# How did matter first come into existence?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

How did matter come to be?
Why is there matter if matter and antimatter cancel each other?

Actually, I also believe that before anything should have come into existence nothing should have been in existence. So everything should have got created out of nothing as we get +ve numbers and -ve numbers from zero as follows. 0 => + 4 - 4 or 0 => +5 - 3 - 2 Wherein, the +ve numbers represent the matter and the -ve numbers represent antimatter. Of course though splitting of zero can be explained but how we explain it in physics is an unresolved mystery.

## How did matter first come into existence? - Astronomy

Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 1

Origin and Evolution of the Universe

Chapter 1 THE ORIGIN OF MATTER Part 1

"The Big Bang is pure presumption. There are no physical principles from which it can be deduced that all of the matter in the universe would ever gather together in one location, or from which it can be deduced that an explosion would occur if the theoretical aggregation did take place.

"Theorists have great difficulty in constructing any self-consistent account of the conditions existing at the time of the hypothetical Big Bang. Attempts at mathematical treatment usually lead to concentration of the entire mass of the universe at a point.

"The central thesis of Big Bang cosmology,' says Joseph Silk, is that about 20 billion years ago, any two points in the observable universe were arbitrarily close together. The density of matter at this moment was infinite.'

"This concept of infinite density is not scientific. It is an idea from the realm of the supernatural, as most scientists realize when they meet infinities in other physical contexts. Richard Feynman puts it in this manner:

"If we get infinity [when we calculate] how can we ever say that this agrees with nature?' This point alone is enough to invalidate the Big Bang theory in all its various forms. "*Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (1984), p. 415.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend' their observations to fit in with it. "—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

Look about you there are clouds, seas, and mountains. Grass carpets the plains and birds sing in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and water brooks run through the fields. In city and country, people use their astounding minds to plan and produce marvelous things. At night the stars come out, and overhead are billions of stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 100 billion island universes, each with 100 billion stars.

Yet all of these things are made of matter and energy. Where did it all come from? How did everything begin—all the wonderful things of life and nature?

Evolutionary scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing.

That is what is being taught to your friends, children, and loved ones. You should know the facts in the case.

In this chapter we shall briefly view what evolutionary scientists teach about the origin of matter and energy. Then we shall learn seventy reasons why that theory is untrue.

In later chapters we shall discover scientific reasons why other claims of evolution are also incorrect.

CHAPTER 1, ORIGIN OF MATTER

Quick Index to this Chapter

Chapter 3 Origin of the Solar System

The Big Bang theory has been accepted by a majority of scientists today. It theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together, and then exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons. It all sounds so simple, just as you would find in a science fiction novel. And that is all it is.

Here are a number of reasons why the Big Bang theory not only is obviously incorrect, but totally impossible. It stands In clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense:

FROM NOTHING TO EVERYTHING —By far the majority of evolutionary scientists say that matter and energy began with a Big Bang.

We are told that back in the beginning, there was nothing absolutely nothing anywhere in the entire universe.

Then the nothing exploded! That is how evolutionists say everything began . When all this emptiness exploded, it traveled outward and condensed into hydrogen and helium. A total vacuum, they tell us, had become something! Additional explosions are said to have later invented all the 92 natural elements.

SCIENCE FICTION —*George Lemaitre, a Belgium Jesuit, struck on the basic idea in 1927, and *George Gamow, *R.A. Alpher, and *R. Herman devised the basic Big Bang model in 1948-1949. But it was *Gamow, a well-known Reasearch scientist and science fiction writer, that gave it its present name and popularized it after that. Gamow dubbed it the "Big Bang." Campaigning for the idea enthusiastically, he was able to convince many other scientists. Because Gamow was also a part-time science-fiction writer, he enjoyed writing about impossible things, like green men traveling through deep space in rockets, zapping one another with ray guns. So when it came to explaining the "Big Bang" theory to fellow scientists, he used quaint little cartoons to emphasize the details. The cartoons really helped sell the idea.

Illustrating his points with these intriguing little cartoons, he caught the attention of young scientists. Because of Gamow, the Big Bang hypothesis is very widely accepted in the scientific community today.

Here is a closer look at how many of the scientists imagine that this explosion took place.

WHEN NOTHING GETS TOGETHER —At first, the universe was totally empty with nothing in it. We are told that this empty space gradually began crowding together.

Scientists are not sure why nothing should want to come together, much less what pushed it there (especially since everything else in the universe was already supposed to be empty). But in some strange manner, unexplainable by the laws of physics, it did it anyway . Push, push, push the void grew denser as more shoved its way in. Emptiness was packed in so tight that it was an aching void! Any more would have filled it less and less. (Which does sound a little odd, doesn't it?)

And then it happened! Suddenly the emptiness exploded! And that was the Big Bang.

*Gamow described it in scientific terms: In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space—and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 1094gm/cm2 and a temperature in excess of 10" degrees absolute. That is a lot of density and heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness! (Especially when we realize that it is impossible for nothing to get hot. Yes, air gets hot, but air is matter, not an absence of it.) Where did this "superdense core" come from? Gamow solemnly came up with a scientific answer for this he said it came as a result of "the big squeeze," when the emptiness made up its mind to crowd together. Then, with true scientific aplomb, he named this solid core of nothing, "ylem" (pronounced "ee-lum"). With a name like that, many people thought this must be a great scientific truth of some kind. In addition, numbers were provided to add an additional scientific flair: This remarkable lack-of-anything was said by Gamow to have a density of 10 to the 145th power g/cc, or one hundred trillion times the density of water!

Then all that packed-in blankness went boom!

LAWS APPEAR—After the Big Bang occurred—the law of gravity is supposed to have invented itself, which is quite a thought. Soon the complete formulas of other laws began inventing themselves.

"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed . . Actually it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —* WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.

Gamow estimates that gravity broke free 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang—or a decimal point followed by 42 zeros and a 1.

GAS GETS INTO CLUMPS —At some point after the explosion (theories vary as to when) as temperatures cooled, it is theorized that the nothingness magically turned itself into hydrogen! Then, at some point immediately or thereafter (opinions vary), some of the hydrogen changed into helium.

Both hydrogen and helium are gases. We are told that the gas spread outward throughout the universe for about ten billion years, and—contrary to the laws of physics—the hydrogen and helium gas gradually pushed itself into chunks. More and more of it clumped together, until soon gigantic pieces of it had formed. These became stars and galaxies with their intricate orbits.

"The current theory of the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang. According to this theory, a fireball exploded 15 to 20 billion years ago. Then matter and energy spread outward in all directions, cooling as it expanded. After about 500,000 years, hydrogen gas formed. The gas collected into clouds which formed galaxies during the next half billion years. Now all that remains are galaxies and radiation. Within the galaxies, stars form and die and new ones form." —*M. Bishop, *B. Sutherland, and *P. Lewis, Focus on Earth Science (1981), p. 470.

The initial "Bang" explosion is said to have produced only hydrogen and perhaps helium, but after the stars had pushed themselves together—they began exploding like strings of firecrackers. Then, reforming, large numbers exploded a second time. And presto! All 90 elements had been produced by the second wave of explosions!

A UNIVERSE OF EXPLOSIONS —As the story goes, explosion after explosion took place as loose gas pressed itself into stars and then those stars exploded. Hundreds of billions of stars were exploding all over the universe. This went on for long ages. There was no reason why it started, and there was no way for it to stop. It was a self-initiating activity, destined to continue on forever. These regularly-occurring explosions should be occurring in our own time. When you go out tonight you ought to be able to see exploding stars in the sky.

Each time these stars exploded outward, they gathered back together and exploded again. We are told that our own sun had its third explosion about 5 billion years ago.

But, quite well aware that stars are not now regularly exploding in the sky, the theorists came up with the idea that about a million years ago the explosions mysteriously stopped! Why did they set that terminal date at "a million years ago"? Because—at the time that the Big Bang theory was devised—the most distant stars were thought to be a million light years away, and since they are not now seen to be exploding—it was decided that they must have stopped exploding just before the time that their starlight was sent to us from that those farthest distances from Earth.

It took a science fiction writer to bring all these new ideas to the attention of the scientists. Because it is a concept about how the entire universe began, the Big Bang Is called a "cosmology. "

REARRANGING TIME —Half a century ago, it was theorized that the universe might be two billion years old. But in order to make room for this new "Big Bang" theory of the origin of matter, the age of the universe was pushed back to between 10 to 20 billion years old, with the Big Bang occurring most probably 15 billion years ago.

