Science cannot explain the universe's start

Nobel Prize winner Professor Weinberg reveals the limitations of Physics, as its laws cannot explain the very beginning.

First published on the 19th of May 2018 — Last updated on the 31st of August 2018

The real world is very complex.

The moon rocks and moon dust brought back from the moon by the Apollo astronauts has really complicated things. Tests have shown that the moon rocks are older than the earth rocks. So the moon is older than the earth. Science cannot explain that. Then it gets worse. The moon dust is a billion years older than the moon rocks. But rocks disintegrate to form dust. So the rocks should be older than the dust. But on the moon it is the opposite way around. Science is baffled and has no answers.

95 % of our universe seems to be made up of invisible Dark Energy and Dark Matter. But none of that is explained or predicted by the Big Bang. So the Big Bang theory cannot explain 95 % of the universe. So what is the real value of the Big Bang theory. Obviously, not much.

I TIMOTHY 6:20   O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

:21   Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

If science theories contradict Scripture then they are simply vain babblings and not true science.

According to Professor Steven Hawking we need space and time before information can be created.

At the very moment of the Big Bang there was no space, nor time. Thus there was no information from which anything could be created.

Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman reminded us that there is absolutely zero physical evidence for what the universe was like at the moment of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is not a fact of Science, but a possible theory.

According to the theory the Universe began as an infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and infinitely small "something" that exploded. No one knows what the something was.

The theory claims that the explosion created space and time.

Nobody knows what time is. We cannot isolate time and measure it. We can measure the movement of a pointer across a watch face, but we cannot measure time.

So there is absolutely no physical evidence to justify time being created in an explosion. That is simply a wild guess that has no foundation in fact.

If this state of infinite density and infinite temperature did exist at the beginning (which is a big"if") then it is way beyond the temperatures and pressures and densities that we have any kind of experience with. We are then operating in an unreal realm that we could not have measured, even if we had been there. Thus it is the realm of conjecture and guess work, not of physical measurement.

Please remember, in Science we only trust what we can measure.

Scientist saw clouds covering the closest planet of Venus. They claimed or guessed that to produce those rain clouds the surface of Venus had to be water at about 20ᵒC. When rockets got to Venus those clouds turned out to be sulfuric acid, and the temperature was about 470ᵒC. There is absolutely no water on the surface of Venus. So never trust scientists unless they has actually measured what they are talking about.

I quote from Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg’s classic book on the Big Bang called "The First Three Minutes". His quotes will appear in a yellow background.

He said "I cannot deny a feeling of unreality in writing about the first three minutes as if we really knew what we are taking about".

As scientists go backwards in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the pressures and temperatures move totally out of the range that we have ever measured. Thus we have no real experience of those conditions. And we have no evidence of how things will behave under those conditions. Anything we say will be a guess. Please remember the "water" clouds of Venus.

"We will try to look a little way into an era that is still clothed in mystery--the first hundredth of a second, and what went before".

A top scientist claims that a veil of mystery hangs over the start of the universe. He is now looking at a time that is one hundredth of a second after the Big Bang.

What is one cause of this mysterious veil that clouds our vision and stops us seeing what is going on? As the temperature increases as we get closer to the moment of the Big Bang we find a host of different particles all interacting with each other in a real particle-zoo.

"We simply do not yet know enough about the physics of the elementary particles to be able to calculate the properties of such a chaotic and varied mixture of particles with any confidence.  Thus our ignorance of microscopic physics stands as a veil, obscuring our view of the very beginning".

This initial part of the theory that is even closer than a hundredth of a second, is just totally vague. We do not know what would have happened at that time.

The tiny particles in the nucleus have incredibly strong forces. We simply do not know how they would behave at the increasingly high temperatures and densities or pressures that the Big Bang needs to start with. We cannot create these incredible temperatures in a laboratory, and thus we simply do not know what the nuclear particles would do. Any insights would be purely theoretical as these conditions are far removed from any experimental checks. As a result we would never be sure of our conclusions.

"The standard model (of the Big Bang) is not the most satisfying theory imaginable of the origin of the universe ... there is an embarrassing vagueness about the very beginning, the first hundredth of a second or so. Also there is the unwelcome necessity of fixing initial conditions (which have to be guessed) especially the initial thousand-million-to-one ratio of photons to nuclear particles. We would prefer a greater sense of logical inevitability in the theory".

The big weakness of Physics is that it does not explain where the laws of Physics come from.

We have to assume that the laws of Physics "just happened" -- somehow. We don’t know how.

That is very unconvincing.


The second big weakness in Physics is that there are certain numbers that have to appear in calculations to make them match reality. And we do not know why those numbers have the values that they do have. We just have to measure them if we want to know their value. We cannot calculate these numbers from a theory. This is embarrassing. It means that our theories are lacking something.

