For example, when astronomers observe the Sun, they don’t see it as it is now, but what it was about 8 minutes ago since it took light from the Sun 8 minutes to travel to Earth. Similarly, when astronomers observe the Andromeda Galaxy, they see it as it was 2.5 million years ago since it is at a distance of 2.5 million light years.

Since the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, the most distant observable objects are 13.8 billion light years away. However, the universe has been continuously expanding ever since the cosmic creation event. Hence, the universe that exists today is much larger than the universe astronomers can detect through their telescopes. Based on the measured cosmic expansion rate, astronomers have determined that the presently existing universe is at least 93 billion light-years across.

At RTB, our astrophysicists study the universe’s mass, size, and designs, revealing just how immense and finely tuned it truly is. Let’s explore what science can observe and what Scripture helps us understand. Together, they reveal not only the scale of the cosmos in miles and light-years, but also the intentionality behind it. They reveal that the universe didn’t happen by chance. Its precisely fine-tuned mass, size, and designs remind us of God’s magnitude and power—and of how much more exists beyond what our minds can comprehend.

What Is the Size of the Universe?

To say that the universe for most people is unimaginably big is no exaggeration. Nevertheless, the universe’s size can be visualized. The universe astronomers can see through their telescopes contains about 2 trillion galaxies. Galaxies on average contain about 50 billion stars. That adds up to a hundred billion trillion stars in the observable universe.

How big are the stars? They range in size from 6 miles to a billion miles in diameter. The Sun is a medium-sized star with a diameter of 865,000 miles. One way to visualize the Sun’s size is that one could pack 1.3 million Earths inside the Sun. One way to visualize the largest stars is that one could pack 1.5 billion Suns inside the largest star!

We live in a large spiral galaxy. Our galaxy’s spiral disk contains an estimated 200 billion stars. Our galaxy is orbited by 152 globular clusters. The smallest such globular cluster contains about 50,000 stars. The largest contains about 10 million stars. The giant galaxy M87 in the nearby Virgo Cluster of galaxies has 17,000 globular clusters orbiting it. The largest known galaxy is a thousand times more massive than our Milky Way Galaxy, which weighs 1.2 trillion times the Sun’s mass.

How far apart are the stars from one another? If one were to scale our Sun down to the size of a grapefruit and place it at Terminal 1 of the Los Angeles International Airport, the nearest other grapefruit (star) would be in Peru.

How big is the universe? The observable universe contains a hundred billion trillion stars where the stars are separated from one another by an average of about 25 trillion miles. See this video for a visual treat showing how big is the universe.

And yet, what we see is not all there is. The stuff we see through our telescopes, the stars, planets, nebulae, and galaxies, comprises just 0.27% of the universe. Most of the universe, the other 99.73%, is made up of dark stuff.

The total quantity of stuff in the universe, as incredibly massive and big as it is, cannot be any smaller or any larger for life to possibly exist in the universe. Make the universe the tiniest bit smaller, no elements heavier than helium would exist. Make the universe the tiniest bit bigger, no elements lighter than iron would exist. In both cases the universe would contain no carbon, no nitrogen, and no oxygen and physical life would be impossible.

Evidently, the Creator of the universe did not think it too costly to create a vast universe and carefully and exquisitely fine-tune it for 13.8 billion years so that human beings could live and thrive on a beautifully designed planet. How great is the Creator’s love for us that we see manifested in the size, mass, and designs of the universe!

How Do We Measure the Size of the Universe?

We measure the universe through light emitted by its galaxies, stars, nebulae, gas, and dust.

Astronomers trace light across the ages, following its path through space to learn how the universe has changed over time.

They use methods with names that sound almost poetic—like parallax, redshift, and standard candles—but each one is rooted in careful measurement. Together, these tools help translate the majesty of creation into data we can study and understand.

Every beam of light carries information about where it came from and what it’s passed through, a record of the universe’s history written in photons.

And the more carefully we measure, the more awe we uncover. Every beam of light reveals the physical state of the cosmic object that emitted it and the precise values of the laws and constants of physics at that cosmic site and that cosmic time. Every light beam reflects the faithfulness of the Creator.

Science calls it testable, measurable, and reliable. Faith calls it design.

The Expansion of the Universe: The Sky That’s Still Stretching

We’ve learned something else from that ancient light: the universe isn’t static.

It’s alive with motion and growth—unfolding and stretching toward horizons we have yet to see.
From the first spark of creation, space itself has been expanding.

Every galaxy became a traveler, drifting outward on a tide that has never ceased.

Astronomers can see it even now: galaxies slipping away in every direction, their light stretched thin into longer, redder wavelengths, like a song deepening as it echoes through time.From the beginning, God designed a universe that expands, a scientific concept consistent with Scripture’s description of him “stretching out the heavens.”

And yet, the same God who sent the galaxies expanding away from one another also holds them fast. Gravity gathers stars into clusters, planets into orbits, and atoms into being. As physicists study these phenomena, they see incredible cosmic fine-tuning, a precise balance of forces that lets stars burn, atoms bond, and galaxies hold their form.

Physics reveals a sophisticated dance between forces that hold them together and ones that pull them apart. The expanding universe is governed not by chaos, but care.

Distant galaxies race away from us faster than nearby galaxies. This observed phenomenon is the predicted outcome of the entire universe undergoing a nearly constant rate of expansion. Just like dots on an expanding balloon that are farther apart than dots that are closer together appear to move away from one another at a faster rate, so too the greater a galaxy’s distance from us the faster it moves away from us.

Astronomers call it continuous expansion.

Scripture says the Lord “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (Isaiah 40:22).

Different words. Same truth.

Astronomers’ measurements of the cosmic expansion rate reveal that the expansion rate is gradually accelerating. This acceleration implies that some time in the future the most distant galaxies will be moving away from us at speeds greater than the velocity of light. When that happens, these galaxies will cease to be visible to us. One day, the galaxies’ light will drift beyond our sight, not because the light has died, but because the space between has stretched too wide for it to reach us.

Is the Universe Infinite in Size?

Stay under the stars for a while, and you’ll start to wonder—does this ever end?

Astronomers have mapped the observable universe, limited by how far light can travel since the beginning.

Beyond that? We can only imagine. 

Some have even proposed that our universe may be one of many, a multiverse, a vast ensemble of realities beyond our reach.

Even if physical realms exist beyond the observable universe, physicists expect them to follow the same physical laws, constants, and patterns as the universe we can see. This idea—known as the cosmological principle—assumes that the universe is uniform and governed by the same laws everywhere, not just in our corner of the cosmos. Indeed, everywhere we can make measurements, we see that the laws and constants of physics measure to be exactly the same as they are on Earth.

That consistency points to the reliability and order built into creation by its Designer.

The size of the observable universe is something we can accurately measure. The fine-tuned features of the universe reveal its order, wonder, and at least eleven distinct purposes or reasons why the universe is the way it is. 

How Big Is the Universe?

The size of the universe reminds us just how small we are and how immense the One who designed it must be.

Isaiah wrote that God measures the heavens “with the breadth of his hand” (Isaiah 40:12). What ancient Scripture expresses, modern astronomy confirms scientifically: the heavens are vast, measurable but beyond our ability to comprehend, and governed by precise physical laws.

Every advance in observation, each new telescope, each new image of distant galaxies doesn’t diminish mystery, it deepens it. The more we discover, the more evidence we see of order, stability, and fine-tuning throughout all of creation.

How big is the universe, really?

Big enough to silence pride.
Small enough to rest within the reach and control of its Creator.

The story the 2 trillion galaxies and a hundred billion trillion stars are telling isn’t about how far they extend, but how faithfully God reigns.

The Shape of the Universe

Astronomers have measured the universe’s size, age, and expansion with remarkable precision, but its overall shape remains one of cosmology’s most fascinating questions.

Current evidence from satellite missions such as WMAP and Planck suggests that the universe is flat on large scales. In a flat universe, light travels in straight lines rather than curving back on itself. This means that, within the portion of the cosmos we can observe, parallel lines would never meet.

However, beyond the limits of our observation, the question is still open.

Some scientists have theorized that the universe is curved like a sphere—a “closed” model—where light could, in theory, circle all the way around and return from behind its starting point, like a traveler who leaves home and arrives again from the opposite direction.

Others suggest it may be that its shape is like a saddle, an “open” model bending ever outward, a universe that never meets itself again.

While we don’t yet have enough data to determine the universe’s exact geometry, the evidence we do have shows extraordinary consistency. The same fine-tuning that governs its forces and constants appears to extend to its shape. The order we observe in the universe’s geometry reflects the character of the One who established its laws—a God of balance, harmony, and design.

