|
INFINITE UNIVERSE |
|
|
|
For all of its supposed exactness, modern science is
actually based more on educated guesses than on hard and fast laws. And in
this century science has probably raised more fundamental questions than it has
answered. Man's endless search to understand continues even in the face of
more complex and puzzling dilemmas. It seems that the more we understand the
more difficult it becomes to make further progress in some fields. In some
fields, instead of agreeing, scientists are often bitterly divided over the
interpretation of certain experimental data or observational results. Cosmologists, for example, are constantly in
disagreement over many things concerning the universe. It's age, it's origin,
it's fate, and many other aspects of the universe are always hot topics for
debate. Even the size of the universe varies tremendously in the eyes of
cosmologists. Sizes ranging from not much larger than we have been able to
see thus far, all the way to infinity have been proposed. Although it is, and probably will remain, impossible
to determine the exact size of the universe, we can nevertheless investigate
some aspects of its size. There is one thing which is fundamental to the
physical universe in all of its manifestations. Whether we look inside an
atom, inside a nearby star, inside a black hole, or inside the most distant
quasar one thing remains true. There is nothing in the physical universe
which is infinite! I realize that to many people this may seem to be an
absurd statement. We so often talk about infinity and use it in mathematical
equations and formulae, that we just automatically assume that many things
actually are infinite. But, in reality, there is not a single thing we can
point to and say, "now that's infinite." We can think of infinity,
but we cannot see it or touch it. It is nothing more than an abstract concept
which exists only in our minds. It is totally absurd to me, that a cosmologist can say
in one breath that the universe began around 15 billion years with the big
bang, and then in the next breath speak of even the possibility of an
infinite universe. If it began as a single point 15 billion years ago, then
how did it expand to infinity in a finite amount of time? The only possible
way would be for it to have expanded at an infinite rate, which any physics
student who paid attention in class, can tell you is quite impossible. In short, if the universe had an origin that was in
anyway similar to the big bang, then it cannot be infinite. And no matter how
fast it expanded it could never become infinite. The only possible way for
there to be an infinite universe would be for it to have been created
that way. But I believe that even this is not possible. If the universe is expanding, and almost every notable
physicist and cosmologist agrees that it is (although the rate of expansion
is, as with most things, still hotly debated), then we can say that the
universe is finite. If the universe was infinite and still expanding what
would it be expanding into? How could it become larger than infinity? Having
an infinite universe would imply that someone could begin travelling in any
direction at any speed, regardless of how fast, and travel an infinite amount
of time, in that same direction, without ever reaching an area where the
universe did not exist. But if the universe is expanding, then there has to
be some area which the universe is expanding into. In other words, it is
constantly moving into areas where it previously did not exist. This says
that it is not infinite, if it does not already exist everywhere. But what if the universe is not expanding? Could it be
infinite if it is not expanding? First, let us look at the case of a
contracting universe. If the universe is contracting then it is withdrawing
from areas which it previously occupied. This quite clearly shows us that
there would then be area where the universe did not exist. And if it did not
exist everywhere, then it could not be infinite. Now let us examine the case of a universe which is
neither expanding or contracting, but is static. Could it be infinite in this
case? Until only a few decades ago it was believed that the universe was
indeed static. In fact, the belief was so strong that even Albert Einstein
made what he later referred to as the greatest blunder of his career trying
to allow for a static universe. When he developed his theory of general relativity, in
the early part of this century, he found that it predicted an expanding
universe. He rejected this possibility completely and set about adjusting his
results by adding an arbitrary constant to his equations, called the
cosmological constant, which resulted in them predicting a static universe. What is so significant about this is that Einstein did
not believe in God in the traditional sense. So he was not trying to make his
equations agree with the conventional Christian view of things. It was simply
the case that he, along with everyone else, believed so strongly that the
universe was static that he could not believe his own findings. Isaac Newton also found himself in a similar quandary
when he formulated his theory of gravity in the seventeenth century. He
quickly realized that if gravity was always attractive then a static universe
would be impossible. The force of gravity would immediately cause a static
universe to begin collapsing in upon itself. Newton's solution to this
problem was to assume that the universe was infinite. He argued that a finite
universe, which consisted of a finite number of stars distributed over a
finite area of space, would indeed collapse in upon itself. But it would not
happen, he reasoned, if there were an infinite number of stars distributed
more or less randomly across an infinite amount of space, since there would be
no central point for them to collapse to. But, as Stephen Hawking points out,
this argument is illogical. "This argument is an
instance of the pitfalls that you can encounter in talking about infinity. In
an infinite universe, every point can be regarded as the center, because
every point has an infinite number of stars on each side of it. The correct
approach, it was realized only much later, is to consider the finite
situation, in which all the stars all fall in on each other, and then asks
how things change if one adds more stars roughly uniformly distributed
outside this region. According to Newton's laws, the extra stars would make
no difference at all to the original ones on average, so the stars would fall
in just as fast. We can add as many stars as we like, but they will still
always collapse in on themselves. We now know it is impossible to have an
infinite static model of the universe in which gravity is always
attractive."[1] Some people might wonder how adding more stars, as Dr.