To make the Big Bang theory work, scientists had to guess that the explosion produced a billion light particles (or photons) for every nuclear particle like a proton or a neutron. This number made the theory work nicely, but there was absolutely no natural way in which the theory could develop this number. Scientists are not happy about just putting in a number to make things work. That simply means that there is some insight into the workings of Nature that we do not have. It is called an "ad hoc" solution. Something just arbitrarily made up, without a definite reason, in order to save the theory. That is not very impressive.

Professor Weinberg covers the vagueness of the start of the Big Bang theory with his classic understatement:

"True, we are not absolutely certain about all this".

Professor Weinberg continues with his misgivings about the very beginning.

He is only willing to go back to the first one hundredth of a second.

"At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence, the temperature of the universe was one hundred thousand million degrees Centigrade. This is much hotter than in the center of the hottest star".

Please note: even going back one hundredth of a second in time from the moment of the Big Bang, we have already gone beyond our hottest known temperatures.

Before that time, as we go even further back, we have no experimental evidence that allows us to know if there was such a thing as time and space. We are simply in a realm of guesswork where the known laws of Physics, in terms of what can be measured, cannot be applied.

Professor Weinberg says, "It may be that our real problem will not be to understand the beginning of the universe, or even decide whether there really was a beginning, but rather to understand nature under conditions in which space and time have no meaning".

All our laws of Physics are based on space, time and energy. If we go further back to a realm in which space and time do not exist in any meaningful way, then modern Science is helpless because it cannot function under those conditions.

Thus Science cannot go back to the very beginning.

Under those initial conditions there is no law of Physics that can be applied.

Also remember, Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman stated that we have absolutely zero physical evidence of what the universe was like at the instant of the Big Bang.

Not knowing what the universe was like at the first moment means we simply do not know what happened next.

So with due respect, going back further than the first one hundredth of a second after the explosion is pure speculation completely unsupported by any definite physical evidence.

Even at one hundredth of a second the conditions have already gone past any physical conditions of density and temperature that we have any experience with.

As Steven Weinberg says, "We are a long way from any direct experimental test of these speculations".

Please notice his use of the word "speculations". We are not dealing in any ways with facts.

The initial state of the universe at its first moment is a total mystery.

"This present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition".

Notice his language. Professor Weinberg is known for his accurate descriptions. One of the world’s best physicists says that we cannot even speak about the actual beginning.

We do not have the language or the vocabulary to describe the moment of creation.

We do not know if space and time actually even existed. Without space and time there can be no information. With no information, how do you create anything?

With no information we cannot say that there was an explosion. We cannot say that there was a Big Bang.

We are dealing with a creation that is totally outside the laws of Physics. Thus we cannot say what happened.

Anything that is completely outside our known laws of Physics is a miracle. Like a Person walking on water, or ascending, without any assistance, up into the air. Like a Person feeding thousands of people with a boy's lunch, and still having 12 baskets of leftovers.

The only sensible word, with a meaning that we can understand, that we can use to describe the moment of creation is a MIRACLE.

Steven Weinberg speaks of "All the uncertainties that we met in trying to explore the first hundredth of a second".

Notice this honest admission. In trying to make the first brief moment of creation line up with the idea of a big explosion, we unavoidably end up with all sorts of uncertainties. None of which can be checked by experiment. So we will never know if our ideas are right.

"However, the first three minutes are so remote from us in time, the conditions of temperature and density are so unfamiliar, that we feel uncomfortable in applying our ordinary theories of statistical mechanics and nuclear physics".

Forget that impossible to understand first moment. Forget the first brief fraction of time that is full of uncertainties that we cannot resolve. Professor Weinberg now takes the whole of the first three minutes, which is the foundation of the Big Bang theory, and says that the temperature and pressure conditions are so far removed from the conditions that we do know, that no scientist is even sure if we are allowed to apply our laws of Physics to this event.

To sum it all up. We have no guarantee that we actually know what we are talking about when we try to describe the first three minutes of the Big Bang.

So beware of scientists who claim to know what the early universe was like. They are spreading "fake news".

To make it worse. The Big Bang never predicted Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which make up almost 96% of the universe.

Thus top scientists like Professor Weinberg and Professor Alan Guth (two of the main champions of the Big Bang theory) have now been forced to turn away from it. If the Big Bang theory cannot predict or explain 96 % of the universe, then it is not much good as a theory.

So from a Science point of view, scientists have no convincing theory, that is based on the laws of Physics, which can explain the creation of the universe.

If you believe that God miraculously created the universe, then no scientist can use the laws of Physics to prove you wrong.

Saint Paul had very wise advice when it came to the issue of creation.

I TIMOTHY 6:20    O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

When Science opposes Scripture, it is false Science spreading false news.


“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” — 1 Corinthians 16:23