How Large Is the Universe?

When astronomers talk about how large the universe is, those discussions not only describe its scale but must also include the remarkable reliability of how the universe behaves. Immensity and intricacy coexist; the same physics that govern entire galaxies also govern the atoms in our own bodies.

Isaiah 40:26 and Psalm 147:4 state that God has given a name to every star and knows the name of every star. If he knows the name of every star, he certainly knows our name. If he cares for every star, he certainly must care immensely more for every human being. As Jesus said, “Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered” (Luke 12:7). The same God who governs galaxies also knows every detail of the world and of each life within it.

Does the Universe End?

Astronomers have long studied what the distant future of the universe might hold. One of the most widely accepted scientific models is known as the Big Freeze or the Heat Death of the Universe. In such a universe, hot bodies will get colder and cold bodies will get warmer. Eventually, every body, every speck of dust, every gas molecule and every atom will attain the identical temperature. When that happens heat will cease to flow in the universe. Work will become impossible. Life will become impossible.

Scripture, however, reveals that what looks like a depressing, hopeless ending is really a transition. God is using the present physics of the universe to eradicate sin and evil. The apostle John describes a future “new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), and Paul wrote that what is sown perishable will be raised imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:42–44). In other words, creation is not destined for extinction but for renewal. The moment God completely eradicates evil and finishes his work of redeeming willing humans from their sin, he will replace the universe with the new creation, a realm with radically different physics and different dimensions, a realm where God will reward his followers with blessing far beyond what they can imagine (1 Corinthians 2:9).

The same God who stretched out the heavens will bring his creation to completion, demonstrating that nothing, not even the cosmos itself, lies beyond his redemptive plan.

Bigger Than the Universe: The God Who Cannot Be Contained

If creation stretches across billions of years, trillions of galaxies, and miles beyond measure, then the question remains: What could possibly be bigger than the universe?

We can see the stage.
But who wrote the play?
Who drew back the curtain of space and time?

No constellation of laws or particles can explain that first spark.
Everything within the universe depends on something beyond it.
Even skeptical scientists agree on this much: whatever ignited our universe can’t be part of it. It must exist outside our space and time altogether.

Scripture says it plainly: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 11:3).

Because God is beyond, he isn’t bound by decay or change.
He holds the universe by his power; never shaped by it, but shaping all that is.

If the universe is vast beyond imagination, what’s greater is the One who says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13).

If cosmic distances leave us speechless, bigger still is the love that spans them.
If galaxies fade and worlds dissolve, bigger still is the hope that will never end.

Where the Vastness of Space Meets the Nearness of God

Every question we ask about the heavens eventually points back to its Author. We can measure galaxies, chart their motion, and trace light that began billions of years ago. Yet, at the edge of every discovery, the same realization awaits: there is more.

Science reveals how the universe works. Faith reveals why it exists.

The more we learn about creation, the more clearly we see multiple purposes woven into its structure. Every constant, every law of physics, every beam of light reflects intention rather than accident. The universe operates with precision that invites not only study, but also worship of the One who brought it into being.

And yet, the greatest wonder is not merely that God created such an expansive cosmos, it’s that he entered it.

The Creator who set galaxies in motion also stepped into human history. The Word who spoke light into existence became the Light of the world.

That truth reframes every discovery. The universe doesn’t point us away from God; it draws us toward him. Each observation deepens our understanding of his power and our gratitude for his presence.

If you’d like to explore further, you can find more insights in our resource library—or dive deeper through Dr. Hugh Ross’s book, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, a look at how the cosmos reveals the wisdom and purposes of its Creator.

Because in the end, every light-year, every law, and every living soul testifies to one truth:

The universe was made on purpose, by a God who hung the galaxies in place and still holds us close to his heart.

The post How <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Is the Universe? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Figure 1: James Webb Space Telescope 
The James Webb Space Telescope is 1.6 million kilometers (1 million miles) from Earth at the Lagrange 2 point along Earth’s orbit. Credit: NASA

To observe the cosmic dawn, astronomers must look many billions of light-years away. (Remember: distance means time, due to the finite velocity of light. That is, the farther away we look, the farther back in time we see the condition of the universe. Also keep in mind that due to the expansion of the universe, the most distant objects are moving away from us the most rapidly.) The visible light of objects at distances corresponding to the cosmic dawn era (12.6–13.6 billion light-years away), will be shifted into the infrared segment of the electromagnetic spectrum. For this reason, astronomers designed the JWST to detect infrared radiation. 

Bright Early Galaxies
One of the big surprises for astronomers using the JWST was to observe several bright galaxies in the first billion years of cosmic history—galaxies with ultraviolet luminosities as much as ten times brighter than what standard big bang models would seem to allow.¹ Most big bang models had predicted that galaxies as ultraviolet bright as these would take more than a few hundred million years to form. However, this prediction relied on a lack of understanding about how early galaxies formed.

As reported in Today’s New Reason to Believe, posted on January 1, 2024, a team of astronomers has solved the problem of these early ultraviolet bright galaxies.² The solution came from evidence confirming that star formation was just as “stochastic,” or “bursty,” during the universe’s first billion years as during the subsequent 12.8 billion years.

GN-z11 Galaxy
Even before the launch of the JWST, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) allowed astronomers to observe a cosmic dawn galaxy, GN-z11 (aka GNS-JD2, seen in figure 2). It appeared much brighter than anticipated at visible wavelengths, despite being the most distant galaxy researchers had yet discovered.

A team of eighteen astronomers, using the HST’s grism spectroscopy, measured GN-z11’s redshift to be 11.1.³ This redshift measure implied that GN-z11 is 13.41 billion light-years from Earth, a distance that corresponds with a mere 380 million years after the cosmic origin event. GN-z11 is the most highly redshifted (thus, most distant) galaxy spectroscopically confirmed using the HST. 

Figure 2: GN-z11 Galaxy
Credit: NASA/ESA/James Webb Space Telescope

A team of eight astronomers led by James Baldwin measured the effective diameter of GN-z11. Based on images from the HST CANDELS survey and additional observations,⁴ they determined the half-light diameter (the distance from the galactic core to the point where its luminosity is reduced by half) of GN-z11 to be about 500 light-years, a determination consistent with later measurements made using the JWST.⁵ At this relatively small size and high luminosity, GN-z11 was confirmed to be the brightest galaxy yet known at a distance greater than 13.3 billion light-years, in the early part of the cosmic dawn. For this reason, GN-z11 became a prime target for investigation by the JWST.  

In September 2023, a team of sixty-three astronomers led by Andrew Bunker used the near-infrared spectrometer on board the JWST to make a more precise measurement of GN-z11’s redshift,⁶ which turned out to be 10.603. This measurement tells us that GN-z11 is 13.38 billion light-years from Earth. At this distance, GN-z11 appears to have formed 410 million years after the first moment of cosmic creation. This finding is astounding, given that star formation is not even possible until the universe is at least 200 million years old.

In fact, GN-z11 is not the only exceptionally luminous galaxy found in the cosmic dawn. Images taken by the JWST reveal several dozen others. The discovery of such galaxies has become a regular theme for the JWST, and this theme has spawned numerous articles in the popular media and on the web—many claiming that the big bang model needs major revision and/or that scientists are on the verge of discovering some new physics. 

Why Such Brightness?
While no astronomer whose work appears in peer-reviewed astrophysical literature has called for an abandonment or replacement of big bang models, a few are advocating for “a reexamination of the theoretical landscape of galaxy formation at the cosmic dawn.”⁷ To determine whether a reexamination is necessary, a team of thirty-six astronomers led by Cambridge University’s Roberto Maiolino undertook a detailed probe of GN-z11. 

Using both the near-infrared spectrometer (NIRSpec) and the near-infrared camera (NIRCam) on board the JWST,⁸Maiolino’s team discovered a huge clump of gas in the galactic halo, about 7,800 light-years from the GN-z11 core. The camera revealed that this clump was so powerfully illuminated by stars in the core that its gas had been ionized. The spectrometer additionally revealed the elemental composition of the clump: hydrogen and helium, and no elements heavier than helium.

The lack of any elements heavier than helium in the gas clump provided, for the first time, direct evidence that aligned with a major prediction of big bang models. According to these models, the universe begins infinitesimally small, nearly infinitely hot, and with just one element—hydrogen. Between three and four minutes after the cosmic beginning, the expanding and cooling universe passes through the temperature window at which hydrogen fuses into helium. About a quarter of the primordial hydrogen (by mass) becomes fused into helium, along with a trace amount of lithium. All other elements are manufactured later in the nuclear furnaces of future stars. Maiolino’s team was the first ever to see a gas cloud that contained only the elements produced in the initial “bang.”

