DOES SCIENCE OR GOD EXPLAIN ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?

"Ex nihilo nihil fit"

Parmenides

"Nothing comes from nothing" is the metaphysical thought that originated from Parmenides, believed to be born about 540BC. Parmenides was a pre-Socrates Greek philosopher generally accepted as the father of ontology. This thought remains the cornerstone of classical and modern physics principle of mass-energy conservation, which states that mass and energy are conserved and can only change forms. They can neither be created nor destroyed.

Law of Conservation of Mass  as proposed by Antoine Lavoisier in 18th century, states that the total mass in a chemical reaction remains constant. It is not created nor destroyed in chemical processes.

A similar Law on Conservation of Energy was developed in the 18th century by various scientists that states energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another (e.g., chemical energy to kinetic energy).

Then in 1905 came Albert Einstein's famous equation E = mc².  This is the Law of Mass-Energy Equivalence which basically says that mass and energy are two forms of the same thing. Mass can be converted into energy and vice versa. For example, in nuclear reactions, a small amount of mass is converted into a large amount of energy. This does not violate the conservation laws because the total amount of mass and energy is still conserved.

What these conservation laws of mass and energy say is, in a closed system, mass and energy remain constant, though they can change forms through many physical processes, such as chemical reactions, nuclear processes, and thermodynamics, and they can neither get into nor escape from the system. So the question that needs to be answered is where do all the matter that form the universe come from? The fundamental concept in both philosophy and science is the principle of causality which states that every effect has a cause. So what caused the universe to come into being?

The theistic explaination is of course God is the Creator of the Universe. Atheists and those who swear by science and laugh at dogmas, would have none of this, and so the search for an empirical causality. I have to say, like most people, I have no theological, philosophical nor scientific understanding on the matter. The creation of the universe is one of those deep questions that fixated my curiosity in my teen years. I wasn't sold on the Genesis story and I was weak in physics to try to wrap around the science, particularly in those days before internet access to info was not that easy. But there was something that piqued me from a very young age into adult life and that is the idea of infinite space. Imagine taking away all the galazies in the universe, that is, taking away matter, what is left is just empty space. There is no matter, there is nothing, just ... nothingness. What is this thing that is nothing? What is the purpose of nothing? How to describe this? Then in Genesis I see the word, and it is called 'void'.

Here I try to assemble the works of some brilliant scientists, many of whom are men of religion, and see where the search for causality is leading to. Is it towards a material, empirical understanding or towards a metaphysical conclusion of a supernatural beginning of the universe.

Follow me as we go on a journey where we take away matter, space, and time out of the universe, till there is nothing left but a teeny weeny infinitesimal dot of energy.

Up till the early 1920s, the world view was a static universe. The universe has been there all the time and has never changed. There is no point in discussing its origin. Physicists Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi in 1948 proposed the Stasis Concept or Steady-State Model which states the universe is infinite in both time and space, meaning it has no beginning and no end. Individual stars or galaxies may change, but the overall structure and density of the universe remain constant.

Sir Isaac Newton

With the publication of "Principla" in 1687, Newton established the Law of Universal Gravitation. All bodies in the universe have mass and attract each other. Between two bodies, the one with the bigger mass pulls the smaller body to it. The force is inversely proportional to the distance between them to the power of 2 (F=1/d²). That is, if the distance is increased by 2 times, the force is decreased by 4 times, if distance decreases by 3 times, force is increased by 9 times etc. This gravitational force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It can be computed using a constant (G) multiplied by the sum of the mass of the 2 objects divided by the distance between the 2 objects squared.  This force is expressed as :

F = G × ^{m₁ × m₂} / r²

Newton computed the gravitational force of Earth as g = 9.81 m/s² , i.e. 9.81 metres per second squared. 

Prior to Newton, Aristotle (384–322 BC) and Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) had also addressed gravitational force. Aristotle said objects with higher mass falls faster than a lighter one. Galilei said that is true only if there is air resistance. Where there is no resistance, such as in a vacuumn or space, all objects fall at the same speed. This has now been proven in modern day space missions. 