Hawking talks about, would have no net effect on those already present.
Although this might seem counter-intuitive at first, it can be proven
mathematically. In the case of a system of objects where matter is
distributed fairly uniformly, only the matter which is closer to the center
of gravity than the object you are considering will have any net effect on
that object. The effect will be to draw the object toward the center of
gravity. The net effect of all matter further from the center of gravity will
be zero. This is the case because the effects of all the individual objects
will cancel each other out. Based on all of this, I believe it is very clear that
the universe is finite. And furthermore, I believe that God could not have
created an infinite physical universe even if He had wanted to. Now I feel
compelled to pause and ask a very important question about the conclusion I
have reached. Am I limiting the power of God in any way by saying it was impossible
for Him to create an infinite physical universe? I do not believe I am.
Before God decided what laws would govern His new creation, He was free to do
anything He chose to do. But once He set forth the laws which were to govern
what He was about to create, then His freedom to create was greatly limited.
This does not at all limit God, it simply illustrates the principle that
making one choice often limits any further choices. Consider, for example, the motion of the Earth around
the Sun. Although the speed with which the Earth moves varies along its
orbit, the average speed is related to the distance the Earth is from the
Sun. This follows a law discovered by Johannes Kepler in the early
seventeenth century. Based on this law, when the average velocity of a body
orbiting another body is specified, then the average distance can be
calculated. This tells us that if, for instance, God decided how far He
wanted the Earth to be from the Sun, then He had absolutely no choice as to
how fast the Earth would move in its orbit. This does not limit God's power
at all, it just simply shows that when He establishes laws His creations have
to abide by them, or else they are not laws at all. In the final analysis,
all decisions affecting the nature of the universe have been made by God. It
is just that some of the earlier decisions affected the choices available for
the latter ones. Now that we have seen that the universe itself is
finite, I would now venture into realms unknown and put forth what I call my
"theory of finiteness." I believe that it is a, perhaps the,
fundamental principle of our universe, in all of its manifestations, that
everything is finite. What are the implications of this? I will have to admit
that I am not quite sure exactly what may be implied by this statement if it
is true. But before I get into that, I would like to examine certain things
which might be brought up to contradict my assertion that nothing in the
universe is infinite. Many things are considered today to be infinite by the
scientific community. If one examines a good number of pieces of scientific
literature from various authors on a wide variety of subjects he will almost
certainly find the term infinity applied to a wide array of things. But the
question is, are these things really infinite? In his book "A Brief History of Time" (a
work which I have the utmost respect for) Dr. Stephen Hawking often used the
term "infinite density." He used this term to refer to both black
holes, and the condition of the universe at the big bang singularity. I have
also encountered this term in many other places. But what does infinite
density really imply? Is it really possible for a black hole, or anything
else for that matter, to have infinite density? Density is defined as mass per unit volume, which is
the total mass of an object divided by the total volume of that object. The
mass of any black hole is certainly finite. This must be the case unless it
was created by God with an infinite mass. The only ways that a black hole
could come to have infinite mass after being formed would be, (1) if mass
entered the hole at an infinite rate, or (2) if mass entered the hole for an
infinite amount of time. Neither of which is feasible. And beyond the theoretical considerations of how an
infinite mass black hole could form, what effects would it have on the rest
of the universe? They would certainly be devastating. It would possess
infinite gravity and would immediately begin to suck the rest of the universe
into it. Clearly this is not happening. And since we have already established
that the universe is finite, even if a black hole contained the entire
universe (and it certainly can't contain more than that) it would still be
finite. So we have now established that the mass of a black hole cannot be
infinite. Dr. Hawking states in his book that the volume of a
black hole is either extremely small or effectively zero. If it is small, but
not zero, regardless of how small, then it is finite. When you divide the
mass by the volume you are dividing one finite number by another finite
number. By the rules of mathematics, this MUST yield another finite number.