This strange theory of fog coming out of nothing and then pressing itself into stars may sound like foolishness, but we are here discussing the only main theory of the origin of matter accepted by evolutionary scientists in this, the last half of our enlightened twentieth century.

Since this is a major part of the overall evolutionary theory taught in colleges and universities all over the land, we do well to learn a few of the scientific reasons why it is totally impossible!

2 — FACTS WHICH DISPROVE THE BIG BANG THEORY

WHY IT IS NOT TRUEWe have seen what the theory says. But it Is In complete disagreement with many scientific facts, principles, and laws. Let us for a few moments consider some of the evidence that disproves this astounding concept of how matter and stars originated.

(1) NOT SQUEEZABLE— Nothingness never packs together . It would have no way to push itself into a pile. There is no physical law to explain such a peculiar event.

*Hannes Alfven, professor of plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, heatedly opposes the idea that the universe could ever have attained such a fantastic density.

The Big Bang is supposed to be an explosion of concentrated nothingness. But nothingness never pushes itself into anything, much less a concentrated pile. A total vacuum is the complete opposite of total density. This theory is not science, but a playing with words.

(2) NOT STOPPABLE —There would be no mechanism that could push all the emptiness in the universe to a common center,—and then, having arrived there, to suddenly stop it at a single point. It would just rush on past.

If emptiness could press itself together, there would be nothing to hold itself tightly meshed for even a short time. Gravity operates only on matter and radiation, not on a lack of it. There is no such thing as a vacuum being pulled by gravity into something dense. It is, as said above, just a playing on words.

(3) NOTHING TO EXPLODE IT —Not only was there no matter in this theoretical "beginning,"—there obviously could be no energy at that time either. It takes energy to have an explosion. There was no match to start the fire. Without energy there can be no heat, no explosion. Yet the Big Bang is supposed to have produced a massive heat blast which congealed vacuity into hydrogen.

This theory is supposed teach the origin of matter. But it would also have to include the origin of energy, for the two are variant forms of one another. An explosion could not occur without energy, and without matter there would be nothing to explode outward. Without pre-existing matter and energy, there could be no match, no fire, no fuse, and no dynamite. Nothing exploding with no energy to explode, it is impossible.

Some Big Bang supporters think that perhaps there may originally have been an immense concentration of energy. But they have absolutely no idea where it came from or how it got there. To say that energy already existed in the beginning is to self-destruct any "origin of matter" theory based on that idea. This is because matter and energy are alternate forms of the same thing. Any "origin of matter" theory must also explain the origin of energy.

Other evolutionists have come up with the theory that energy was initially created by an explosion of no-energy! But that is just more of this evolutionary "word wizardry" that may sound convincing, but in reality is utter foolishness.

Seriously now, "nothing exploding with no energy to explode it" is clearly impossible twice over.

It is of interest that every evolutionary theory that tries to explain the origin of either matter or energy—always tacitly assumes that one or both already existed.

(4) NO WAY TO EXPAND IT —Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity (which it cannot), what would then cause the big pile of emptiness to push outward? The same "gravity" that brought it together, would later prevent it from expanding.

A total vacuum can not be expanded any more than it can be contracted . If a pile of emptiness could be pressed together, what would later untie it, much less explode it outward? (I know all this sounds like foolishness, but we are discussing a foolish notion, such as one would expect to find only in fairy tales for small children.)

The origin of matter theory teaches that, by the time of expansion, the vacuum had been transformed into hydrogen and helium. So, beginning at this point, we will assume that that which is exploding outward is not emptiness, but gas.

(5) NO WAY TO SLOW IT—If hydrogen gas blew outward after an explosion in outer space, there would be no way to slow it. This is a key point. An explosion of matter would cause an outward spray of gas and energy . It would continue to move outward in space forever. Space is frictionless. There would be no way to slow the gas, nothing to stop it.

(6) NO WAY TO CLUMP IT —On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur. Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen. The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws.

"Scattered through the vast darkness between stars, the molecules of interstellar space range. . These molecules of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and scores of other compounds generally make up a tenuous soup—a trillion trillion times less dense than stars or planets." —*Allan Fallow, et. al., Between the Stars (1990), p. 65.

Frankly, after examining item after item of scientific facts in this chapter, we will find the Big Bang theory to be only a connected series of tiny tot stories. Repeatedly, we will find that the theories run counter to the facts.

(7) NO WAY TO PRODUCE STARS —That outrushing gas from the Big Bang that was not able to stop or clump, we are told then did so. And more, it began forming itself into the intricate patterns of planets, stars, and galaxies! This is an important point in fact, it is a key one. The laws of physics provide no mechanism by which outwardly exploding gas could clump together into stars This is a crucial point.

"Probably the strongest argument against a big bang is that when we come to the universe in total and the large number of complex condensed objects in it [stars, planets, etc.), the theory is able to explain so little." —*G. Burbridge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature, 233:36-40.

Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started. (All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.) Yes, once a star exists, it will absorb gas into it by gravitational attraction. But before the star exists, gas will not push itself together and form a star—or a planet, or anything else. It will remain just loose, floating gas.

(8) NO WAY TO PRODUCE COMPLEX ATOMS —*George Gamow and his associates decided that, after the initial explosion, outflowing emptiness first changed itself into hydrogen and helium atoms, with their nuclei, protons, electrons, and all the rest. These two elements are very complex in their structure, even though they have less atomic units in them than do the other elements. (There are 81 stable chemical elements 90 natural elements 105 total elements discovered to date of carbon compounds alone there are thousands.) How can such nuclear complexity emerge from nothing? It cannot be done, yet *Gamow theorized that all the hydrogen and helium in the universe magically brought itself into existence.

(It should be mentioned that only in the intense heat of a nuclear explosion can hydrogen even change into helium.)

(9) NO WAY TO GO PAST THE HELIUM MASS 4 GAP—In a thermonuclear explosion, hydrogen may be changed into helium, but it is much, much more difficult (some consider it impossible) for hydrogen to go past the "helium mass 4 gap" and produce the heavier atoms in an explosion.

The Big Bang theory requires an atom-building process after the initial explosion. This initial atom-building process is based on successive neutron-capture reactions to achieve elements of increasing atomic weights in a stepwise manner, starting with, according to one Big Bang theory, a 100 percent neutron content of the primordial ylem. According to the theory, at the end of the first 30 minutes slightly more than half of the ylem has been converted into hydrogen, with slightly less than half into helium . But it is quite another thing to go past helium! Physicists know well that, among nuclides that can actually be formed, a gap exists at mass 5 and 8. The first gap is caused by the fact that neither a proton nor a neutron can be attached to a helium nucleus of mass 4. Because of this gap, the only element that hydrogen can normally change into is helium.

It is true that some scientists believe that a hydrogen bomb explosion can produce elements beyond helium, but there is also evidence (which we will discuss later in this chapter) which would indicate that this is not so.

"In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question then is: How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8 . . This basic objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea. —.* William A. Fowler, quoted in Creation Science, p. 90 [California Institute of Technology].

For additional information, see the quotation supplement, "3 - The Mysterious Elements," at the end of this chapter.

(10) NO WAY TO COMPRESS LOOSE GAS —Since both hydrogen and helium are gases, they are good at spreading out, but not at clumping together. Both hydrogen and helium are very much like fog. Have you ever seen fog push together into balls? It never does. Stars do indeed have helium and hydrogen—and once together, a star maintains its gravity quite well. But getting it together In the first place is the problem.

"There is no accepted theory as to how the hot gas clouds of hydrogen and helium arising out of the big bang condensed into galaxies, stars and planets. It would seem that the possibility of such a condensation is similar to the probability for all of the air in a room to collect in one corner—just by random motion of the molecules." —H. M. Morris, W, W, Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

All the gas in those marvelous gas clouds of the cosmologists begins like all the gas clouds now in outer space: with a density so rarified that it is far less than the emptiest atmospheric vacuum bottle in any laboratory in the world! If men cannot push cold hydrogen into a solid on earth where we have lots of barometric pressure from the atmosphere to help us—how do they expect hydrogen to have done it by itself in the near-total vacuum of outer space?

Gas will not naturally compress itself under conditions existing on earth or in outer space. Have you ever seen fog push itself together into solids? This is an important point which we will return to. All hydrogen gas in outer space now is slowly expanding outward it is never contracting inward.

(11) NOT ENOUGH TIME—Astronomers tell us that the diameter of the universe is over 20 billion light years. Evolutionists tell us that the Big Bang occurred 10 to 20 billion years ago, and stars were formed 5 billion years later. Evolutionary theorists only allow about 21/2 billion years from the time of the Big Bang till hydrogen and helium had spread throughout the universe, and another 21/2 billion years for it to clump together into stars! Their dating problem has been caused by the fairly recent discovery of supposedly faraway quasars (which we will discuss in greater detail later in this chapter).