Newton's hypothesis went further than the falling apple. His Law of Universal Gravition extends to all the celestial bodies in space and explains why they are all held together in a stable relationship.

Newton's universal gravity law was the world view for the next 250 years.

Albert Einstein

In 1915 a young Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity and his complex 'field equations'. What does a patent clerk know! No one knew what it was all about at the time. Einstein redefined gravity not as a force, but as a result of the curvature of space-time.

According Einstein, massive objects like planets, stars, and galaxies cause a distortion or bending in the fabric of space-time. He gave a thought experiment of how space can bend.

Imagine in a rocket at rest or ascending at a rate under 9.81m/sec squared and you shine a torchlight against the wall. The ray of light will be straight as normal. But if the rocket accelerates the light will curve slightly. It will need the acceleration to exceed the Earth's gravitation substantially before the curve becomes apparent. What happens is the light is still shining on a straight line but following the curvature of space. Einstein shows the curvature of space and how velocity also has an impact on gravity.

In Euclidean math a straight line is the shortest distance between 2 points. In spherical geometry, a straight line can be a curve. The following illustrates.

Suppose a guy fires a shot with his rifle. The pressure built up in the firing chamber pushes the bullet out and the grooves in the barrel gives it the spin for more speed. The bullet travels on a straight trajectory up to a point when its energy or speed drops and it then takes a parobolic descend to the ground. With a more powerful gun and bullet, the bullet can travel on the straight path much further. Supposing he has a gun and bullet powerful enough to travel 25,000 miles (Earth's circumference), the bullet will have the velocity to curve round the Earth, but its fligth path is still a straight line.

Imagine space is not void but filled with layers upon layers of fabric. Now imagine a two-dimensional view by taking one piece of fabric and stretch it out. If a ball is placed on the fabric, the mass of the ball will cause the fabric to curve under it. All the celestial bodies in the Universe bend the fabric just like the ball. In our galaxy, the Sun is the biggest mass and so it has the greatest impact in bending the fabric.

Just like the bullet that circles the Earth is actually on a straight line, the planets that circle the Sun are also on a straight line. But now, because space is bended, the planets' straight path also bends.

American physicist John Wheeler describes it best : "Matter tells space-time how to curve. Space-time tells matter how to move".

Einstein's law of relativity shows that mass warps space and thus distorts space and time. The law of relativity does not negate Newtonian gravity, it shows that celestial bodies move according to how space is warped.

As the planet moves closer to the Sun by Newtonian gravitational pull, it follows the curve of the space-time warp. It is still on a straight path but is curved.

Planets do not crash into the Sun due to (a) their sideway movement, that is, tangent to the Sun, and (b) their velocity. This results in planets revolving in eliptical paths round the Sun known as orbits.  

The image above is two-dimensional looking at only one layer of imaginery fabric. Space is of course bended in three-dimensional way. Einstein's law of relativity brings space and time together into a new 4-dimensional concept called 'space-time'

To an astrounaut or a satellite far up in the sky, space is not warped. Earth as a huge mass, warps the space around it. Thus the same straight line A-B is shorter in space compared to that on Earth. Speed = Distance/Time, therefore Time = Distance/Speed. As the speed of light does not change, it means there is a time difference between space and Earth due to the curvature of space caused by Earth's mass. 

This curvature of space distorts time. Time is now relative.
1. If both are stationary or moving at same speed, time moves faster for the one with the greater gravitational field. This is called gravitational dilation. Thus time moves faster on Earth than the one in space.
2. Time moves slower for the one that is moving faster. This is velocity dilation. Time for the satellite moves slower because it is orbiting Earth at speeds of 28,000 km/hr, circling the Earth every 90 minutes, compared to Earth that spins on its axis at a speed of 1,670 km/hr. Because of time difference, all those GPS data taken by satellite has to go through some tweaking to sync with Earth-time.
Note : The time difference means astronauts in the space station should age slower in space. But they actually age faster due to health reasons from exposure to mircrogravity and radiation.

