physics Today, 56 (Number 4, April 2003), pp. 53–60.
No Big Crunch and No New Physical Laws
Some results reported in April 2001 still allowed a faint hope for a Big Crunch and perhaps even a cyclic universe. The coup de grace came when the project scientists of WMAP released 13 papers to Science on 11 February 2003. All teams unanimously concluded that there never will be a Big Crunch. That means that there will never be a chance for any new physics of extreme temperatures and pressures to turn ashes into fuel again and renew the universe.
Hoyle did not live to see these results. He died on 20 August 2001. What makes this especially sad is the seriousness with which Hoyle sought to deny that the universe had a beginning.
Dr. Robert Jastrow documented how, throughout the twentieth century, the mounting evidence brought great scientists to accept the fact that the universe had a beginning. He ends his book this way:
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.[i]
[i] Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 107.
[i] Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992), p. 107.
Very recently scientific evidence has settled the question “Created or Uncreated” decisively in favor of a beginning in the observable past. The expansion is the resounding proof that the universe had a beginning. When Moses started his creation narrative with the words “In the beginning” he was right. Many people made great efforts to find evidence that would show Moses wrong, but they all struck out.