Scientists now say that the distance from our world to the farthest-known quasars (those with a red-shift of 400 percent) are at least 15 billion light-years ! That would make them at least 15 billion years old, which is too old to accommodate the theory.

We have no evidence that hydrogen or helium anywhere in the universe travels at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). But even if it could, it would take 15 or 20 billion years for hydrogen and helium to reach the farthest part of the universe—or over a trillion years if it went at the speed that hydrogen gas is currently traveling outward from super-novas.

After reaching the edge of the universe (if there is an edge), it would then take a long, long time for the thinly spread-out hydrogen and helium fog to devise a way to lock together (if the gas had the brains to figure out such a pressing problem).

So there is just not enough time in the evolutionary timetable from the Big Bang till the universe was filled with stars. The Big Bang theorists are divided on when it occurred some say 20 billion years ago, others 10 billion. We will here assume the longest timeframe: 20 billion years. But quasars have now been found which, by Big Bang-accommodating theories, are "15 billion years old." This does not provide enough time for the gas to spread outward throughout the universe, form itself into stars, then wait while billions of supernovas repeatedly explode (to produce heavy elements [if they could do so]), reform into stars, explode more times, and finally form into our present orbiting stars, galaxies, clusters, and superclusters.

Before concluding this section, we will try to tack down the Big Bang dates. Generally, the Big Bang itself is supposed to have exploded 10 to 20 billion years ago, with the first formation of stars occurring 250 million years after the explosion. At some lengthy time after the gas coalesced into "first generation " stars, most of them exploded, and then, 250 million years later, reformed into "second generation" stars. Our sun is thought to be at least a second generation star, having previously exploded at least once, and perhaps twice. Apparently, no one ever dates the Big Bang earlier than 20 billion years ago. Here are several representative statements:

"Big Bang: According to a widely accepted theory, the primeval moment, 15 to 20 billion years ago, when the universe began expanding from a single point." —* Kirk D. Borne, et. al, Galaxies (1988), p. 134.

"Until 250 million years after the Big Bang, Gamow maintained, matter took the form of a thin gas, evenly spread throughout space . . Each cloud began to condense and break up into myriad stars ." — op. cit., pp. 113-114.

"What is the universe like? If it had a beginning, how did it begin? How did it evolve to make galaxies, stars, planets, and ultimately human beings? These are the sorts of questions astronomers are trying to answer as they aim their large telescopes toward the depths of outer space.

"In this century, they've developed a picture of the universe as having an explosive beginning, which they call the Big Bang. According to Big Bang cosmology our universe began around 10 billion years ago. Then came a time when the galaxies were made as matter collected into islands in space in which stars were born." —*Star Date (radio broadcast), October 2, 1990.

"When did the big bang take place?. . A figure that is generally accepted as at least approximately correct is 15 billion years. If an eon is 1 billion years, then the big bang took place 15 eons ago, although it might just possibly have taken place as recently as 10 eons ago or as long as 20 eons ago. "—* Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 44.

(12) NO WAY TO PRODUCE ENOUGH OF THE HEAVIER ELEMENTS —We now know of 81 stable elements, 90 natural elements, and 105 total elements. It requires a sizable number of books to explain all that we have learned about their unusual properties and intricate orbits. Where did all those elements originate? It is theorized that explosions of large stars (super-novas) produced them. But, although it is thought that a small amount of heavier elements are made by high-thermal explosions within stars, yet (1) there is great uncertainty whether, aside from hydrogen and helium, such explosions could produce many light elements, much less those of the post-helium ("heavy") elements, and (2) there is no evidence that such explosions could produce enough of the heavier elements to provide for all the post-helium elements in the universe, much less in our own planets. The Big Bang theory simply does not account for the abundance and variety of heavier elements.

Normally, because of the helium mass 4 gap, explosions of hydrogen can only produce helium. At first, Big Bang theorists maintained that that initial explosion produced all 90 elements. But later, recognizing the helium mass 4 gap, they admitted that even if the Big Bang explosion could make "something out of nothing," that primeval explosion (the Big Bang itself) —and even explosions of small stars (novas) —could only produce hydrogen and helium. For this reason, they looked to explosions of very large stars—super-nova explosions—to change hydrogen into the heavier elements.

But then came more obstacles. Although it is thought that the intense heat inside a large star is such that a few heavier elements might actually be produced, this would not solve the theoretical problem for two reasons: (1) Only a super-nova explosion is thought powerful enough to produce the heavy elements, and there have been relatively few super-nova explosions. More on this later in this chapter. That is problem enough, but (2) even those scientists that believe that super-nova explosions could produce heavy elements admit that only a small amount of such elements could possibly be produced by an exploding super-nova, and that would not be sufficient to produce enough heavy elements. The quantity of post-helium elements in the universe is too great for them to have come from super-nova explosions.

(13) ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF PLANETS AND MOONS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT FOUND IN STARS —Here on earth we find large quantities of the heavier elements. We have 90 natural elements where did they come from? Each nuclear test explosion is thought to produce an extremely small amount of certain elements, but not enough quantity or variety is produced.

The lighter elements tend to be found in larger quantities in the stars (although heavier elements have been identified in them as well as in interstellar gas). Science cannot explain why our earth is composed of such heavy elements. If stars produced our world, why does our planet have such different elements than the stars have? A leading astronomer, Fred Hoyle explains that the problem is a major one that has evolutionists baffled:

"Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the universe. In the sun they [the heavier elements] amount to only about 1 percent of the total mass. . The contrast [of the sun's light elements with the heavy ones found on earth] brings out two important points.

"First, we see that material torn from the sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cosmically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You yourself are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece." — *Fred C. Hoyle, Harper's Magazine, April 1951, p. 64.

(14) RANDOM EXPLOSIONS DO NOT PRODUCE INTRICATE ORBITS —Extremely complicated factors are involved just in maintaining the proper rotations and revolutions of galaxies, stars, and planets. How could haphazard explosions result In the marvelously intricate circlings that we find in the orbits of suns, stars, and galactic systems!

And, within each galaxy, millions to billions of stars are involved in those interrelated orbits!

"Galaxy: a system of stars, gas, and dust that contains from millions to hundreds of billions of. stars." —*Kirk Borne, et. al., Galaxies (1988), p. 135.

The complex obedience to natural law that we find everywhere in the universe is astounding. Were these careful balancings not maintained, the planets would fall into the stars, and the stars would fall into their galactic centers—or they would all fly apart!

The careful balancing of gravity vs. centrifugal force that we now see throughout the universe in the orbits of the spheres is a continual marvel. All the stars and galaxies should separate or crash. But instead, they just keep going around in circles. —And we are to believe that all this started because something—pardon me—nothingexploded?

Random explosions never produce orbits! Shall I say that again? Random explosions never produce orbits. No type of explosion can produce the intricate, carefully balanced orbits of the stars, planets, and moons . The universe is filled with orbiting bodies. All available evidence indicates that every outer-space object in the universe orbits something else! Evolutionary theory cannot explain those orbiting bodies.

(15) WHY DID THE EXPLOSIONS STOP — When a star explodes, it is called a nova. When a large star explodes, it becomes extremely bright for a few weeks or months, and is called a "supernova." The theory of the Big Bang includes the idea that billions of stars have exploded and most of them several times. But there is nothing in the theorized mechanism to start the process,—and there is nothing to stop it either.

According to the theory, it is the explosions of the very large stars that produced all the heavier elements. Such super-nova explosions are said to have occurred by the millions and billions for long ages of time. Why then did the explosions stop? They are said to have ceased exploding 5 billion years ago—and why? Frankly, for the convenience of the Big Bang theorists! As mentioned earlier, when the theory was first devised in the 1940s, the farthest star was said to be 5 billion light years distant, so it was decided that the super-novas stopped exploding 5 billion years ago! Is that scientific? Millions of stars were theoretically blowing their tops, but just before we could look out into space and see starlight from stars 5 billions light years away—the fireworks suddenly stopped.

If the theory be true, the explosions should be going on now. We should see over a thousand explosions nightly . (The theorists tell us our own sun has exploded and reformed three times!) Large numbers of gigantic super-nova explosions should be occurring right now on an immense scale, for there are multitudes of stars out there and super-nova explosions are obvious when they occur. Some become as bright as our own planets some become brighter.