To explain the level of ionization observed in the gas clump, Maiolino and his colleagues calculated that the combined luminosity of the stars illuminating the gas clump was equivalent to at least 20 trillion times our Sun’s luminosity. This high luminosity can be explained only if the stars in GN-z11’s central region are extremely massive. Based on the spectra of the gas clump, the team was able to determine that the ionizing radiation came from stars in GN-z11’s central region but not from the active galactic nucleus (AGN) in the core. 

In the context of big bang modeling, astronomers have developed a range of predictions for the mass of the universe’s first stars—stars that begin their nuclear burning with 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, and a trace amount of lithium.⁹ These estimates range from 1–100 solar masses, 1–500 solar masses, and 50–500 solar masses, with the slight possibility that some of these first stars could be as massive as 1,000 solar masses.

The gas clump spectra taken by the NIRSpec show that the stars illuminating the gas clump are, indeed, the universe’s first-formed stars. Further, the spectra show that these stars are predominantly in the 50–500 solar masses category, with a significant fraction greater than 500 solar masses.

The luminosity of a star rises exponentially (to the 3.9 power) with its mass. A star with a mass 200 times the Sun’s mass will be ~1,600,000,000 times brighter than the Sun. A star 500 times more massive than the Sun will be about 6,000,000,000 times brighter! On this basis, we can determine that even if the GN-z11 central region contains only 20,000 stars, the light from those stars would be more than sufficient to illuminate the gas clump to the degree that Maiolino and his colleagues observed. Given that all big bang models predict the formation of 20,000+ metal-free stars (stars with no elements heavier than helium other than a trace amount of lithium) in multiple galaxies during the cosmic dawn, the population of bright galaxies observed by the JWST in no way poses a challenge to big bang creation models. 

Early Supermassive Black Holes
Maiolino and his team also found a second source of luminosity in GN-z11.¹⁰ They observed an extremely dense flow of gas into the nucleus of GNz-11. In this gas they detected ionized elements that clearly signify the existence of a giant black hole there, one that is aggressively accreting matter. They also observed powerful radiation spewing from the accretion disk surrounding the black hole. These observations enabled the team to calculate the mass of the black hole residing in GN-z11’s nucleus. That mass measures two million times our Sun’s mass. Thus, the nuclear black hole in GN-z11 falls into the “supermassive” category. (Astronomers classify any black hole more massive than one million solar masses as a supermassive black hole, or SMBH).

The event horizon around a black hole is a location at which the black hole’s gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape it. Consequently, everything inside the event horizon appears black, while just outside the event horizon, matter is being converted into energy with 10–42% efficiency—the highest efficiency of any source in the universe. By comparison, this efficiency is 150–600 times greater than that of matter-to-energy conversion in the Sun’s nuclear fusion furnace. The brightest sources in the universe are the accretion disks just outside the event horizons of SMBHs (see figure 3).

Figure 3: The Bright Accretion Disk Outside the Event Horizon of the M87’s SMBH
Credit: Event Horizon Telescope

The SMBH in GN-z11 is the most distant SMBH discovered to date. The presence of this ravenous SMBH and the brightness of first-formed stars in GN-z11 explain its luminosity, which is entirely consistent with the standard ΛCDM big bang creation model (where Λ stands for dark energy—the primary component of the universe—and CDM for cold dark matter—the second most dominant component of the universe).

Maiolino and his colleagues have confirmed that the first stars to form in the universe are likely very massive. They have also demonstrated that a dense clump of very massive stars in a cosmic dawn galaxy has a high probability of forming an SMBH. Therefore, it is not surprising that astronomers will find many bright cosmic dawn galaxies. The claim that the big bang model needs a major revision or points to new physics now appears to be nullified.  

One More Gift from the JWST
A fundamental prediction of all big bang models is the existence of three distinct star populations. Astronomers refer to stars formed during the most recent five billion years as Population I stars. These stars are characterized by a high abundance of elements heavier than lithium. Why? Because they formed from the ashes of stars that formed and burned up before these younger stars existed. Our Sun, for example, is a Population I star. 

Stars older than Population I stars contain fewer heavy elements because they formed from the ashes of stars that formed and burned up at earlier times in cosmic history. The earlier in cosmic history, the lower the abundance of elements heavier than lithium available in interstellar space. Astronomers call these stars Population II stars. Most globular cluster stars and most stars in the halos of galaxies are Population II stars. 

Population III stars are those that formed from the universe’s primordial gas: hydrogen, helium, and a trace amount of lithium. Astronomers had previously detected low-mass Population III stars in the halo of the Milky Way Galaxy.¹¹ These stars did, indeed, form from the universe’s primordial gas; however, they took a very long time to fully form—hundreds of millions of years or more. Thus, before they began shining as nuclear-burning stars, their atmospheres had been polluted by the ashes of nearby very high-mass Population III stars, which had quickly burned up and exploded, sending their ashes into interstellar space.

Until now, though, astronomers have lacked the telescope power to detect these “metal-free” Population III stars or to detect the universe’s primordial gas. In fact, many astronomers have expressed doubt that the JWST possesses the necessary observing power to make such a detection. Maiolino’s team has now raised hopes that the JWST can make this detection. The team’s two papers end with a call for follow-up observations of GN-z11 to affirm their findings and to detect similar cosmic dawn galaxies. Given the importance of their findings, such observations likely will be forthcoming soon.

Philosophical/Theological Implications
For thousands of years, the Bible has stood alone in describing the fundamental features of the big bang.¹² No other cosmic origin model has been subjected to as many independent, rigorous tests as the big bang.¹³ Thanks to the power of the JWST and the research efforts of Maiolino and his team, the big bang has passed yet another set of tests. Their success provides still greater evidence to support the biblical claim that a Causal Agent beyond space and time created our universe and exquisitely designed it so that billions of humans can reside on our planet and develop a technologically advanced civilization. Their success also confirms the Bible’s power to predict, accurately, future scientific discoveries. This power affirms the supernatural inspiration and accuracy of the Bible, with its assurance of God’s desire and capacity to redeem fallen (as in self-serving, self-exalting) humanity.¹⁴    

Endnotes

1. Guochao Sun et al., “Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 955, no. 2 (October 1, 2023): id. L35, doi:10.3847/2042-8213/acf85a.
2. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Model Is Not Dead,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, January 1, 2024.
3. Pascal A. Oesch et al., “A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at Z = 11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy,” Astrophysical Journal 819, no. 2 (March 10, 2016): id. 129, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/819/2/129.
4. James O. Baldwin et al., “A Size Estimate for Galaxy GN-z11,” Research Notes of the AAS 8, no. 1 (January 2024): id. 29, doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad220a.
5. Roberto Maiolino et al., “A Small and Vigorous Black Hole in the Early Universe,” (January 17, 2024), arXiv:2305.12492.
6. Andrew J. Bunker et al., “JADES NIRSpec Spectroscopy of GN-z11: Lyman-a Emission and Possible Enhanced Nitrogen Abundance in a z = 10.60 Luminous Galaxy,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 677 (September 2023): id. A88, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346159.
7. Sun et al., “Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains,” p. 1.
8. Roberto Mailino et al., “JWST-JADES. Possible Population III Signatures at z = 10.6 in the Halo of GN-z11,” submitted to and accepted for publication in Astronomy & Astrophysics (June 6, 2023), arXiv:2306.00953v2.
9. Kimihiko Nakajima and Roberto Maiolino, “Diagnostics for PopIII Galaxies and Direct Collapse Black Holes in the Early Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 513, no. 4 (July 2022): 5134–5147, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1242.
10. Maiolino et al., “A Small and Vigorous Black Hole in the Early Universe.”
11. Hugh Ross, “Cosmic Dawn Evidence Bolsters Case for Creation,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 10, 2023; Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Implications of Detecting the Universe’s First Stars,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 14, 2022; Hugh Ross, “Pursuing the First-Born Stars and a Better Cosmic Creation Model,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 15, 2019; Hugh Ross, “J0023+0307, a Pristine Firstborn Star?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, April 9, 2018. 
12. Hugh Ross, “What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 6, 2023.
13. Ross, “Big Bang Model Is Not Dead; Ross, “Cosmic Dawn Evidence Bolsters Case for Creation”; Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018).
14. Hugh Ross, Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2024).

The post JWST Glowingly Affirms <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Creation Event appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

1. The universe has a beginning that includes the origin of space and time.
2. The physical laws by which the universe unfolds have not changed.
3. One of these laws is a pervasive law of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).
4. The universe continuously expands from its origin onward.
5. Consequently, the universe cools as it continues to expand.