What's all these Einstein mumbo jumbo got to do with creation

Let's take a breather. Up till now you must be wondering what has all this got to do with creation of the universe. I will get to that. But since we want to know Science or God? issue, we need to have a grounding in the science, and General Theory of Relativity is key. If this is tough for you, don't worry. You are in good company. It is so complex and even involves another aspect of math called Reimannian Geometry which even Einstein himself could not figure out. Even Einstein had to enlist the help of Swiss Mathematician Marcel Grossman to help him. Eventually, Einstein worked out his Field Equations.

Einstein's law of relativity shows that matter distorts time and space. This has actually been proven correct twice.

First, Newtonian law cannot explain a peculiar problem of Mercury' precession, that is, its motion in it's orbit. The eliptical path of a planet is called its geodesic, and the point where it is nearest to the Sun is called perihelion, the point furthest from the Sun is the aphelion. Newtonian calculations is not able to pinpoint the exact position of Mercury's perhelion. There is a precession error of 43 arcsecond per century. Einstein's Field Equations was able to accurately predict the 43 arcsecond per century precession. Mercury is the closest to the Sun and thus more affected by its gravitional pull. Its geodesic passes through a bigger curvature of the space-time warp near the Sun. Einstein's Field Equations takes into consideration the space-time distortion.

Second. in 1919 Sir Arthur Eddington conducted an observational test on the general theory of relativity.  Large objects bend space-time. That means the light coming from stars far away bends as it passes these large objects. An observer therefore will see the stars not in the exact position they were supposed to be. An analogy is light refraction in water. We see an object in the water which does not appear to be its actual position. Since the Sun is the biggest object, then the distant stars to the rear of the Sun would be seen away from the position thay are supposed to be. But we can't see the stars with the Sun in the sky. Eddington made the observation during a full eclipse of the Sun. And true enough, as predicted by the general theory of relativity, the stars were in slightly different locations.  

Now we come to the gist of the importance of general theory of relativity to the Science or God question. Einstein's field equations are a set of equations that describe how mass and energy influence the curvature of spacetime. The curvature of spacetime, in turn, dictates the motion of objects. The equations relate the distribution of matter and energy to the curvature, forming the foundation of modern gravitational theory. It led to the development of a cosmological model of an expanding universe (Edwin Hubble), the possibilities of black holes - a situation where the space-time curvatures are so extreme that even light cannot escape (Karl Schwarzschild), and singularity- a point where density and gravitational forces are infinite, and the known laws of physics break down  (Penrose, Hawking, Ellis).

Einstein preferred the philosophical idea of a static universe. So he proposed there is an equal countering force to the gravitational pull which he called the "Cosmological Force". He postulated all the parameters and metrics to arrive at the cosmological force. To put it harsely, he cheated, but Stephen Meyer, American scientist and philosopher, puts it more kindly, at the same time it's a dig at Science, that Einstein used some 'fine-tuning' to arrive at the value he wanted. It was not till 1931 that Einstein admitted the cosmological force was his greatest blunder. Here's hoping those with blind faith in science take a leaf.

Redshifting

First, let's understand some basic physics. We see things from the reflection of light from the observed object. Light is made up of a spectrum of colours. When a ray of light passes through a glass prism, it comes out in it's spectral colours which can be observed. Light travels in waveforms, different colours have different wavelengths or frequencies. The colour red has the longest wavelength and blue the shortest.

In 1842 Austrian physicist Christian Doppler hypothesised that the observed frequency of a wave depends on the relative speed of the source and the observer. Specifically, he proposed that the wavelength of light emitted from stars would change depending on their motion relative to Earth, leading to shifts in color. The motion of stars relative to an observer would cause the colors of the stars to change (either toward the blue or red end of the spectrum) based on their velocity relative to the observer. This is called the Doppler Effect.

