Calculations have shown that the only way for our universe to have formed and be this "close" to flatness is if the original conditions governing the formation of the universe were very precisely tuned to better than one part in 1049 ! This means that the universe must have started out close to its critical density. If it was too dense then the universe would have stopped expanding and re-collapsed: NO YOU AND ME! If it was not dense enough then the universe would have expanded too fast for stars to form: NO YOU AND ME!
Another way of putting this is that the odds of the universe starting "randomly" and ending up as we are today is about 1 in 1049 . These odds are about as good as winning 7 consecutive lotteries with single tickets each time! In fact it may even be less likely than this. If Roger Penrose is correct the odds would be more like winning 150 lotteries in row!!
On the other hand consider this. Even as unlikely as these odds are, given enough time even the most unlikely event will occur. Another way of putting it is anything that is not absolutely prohibited must eventually happen . This is the tack that some scientists have taken. They go further to suggest that the very fact that we exist to observe this universe means that it is the only possible universe in which we could be. Infinities of universes have come and gone - ours is the only one in which we would be conscious. There is nothing at all surprising in the numbers. This is known as the Anthropic Principle .
Which do you find most reasonable? Perhaps the point is that a proof of God's existence really seems to beg the question. Further, how do I as a Christian astronomer find my way here? If I simply assert that God created the universe I have gone no further than I was before. Of course God created the universe - but how? How does God prepare so special a set of conditions that our present universe unfolds?
The Inflation Model has many successes to its credit. It solves the problem of
flatness and smoothness as well as a number of more technical problems relating
to the existence of certain kinds of particles. One vexing problem, however, has
been a satisfactory explanation of the formation of galaxies, clusters, superclusters,
walls, voids, etc. Within the past 3 years a promising theory has been put forward. While the theory
is quite mathematical it does have a simple analogy. Imagine an ice cube forming.
As the ice freezes it is streaked by thin lines or sheets. These are defects in
the crystal structure. In the very early universe a similar process is thought
to have taken place. In the mid 1990's the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite
(COBE) and more recently the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)has succeeded in detecting the very minute deviations in isotropy of the background
radiation that could be attributed to the first nascent structures of the universe.
The pink "blotches" in this all sky image taken in the microwave region (after
a considerable amount of image reduction) show regions that are a few micro-degrees
warmer than the blue regions. We now have data that will allow us to test models
of "structure formation" within the very early universe.
A roll-over image comparing the resolution of COBE abd WMAP |
The early universe was extremely hot and perfectly symmetric. As it cooled "defects" in the structure of space appeared. Sheets of immense size and mass developed. These are believed to be very strange objects being essentially 2 dimensional or even 1 dimensional in the case of cosmic strings . Detailed calculations show that such structures could form. Furthermore, they would represent regions of strong gravitational attraction - the necessary seeds for the formation of galaxies and the other large scale structures observed in the universe. In a tantalizing way the largest structures in the universe may be the result of quantum fluctuations during the big bang. We explain the largest structures by using the physics normally reserved for a discussion of the smallest of structures!
|
|
|
|