At least three of these fundamental big bang features, and some would say all five, were stated in the Bible more than two thousand years ago.¹     

One motivation behind the comprehensive testing of big bang models is scientific. Astrophysicists are keen to learn as much as possible about the origin, history, and properties of the universe, with its myriad components. The other motivation is a philosophical and theological one. Everyone, not just astronomers and physicists, wants to know, with reasonable certainty, whether the universe began to exist, given all the questions and implications that would follow: 

1. What does a cosmic beginning imply about agency (or Agency) beyond matter, energy, space, and time?
2. Does Agency imply a personal Being? 
3. To what degree does the universe require fine-tuning for our existence?
4. Can we discern purpose behind the specific features of the cosmos?
5. Does any “sacred” account align with what the cosmos reveals to us about itself?

As I explain in my first book, The Fingerprint of God, the big bang model for the origin and history of the universe stirred a strong negative reaction when first proposed in the early part of the twentieth century.² Many astronomers and physicists openly expressed dismay when they noted the obvious congruence between big bang cosmology and what one familiar sacred text, the Bible, had declared millennia ago about the origin and history of the universe. 

Mathematical physicist Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in a published research paper, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me. . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole.”³ Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote, “It seems against the spirit of scientific enquiry to regard observable effects as arising from ‘causes unknown to science,’ and this in principle is what creation-in-the-past implies.”⁴ Still later, physicist John Gribbin commented, “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?”⁵ On this deeply personal, philosophical/theological basis, decades of rigorous, extensive, and repeated scientific testing began and has continued ever since.

Big Bang Upheld
The first tests of big bang cosmology focused on the measured radial velocities of galaxies and the physics of galaxy formation and galaxy survival. Vesto Slipher, Georges Lemaître, and Edwin Hubble conducted these tests in 1917, 1927, and 1929, respectively. The big bang models passed each one.

In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected the cosmic microwave background radiation, the models’ predicted radio remnant of the cosmic origin event—further support for the big bang. The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, describes how astronomers subjected the model(s) to more than a dozen additional independent tests.⁶ The big bang models passed every one with flying colors and have yet to fail a test.    

Potential Loophole?
Recently, a certain pattern in the spatial distribution of large galaxies was observed that, though not a direct challenge to big bang models, seemed to hint at the need for some significant adjustments.⁷ The big bang would not have predicted, so it was thought, what we see: large disk galaxies (see figure 1) mostly existing in isolation and giant elliptical galaxies (see figure 2) congregating in massive, dense clusters of galaxies. Some astronomers argued that according to big bang models, galaxies of similar mass would exhibit similar spatial distribution.

Figure 1: Andromeda Galaxy, a Typical Large Disk Galaxy
In disk galaxies, stars are predominantly spread far apart from one another along a disk structure.
Credit: David Dayag, Creative Commons Attribution

Figure 2: ESO 325-G004, a Typical Giant Elliptical Galaxy
In elliptical galaxies, stars are densely packed together into a spheroidal or ellipsoidal structure.
Credit: NASA/ESA/Hubble Space Telescope/STScI/AURA

Further Confirmation 
A team of five astronomers, led by Finnish astronomer Till Sawala, applied the SIBELIUS DARK computer simulation to the big bang model that has been subjected to testing most frequently and thoroughly.⁸ That model is the standard ΛCDM big bang creation model (where Λ stands for dark energy—the primary component of the universe—and CDM for cold dark matter—the second most dominant component of the universe).

Sawala and his colleagues found that the SIBELIUS DARK simulation, in this context, reproduced in detail the spatial distributions of disk and elliptical galaxies astronomers observe throughout the Laniakea Supercluster (a cluster of galaxy clusters gravitationally connected to one another). Laniakea is the nearest supergalaxy cluster and the one in which our Milky Way Galaxy resides (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Map of the Laniakea Supercluster
Credit: Andrew Z. Colvin, Creative Commons Attribution

In particular, the SIBELIUS DARK simulation performed by Sawala’s team showed that giant elliptical galaxies do, indeed, tend to form along the supergalactic plane, as seen in the case of the Laniakea Supercluster. The simulation showed that disk galaxies mostly form and evolve in isolation, whereas giant ellipticals form and develop in massive, dense galaxy clusters that define the supergalactic plane. Rather than representing an anomaly, the observed distribution of large disk galaxies and elliptical galaxies beautifully matched a key prediction of the standard ΛCDM big bang model.

In the final paragraph of their paper, Sawala and his colleagues write, “The strikingly different distributions of bright ellipticals and disks in relation to the supergalactic plane do not require physics beyond the standard model. They arise naturally in the ΛCDM framework.”⁹

Philosophical/Theological Implications
The team concluded that their simulation and the most comprehensive maps of the distribution of galaxies within the Laniakea Supercluster ultimately produced more evidence in support of, rather than against, ΛCDM big bang models. Their research lengthens the list of scientific tests that ΛCDM big bang models have withstood. Once again, when we learn more about the cosmos, we find a stronger basis for confidence that the biblical writers were supernaturally inspired by the One who brought the cosmos—and all it contains—into existence. 

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, “What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 6, 2023.
2. Hugh Ross, The Fingerprint of God, Commemorative Edition (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2010), 46–47, 53, 57–64, 79, 82.
3. Sir Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (March 21, 1931): 450, doi:10.1038/127447a0.
4. Fred Hoyle, “A New Model for the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108, no. 5 (October 1948): 372, doi:10.1093/mnras/108.5.372.
5. John Gribbin, “Oscillating Universe Bounces Back,” Nature 259 (January 1, 1976): 15, doi:10.1038/259015c0.  
6. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 33–157.
7. A. J. Benson et al., “The Nature of Galaxy Bias and Clustering,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 311, no. 4 (February 2000): 793–808, doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2000.03101.x.
8. Till Sawala et al., “Distinct Distributions of Elliptical and Disk Galaxies across the Local Supercluster as a ΛCDM Prediction,” Nature Astronomy, published online ahead of print November 20, 2023, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02130-6.
9. Sawala et al., “Distinct Distributions of Elliptical and Disk Galaxies,” p. 5.

The post <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Models Tested—and Pass—Again appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Surprising Observations
The initial JWST deep field images revealed an unexpected abundance of bright galaxies, considered as candidates to be at redshifts greater than 10,¹ distances that correspond with the first 0.478 billion years of cosmic history.² To date, the JWST has detected as many as 90 such candidates—a number significantly higher than what standard big bang creation models would predict. 

By “standard” big bang models, I mean a set of models characterized by a flat cosmic geometry and in which dark energy is the most dominant component of the universe, with cold dark matter as the second most dominant component. Thus, they are also referred to as ΛCDM big bang models (with Λ standing for dark energy and CDM for cold dark matter). The JWST images revealed not only an unanticipated abundance of bright cosmic dawn galaxy candidates, but also that these candidates’ ultraviolet luminosities appear about ten times brighter than the ΛCDM models had predicted. 

This surprising overabundance of cosmic dawn galaxy candidates with exceptionally high ultraviolet luminosities quickly gave rise to a spate of popular articles claiming that big bang cosmology needs major revision. Some astronomers began calling for “a reexamination of the theoretical landscape of galaxy formation at the cosmic dawn.”³ A few have gone so far as to claim that physics beyond standard ΛCDM cosmology must now be considered. Examples of proposed new options include “a modified primordial power spectrum,”⁴ a “primordial non-Gaussian” cosmos,”⁵ or “alternative dark matter models.”⁶ However, these “new physics” hypotheses do not represent alternatives to big bang cosmology. They are still big bang origin models, even though they are not ΛCDM big bang models.

A more extreme response has come from creationist organizations that espouse belief in a universe and/or Earth only thousands of years old. These groups are claiming that the JWST images refute big bang cosmology entirely. For example, the founder of Answers in Genesis writes, “JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting the Big Bang Hypothesis.”⁷ In a more recent article, a staff physicist at the Institute for Creation Research has written, “By Big Bang reckoning, . . . these [early] galaxies should appear very ‘unevolved’ and ‘immature.’ Yet, this expectation is routinely contradicted, and data from the JWST are making the disagreement even worse.”⁸

Most astronomers favor other explanations for the JWST’s glimpse into the early moments of the cosmic dawn. Any one or combination of these proposed explanations appears feasible: (1) a higher star formation efficiency at that time; (2) a higher percentage of very massive stars at that time; (3) a reduced quantity of dust or the presence of dust with a less dimming effect; and (4) adjustments to our understanding of the properties of dark matter haloes at that time. 