It is a cardinal requirement of evolutionary theory (uniformitarianism, it is called) that whatever happened earlier in time is happening today. That is a strict point of evolutionary theory, everything that happened earlier is happening today, and conversely, everything happening today is the way things happened earlier. According to evolutionary theory, the same quantity of explosions should be occurring now as before. Yet with the naked eye we never see such happenings, and through their telescopes few astronomers have ever seen a supernova that has even recently exploded.

"A supernova explodes in an average galaxy only once every 100 years or so." —*Reader's Digest Book of Facts (1987), p. 394.

At the present time, the farthest known objects are said to benot 5 billionbut 15 billion light years distant, which would eliminate the time needed for all or most supernova explosions to produce elements. Research astronomers tell us that about one supernova explosion is seen every century, and only 14 have exploded in our galaxy in the past 2,000 years. If the explosions occurred in the past, they should be occurring now.

(16) TOO FEW SUPERNOVAS AND TOO LITTLE MATTER FROM THEM — As mentioned earlier, in addition to occurring very infrequently, supernovas do not throw off enough matter, to make additional stars, and the smaller stellar explosions (novas) cast off an extremely small amount of matter. Yet, according to the Big Bang theory, the only source for all the heavy elements in the universe had to be super-nova explosions.

A small star explosion, or nova, only loses a hundred-thousandth of its matter a supernova explosion loses about 10 percent, yet even that amount is not sufficient to produce all the heavier elements found in the planets, interstellar gas, and stars.

"In a typical novas explosion, the star loses only about a hundred-thousandth part of its matter. The matter it throws off is a shell of glowing gases that expands outward into space . .

"A supernova throws off as much as 10 percent of its matter when it explodes. Supernovae and novae differ so much in the percentage of matter thrown off that scientists believe the two probably develop differently. A supernova may increase in brightness as much as a billion times in a few days. Astronomers believe that about 14 supernova explosions have taken place in the Milky Way during the past 2,000 years. The Crab Nebula, a huge cloud of dust and gas in the Milky Way, is the remains of a supernova seen in A.D. 1054. Super-novae are also rare in other galaxies." —*World Book Encyclopedia (1971), p. N-431.

Early in the morning of February 24, 1987, such an explosion was observed simultaneously by three astronomers, working in Chile, New Zealand, and Australia. It occurred in the Veil Nebula within the Large Magellanic Cloud. This was the first bright, close supernova seen since A.D. 1604, when the German astronomer Johannes Kepler spied one in the constellation Ophiuchus! So few super-novas have occurred, that we know the dates of many of them. The Chinese observed one in A.D. 185, and another in 1006 which was 200 times as bright as Venus and one tenth as bright as the moon! In 1054 a phenomenally bright one appeared in the constellation Taurus. It produced what we today call the Crab nebula, and was visible in broad daylight for weeks. Both the Chinese and Japanese recorded its position accurately. In 1572, another extremely bright one occurred in Cassiopeia. Tycho Brahe, in Europe, wrote a book about it. The next bright one was seen in 1604, and Johannes Kepler wrote a book about that one. The next bright one occurred in 1918 in Aquila, and was nearly as bright as Sirius—the brightest star next to our sun. Some have been found in other galaxies, but they are equally rare events. (A bright one occurred in the Andromeda galaxy in 1918.)

So supernovas —Gamow's fuel source for nearly all the elements in the universeoccur far too infrequently to produce the heavier elements of the universe.

(17) "TOO PERFECT" AN EXPLOSION—On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into our present world cannot be worked out in others they are too exacting, "too perfect," according to knowledgeable scientists. Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow.

The theorists have tried to figure out some possible way in which a primeval explosion could have accomplished everything they need it to accomplish. Most aspects of their theory are impossible, and some require parameters which would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits:

"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 109 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been .1 percent less and the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-s of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-t 2 gm/crn3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars." —*R.H. Dicke, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62.

(18) NOT A UNIVERSE BUT A HOLE —*Roger L. St. Peter in 1974, developed a complicated mathematical equation which revealed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium (which supposedly later formed itself into stars and galaxies). In reality, according to St. Peter, such an explosion would have fallen back upon itself and formed a theoretical black hole. This would mean that one imaginary object would have been swallowed by another one.

"The alleged big bang would never have led to an expanding universe at all rather it would all have collapsed into a black hole." — Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1982, p. 198 [referring to *St. Peter's calculation].

(19) NON-REVERSING, NON-CIRCLING — The outward-flowing gas from the initial explosion would just keep moving outward forever through frictionless, gravitationless space. But, in order to produce the stars and galaxies which today exist, that gas would have had to pause, change directions, circle, clump, and do a number of other exotic things. It would have had to change direction of travel several times.

A vacuum is not subject to gravity, but this vacuum was different: it supposedly was drawn inward to a common center, then changed into outward, moving gas, which then veered away from straight-line motioninto circles! Then the gas made itself into all the stars of the heavens! Imagine firing a shotgun with billions and billions of pellets out into frictionless space, Out it goes, then it stops, while some of the pellets travel backwards into the area they came from, and congregate into groups and then, of all things, begin circling one another! And these circling groups then begin revolving around still other distant groups, and continue doing so forever. Would shotgun pellets fired in outer space do that? Why then should we expect that floating gas would do it?

From the above illustration, it is obvious that an explosion in outer space would produce neither stars, galaxies, planets, nor complicated orbiting systems. Following an initial explosion, all the material having shot outward, would just keep moving outward forever. In space, there would be no friction to stop it.

(20) MISSING MASS— Mathematical astronomers tell us there is not enough mass in the universe to meet the demands of the various theories of origin of matter and stars. The total mean density of matter in the universe is about 100 times less than the amount required by the Big Bang theory.

The universe has a low mean density. To put it another way, there is not enough matter in the universe. This "missing mass" problem is a major hurdle, not only to the Big Bang enthusiasts, but also to the "expanding universe" theorists. Observations of stars, clusters, and galaxies indicates there is only about one-third of the mass required to close the universe (that is, eventually halt its theoretical expansion). (More on the "expanding universe" theory, another corollary needed by the Big Bang enthusiasts, in the next chapter.)

" 'Most attempts to fit a cosmological model to observations have in fact implied that the total mean density of matter in the universe is much greater (maybe 100 times) than the mean density of luminous matter.' McCrae says that whether or not the universe contains this 'missing mass' is 'perhaps the most important unsolved problem of all present day astronomy.' "—* W H. McCrea, quoted in H. R. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 89.

"Creationists (for example Slusher) have shown that there is insufficient mass for galaxies to hold gravitationally together over billions of years. Evolutionary astronomers have sought to explain away this difficulty by postulating some hidden sources of mass, but such rationalizations are failures. Rizzo wrote:

" 'Another mystery concerns the problem of the invisible missing mass in clusters in galaxies. The author evaluates explanations based on black holes, neutrinos, and inaccurate measurements and concludes that this remains one of the most intriguing mysteries in astronomy.' [*P.V. Rizzo, "Review of Mysteries of the Universe, " in Sky and Telescope, August 1982, p. 150.]

"The obvious solution is that there really is no hidden mass, galaxies cannot hold together for billions of years, and galaxies have not been in existence long enough to fly apart." — Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1984, p. 125.

*Hoyle says that, without enough mass in the universe, it would not have been possible for gas to change into stars.

"Attempts to explain both the expansion of the universe and the condensation of galaxies must be largely contradictory so long as gravitation is the only force field under consideration. For if the expansive kinetic energy of matter is adequate to give universal expansion against the gravitational field, it is adequate to prevent local condensation under gravity, and vice versa. That is why, essentially, the formation of galaxies is passed over with little comment in most systems of cosmology." —*F. Hoyle and *T. Gold, quoted in *D.B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984). p. 8.

You have just completed

THE ORIGIN OF MATTER part 1
Continue

## Scientists may have solved mystery of matter’s origin

For decades, scientists have puzzled over one of the central, most essential mysteries of physics: Where did all the stuff that makes up the universe come from?

Now researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles think they have an explanation, which they describe in the journal Physical Review Letters this month. Based on observations of the Higgs boson field at Switzerland’s Large Hadron Collider, the paper is fairly impenetrable for the lay reader — even the abstract contains few words with less than four syllables.

But the gist of their theory is simple, even poetic: The conditions of the early universe were biased toward creating something out of nothing.

To develop this explanation, study authors Alexander Kusenko, Lauren Pearce and Louis Yang had to delve deep into the universe’s origins: roughly 1 decillionth of a second after the Big Bang. In this period, termed “inflation,” particles (the most basic ingredient of everything in the universe) and anti-particles (the opposite of all that) co-existed in a rapidly expanding “hot soup.” The two could switch identities (in other words, anti-particles could turn into particles and vice-versa), but the laws of physics applied equally both, meaning they were created in perfect proportion.