When the wavelength of light from an object increases in length, it is called redshifting and it means the object emiting the light is moving away from the observer. The object appears more reddish. When the wavelength decreases in length, it is called blueshifting and it means the object is moving towards the observer. The object appears more blueish.

Astronomers use a spectroscopy to measure redshift by analyzing the spectrum of light from an object. The light emitted by stars and galaxies contains specific absorption or emission lines (which correspond to the elements in them). By comparing these lines to the positions they would have in a stationary object, astronomers can calculate the redshift. Redshift is used to estimate the distance to faraway galaxies. The further away a galaxy is, the more its light is redshifted. Astronomers use redshift as a proxy to gauge how far an object is from Earth.

Vesto Melvin Slipher

American astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher was the first to mention redshifting. In 1912 he was studying Andromeda Galaxy (M31) at a time when all those distant blobs were called nebulae. Today we know they are a million galaxies out there. What he saw was blue shifting, which means Andromeda is moving towards Earth. He later discovered that majority of galaxies are redshifting, moving away from Earth. Slipher, however, did not formulate his discovery into an expanding Universe model.

Edwin Hubble

Edwin Hubble started out as a lawyer for a short while and changed track to be an astronomer. He did his research at Mount Wilson Observatory in California which used the 100-inch Hooker Telescope, the most powerful one at the time. This is not to be confused with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) named after him which was launched into space in 1990 aboard the Space Shuttle Discovery

In 1929, Edwin Hubble made one of the most important contribution to modern astronomy. Building from the knowledge of Einstein's general relativity theory and redshifting, he theorised that distant galaxies are moving away from Earth, he added that their velocities are proportional to their distances. This relationship is now known as Hubble’s Law. From this he built the cosmological model of an expanding Universe.

In 1931 Hubble invited Einstein to the observatory. After being a witness to the observable evidence of redshifting, Einstein finally accepted an expanding universe and that his cosmological force was a mistake.

The Universe has an origin !

Hubble's hypothesis had great implications - in other words, there is a beginning of Time. If the Universe was expanding, how was it before. By back extrapolation, we have a shrinking Universe as we move back in time. Take the analogy of a deflating balloon which gets smaller and smaller. There must be a point when the Universe started its expansion from an origin.

Einstein's field equations show how spacetime curvature is influenced by matter and energy, including in a contracting universe scenario where the spacetime curvature would change accordingly, and this would affect the motion of celestial bodies. Gravitational attraction will pull galaxies, stars, and other objects closer together causing the density of matter in the universe to increase dramatically, potentially leading to large-scale mergers and the collapse of structures. Galaxies could collide and merge on a larger scale. As objects get pulled together, they form like black holes. In turn, black holes, could merge into larger black holes, eventually accumulating more mass as they interact with surrounding matter. This will end in a final event called the Big Crunch where all the matter in the whole universe congeals into one infinite mass called singularity, a point where the curvature of spacetime becomes infinite and the laws of physics as we know them break down.

Einstein’s theories describe how spacetime behaves during the contraction of the universe, but do not fully explain the detailed process of how these bodies merge into a "final mass," particularly as it approaches the singularity.

To sum up for Einstein. His theories and field equations lead science to this tiny infinite dot called singularity. This is a compression of matter, space, and time of the whole universe into energy in one infinite dot. It cannot explain if there is anything pre-singularity because all known laws of physics do not work at this point. Neither can it explain how this dot came into being. Was this the origin of the Universe?
.
The Cosmic Egg

Many ancient civilisations have a story about a sort of cosmic egg which cracked open and gradually formed the universe. These ancient mythologies include:
* The Hindus have the Hiranyagarbha or "golden egg" mentioned in the Rigveda as the source of the universe.
* The Chinese have the story of  Pangu who was born from the cosmic egg where he emerged and separated heaven and earth. 