The magnitude of this number may be astronomical, but that is beside the
point, it is still finite. If, on the other hand, the volume is zero, then
you are trying to divide a finite number by zero. Mathematically, this
operation cannot be performed. It is technically considered to be undefined,
and, therefore, there would be no such thing as density in this case. So you
either have a finite density, or no density at all. In short, there is no
such thing as infinite density. Every other thing which I can conceive of also can be
explained as being finite. Scientists today have become very liberal with the
use of the term infinity. It seems that anything which is too large for
them to measure is often considered to be infinite. But just being large
is not enough to be considered infinite. Webster's Dictionary gives two meanings for the word
infinite. They are (1) lacking limits or bounds; endless; immeasurable. (2)
very great; vast; immense. I do not wish to quibble over the meaning of this,
or any other word, for that would be utter foolishness. Words are nothing
more than a collection of symbols which a group of people have agreed to
assign a certain meaning to. It is not the word, but the concept which I
would like to address. The two meanings given in Webster's are both
completely valid, since English speaking people have agreed that they are.
But this does not mean that they may be used interchangeably without
considerable harm being done to the accuracy of one's attempt at
communication. The first meaning given is the one that I am intending when I
use the term in this paper, and the meaning that most scientists intend when
they use the word. However, they too often apply the word to a situation
which fits only the second meaning. As a result, the meanings have become
confused, and this has led to the liberal use of the term in situations where
the first meaning does not really apply. The problem is that, although if
something is infinite in the first sense of the word, it must of necessity be
infinite in the second sense of the word, the reverse is not automatically
true. Certainly something which is infinite in the second sense of the word
CAN also be infinite in the first sense of the word, but it doesn't have to
be. Some may think I have made much ado about nothing
here, but I think that it is very important that I make clear exactly what I
am saying when I state that the universe is completely and inherently finite
in every way. Certainly the universe is very great, vast, and immense. But
this does not make it infinite in the sense in which I am using the word. I
am saying that everything in the universe has limits or bounds, has an end,
and is measurable. Whether or not man is capable of measuring it or in any
way determining its bounds is immaterial. The physical universe is where everything is finite.
Can we say by extension, then, that eternity is where everything is infinite?
Perhaps, but knowing so little about it, only what we can glean from the
Bible, it is very difficult to say. But I do think it is very interesting to
consider. Time, as we define it today, is a finite quantity. What would you
have if time became infinite? Eternity. In reality, I should not speak of
time becoming infinite, because this can't really happen. In eternity there
is no such thing as time as we understand it. In fact that is what makes it
eternity. If it had time it would still be finite. It is fairly easy to follow the argument of the
absence of time as we discuss eternity. But what about space? Could another
aspect of eternity also be that space becomes infinite there? So that, in
effect, space as we know it, disappears in eternity just as time does? This would
imply that it would be improper to speak of a "place" in eternity.
Time and space would both cease to exist. Could we even go a little further and say that
eternity might be characterized as a "place" where EVERYTHING is
infinite? Can this perhaps be the fundamental difference between our universe
and eternity? Everything here is finite, everything there is infinite? I believe that if there is anything which can truly be
described as infinite it is God. His love, grace, and mercy, His knowledge,
power, and wisdom are all infinite. In fact, I feel it is quite appropriate
to refer to God as infinity. I can think of no aspect of God which is finite
or limited in any way. If anything fits our definition of infinity,
"lacking limits or bounds, endless, immeasurable," it is God.
Perhaps, then, the "place" or realm where God exists is also
completely infinite in every way, whatever that may mean. Tony Whiddon August 14, 1993 |