I am glad to report that spectroscopic follow-up studies for the observed galaxy candidates are ongoing. As research continues, the list of 90 ultrabright galaxies initially thought to have formed early in the cosmic dawn will likely be reduced.

A More Promising Resolution
As astronomers continue to consider the significance of the JWST observations, a team of six astronomers at five American universities applied a novel approach to the investigation. Previously, these researchers applied a computer simulation tool, called the Feedback in Realistic Environments (FIRE) to show that ΛCDM big bang models successfully predicted the observed properties of galaxies that formed during the most recent 13 billion years of cosmic history. They used the same FIRE computer simulation to test how well different cosmic models match the properties observed by the JWST of bright cosmic dawn galaxy candidates, specifically to those seen at lookback times ranging from 13.1–13.5 billion years ago.⁹ These lookback times correspond to the universe when it was a mere 0.3–0.7 billion years old. 

The team first pointed out that the claim in the context of ΛCDM big bang models of an “overabundance” of bright galaxy candidates with exceptionally high ultraviolet luminosities in the cosmic dawn era reflected a potentially false assumption: that the star formation rate in these galaxies was constant. The team then tested two models for these cosmic dawn galaxies, one in which the star formation rate remains constant during the first 0.7 billion years of cosmic history, and the other in which star formation occurs in bursts, separated by brief intervals. 

The latter of the two models corresponds closely with what astronomers have directly observed for galaxies throughout the past 13 billion years. Also, previous FIRE computer simulations based on the intermittent burst model produced the best fit with observed galaxy properties during the past 13 billion years. 

The FIRE computer simulations that presumed cosmic dawn galaxies, those forming in the first 0.3–0.7 billion years of cosmic history, experienced stochastic, or “bursty,” star formation episodes, yielded ultraviolet galaxy luminosities about ten times brighter than simulations presuming star formation at a constant rate. The team found that with star formation occurring in bursts within these galaxies/galaxy candidates, no need existed to invoke nonstandard big bang models, such as a top-heavy initial stellar mass function, reduced dust attenuation, alternate dark matter halo properties, or strongly enhanced star formation efficiency. The team concluded that JWST observations of early cosmic dawn galaxies appear to have yielded more, not less, evidence for ΛCDM big bang models.

Philosophical Implications
The team’s conclusions are consistent with reports presented in the Stars, Cells, and God podcast episode on the “Source of Heavy Elements.”¹⁰ They’re also aligned with two previous articles I have posted on JWST observations relevant to big bang cosmology.¹¹ Thanks to the computer modeling and analysis by this team of astronomers, we have gained even more confidence that the latest JWST observations support the biblically described cosmic creation event, aka the big bang.¹²    

Endnotes

1. C. T. Donnan et al., “The Evolution of the Galaxy UV Luminosity Function at Redshifts z = 8–15 from Deep JWST and Ground-Based Near-Infrared Imaging,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 518, no. 4 (February 2023): 6011–6040, doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3472; Yuichi Harikane et al., “A Comprehensive Study of Galaxies at z ~ 9–16 Found in the Early JWST Data: Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions and Cosmic Star Formation History at the Pre-Reionization Epoch,” Astrophysical Journal Supplement 265, no. 1 (March 2023): id. 5, doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaaa9; Haojing Yan et al., “First Batch of z = 11–20 Candidate Objects Revealed by the James Webb Space Telescope Early Release Observations on SMACS 0723-73,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 942, no. 1 (January 1, 2023): id. L9, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca80c.
2. Edward L. Wright, “A Cosmology Calculator for the World Wide Web,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 118, no. 850 (December 13, 2006): 1711–1715, doi:10.1086/510102. The online calculator is at https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html.
3. Guochao Sun et al., “Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 955, no. 2 (October 1, 2023): id. L35, p. 1, doi:10.3847/2042-8213/acf85a.
4. Hamsa Padmanabhan and Abraham Loeb, “Alleviating the Need for Exponential Evolution of JWST Galaxies at 10¹⁰M_Sun Haloes at z > 10 by a Modified LCDM Power Spectrum,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 953, no. 1 (August 10, 2023): id. L4, doi:10.3847/2042-8213/acea7a; Priyank Parashari and Ranjan Laha, “Primordial Power Spectrum in Light of JWST Observations of High Redshift Galaxies,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters526, no. 1 (November 2023): L63–L69, doi:10.1093/mnras/slad107.
5. Matteo Biagetti, Gabriele Franciolini, and Antonio Riotto, “High-Redshift JWST Observations and Primordial Non-Gaussianity,” Astrophysical Journal 944, no. 2 (February 16, 2023): id. 113, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ea.
6. Yan Gong et al., “Fuzzy Dark Matter as a Solution to Reconcile the Stellar Mass Density of High-z Massive Galaxies and Reionization History,” Astrophysical Journal 947, no. 1 (April 17, 2023): if. 28, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc109.
7. Ken Ham, “Does the James Webb Space Telescope Show the Big Bang Didn’t Happen?,” Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham Blog, August 22, 2022.
8. Jake Hebert, “Webb Telescope Continues to Challenge Big Bang,” Institute for Creation Research, News: Creation Science Update, January 26, 2023.
9. Sun et al., “Bursty Star Formation Naturally Explains the Abundance of Bright Galaxies at Cosmic Dawn.” 
10. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, “Neanderthal Flower Burial Nixed and Source of Heavy Elements,” Reasons to Believe podcast, Stars, Cells, and God (November 29, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3yKYEnKQGw.
11. Hugh Ross, “Cosmic Dawn Evidence Bolsters Case for Creation,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 10, 2023; Hugh Ross, “James Webb Space Telescope: Initial Revelations,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, September 12, 2022.
12. Hugh Ross, “What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 6, 2023.

The post <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Model Is Not Dead appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The value of H₀ determined through observation of relatively local (in astronomical terms) Cepheid variable stars and type Ia supernovae appears to differ from the value obtained through analysis of the far distant cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), the radiation left over from the cosmic origin event, observed and mapped at the farthest reaches of the universe.

Young-earth creationists cite the Hubble constant tension as evidence that big bang models must be false,¹ while some research astronomers cite the Hubble constant tension as evidence for the existence of “new physics”—a previously hidden physical law or constant.² Some of their suggestions include phantom dark enery, biometric gravity, disappearing dark energy, and modified Newtonian dynamics. 

Both groups call into question the standard big bang model (actually, a set of big bang models) and claim that it requires significant revision, if not outright rejection. What’s more, given the close parallel between big bang model features and the biblical depiction of our cosmic origin and features, these groups thereby call into question the accuracy and reliability of the Scriptures.³

Hubble Constant Tension
Clearly there is much at stake in the Hubble constant tension, not just scientifically but also theologically and ideologically. So, how problematic is the discrepancy?

In at least two recently posted articles about the tension, I presented three different astronomical approaches to resolving the discrepancy that, if combined, would require no appeal to new physics.⁴ When these articles appeared, the best value of H₀ determined locally was 74.03 ± 1.42 kilometers/second/megaparsec (km/s/Mpc), where a megaparsec = 3.26156 million light-years, or 19.174 million trillion miles; and the best value of H₀ determined from maps of the CMBR was 67.4 ± 0.5 km/s/Mpc. The 6.6 km/s/Mpc difference, which amounts to a 4.4 standard deviation discrepancy, implied that the disparity was most likely more than a statistical fluke.

More recently, the discrepancy shrank further. The best value of H₀ determined locally from observations of Cepheid variable stars and type Ia supernovae is 73.01 ± 0.99 km/s/Mpc.⁵ The best value of H₀ determined from maps of the CMBR and baryon acoustic oscillations is 67.66 ± 0.42 km/s/Mpc.⁶ However, because both measurements include calculations of statistical and systemic errors, the error bars associated with them grew smaller, making the discrepancy slightly larger, thus failing to alleviate the tension. 

From a historical perspective, this difference in H₀ value would seem insignificant. When I was a graduate student, one team of astronomers was claiming that H₀ was about 50 km/s/Mpc, while another team seemed sure that H₀ was about 100 km/s/Mpc. The professor in an observational cosmology course I took responded to the discrepancy with this comment: “What’s a factor of two among friends?” At the time, the combination of the statistical and systematic errors exceeded 30 km/s/Mpc. Clearly, the difference between determinations of H₀ has grown vastly smaller—by a factor of ten—with time and advancing research, and yet the tension remained.   

Is Modern Cosmology in Crisis?
Popular literature has gone so far as to declare that cosmology is in crisis because of the Hubble constant tension. However, as I discussed in articles from three years ago, the fact that our Milky Way Galaxy (MWG) resides in an underdense region of the universe bumps up measurements of H₀ based on local observations by at least 1–2%. 