Shortly after inflation, the universe’s growth slowed and the two kinds of particles (which are perfectly opposed in mass and charge and effectively cancel each other out) began colliding and annihilating one another. The battle would have swiftly ended in the elimination of all forms of particles — a kind of cosmic mutually assured destruction — if not for one tiny, unexplained asymmetry in the size of their forces: For every 10 billion anti-particles, there were 10 billion particles — plus one. That marginal imbalance meant that matter was the last man standing, leading to the creation of the elements, stars, solar systems, planet Earth and every person on it.

Scientists have long known about this ancient asymmetry, but were unsure about what caused it. Many of the proposed theories were complex and unwieldy, requiring the existence of new kinds of particles or new laws of physics.

## The -Origin-Of-Matter What, When, and How?

However, many others,  ਊlthough also believing that everything was created by God, are  nevertheless intrigued by questions such as:

• What does matter actually consist of?
• When did matter come into existence?
• How did matter over time increase to the complexity we now observe?

On this page we discuss  the second question: “When”. The others will be dealt with on other pages.

#### The-Origin-Of-Matter Observed In Space And On Earth

The Heart of our Milky Way Galaxy

### When Did Matter Originate?

Most scientists now believe that our universe, encompassing all known life-and-matter , originated some 4,500 million years ago in a cataclysmic event described as the Big Bang. Concepts such as the existence of of Dark-Matter and Antimatter which emanate from scientific research are discussed on other relevant pages.

The concept of a Rapidly Expanding Universe is derived from observations of astronomers that the Cosmos is even now expanding in all directions at a phenomenal and accelerating pace.

This of course implies that going further back in time, there would be a progressively closer proximity amongst all matter. We would then eventually reach a point when, in theory, every particle of matter from the entire universe would be firmly squashed into a minute, solid, and unimaginably dense lifeless lump of energy!

Physicists researching theories of Quantum Mechanics as to the the-origin-of-matter refer to this state as the Zero Point Field, which would have consisted almost entirely of an incalculable amount of constrained Zero Point Energy straining to be released.

According to The-Big-Bang-Theory they are able to calculate this process all the way back to the first milliseconds after the onset of the Big Bang . But then, paradoxically, they run into problems and all their calculations start falling apart.

The dilemma is that on calculating any further they arrive at the  unavoidable conclusion that everything, all life-and-matter throughout the Universe, actually originated from "Nothing"! A completely sterile Void! By their own admission however, and according to their own perceptions, they summarily reject such questioning of this paradox  as being utterly “unscientific”!

Unlike those that believe in God, however, they don’t offer any indisputable alternative answers!

#### Backtracking Our Expanding Universe To It's Concentrated Origin.

Artists graphic impression of the the-origin-of-matter and the consequent expansion of the Universe over the last 13.7 billion years

### How Did Matter Originate?

Accepting that all living as well as inert matter emanated from the dynamic forces set in motion by the Big Bang resulting in the-origin-of-matter, we are unavoidably forced to ask: Creator-Or-Chance? What or Who initiated or triggered this phenomenon?

In attempting to establish the origin-of-matter we now arrive at only two diametrically opposed possibilities.

That The-O rigin-Of-Matter as we know it emanated from a process planned and executed by a Supreme Creator who brought everything into existence from unlimited resources of energy.?

Or that the opposite is true, namely that everything came into existence out of own volition, purely by Chance , from what could only have been an empty sterile Void ? In fact a situation that can only be described as a state of “non-existence”, consisting of absolutely nothing in the purest sense of the word?

Unfortunately however, neither of these two concepts can be scientifically proven as being irrefutably correct! Our convictions, one way or the other, remain an individual’s cognizant choice determined by his or her own paradigm of understanding and prejudices regarding the The-Origin-Of-Matter.

#### Why Should Christians Keep Up To Date With Discoveries Regarding The-Origin-Of-Matter?

Concepts regarding God’s Creation are extremely divisive amongst Christians. Believers are divided into two main camps.

• The“New World” group is compiled of those adhering to the literal interpretation of the Creation Story as it is described in Genesis 1 and 2 in the Bible. This leads to concepts such as that the- origin-of–matter occurred approximately 6,000 years ago when the whole universe was created over a period of six twenty-four-hour days.
• The“Old World” group is compiled of those who believe that the Bible was written as a record of God’s interaction with specific individuals and groups of people, living at a specific time and place. The intention of the authors was to convey spiritual truths to their contemporaries in regard to their specific situations. The essence of most of these spiritual truths have implications that are valid for all time, but not necessarily the detail or the wording as a whole.

The adherents of the second group hold that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific handbook regarding the-origin-of-matter and should not be interpreted as such. It is only logical to accept that, when referring to physical aspects of nature they would be severely handicapped. Firstly by the limited parameters of their knowledge base, and secondly by the restrictions imposed by the inadequacy of their vocabulary.

It is imperative that we should humbly acknowledge that we ourselves, even today, are also to a degree inhibited by the same limitations.

This post is not intended to argue the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of these two positions. This can be discussed elsewhere. What is important is that, as evangelists, it is imperative that we acquire an understanding of what everybody’s views entail. We must remember  however   that our opinions in this regard do not determine our salvation.

Our calling is first and foremost to spread the Gospel of Grace and Salvation through Jesus Christ! In doing so we must be sensitive to the existing paradigms of those we are attempting to influence.

Our own views regarding the-origin-of-matter need to be informed and up to date. We must ensure they never become unnecessary stumbling blocks that hinder the work of the Holy Spirit.

## Science uncovers the origin of the first light in the Universe

“By its very nature science knows no boundaries. Walling off any group, for any reason, from full participation damages the entire enterprise of science. We must be scientists without borders.” -Rocky Kolb

When we look out at the Universe today, highlighted against the vast, empty blackness of the sky are points of light: stars, galaxies, nebulae and more. Yet there was a time in the distant past before any of those things had formed, just after the Big Bang, where the Universe was still filled with light. If we look in the microwave part of the spectrum, we can find the remnants of this light today in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). But even the CMB is relatively late: we’re seeing its light from 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Light, as far as we know it, existed even before that. After centuries of investigating the origins of the Universe, science has finally uncovered what physically happened to “let there be light” in space.

Let’s take a look at the CMB, first, and where it comes from going way, way back. In 1965, the duo of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were working at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, trying to calibrate a new antenna for radar communications with overhead satellites. But no matter where they looked in the sky, they kept seeing this noise. It wasn’t correlated with the Sun, any of the stars or planets, or even the plane of the Milky Way. It existed day and night, and it seemed to be the same magnitude in all directions.

After much confusion over what it might be, it was pointed out to them that a team of researchers just 30 miles away in Princeton predicted the existence of such radiation, not as a consequence of anything coming from our planet, solar system or galaxy itself, but originating from a hot, dense state in the early Universe: from the Big Bang.

As the decades went on, we measured this radiation to greater and greater precision, finding that it was not at merely three degrees above absolute zero, but 2.7 K, and then 2.73 K, and then 2.725 K. In perhaps the greatest achievement related to this leftover glow, we measured its spectrum and found it was a perfect blackbody, consistent with the idea of the Big Bang and inconsistent with alternative explanations, such as reflected starlight or tired light scenarios.

More recently, we’ve even measured — from the absorption and interaction of this light with intervening clouds of gas — that this radiation increases in temperature the farther back in time (and redshift) we look. As the Universe expands over time, it cools, and hence when we look farther back into the past, we’re seeing the Universe when it was smaller, denser, and hotter.

So where did this light — the first light in the Universe — first come from? It didn’t come from stars, because it predates the stars. It wasn’t emitted by atoms, because it predates the formation of neutral atoms in the Universe. If we continue to extrapolate backwards to higher and higher energies, we find some strange things out: thanks to Einstein’s E = mc2, these quanta of light could interact with one another, spontaneously producing particle-antiparticle pairs of matter and antimatter!

These aren’t virtual pairs of matter and antimatter, which populate the vacuum of empty space, but rather real particles. Just like two protons colliding at the LHC can create a plethora of new particles and antiparticles (because they have enough energy), two photons in the early Universe can create anything they posses enough energy to create. By extrapolating backwards from what we have now, we can conclude that within the observable Universe shortly after the Big Bang, there were some 1089 particle-antiparticle pairs at that time.