* The Greeks have the Orphic Egg from which the god Phanes emerged to create the cosmos.

Georges Lemaître

In 1931, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest, physicist, and astronomer, published his hypothesis that the universe originated from a single, incredibly dense point. He called this the Primeval Atom. This cosmic egg exploded at the moment of the creation of the universe. He basically described the 'Big Bang' although he did not call it that way.

Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and George F. R. Ellis

These 3 physicists are known for their significant contributions to solving aspects of Einstein's field equations. Well, actually they didn't directly "solve" Einstein's field equations in the way one might solve a simple equation, but they used them to demonstrate profound implications about the universe's nature, particularly around the formation of singularities and the evolution of space-time. Their work advanced understanding of the origins and structure of the universe by applying general relativity to extreme conditions, such as the formation of black holes and the Big Bang.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Penrose and Hawking worked together to develop what is known as the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems. These theorems show that, under certain conditions, Einstein's field equations imply the existence of singularities, points in space-time where density becomes infinite, such as at the center of black holes or at the Big Bang.

Penrose initially formulated a singularity theorem for gravitational collapse, showing that black holes form under certain conditions. Hawking extended this work to the entire universe, arguing that the Big Bang itself could be described as a singularity.

George Ellis co-authored with Hawking in 1923 the important work "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time", which explored the consequences of Einstein's equations on the structure of the universe. Ellis contributed to understanding the global structure of space-time and how it evolves over large scales in the presence of gravitational fields

Hawking's other contribution is his famous prediction that black holes can emit radiation that slowly evaporates. This is known as Hawking radiation.

In 1969 Penrose was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on black holes. Hawking, for all his acclaims and popularity, never received any Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize in Physics is typically awarded for discoveries that have been experimentally verified. While Hawking's theories were revolutionary, they have not yet been observed directly. Perhaps he may get one for his predictions about black holes emitting radiation.

The Big Bang

We now come to the day itself, the day when time and space started. Unless you are well read on this topic, boy, are you in for a few big surprises.

First surprise, Big Bang actually refers to the singularity as the point when the Universe began. We have seen how a back intrapolation of a contracting universe lead us to a point where all celestial bodies collapse or congeal into one infinite mass. where space, time, mass and energy became a point of infinite density, concentrated in an infinitely dense and hot state and all the laws of physics break down. There was nothing, no space, no time, nothing. As the Bible says, just 'void". And this singularity, which is this infinite dense hot state with no laws of physics. The Big Bang actually refers to this initial singularity suddenly coming into being and began a rapid expansion, not an actual physical explosion. Where did it come from? Science, Einstein's general relativity, quantum mechanics, cannot explain it.

Second surprice, the term Big Bang was coined by Physicist Fred Hoyle in a BBC broadcast in 1949. Actually it was meant in a sarcastic way since Hoyle was a believer of the static universe.

Third surprise, Hawking never described how the Big Bang happened. No one can explain since the laws of physics, including Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics, break down at singularity. There must have been some form of instability that caused Quantum fluctuations to occur leading to the conditions for the singularity to expand. Hawking never explained how the initial singularity came into being, nor how the expansion began.

Forth surprise, there was no explosion in the traditional sense of a bomb going off. Think of it as a rapid expansion of energy which formed space-time. After the initial singularity, the universe began to expand. This expansion can be thought of in terms of inflation, a theory proposed to explain the extremely rapid expansion of the universe shortly after the Big Bang. The rapid expansion means that space itself was created during this period, leading to the universe as we observe it today. The energy present at the singularity was transformed into matter and radiation as the universe expanded. According to Einstein’s equation E = mc², energy can be converted into matter, allowing for the creation of particles as the universe cooled. As the universe expanded, it transitioned from a hot, dense state into a cooler environment, allowing for the formation of subatomic particles, atoms, and eventually galaxies.