Meanwhile, astronomers have come to understand that in a universe dominated by dark energy and dark matter, as observations affirm, H₀ will be 1% less at the cosmic beginning than it is today. Also, measurements (even prior to 2020) of the local cosmic expansion rate based on a distance indicator called tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) stars, rather than on Cepheid variable stars, showed the value of H₀ as 69.8 ± 0.8 km/s/Mpc.⁷ Still more recent and comprehensive measurements of the local cosmic expansion rate based on TRGB stars has yielded values for H₀ as 71.5 ± 1.8 km/s/Mpc⁸and 72.94 ± 1.98 km/s/Mpc,⁹ respectively. 

Although most astronomers would agree that these adjustments helped to alleviate at least some of the Hubble constant tension, a certain unease lingered. However, this tension need no longer remain.  

The Missing Time Dilation Factor
In an article posted a few weeks ago, I explained how big bang models predict that clocks in the distant universe run more slowly than clocks in the MWG.¹⁰ Time, as measured by clocks moving at high velocities relative to Earth, will be elongated by a factor of 1 divided by the square root of (1 – v²/c²), where v is the velocity at which the clock itself is moving (relative to clocks on Earth) and c is the velocity of light. In an expanding universe, galaxies move away from Earth at velocities proportional to their distances. The article goes on to describe how astronomers developed the ability to use certain “clocks” located in quasars more than 12.8 billion light-years away to further test and affirm the validity of this effect and, thus, the big bang prediction.

More recently still, an astronomer and an engineer working independently of one another have pointed out in their published papers that a key systematic factor in determining the Hubble constant value has been overlooked.¹¹ That factor is time dilation. 

Because of time dilation, which is inherent to all big bang models, different starting times for the determination of H₀ will inevitably produce slightly different measured values. In the case of H₀ measurements based on maps of the CMBR, the direction of time points toward the future, right up to today, from the surface of last scattering. At that time the universe transitioned from being opaque to transparent, roughly 380,000 years after the cosmic creation event. In the case of H₀ measurements determined locally via observations of Cepheid and TRGB stars and type Ia supernovae, the direction of time points backward from the present toward the time when the universe transitioned. In both cases, the H₀ measurement includes the effect of cosmic time dilation.

For H₀ determinations based on observations of local stars and galaxies, the time dilation effect increases the value of H₀, adding about 5 km/s/Mpc. For determinations of H₀ based on observations of CMBR maps and very distant galaxies, time dilation results in a decrease in the value of H₀, a decrease equivalent to about 5 km/s/Mpc. 

Both measured values of H₀ are valid, and both are consistent with one another when time dilation, which the big bang predicts, is fully accounted for. Simply stated, time dilation removes the apparent discrepancy in the Hubble constant measurements. The tension has been relieved.  

Theological/Ideological Implications
Resolution of the Hubble constant tension represents good news for proponents of the standard big bang model. For proponents of a recent cosmic creation, it represents the opposite.¹² Given that the Bible predicted some of the fundamental features of big bang cosmology long before astronomers discovered them, resolution of the Hubble constant tension helps affirm a cornerstone doctrine of Christianity—the supernatural inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible in alltopics it addresses. 

Endnotes

1. Danny R, Faulkner, “The Newest Finding of the Expansion of the Universe,” (blog), Answers in Genesis (May 10, 2019), https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/newest-finding-on-expansion-of-universe/; Danny R. Faulkner, “A Recent Astronomy Conference,” (blog), Answers in Genesis (January 26, 2018), https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2018/01/26/recent-astronomy-conference/.
2. Stephano Gariazzo et al., “Late-Time Interacting Cosmologies and the Hubble Constant Tension,” Physical Review D 106, no. 2 (July 2022): id. 023530, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023530; Rance Solomon, Garvita Agarwal, and Dejan Stojkovic, “Environment Dependent Electron Mass and the Hubble Constant Tension,” Physical Review D105, no. 10 (May 2022): id. 103536, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103536; Weiqiang Yang et al., “Emergent Dark Energy, Neutrinos and Cosmological Tensions,” Physics of the Dark Universe 31 (January 2021): id. 100762, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2020.100762; Xiaolei Li and Arman Shafieloo, “Evidence for Emergent Dark Energy,” Astrophysical Journal 902, no. 1 (October 10, 2020): id. 58, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb3d0; Maria G. Dainotti et al., “On the Hubble Constant Tension in the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample,” Astrophysical Journal 912, no. 2 (May 10, 2021): id. 150, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73;
3. Hugh Ross, “What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 6, 2023.
4. Hugh Ross, “Resolving the Cosmic Expansion Rate Anomaly,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, April 6, 2020; Hugh Ross, “Are Astronomers Confused about the Cosmic Creation Event?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, June 24, 2019.
5. Mauricio Cruz Reyes and Richard I. Anderson, “A 0.9% Calibration of the Galactic Cepheid Luminosity Scale Based on Gaia DR3 Data of Open Clusters and Cepheids,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 672 (April 2023): id. A85, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202244775; Adam G. Riess et al., “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team,Astrophysical Journal Letters 934, no. 1 (July 20, 2022): id. L7, doi:10.3847/2042-8213/ac5c5b; Adam G. Riess et al., “Cluster Cepheids with High Precision Gaia Parallaxes, Low Zero-Point Uncertainties, and Hubble Space Telescope Photometry,” Astrophysical Journal 938, no. 1 (October 10, 2022): id. 36, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f24.
6. Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 Results. VI. Cosmological Parameters,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (September 2020): id. A6, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910.
7. Wendy L. Freedman et al., “The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch*,” Astrophysical Journal 882, no. 1 (September 1, 2019): id. 34, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2f73.
8. Gagandeep S. Anand et al., “Comparing Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distance Scales: An Independent Reduction of the Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program and the Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophysical Journal 932, no. 1 (June 10, 2022): id. 15, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac68df.
9. D. Scolnic et al., “CATS: The Hubble Constant from Standardized TRGB and Type Ia Supernova Measurements,” submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters April 14, 2023, eprint arXiv:2304.06693, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.06693.
10. Hugh Ross, “New Test Reaffirms Big Bang,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, July 31, 2023.
11. Naser Mostaghel, “Effects of Time Dilation on the Measurements of the Hubble Constant,” International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics 8, no. 4 (December 2018): 339–346, doi:10.4236/ijaa.2018.84024; Richard I. Anderson, “Towards a 1% Measurement of the Hubble Constant: Accounting for Time Dilation in Variable-Star Light Curves,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 631 (November 2019): id. A165, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936585.
12. For an explanation of how cosmic time dilation refutes young-earth creationist models, see my book A Matter of Days, 2nd ed (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2015), 166–169.

The post Major Breakthrough Upholds <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Models appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

To scoop the story of the big bang’s having been overturned may be as tempting to journalists as announcing the death of a revered cultural icon, perhaps more so. The magnitude of what’s at stake seems inestimable. Given what the big bang implies about the origin and unfolding of the universe—and about the one ancient account that anticipated its discovery—rigorous and repeated tests of its certainty do seem warranted. 

I speak, of course, about the biblical writers who described major features of the big bang thousands of years before scientists could have.¹ The advance of technology has allowed for increasingly potent tests of their unprecedented claims. Thus far, each new test—including one of the latest described for you in this article—further solidifies the certainty of their claim about a creation event.  

Time Dilation Test of the Big Bang
One of the most straightforward and direct substantiations of the big bang creation model is a phenomenon referred to as time dilation. The time dilation test is based on Einstein’s special theory of relativity, founded on the one physics equation nearly everyone knows: E = mc² (in which E is for energy, m is for mass, and c is for the constant velocity of light). This equation easily ranks as the most firmly established of all the equations in physics. Experiments confirm its veracity to better than twenty places of the decimal.²  

From a straightforward application of algebra to this equation, we can deduce that clocks moving at high velocities relative to Earth will advance more slowly in proportion to the speed at which they’re traveling.³

A fundamental characteristic of all big bang models is that the universe began as an infinitesimally small volume and has continuously expanded from its origin event. This cosmic feature predicts that the more distant an object is from Earth, the more rapidly it will appear to be moving away from Earth. Thus, according to Einstein’s theory, clocks in distant galaxies will advance at measurably slower rates than clocks on Earth or in our Milky Way Galaxy (MWG). By comparing/contrasting clocks in distant galaxies to clocks in the MWG, we can directly observe the signature of cosmic expansion, a definitive test of big bang models.