For those of you wondering how we’ve got a Universe full of matter (and not antimatter) today, there must have been some process that created slightly more particles than antiparticles (to the tune of about 1-in-1,000,000,000) from an initially symmetric state, resulting in our observable Universe having about 1080 matter particles and 1089 photons left over.

But that doesn’t explain how we wound up with all that initial matter, antimatter and radiation in the Universe. That’s a lot of entropy, and simply saying “that’s what the Universe began with” is a wholly dissatisfying answer. But if we look to the solution to an entirely different set of problems — the horizon problem and the flatness problem — the answer to this one just pops out.

Something needed to happen to set up the initial conditions for the Big Bang, and that “thing” is cosmic inflation, or a period where the energy in the Universe wasn’t dominated by matter (or antimatter) or radiation, but rather by energy inherent to space itself, or an early, super-intense form of dark energy.

Inflation stretched the Universe flat, it gave it the same conditions everywhere, it drove away any pre-existing particles or antiparticles, and it created the seed fluctuations for overdensities and underdensities in our Universe today. But the key to understanding where all these particles, antiparticles and radiation first came from? That comes from one simple fact: to get the Universe we had today, inflation had to end. In energy terms, inflation happens when you roll slowly down a potential, but when finally you roll into the valley below, inflation ends, converting that energy (from being up high) into matter, antimatter and radiation, giving rise to what we know as the hot Big Bang.

Here’s how you can visualize this. Imagine you’ve got a huge, infinite surface of cubic blocks pushed up against one another, held up by some incredible tension between them. At the same time, a heavy bowling ball rolls over them. In most locations, the ball won’t make much progress, but in some “weak spots” the ball will make an indentation as it rolls over them. And at one fateful location, the ball can actually break through one (or a few) of the blocks, sending them plummeting downwards. When it does this, what happens? With these blocks missing, there’s a chain reaction due to the lack of tension, and the whole structure crumbles.

Where the blocks hit the ground far, far below, that’s like inflation coming to an end. That’s where all the energy inherent to space itself gets converted to real particles, and the fact that the energy density of space itself was so high during inflation is what gives rise to so many particles, antiparticles and photons getting created when inflation ends. This process, of inflation ending and giving rise to the hot Big Bang, is known as cosmic reheating, and as the Universe then cools as it expands, the particle/antiparticle pairs annihilate, creating even more photons and leaving just a tiny bit of matter left over.

As the Universe continues to expand and cool, we create nuclei, neutral atoms, and eventually stars, galaxies, clusters, heavy elements, planets, organic molecules, and life. And through it all, those photons, left over from the Big Bang and a relic of the end of inflation that started it all, stream through the Universe, continuing to cool but never disappearing. When the last star in the Universe flickers out, those photons — long since shifted into the radio and having diluted to be less than one-per-cubic-kilometer — will still be there in numbers just as great as they were trillions and quadrillions of years prior.

Before there were stars, there was matter and radiation. Before there were neutral atoms, there was an ionized plasma, and when that plasma forms neutral atoms, those allow the Universe to deliver the earliest light we see today. Even before that light, there was a soup of matter and antimatter, which annihilated to produce the majority of today’s photons, but even that wasn’t the very beginning. In the beginning, there was exponentially expanding space, and it was the end of that epoch — the end of cosmic inflation — that gave rise to the matter, antimatter, and radiation that would give rise to the first light we can see in the Universe. After billions of years of cosmic evolution, here we are, able to piece together the puzzle. For the first time, the origin of just how the Universe “let there be light” is now known!

## How did matter first come into existence? - Astronomy

How did the first atoms come into existence and how do we know that?

In the beginning the universe was extremely hot. It was so hot that originally protons and neutrons were not stable, and if they formed would immediately break into their constituent quarks. As the universe expanded it cooled down, and at some point was cool enough to reliably form protons and neutrons. The early universe was also extremely dense, so now you've got a lot of free protons and neutrons bumping into each other. They could combine briefly, but everything was still so hot that these early atoms were unstable and would just fly apart.

After expanding/cooling a little more, suddenly protons and neutrons could bind together into the first stable atoms. If a proton and a neutron bumped into each other they could combine to form H^2. If a proton and H^2 bumped into each other, they could combine to form He^3. If H^2 and He^3 bumped into each other they could form He^4 (while losing an extra proton).

So the earliest atoms were formed just as the universe cooled, through random interactions such as described above. This process is called Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis

However, this process was not open-ended. In particular, there were very few atoms formed with atomic weight greater than 4, and virtually no atoms formed with atomic weight greater than 7. This has been called the "mass-5 roadblock."

The reason for the roadblock is that there are no stable isotopes of atomic mass 5. If you take an atom of He^4 and add a proton then you get an atom of Li^5, which is highly radioactive and decays back to He^4 nearly instantly. If you take He^4 and add a neutron you get He^5, which is similarly unstable and decays back to He^4.

Thus, the only way to get atomic mass 6 and 7 atoms in the early universe is to "jump over" the mass 5 isotopes. This can be done through the relatively rarer reactions of H^2 and He^4 to form Li^6, then H^3 and He^4 to form Li^7, and He^3 and He^4 to form Be^7.

There is a similar roadblock at mass-8, and the mass 6 and 7 isotopes in the early universe were already thousands of times less abundant than elemental hydrogen, so any isotopes of greater than mass 8 were only produced in vanishingly small quantities, if they were produced at all.

To answer your second question, "How do we know that?" The basic answer is that the above model appears correct but is incomplete. The reactions given above occur with different probabilities, and we can test these probabilities experimentally in the lab. This is well understood nuclear physics. Then, given those probabilities we can use the above model to make predictions about the relative abundance of elements we should observe in the universe. In particular, we can look at the spectra of other stars to determine their relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, and lithium.

For any of you cosmology geeks out there- this is a pretty cool result. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis only occurred around 10-20 seconds after the Big Bang, after which the universe was too cool for spontaneous fusion to occur, so these proportions are assumed to be relatively frozen at that point. The observations of elemental abundance in stars gives us a snapshot of the early universe back to 20 seconds after the Big Bang. In contrast, the universe only became transparent around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, so this is one way that scientists have been able to peer back past that transparency transition and the much vaunted Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

The results of such observations are that the proportions of hydrogen and helium are exactly as expected. However, the values we observe for lithium are far lower than would be expected. This is known as the "lithium problem" in cosmology, and there are many hypotheses as to the cause, but so far there are no conclusive results. It could be that the above model is correct, but some secondary effect consumed a lot of lithium in the early universe, or it could be that the above model is somehow incorrect, even though it's based on a solid modern understanding of nuclear physics.

From about 1915 to 1926, work was done which showed that all the galaxies around us, were moving away from us - and that the speed with which they moved was proportionate to how far away they are. That observation alone implies the were all at the same starting point, at a finite time in the past.

This turned out to be consistent with the newly proposed (1915) theory of General Relativity - which , prior to this, had the problem that it couldn't produce an infinite-age, static (non-expanding or collapsing) universe.

This leads to the conclusion that, as you trace time going backwards, the Universe gets denser, and hotter inevitably, at some point, the universe is so dense and hot, that the light elements we see around us would break apart, first into their constituent neutrons and protons, and then those break apart into their constituent quarks.

Now, run the same scene forward in time: as the Universe expands, it becomes less dense, and cooler, and the quarks first join into protons and neutrons, and then these join into the light elements. In fact, based on the binding energy of these elements, you can predict what the ratio of the density of the lightest elements are to each other -- and it does a *pretty good job of doing that.

*Note: "Pretty good job" means different things to physicists than it does to, say, a cook.

## 2. Prime matter

One obvious question pertains to how low such underlying levels might go. In fact there is considerable controversy concerning how to conceive the bottom rung of Aristotle&rsquos hierarchy of matter. Aristotle believes that everything is made of earth, air, fire and water. These elements are defined by their possession of one of each of the two fundamental pairs of opposites, hot/cold and wet/dry. Aristotle also thinks that these elements can change into one another (On the Heavens iii 6, 305a14&ndash35). If his analysis of change is correct, when some water changes into some air, there must be something underlying, some substrate, which persists through the change, initially having the essential properties of water (being wet and cold, on Aristotle&rsquos view) and then later those of air (being wet and hot). The thing that underlies this kind of change cannot be any of the elements, since it must be capable of possessing the properties characteristic of each of the elements successively, capable of being first cold and then hot, for example. The traditional interpretation of Aristotle, which goes back as far as Augustine (De Genesi contra Manichaeos i 5&ndash7) and Simplicius (On Aristotle&rsquos Physics i 7), and is accepted by Aquinas (De Principiis Naturae §13), holds that Aristotle believes in something called &ldquoprime matter&rdquo, which is the matter of the elements, where each element is, then, a compound of this matter and a form. This prime matter is usually described as pure potentiality, just as, on the form side, the unmoved movers are said by Aristotle to be pure actuality, form without any matter (Metaphysics xii 6). What it means to call prime matter &ldquopure potentiality&rdquo is that it is capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus is completely without any essential properties of its own. It exists eternally, since, if it were capable of being created or destroyed, there would have to be some even lower matter to underlie those changes. Because it is the matter of the elements, which are themselves present in all more complex bodies, it is omnipresent, and underlies not only elemental generation and destruction, but all physical changes. As a completely indeterminate substratum, prime matter bears some similarities to what modern philosophy has called a &ldquobare particular&rdquo (see Sider 2006), although, not being a particular, it may have more in common with so-called &ldquogunk&rdquo (see Sider 1993).