Signature of the Big Bang

Most scientists believe in the Big Bang Theory as there is a compelling body of evidence that supports it. Observational data, theoretical predictions, and advancements in technology enhance the understanding of the universe's early moments and its subsequent development. The signature of the Big Bang are :

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB)

Hawking Radiation suggests there should be traces of radiation from the early universe. It is estimated the Big Bang occured 13.8 billion years ago. What astronomers see in the sky is not an actual representation of present day status because light takes time to reach Earth. That means the radiation is still observable in our times. The remnant of CMB would have appeared as a uniform glow detected from all directions in space. Scientists have been on the lookout for this. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were the first to spot this in 1965. The CMB provides a snapshot of the universe approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when atoms first formed and light could travel freely.

Redshift of Galaxies

Redshifting is evidence of a still expanding universe after the Big Bang. The farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. This is in accordance with Hubble's Law.

Abundance of Light Elements

Predictions of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis model suggest that the universe's early conditions allowed for the formation of light elements such as hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium The observed ratios of these elements in the universe match the predictions made by the Big Bang Theory. The specific abundances of hydrogen (about 75%) and helium (about 25%) in the universe provide strong evidence supporting the Big Bang.

Large Scale Structure of the Universe

The distribution of galaxies and galaxy clusters shows a filamentary structure known as the "cosmic web." The evolution of these structures can be traced back to small fluctuations in density in the early universe, as seen in the CMB. The large-scale structure aligns with predictions from models based on the Big Bang, including the influence of dark matter.

Temperature of the Universe 
The current average temperature of the universe is about 2.7 K, corresponding to the CMB radiation. This temperature is consistent with a universe that has been expanding and cooling since the Big Bang.

The coolness of the universe today aligns with predictions of cooling following the initial hot phase.

Where the science is now as regards 'Creation of Universe'

So now we have this tiny dot from which the universe began based on the Penrose-Hawking-Elise theorums on singularity. Two questions arise.

First, how this singularity came about? Second, how did it expand to form the Universe the way it is today?

These are the deepest mysteries in modern cosmology. There are several ideas and hypotheses, but none that has been definitively proven. No one can explain pre-singularity or pre-Big Bang since the laws of physics do not work and no one knows how gravity would have worked. Any theory of causality from material is impossible since matter did not exist at this point.

There are various hypotheses, non-substantiated and science fiction material, basically models proposed in a way to circumvent the singularity state. I shall not go into it but just to mention names. These include Quantum Cosmology models, Quantum Fluctuations models, tunneling or the Hawking-Hartle "No Boundary" proposal, Multiverse Hypotheses and Eternal Inflation, Holographic Principle and Quantum Information, Cyclic Models, and Ekpyrotic models. All these are obfuscating our understanding of the nature of reality. Where is Occam's razor? 

Observational evidence of astronomers are no longer the ones pushing new knowledge about the birth of the universe. What's pushing the envelope is theoretical physics with models out of extreme concepts. Most notably it is coming from quantum cosmology or quantity gravity. This is basically using laws of physics to explain how the universe could have come into being out of singularity, even though quantum physics and laws of gravity do not apply at the point of Big Bang event. In simple language, what these thinkers are trying to do is to explain how the universe can come into existence out of singularity as a result of a mathematical equation!

General Relativity (large scale) - Quantum mechanics (small scale)

General relativity is the classical physics that deal with large-scale phenomena like stars, planets, galaxies, and the entire structure of the universe. Einstein's theories describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. Massive objects like planets and stars warp the fabric of spacetime, and this curvature directs how objects move through space. His field equations predict motion of planets and stars, describes black holes, neutron stars and gravitational waves, and helps to understand the expansion of the universe.

Quantum mechanics is the physics about the behavior of matter and energy at the smallest scales, such as atoms, subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons), and photons. Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics deals with probabilities and uncertainty. Particles at this scale behave in ways that defy intuition, exhibiting wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement.