Confirmation from Three Cosmological “Clocks”
Many objects in the universe behave as clocks. The best-known examples are the periods of eclipsing binary stars, Cepheid variable stars, galaxy rotation rates, and supernova eruptions. Eclipsing binary stars and Cepheid variable stars are too faint for astronomers to detect and measure in distant galaxies. Likewise, astronomers are able to make accurate measurements of galaxy rotation rates only in relatively nearby galaxies. However, astronomers do have the capacity to observe supernovae in galaxies as far away as 9 billion light-years.

1. Supernovae

Astronomers have observed several hundred supernova eruption events both in the MWG and in nearby galaxies. Figure 1 shows the light curve of a type Ia supernova eruption in a nearby galaxy. Each of the seven different types of supernovae manifests a distinct light curve over a specific time period.      

Figure 1: Light Curve for Nearby Type Ia Supernovae
Credit: Hugh Ross

Astronomers have observed that light from supernovae in galaxies billions of light-years away indeed takes extra time to brighten and then become dim, as indicated by their light curves seen from Earth. Based on the measured amount of extra time, we can determine that the cosmos has expanded to its present size from an infinitesimal volume over roughly 13.8 billion years.⁴

2. Gamma-Ray Bursts

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are extremely energetic and rapid explosions that rank as the most energetic electromagnetic events since the big bang. These blasts, whether from hypernovae or the formation of black holes, last from ten milliseconds to a few hours. A typical GRB releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun would emit in ten billion years. 

As clearly visible as they may be, GRBs are only rarely observed. The average GRB rate of occurrence is just a few per galaxy per million years. Astronomers have seen them only in very distant galaxies. However, unlike supernovae, astronomers are able to observe gamma-ray bursts at distances beyond 10 billion light-years.

Astronomers have determined, based on statistical distribution, that GRB duration lengthens with increasing distance. The degree of lengthening appears consistent with the expansion of the cosmos from an infinitesimal volume to its present size over 13.8 billion years.⁵

3. Quasars’ Emission Variability

Because of the relatively small sample size of GRBs, confirmation of the big bang based on them is less robust than the confirmation based on supernova eruptions. However, the GRB test is significant in that it extends the confirmation to greater cosmological distances than are possible based on supernova eruptions alone.

Quasars, on the other hand, are abundant, and like GRBs, they can be observed at distances beyond 10 billion light-years. Quasars are extremely luminous active galactic nuclei powered by supermassive black holes with masses ranging from hundreds of millions to tens of billions of times the Sun’s mass (see figure 2). Thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope and other super telescopes, astronomers have detected and measured quasars as far away as 13.47 billion light-years, a distance that correlates to just 320 million years after the cosmic origin event.⁶

Figure 2: 3C 273, the Visually Brightest Quasar
3C 273 was the first quasar to be identified. It was discovered by Allan Sandage in the early 1960s. Like most quasars, 3C 273 is firing off a relativistic jet (left). Its jet is more than 200,000 light-years long.
Credit: NASA/ Hubble Space Telescope

To date, astronomers have detected and measured over a million quasars. These objects are seen to exhibit light variations as their supermassive black holes draw huge quantities of matter toward their event horizons, where they convert this matter into energy with up to 42% efficiency. (For comparison, the Sun’s nuclear furnace converts matter into energy with 0.07% efficiency.)

Quasar light variations are somewhat predictable, rather than completely random, given that the density of the matter—stars and giant molecular clouds—in the vicinity of the quasars’ supermassive black hole falls within a known range. Therefore, given a large enough sample of quasars, astronomers can use the variability of quasars to test big bang prediction of cosmic time dilation.

The key to using quasar observations as a robust test of cosmic time dilation is sample size. Accuracy depends on a large sample of very distant quasars. The greater the distance of the quasar, the greater the time dilation effect. It is a nonlinear effect. For example, clocks about 8 billion light-years away will run about 10% more slowly than clocks on Earth. Clocks about 13 billion light-years away will run about five times more slowly.

Until recently, astronomers lacked a sufficiently large sample of quasars more distant than 12 billion light-years from which to make quality observations of quasar variability. This lack made it difficult for astronomers to establish, via quasar observations, the certainty of cosmic time dilation.⁷ Now the lack has been addressed.

Astronomers Geraint Lewis and Brendon Brewer assembled a sample of 190 quasars more distant than 12 billion light-years and monitored their variability for over two decades at multiple wavelengths.⁸ The variability of these quasars manifested an unambiguous signal of cosmic time dilation. The variability of quasars during the first billion years of cosmic history (quasars more distant than 12.8 billion light-years) measured roughly five times slower than the variability of quasars during the most recent six billion years of cosmic history (quasars less distant than 6.0 billion light-years).   

Theological-Philosophical Implications
Thanks to the work of Lewis and Brewer, the big bang prediction of cosmic time dilation has been verified for all look-back times. That is, astronomers have observed the expected time dilation effect operating throughout the entire history of the universe. The big bang creation model has successfully passed another test.

The observation of cosmic time dilation also provides yet another confirmation of Einstein’s relativity theory. Over the past century, astronomers and physicists have challenged both the theory and the big bang in dozens of ways. Relativity and big bang cosmology have passed all these tests with flying colors. While further refinements can be anticipated, both have been established beyond reasonable doubt.

All big bang models indicate that the universe began to exist. Thus, the inference of a transcendent cosmic Beginner springs reasonably from the law of cause and effect. Astronomers’ observations of cosmic time dilation by multiple means and at all look-back times further provide evidence of the universe’s age. At ~13.8 billion years old, the universe appears far too young to allow for any credible naturalistic explanation for the origin and history of life. Neither is it as “young” as a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years, as some creationists claim.  

Thousands of years before astronomers had even a hint as to the fundamental features of the cosmos, the Bible described at least some of the most significant ones: a beginning that includes the beginning of space and time, matter and energy; physical laws that remain constant throughout history; a pervasive law of decay (entropy); and continual cosmic expansion. On the basis of these facts, we can truthfully say that the Bible has predictive power with respect to science. On the basis of history, we have good reasons to believe that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God, trustworthy in everything it says about both physical and spiritual matters.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, “What Does the Bible Say about the Big Bang?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, February 6, 2023.
2. Sidney Coleman and Sheldon L. Glashow, “Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Tests of Special Relativity,” Physics Letters B 405, nos. 3–4 (July 24, 1997): 249–252, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00638-2; P. W. Cattaneo, “Testing the Special Relativity Theory with Neutrino Interactions,” Europhysics Letters 99, no. 5 (September 2012): id. 51001, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/99/51001; P. Delva et al., “Test of Special Relativity Using a Fiber Network of Optical Clocks,” Physical Review Letters 118, no. 22 (June 2, 2017): id. 221102, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.221102.
3. For clocks moving at high velocities relative to Earth, time will be slowed a factor of 1 divided by the square root of (1 – v²/c²), where v is the velocity of the clock. For example, time for a clock moving at half the velocity of light relative to Earth will be “stretched” by a factor of 1.154.
4. S. Blondin et al., “Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift,” Astrophysical Journal 682, no. 2 (August 1, 2008): 724–736, doi:10.1086/589568; Ryan J. Foley et al., “A Definitive Measurement of Time Dilation in the Spectral Evolution of Moderate-Redshift Type Ia Supernova 1997ex,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 626, no. 1 (June 10, 2005): L11–L14, doi:10.1086/431241; Bruno Leibundgut et al., “Time Dilation in the Light Curve of the Distant Type Ia Supernova SN 1995K,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 466, no. 1 (July 20, 1996): L21–L24, doi:10.1086/310164; A. G. Riess et al., “Time Dilation from Spectral Feature Age Measurements of Type Ia Supernovae,” Astronomical Journal 114, no. 2 (August 1997): 722–729, doi:10.1086/118506; G. Goldhaber et al., “Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Light Curves,” Astrophysical Journal 558, no. 1 (September 1, 2001): 359–368, doi:10.1086/322460; Bruno Leibundgut, “Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39 (September 2001): 67–98, doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.67.
5. Amitesh Singh and Shantanu Desai, “Search for Cosmological Time Dilation from Gamma-Ray Bursts—a 2021 Status Update,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (February 2022): id. 10, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/02/010; Mariusz Tarnopolski, “Can the Cosmological Dilation Explain the Skewness in the Gamma-Ray Burst Duration Distribution?” Astrophysical Journal 897, no. 1 (July 1, 2020): id. 77, doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab8eb1.
6. B. E. Robertson, “Identification and Properties of Intense Star-Forming Galaxies at Redshifts z >10,” Nature Astronomy 7 (April 4, 2023): 611–621, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1.
7. M. R. S. Hawkins, “On Time Dilation in Quasar Light Curves,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 405, no. 3 (July 2010): 1940–1946, doi:1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x.
8. Geraint F. Lewis and Brendon J. Brewer, “Detection of the Cosmological Time Dilation of High-Redshift Quasars,” Nature Astronomy 7 (July 3, 2023) online release ahead of print issue, doi:10.1038/s41550-023-02029-2.