A similar idea is to be found in Plato&rsquos Timaeus, 49&ndash52, where, in addition to his Forms and the particulars which instantiate them, he argues for the existence of a third category of thing, &ldquoa receptacle of all coming to be&rdquo (49a5&ndash6):

it must always be called by the same term. For it does not depart from its own character at all. It both continually receives all things, and has never taken on a form similar to any of the things that enter it in any way. For it is laid down by nature as a recipient of impressions for everything, being changed and formed variously by the things that enter it, and because of them it appears different at different times. (50b6&ndashc4)

Plato also motivates his receptacle by appealing to the phenomenon of the elements changing into one another, and, although he refers to it as &ldquospace&rdquo and not &ldquomatter&rdquo, the traditional interpretation has it that, as he often does, Aristotle has adopted an idea first developed by his mentor.

More recently, opponents of attributing a doctrine of prime matter to Aristotle have complained that there is insufficient evidence for his holding this kind of view, and that it is so philosophically unappealing that principles of charity militate against it as an interpretation. Such scholars point out that Aristotle actually criticizes Plato&rsquos account from the Timaeus, in On Generation and Corruption ii 1:

what Plato has written in the Timaeus is not based on any precisely-articulated conception. For he has not stated clearly whether his &ldquoOmnirecipient&rdquo exists in separation from the elements nor does he make any use of it. (329a13&ndash15)

Although Aristotle is clearly criticizing Plato here, it may be that his point is simply that Plato was not sufficiently clear that prime matter is never to be found existing apart from the elements, and that he did not give good enough reasons for its introduction, not that he was wrong to believe in it.

In this connection it is appropriate to note that Aristotle does in fact use the expressions &ldquoprime matter&rdquo (prôtê hulê) and &ldquoprimary underlying thing&rdquo (prôton hupokeimenon) several times: Physics i 9, 192a31, ii 1, 193a10 and 193a29 Metaphysics v 4, 1014b32 and 1015a7&ndash10, v 6, 1017a5&ndash6, viii 4, 1044a23, ix 7, 1049a24&ndash7 Generation of Animals i 20, 729a32. The mere fact that he uses the phrase is inconclusive, however, since, he makes it explicit that &ldquoprime matter&rdquo can refer either to a thing&rsquos proximate matter or to whatever ultimately makes it up:

Nature is prime matter (and this in two ways, either prime in relation to the thing or prime in general for example, in the case of bronze works the bronze is prime in relation to them, but prime in general would be perhaps water, if everything that can be melted is water). (1015a7&ndash10)

Here Aristotle is referring to his predecessor Thales&rsquo view that everything is ultimately made of water, which he in fact rejects.

In other passages too Aristotle seems to leave the question of whether or not there is prime matter deliberately open. In Metaphysics ix 7, he uses a conditional to talk about the possibility:

it seems that what we call not this, but that-en&mdashfor example, we call the box not wood, but wooden, nor do we call the wood earth, but earthen, and again earth, if it is this way, we do not call something else, but that-en&mdashthat is always potentially without qualification the next thing&hellipBut if there is something primary, which is no longer called that-en with respect to something else, this is prime matter. For example, if earth is airy, and air is not fire but firey, fire is prime matter, being a this. (1049a18&ndash22&hellip24&ndash27)

Here Aristotle uses the generic adjective &ldquothat-en&rdquo (ekeininon), a word that he coins, to mean made of that material. If a material could not be so described, it would be prime matter. Again, he shows himself aware of prime matter as a possibility, without wanting to commit to it here.

Another key passage where Aristotle has been thought to commit himself more decisively to prime matter is Metaphysics vii 3. Here we are told:

By &ldquomatter&rdquo I mean that which in itself is not called a substance nor a quantity nor anything else by which being is categorized. For it is something of which each of these things is predicated, whose being is different from each of its predicates (for the others are predicated of substance, and substance is predicated of matter). Therefore this last is in itself neither substance nor quantity nor anything else. Nor is it the denials of any of these for even denials belong to things accidentally. (1029a20&ndash26)

Although the word &ldquoprime&rdquo does not occur here, Aristotle is evidently talking about prime matter. A natural way to read this passage is that he is saying there is a wholly indeterminate underlying thing, which he calls &ldquomatter&rdquo, and it is not a substance. Those who wish to avoid attributing a doctrine of prime matter to Aristotle must offer a different interpretation: that if we were to make the mistake of regarding matter, as opposed to form, as substance, we would be committed (absurdly) to the existence of a wholly indeterminate underlying thing.

In addition to disputing the correct interpretation of these passages where Aristotle explicitly mentions prime matter, much of the debate has centered around, on the one hand, whether what he says about change really commits him to it, on the other, whether the idea is really absurd. Some opponents of prime matter have argued that Aristotle does not, after all, wish to insist that there is always something which persists through a change (see Charlton 1970, Appendix, and 1983). In particular, when one of the elements changes into another, there is an underlying thing&mdashthe initial element&mdashbut in this case it does not persist. They point out that in the key passage of Physics i 7, where Aristotle gives his account of change in general, he uses the expressions &ldquounderlying thing&rdquo and &ldquothing that remains&rdquo. While readers have usually supposed that these terms are used interchangeably to refer to the substance, in cases of accidental change, and the matter in substantial changes, this assumption can be challenged. In the elemental generation case, perhaps there is no thing that remains, just an initial elements that underlies. The worry about this interpretation is whether it is consistent with Aristotle&rsquos belief that nothing can come to be out of nothing. If there is no &ldquothing that remains&rdquo in a case of elemental generation, how is an instance of water changing into air to be distinguished from the supposedly impossible sort of change whereby some water vanishes into nothing, and is instantly replaced by some air which has materialized out of nothing?

The main philosophical objections to prime matter are that it is, at best, a mysterious entity that we cannot know anything about, since we never perceive it directly, but only the things it underlies. Of course, there can be good theoretical reasons for believing in things that we never actually see. No one has ever seen a quark, but we can still know things about them, based on the kind of theoretical work that they are required to perform. Still, Aristotle&rsquos theory will be more parsimonious, if he can manage without positing such theoretical entities. At worst, prime matter is said to be outright contradictory. It is supposed to be capable of taking on any form whatsoever, and thus to have no essential properties of its own. The idea that it has no essential properties of its own seems to make it difficult for us to characterize it positively in any way: how can it be invisible, or eternal, or the ultimate bearer of properties, if these are not properties that belong to it essentially? Moreover, if it is what ultimately underlies all properties, it seems that it must be able to take on properties that are inconsistent with what we would like to be able to think of as its own nature: when Socrates turns blue, there is also some prime matter that underlies him, which also turns blue. But how can prime matter be simultaneous invisible and blue? To get around these problems, it looks as though proponents of prime matter will have to distinguish between two different kinds of property that prime matter has, or perhaps two different ways in which it has properties. There are its essential properties, which define the kind of entity that it is, and which it has permanently, and then there are its accidental properties, which it gains and loses as it underlies different sorts of thing. A worry about this solution is, if one can distinguish between the prime matter and its essential properties, this might suggest that there is a need for a further entity to act as the underlying thing for those properties, and then this further entity would need to have its own nature, and something to underlie that nature, and so on. It seems best to try to avoid such an infinite regress by insisting that prime matter can underlie its own essential properties, without being a compound of those properties and some further matter.

## An Elliptical Galaxy

A photo of the Sombrero galaxy (M104). This galaxy is a bright, energetic elliptical galaxy.

NASA Public Domain via Creative Commons

Related to elliptical galaxies, cannibal galaxies form when a galaxy with a super-powerful gravitational field draws one or more smaller galaxies into itself.