Queerness of small

Singularity is the state were spacetime curvature is infinitesimal and energy is so dense and hot. When it came into being, that is the Big Bang. It began its expansionary phase. For an infinitesimal small window of time of the Big Bang, quantum mechanics do not apply. This small window is measured in Planck's time which is a unit of measurement of sub-atomic levels. Planck's time is about 10^-43 seconds (to the power of -43 means shifting the decimal 43 times to the left, that's how incredibly small this window timeframe is). In that window of time, the laws of physics breaks down. No one can explain what happened.

There are two basic concepts in smallness you need to understand:

Quantum fluctuations
In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), what we consider "empty space" is far from empty and is constantly active with quantum activity. Quantum fluctuations are temporary changes in the amount of energy at a specific point in space, arising due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle which states that certain pairs of physical properties, like energy and time, cannot both be precisely known at the same time. These particles and antiparticles can spontaneously appear and disappear. They are a fundamental feature of quantum fields, which underlie all forces and particles in the universe. Thus at the quantum level, there is a violation of the conservation law of energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed) is violated where particles come into existence for very short times and then disappear.

Quantum fluctuations are essential to many physical phenomena, including the Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, and the structure of the early universe.

Wave-particle-duality
In quantum mechanics, tiniest particles like photons, electrons, exist in 2 states - in wave form or as particles (whether with mass or massless). They exist in a state of supersuposition when not observed, that is, they are both in wave and particle form at the same time.

You may have heard of the Shroendinger Cat. It is a mind experiment to explain this duality of existence. A cat is placed in a box together with some sort of poison or radioactive material. The box is sealed. Is the cat dead or alive? It can be said to be both dead and alive when it is not observed. It exists in 2 states at the same time. When box is opened and observed, then it assumes one state, either dead or alive.

It took me a long time to understand this, and it is not for want of grey matters. I not stupid what. I had misunderstood that when physicists use the word "observe" they do not mean someone looking at the particles. It means the particles are projected through a measuring device of sorts, something that can eject the medium such as photons or electrons individually.

In 1801 Thomas Young did the famous dual slit experiment on the wave nature of light. When light passes through a single slit, it spreads out and creates a diffraction pattern of the slit on a screen, with the brightest part in the center. But when light passes through two slits, it forms on the screen a pattern of several parallel slits, alternating with a light and dark tones.

Lights are photons. When it is shone through one slit, it is 'observed' and the photons behave as particles and land on the screen forming a pattern similar to the slit. When light is shone on 2 slits, it is not "observed" so the photons behave as waves and pass through both slits. As 2 waves pass through the slits, the waves hit each other. If the waves are in phase (crest meets crest or trough meets trough), it's called constructively interference, they enhance each other, creating bright spots on the screen. If they are out of phase (crest meets trough), it's called destructively interference, they cancel each other, creating dark spots.

Wave-particle duality is central to quantum mechanics, as it fundamentally describes the dual nature of matter and light at small scales. Its role in the origin of the universe is vital because the early universe was dominated by quantum phenomena. Understanding this duality helps explain how the universe transitioned from quantum fluctuations in the early moments of the Big Bang to the large-scale structure we observe today. Thus, wave-particle duality connects the behavior of the smallest particles to the formation of the cosmos itself.


The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis 

Wave Function

This is another concept one needs to understand. A wave function is a mathematical way to describe systems from a quantum perspective. Quantum theories deal with probabilities with different outcome configurations based on quantum laws. If certain parameter settings are pre-determined,or controlled, the wave function collapses, that is the outcome becomes deterministic. 

The universal wave function is a theoretical tool in quantum cosmology that describes the quantum state of the entire universe, particularly at its earliest moments. It suggests that the universe is not deterministic, but instead a vast sea of probabilities, with different configurations emerging based on quantum laws. What this means is theoretically, many universes could evolve from it, ours being one of them. (That's where the multiverse model comes from). The application of quantum mechanics to the universe’s beginning challenges classical ideas about causality and time. Instead of asking "What caused the Big Bang?" the wave function suggests that the universe’s origin might not require a classical cause, and could instead arise naturally from quantum mechanics, simply a matter of math.

