Where did the Universe come from?
Part 1: Einstein’s Big Blunder
100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world. These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.
Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?
His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.
But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.
As I’ll explain during the next couple of days, Einstein’s theories have been thoroughly proved and verified by experiments and measurements. But there’s an even more important implication of Einstein’s discovery. Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began with the Big Bang.
That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*
He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”*
Pretty significant statement, wouldn’t you say?
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment: “Bird Droppings on my Telescope.”
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
*Einstein quotes are from “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Thank you Mr Marshaal. a very thoughtfull and full of knowledge first lesson..
Have you ever studied the book Holy QURAN ? 1400 years ago in this book it was told to the humenkind that this world was created by a big bang, and that the universe is expanding , and new galaxy are always in the process!,
By reading your chapter my knowledge about the new scientific research will increase to gather with my belief in the QURAN will enhence.
Thank you.
Maqbool Ahmed
In your video you talked about the fruit fly experiment with radiation and changes in DNA. “For 30 whole, long years” he conducted is experiment and no new improved changes??? Get back to me after 2.5 billion years of constant experiment and let me know what happens then. You have to think over very, very, VERY long time scales. 30 years is not even enough time to complete a cosmic sneeze.
Ryan,
I would encourage you to read Dobzhanski’s reports. He believed he could accelerate evolution by accelerating mutations. Which I think was a reasonable hypothesis. Nevertheless, random mutations were a total failure.
Let’s not forget that Shapiro and McClintock’s experiments WERE successful. And they took a lot less than 30 years to produce results. (see http://evo2.org/new-theory-of-evolution/ )
The contrast between the fruit fly radiation experiments and the natural genetic engineering experiments supports the latter as the best explanation for the driving force behind evolution.
Perry
did einstein believed in god and do you?
I am no astrophysicist, but I have read a lot of books by various scientific ‘experts’. Even Carl Sagan seems to have no problem with the existence of God, it i2 more religion he despises so vehemently (down with dogma). What is very possibly the greatest human mind in the past 100 years or so, (In my opinion at least), Stephen Hawking makes great scientific cases for the existence of God, as does Niel Degrasse Tyson (who I could listen to all day; Google his name and ‘intelligent design’ . Then Google his name and ‘killer asteroid’ and enjoy that video!). Perhaps Astrophysicist James Jeans sums my very limited view best in his 1930 declarative: “…the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.”
I have limited engineering, scientific and philosophical skills with which to form my beliefs and fewer still to prove them to anyone else; but I do try to keep my eyes and mind open for most of the day and for the last 20 or so years, barely a day has gone by when I have not witnessed a dozen or more small miracles. (Some would have me call them coincidences.) There have even been days when I have witnessed a dozen times as many small miracles. I truly think the days I do not see at least a dozen miracles, just means I need to pay better attention. But that is my view that for a long time has worked real well in my life.
~Mark
If God was created by an uncaused cause, why is it so unreasonable to believe that the birth of the universe was caused by an uncaused cause? What is this uncaused cause you speak of? Can you give other examples?
The universe itself cannot be eternal cause because of entropy.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem proves that the universe cannot explain itself, that there has to be something outside the universe.
I know of only one uncaused cause.
Perry:
You say: “The universe itself cannot be the eternal cause because of entropy.”
Could you expound on this?
Cordially,
Hèctor
Hector,
If you see a candle burning you know it was lit some time in the last few hours or days.
You know that it has not been burning for 100,000 years, much less eternity.
The universe is no different. Energy is a finite entity and it is being converted from usable forms to unusable forms. Proof that it began a finite time ago. One need not even understand the details of the Big Bang to prove that – just entropy.
Entropy is a law and logically, the ultimate cause of the universe is inevitably something that is not subject to those laws.
Perry
Perry – First, I am a believer in God and in Jesus. Your extraordinary work is confirmation for me, not persuasion.
Your argument gets us to God. Have you an argument that gets us to Jesus ?
I found him at the end of the chain of evidence that leads through scripture and history with sufficient certainty that I accepted Him, was baptized and am working steadily on keeping the most important command.
Can you offer me the same confirmation for the Son you have provided for the Father ?
Jared,
A very thorough answer to your question is at http://evo2.org/audio/newevidence.htm. A good read and especially a good listen.
Perry
what is THE BIG BANG THEORY?
WHAT IS ANTI-MATTER & DARK MATTER?
DNA may or may not be random or intentional…one thing is clear…DNA is a clumsy code if originated by an “intelligent” designer.
A second reality is that DNA is infinitely more intriguing if percieved as the result of random joinings. Why did the first cellular lifeform spontaneously come to exist, die off, then come to exist again, repeating the unlikely random cycle until at some point in “time” a telltale vestige of a past iteration produced an intentional offspring as opposed to a random rebirth? Biological momentum is my reasoning. A non intellectual process evolving out of logical need. A non intellectual solution to a primal problem…the first non sentient decision to move forward with purpose.
Thus, is logic more than a mere human modeling tool?
James,
I don’t think you have any right to call DNA clumsy until human engineering can equal it. I question whether you presently grasp how remarkable it is, from the standpoint of information processing, that there are so FEW birth defects, for example.
Regarding randomness: What you are saying is pure speculation not backed by any science. There is no empirical evidence that randomness ever produces any kind of information systems at all. See http://evo2.org/infinite-chasm/
Perry
Humans will out engineer DNA technology…it’s simply a matter of human time.