## What Caused the Universe to Come into Existence?

We know, to the best of our senses and instruments, that the universe exists. How did it come into reality 13.8 billion years ago? In other words, what caused the Big Bang?

Roughly speaking, there are two possibilities: “nothing” caused the universe to come into being or “something” triggered it into existence.

#### Nothing Caused the Universe

People have been attempting to explain the source of reality for over two thousand years. Aristotle himself grappled with it and described an “Unmoved Mover” in trying to codify the source of reality.

The problem with using the nothing-to-something idea is it results in a logical error or in the creation of an infinite number of universes.

• If the “trigger” of the Big Bang was aseitically static, it would need to be dynamic (have actions/movement) to become dynamic by creating the universe. In other words, a logical fallacy.
• If the “trigger” of the Big Bang was aseitically dynamic, it would’ve created an infinite number of universes before creating our universe.

Our universe is dynamic — it is expanding. Galaxies, stars, and planets are constantly in motion, and all glowing stars are fusing matter at their cores. Our universe cannot suddenly become dynamic from a static or nonexistent state without outside influence unless the external environment (however it is defined) permits it. And if it is allowed within a “timeless” environment, then that same environment should’ve permitted an infinite number.

Scientists have used the “quantum fluctuation” idea to avoid the problem posed by the universe’s creation. Somehow, one of the quantum attributes of this universe (the spontaneous appearance and disappearance of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles) is used to claim that is how our universe came into existence.

But quantum fluctuation is part of this universe’s space-time fabric, which only began 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang.

It is incoherent to claim any of this universe’s internal attribute is applicable outside the universe.

If this universe’s space and time do not extend outside the universe, then neither will its vacuum fluctuation—an attribute of its space-time.

If these scientists are saying the idea of quantum fluctuation explains the universe, well, how do they know? Also, if it can create one universe, there’s no reason to assume it wouldn’t have already created an infinite number of universes.

#### Something Caused the Universe

There are five possible sources of the universe, excluding the impossible to confirm like magic and various creation mythologies. This article will provide brief descriptions of each concept and their associated implications.

Figure 1: The Five Possible Causes for the Universe (Image credit: Edward K. Watson, PJ Media)

1. Multiverse Environment

The concept of the beginningless or timeless multiverse—where there is an infinite number of universes coming into and out of existence—can be compared to bubbles that form and disappear in agitated soapy water.

The problem with the multiverse concept is if it is true, then this means intelligent beings who have progressed to a point where they can no longer be constrained by their home universe, should be able to “put their finger on the scales” on the creation of other universes according to their own preferences.

In practical terms, there would be no difference between the power of “God” and these beings who can create universes by manipulating the universe-generator of the Multiverse. Also, since a beginningless multiverse has infinity going in all directions, everything becomes transfinite, which means there would be an infinite number of them because there would’ve never been a “time” when there wasn’t a universe with intelligent beings living within them.

2. Ancestral Universe

Did our universe naturally branch off from another universe that has never contained living creatures? Superficially, this avoids the Multiverse problem by restricting the number of ancestral universes and infinitely numerous “gods,” but runs into the issue of where did that ancestral universe come from? If that ancestral universe was itself an offspring of an even earlier universe, with a similar iterative process, one ends up in the beginningless Multiverse.

However, if this ancestral universe is an aseitic steady-state universe without ancestry of its own, being beginningless would mean if it can naturally create our offspring universe, it would’ve already created an infinite number of life-viable offspring universes before our own – which brings us back to the Multiverse, with its infinite number of “gods.”

3. Cyclical Universe

A cyclical universe is when the same universe cycles into existence and non-existence, like a recording of an explosion being played forward and backward. It was popular for a time in cosmology until it was determined there’s not enough mass in the universe to halt and then reverse its expansion back to a singularity.

However, I believe a cyclical universe is still feasible if we view it as a soapy bubble that expands until it pops and its remnants return to its “source” where it accumulates to a point until it can expand once more as a new Big Bang.

The interesting thing about the cyclical universe idea is it allows for the emergence of life and even technological intelligence in an infinite cycle that is constrained by the universe. If a technological race can never exit the universe regardless of how advanced they become, or, if they can never cocoon themselves from the effect of the disintegration of the universe to emerge in the next cycle, then they cease to exist upon the dissolution of their universe.

And this applies regardless of them being able to create baby universes with their own subjective “time” – the moment the parent universe dissolves, all others disappear as well.

This means, the Multiverse’s infinitely numerous “gods” do not exist. However, if they can escape the fate of the universe, the Multiverse problems return.

4. Alien or Aliens

The three most prominent ideas associated with the possibility that the universe was created by aliens are the “Matrix,” “lab,” and “basement” ideas:

1. Matrix – the universe is a simulation like in the Matrix movie
2. Lab – the universe was created in a lab for a specific purpose known only to the alien scientists
3. Basement – the universe was created by someone who is not an expert, like a teenager living in his parent’s basement

Could we be living in a simulation? A lot of people believe we are, but the belief isn’t from empirical evidence but due to philosophical assumptions. We create virtual worlds and can predict we will produce VR worlds for a multitude of purposes that will be indistinguishable from our own in just thirty years. The reasoning is if we can do it, someone more advanced than us can.

Why would aliens create this Matrix reality? What is its purpose? Why are we the most prominent and dominant species in this reality?

Perhaps we’re not in a simulation but in a lab-grown universe? This would be similar to our universe coming from an ancestral universe except instead of being natural, it came into being through the deliberate action of its creators. What is its purpose? Did they overlook creating other technological intelligence that we can detect and communicate with?

Maybe our universe was created in a basement by someone who is not an expert, like a teenager? It would explain why we can’t find any extraterrestrials—he didn’t think to include them! It would explain why we see so much physical evil and undeserved suffering – he was nonchalant in its creation and didn’t really know what he was doing.

Regardless of the three options, they all display beings with an unusual fixation or obsession with us humans. Why us, and apparently, no one else – since we can’t detect the presence of other technological aliens anywhere in the universe? We seem to be alone in the cosmos.

It’s fun to speculate, but they all ignore where the universe of these aliens came from—it will either be from the Multiverse Environment, an Ancestral Universe, or by a Cyclical Universe—with all the associated implications of each.

The last option for the creation of the universe is God, and, as a Christian, I will limit myself to what the Bible says on the matter.

According to the Scriptures, God and Jesus existed “before creation” and God had a plan that involved Jesus and other entities. To accomplish this plan, God, had his Son, Jesus, create the universe. After Jesus fulfilled his task by suffering and dying for our sins, God rewarded him by giving him the universe for an inheritance which Jesus will have dominion over for all eternity. Jesus then shares his rule and dominion over the universe with those who will become the “Children of God” after Judgment Day.

That is the extent of what the Scriptures say on the matter. God as the cause is a “black box” in the sense that we do not know what is inside other than what he shares with us in the Scriptures. Anything beyond this is just speculation.

#### Which Option is the Most Likely?

Trying to envision the causes of creation is very hard — and really hurts the brain! However, of the five possible sources of the universe, one appears most likely based on specific criteria:

Figure 2: “God” is the Most Likely Explanation for the Source of the Universe (Image credit: Edward K. Watson, PJ Media)

## Conclusion

It is hope that this brief look at the Big Bang theory will help creationists not to misrepresent the theory. For example, creationists should not be asking &ldquohow can something explode into nothingness&rdquo. The Big Bang theory is not really a theory about an explosion. That name was given to the theory by an early opponent of the theory.

Nevertheless, we have seen that there are many justifiable accusations to level at the Big Bang theory, such as its reliance on &ldquofiddle factors&rdquo, like dark matter. We have also seen that the Big Bang theory is not a monolithic theory. There is a substantial minority of atheistic, secular scientists who do not accept it, either.

Most of all, we do not accept the Big Bang theory because it is unBiblical. It suggests that the Earth has no special place, whereas the Bible tells us that it does (Isaiah 45:12). Despite the heavens being vast and beautiful, they were nevertheless created for our benefit (Genesis 1:14) and, most importantly, to give glory to God Psalm 19:1).

Further Study

Taking Back Astronomy, by Dr. Jason Lisle (Master Books)
The Astronomy Book, by Dr. Jonathan Henry (Master books)

i. Brad Lemley, "Guth&rsquos Grand Guess," Discover volume 23 (April 2002): 35.

iii. Heather Couper & Nigel Henbest, Big Bang (DK Publishing, 1997): 9.

v. R. Matthews, University of Aston, in &ldquoThe Cosmos Next Door,&rdquo Focus (2003).