The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis posits that the universe is not just described by mathematics, but is mathematics. In this view, all physical phenomena, including the Big Bang singularity, are manifestations of mathematical structures.

If this hypothesis is correct, the singularity came into being because it is an intrinsic mathematical feature of the universe's structure. The universe operates according to the fundamental equations of physics, and those equations lead naturally to singularities under certain conditions (such as the Big Bang or black hole formation).

This suggests that the singularity existed as a mathematical object before it manifested as a physical event in the universe. Therefore, mathematics doesn't just describe the singularity but brings it into being.

In this interpretation, mathematical causality refers to the idea that the physical universe and its behavior are determined by mathematical laws. Since the singularity is a solution to Einstein's field equations, which describe gravity and spacetime, the presence of a singularity could be seen as "caused" by the internal logic of mathematics itself.

The universe’s emergence from the Big Bang singularity, in this view, is less about an external cause and more about the unfolding of mathematical principles. The singularity exists because the equations of general relativity demand that such a state occurs under certain conditions, such as the collapse of mass into a black hole or the initial state of the Big Bang.

Several physicists are at the forefront of this hypothesis, such as Max Tegmark, Lawrence Krauss, John Archibald Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt. They are basically saying the Universe came out of nothing, and they can prove it mathmetically using quantum mechanics. 

The problem is these physicists need to prove an equation called the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. This equation worked on the basis of quantum laws that throws out non-deterministic universal waves, that is, it provides undetermined possibilities of universes, one of it may just describe our universe. In order to get an outcome that describes only our Universe, the physicists must select certain conditions, or in quantum mechanics lingo, set the boundaries or constraints, and this will restrict the degree of mathematical freedom associated with the equation. This causes the collapse of the wave function to produce the solution pre-determined. In other words, it is the same as Eintein 'cheating' in the formulation of the Cosmological Force. The physicists set the boundaries in order for the equation to produce a wave function that describes only our universe.

Science or God?

So, instead of our Universe coming out of nothing, or coming out of material origin, we now have a third hypothesis of a mathematical equations as its origin, which is wierd. 

To get the wave function that best describes our universe, the physicists have to set the boundaries. This is huge at the philosophical level. What this means is it requires a 'mind', not just any mind, but a bloody brilliant mind. Did they just describe 'intelligent design'? Unless these physicists were present at the Big Bang, I don't see who could have set those boundaries.

So Science is saying it needs a 'mind' to tweak the operation of mathematics to produce a wave function that will create our universe, and using this hypothesis to argue against the theologists' position that an external mind, ie a Creator, is responsible for creating the universe.

There is a fundamental concept in scientific reasoning and philosophy of science called Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). This principle posits that when faced with multiple competing hypotheses, the one that best explains the observed phenomena is preferred.

The causality for the origin of the universe has no material cause because at the event of the Big Bang there was no time, space, or matter to explain and no laws of physics. Mathematical hypotheses suggests there is a mind behind this. IBE would suggest the theological explanation is the most logical where an intelligent mind exterior to the system is responsible for the origin of the universe.

We seem to have come full circle. In ancient Greek cosmogony, the Pythagoreans had this concept of Monad, also know as The Absolute, the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. All things in the Universe came from Monad. 

Critics of religious belief, especially in the writings of atheists and agnostics, such as Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", will always point to theologists invoking the 'God of the Gaps', as an explanation where empirical evidence cannot support a scientific position. They are quick to bear down on insults and disregard IBE as logical position. Those with theological inclinations, like James Tour, American chemist and nanotechnologist, have always said, while he believes in the Divine cause, as a scientist he cannot say science cannot prove it because who is to know 50-100 years later, a scientific explanation could be discovered. Tour finds no conflict in his position, because when that day arrives, he will just say in wonderment:

"Oh, so that's how HE did it!"

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.