MY statement simply points out that DNA is less than should be expected from the mind of an all knowing being/deity.
The Great Universe and all its physical Laws must have been built by some intelligent Beings. A knitting machine or a Car does not come by itself. We are thinking with our human mind and limited logic.
Whatever we may think and discuss may be completely out of the reality of the creation of the Universe. We must be wasting our time to try to find out. The Universe may be controlled by other Laws. Inside of it are the Laws we know as bio, Chemistry Physics etc. The Laws outside of it are perhaps impossible to think even in 20 million years or never !.
I noticed that one of your ads was plastered over a youtube video of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos. Not only that, but your ad “The atheists riddle, so simple a child can understand, so complex no atheist can refute” etc is planted smack bang over the middle of Carl’s grinning face.
Im FAIRLY sure Carl Sagan disagrees with everything you say…either way im guessing you dont have permission to use his face for your ad. Even if you dont require permission, which you may not, do you really consider this fair?
Given that Carl Sagan isnt alive to disagree with your stance, its hardly proper to use his face to peddle your own ideas for a dollar.
Good day sir, if the univers is expanding.Does it mean that in the begining it was without form or empty? if yes then what happens to living creatures, where were they from?thanks
If God is Love and a scientist Loves their work, would it not follow that that (wo)man’s God is science?
After reading some of these comments, it’s quite obvious that when it comes to pondering cosmic inception, that it is a condition that can only be truly embraced via a personal revelatory experience. In other words, one can resonate with an idea, based on pre existing knowledge, or talking points, but the process of truth finding is an individual quest. Therefore, nothing said here (by this writer) is intended to convince anyone of anything; for we are all born with our own access to “light” in this world of darkness!
One of the reasons its so difficult to talk about this subject is that we are unknowingly trapped by the conditions of culture, a contaminated history, ideology, and even language itself. But the greatest encumberance to our understanding is “segregative thinking”, with Western culture being its greatest champion. It is this notion that all truth starts with knowing all the particulars, when all of the particulars are unknowable! (That is another rabbit hole altogether e.g. The Electromagnetic Spectrum)
At any rate, I’ve long contended that the question: “Is there a God?”, or whatever one likes to call it, the dumbest question ever asked; for it is answered by the very utterance of the question! for God is all there was, is and will be. Nothing can exist separate and apart form “Being”. Thus we cannot quantify God, for Man and God are one, and the same in nature. So since science uses inferences for the “Big Bang”, I will use a Hindu inference-“when Brahma sleeps”. This simply means that the phenomenal universe is an unending series of cycles, with no beginning or end. This also means, as an a priori concept, that Cosmic Consciousness is not an epi-phenomenon of matter, but a co-dependent driver of Natural Law-the arbiter of all expressions, and outcomes of Being. This means that “something”, and absolute “nothing” cannot exist in the same universe. This means that if “accidents”, as we conceived them, were based on Law, then accidents would immutably beget accidents; thus making Being a universe of unending chaos, without any natural systems.
sir
I have a great passion towards astronomy.I’m a student of IXth standard.I used to read books about astronomy,and i always had a doubt”What is the proof-many says universe formed after the big bang explosion.But how could they say so,they weren’t alive that time.Even then they say it was due to big bang that the universe had formed,but how could they say so.
Is there any reason behind their theories?
Hope my question was clear.
I seems like the universe somehow came into being. Be that as it may.
But does it really matter to us whether some entity (the tribal god of the old Israelits) created it, or if it created itself… somehow? It doesn’t make it any better or worse. What we belief is the “Universe” will eventually fade away…be no more (hopefully). But perhaps it will come back in some, or the same, form. Can’t say that anything good has ever come of it. Any kind of purpose –as we humans understnd it, is unthinkable when it comes to the universe. Science and Religion and the rest of human wisdom is useless when pondering these questions. They are meaningless. We have no idea what we are talking about. There really is nothing to talk about.
Dear Sir,
As per law of Conservation of energy “states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed”, then How the UNIVERSE BORN in BLOCK HOLE. Is anything possible from Zero to Infinity or infinity to Zero.
What is meant by “steady state universe”?
It means that the universe had always been there and had no beginning.
Question
Can you define fate ?
i have gone through above statements, questions, fellow members explanation, but the most worrying factor was, is our invention leads to new destination or destruction,
we are ingnorant of many things in universe, let us not add some more to it.
universe is an eternal creatrion, for living beings which are continuously progressing.
kindly define fate.
I find your argument for the existence of a God, or some form of super intelligence, that engineered everything from the Big Bang to giraffes with long necks, refreshingly scientific and thought-provoking. However, when you suddenly throw in words like Trinity, one of many Pauline concepts (virgin birth, son of God, etc) born from a manipulation and downright corruption of the Judaic (Nasarean) teachings of Jesus and his brothers James and Jude (his twin), your splendid argument takes on a different nuance – are you crusading to make us believe in biblical teaching as determined by individuals, or maybe that the Pauline Christian viewpoint is the key to the riddle?
I could submit to a belief in God, or whatever you wish to call it (he? she?), but tying me down to a specific teaching from any religious group immediately places restrictions on freedom of reason, to wit, you can have your throat cut in some countries if you dare to question what some self-ordained cleric deems to be right or wrong.
i didn’t read all of it but i’m pretty sure that it’ll gonna say what i already know …scientist muslim…