The post New Test Reaffirms <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

What Is the Big Bang?
There are many big bang models for the universe. What these models share in common is that

1. the universe has a beginning;
2. the laws of physics have not changed over the history of the universe;
3. the universe began as an infinitely or near infinitely small volume, and infinitely or near infinitely hot;
4. the universe began in a low entropy state and the entropy has been steadily increasing;
5. the universe has been expanding and, therefore, cooling since the cosmic creation event;
6. the universe has been expanding for approximately 14 billion years;
7. the universe began with only one element, namely hydrogen, and no stars;
8. during the first few minutes after the cosmic creation event about a quarter of the universe’s primordial hydrogen was fused into helium and a trace amount of lithium; and
9. stars have manufactured all the elements heavier than lithium.

The label “big bang” was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer who was a lifelong opponent of the big bang model. Hoyle’s label resulted in confusion about the model because people presumed that “big bang” implied that the entire universe was undergoing a chaotic explosion. Instead, a core feature of the big bang model is that every component of the universe is experiencing the identical rate of cosmic expansion. The expansion of the universe is not chaotic; it is extraordinarily fine-tuned. Decades ago, Robert Dicke, an atheist American physicist who sponsored my membership in the American Astronomical Society when I was an undergraduate sophomore, calculated that for physical life to be possible in the universe, the cosmic expansion rate must be fine-tuned to within one part in 10⁵⁵!

If the universe expands too rapidly from the cosmic beginning, stars and planets will never form. If the universe expands too slowly from the cosmic beginning, the universe will collapse before stars and planets capable of sustaining life can form. The cosmic expansion rate must be exquisitely fine-tuned throughout the history of the universe for life-supporting stars and planets to form within the cosmic time window where physical life is possible.

Brief History of the Big Bang Model
The first astronomical observations that pointed to the big bang nature of the universe were announced by Vesto Slipher at the 1914 meeting of the American Astronomical Society. There, Slipher described his discoveries, beginning in 1912, that many galaxies are receding away from Earth at high velocities.² In 1916, Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity.³ A straightforward subtraction of one of his equations of general relativity from the other equation demonstrated that if general relativity correctly describes the dynamics of the universe, then the universe must be or has been expanding. This implication of general relativity was affirmed in 1922, by the Russian meteorologist, Alexander Friedmann, who found a simple algebraic error made by Einstein that, once corrected, showed that either the expansion of the universe will go on forever or the expansion will eventually stop and be followed by contraction.⁴

In 1927, Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître published the first demonstration that the recession of nearby galaxies could be explained by an ongoing expansion of the universe.⁵ In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble published additional observational evidence showing that the universe has been expanding from a cosmic creation event.⁶ Since 1930, observational evidence establishing the big bang model for the universe has grown exponentially. I describe this growing evidence in my book The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition.⁷

No longer do astronomers debate whether or not the big bang correctly describes the origin and history of the universe. The debate has moved on to considering exactly what kind of big bang model best describes the origin and history of the universe. Astronomical observations now heavily favor the LCDM big bang model. In this model, the two dominant components of the universe are first, dark energy (L), and second, cold dark matter (CDM).

Reasons for Rejecting the Big Bang Model
When Lemaître and Hubble provided the first observational evidences for the big bang cosmological model, other scientists expressed strong displeasure. For example, famed mathematical physicist Sir Arthur Eddington wrote, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant.”⁸ He explained why. “We [must] allow evolution an infinite time to get started.”⁹ Eddington recognized that a cosmic beginning in finite time posed a major threat to his atheistic beliefs.

Einstein apparently agreed with Eddington. He added a term to his original equations of general relativity, a term that canceled out the implied cosmic expansion.¹⁰ As Einstein explained, this cancellation would eliminate the need for a cosmic beginning and permit the universe to remain in a static state for infinite time.

Three British astrophysicists—Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle—circumvented the cosmic beginning via “continual creation.”¹¹ Their models asserted that creation of matter is a law of nature, not a one-time miracle from outside of nature.

Physicist John Gribbin wrote, “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?”¹² His way around a Causal Agent for the universe was to propose that the universe cycles through an infinite number of natural reincarnations.

Atheist astronomers rejected the big bang because the model implied a cosmic Beginner. Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews rejected it and still do because of the model’s implied age for the universe. These religious adherents hold to a young-earth view and they think that to acknowledge the 14-billion-year-long history for the universe implied by the big bang model is to discredit the authority of their holy books.

Other Christians, concerned that unbelievers might cite scientific data to discredit the accuracy and reliability of the Bible, insist that it is wrong to interpret the Bible as stating anything significant about the origin, history, or present properties of the universe. Theologian John Walton, for example, strongly warns Christians against wedding the Bible to big bang cosmology.¹³ For him, the big bang or any model of the universe cannot be scientifically stable. He states, “All scientific frameworks are dynamic and subject to change.”¹⁴

The Bible and the Big Bang
Ironically, many Christian theologians strongly reject the claim that the Bible aligns well with big bang cosmological models, while twentieth-century nontheistic and atheistic astronomers have strongly reacted to the same models’ clear theological, specifically biblical, implications. Some twenty-first-century evangelical theologians see no links at all between the Bible and big bang cosmology, but non-Christian astronomers consistently have and still do. As a skeptical young astronomy student, I, too, saw links.

In my first serious reading of the Bible at age 17, I noted that the Bible repeatedly and specifically declares three distinct features of the universe:

1. The universe had a single beginning of everything humans could possibly detect: matter, energy, space, and time (Genesis 1:1; 2:3–4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 11:3).
2. The laws governing the universe are constant, unchanging throughout cosmic history (Genesis 1–3; Jeremiah 33:19–26; Romans 8:22).
3. One of these unchanging laws is a pervasive law of decay, termed by physicists as the second law of thermodynamics or the law of increasing entropy (Ecclesiastes 1–3; 9–12; John 16:33; Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 21:4–5).

These three biblically referenced features of the universe were consistent with the big bang model but contradicted by that model’s twentieth-century competitors: the steady state, the quasi-steady state, the hesitation, the plasma, and the oscillating universe models.¹⁵ In this regard, I was impressed that the Bible showed astonishing predictive power. It would mean that multiple Bible passages, written more than 2,500 years ago, correctly predicted features of the universe that astronomers would not discover until the twentieth century.

If, in fact, ongoing astronomical observations proved the big bang model correct and its competition false, such validation would stand as strong evidence that the Bible had been supernaturally inspired by the One who created and designed the universe. Seeing features of big bang cosmology in the Bible was one of several evidences that led to my signing my name in the back of a Gideon Bible, committing my life to Jesus Christ.

Years later, upon hearing me speak about the wonder of the Bible’s accuracy in identifying three distinct, recently confirmed features of the universe, a theology professor in my audience approached me afterward to say that I had missed one: cosmic expansion. Although I was aware of the possibility, I felt unsure that the biblical mentions of “the stretching out of the heavens” were literal references to the expansion of the universe.

John Rea explained to me that in the 11 Bible passages declaring that God stretches out the heavens, the Hebrew verb, natah, is employed in two of the three Hebrew verb forms. In seven passages (Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 51:13, and Zechariah 12:1) natah’s Qal (meaning “simple”) active participle form is used. This verb form of natah means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching of the heavens. In four passages (Isaiah 45:12, 48:13, and Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15) natah appears in the Qal perfect form (past tense). Here, the verb form of natah implies the stretching out of the heavens was completed. In just one passage, Isaiah 40:22, the verb form of natah is in the Qal imperfect (past and not completed) form.

The use of both the Qal active participle and the Qal perfect forms of the verb natah in the eleven passages implies in one sense that God continues to design or control the universe with the property of ongoing expansion and, in another sense, he created and designed the universe at the cosmic creation event so that ongoing cosmic expansion would occur. Isaiah 40:22 affirms these two features of cosmic expansion:

“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” (Isaiah 40:22)

In this verse, two different Hebrew verbs are used in two different verb forms. In “he stretches out the heavens like a canopy,” the verb natah appears in the Qal active participle form. In “and spreads them out like a tent to live in,” the verb mathah appears in the waw consecutive plus Qal imperfect form. (The waw consecutive involves prefixing a verb form with the letter “waw” to change its tense or aspect.) This is the sole appearance of mathah in the Old Testament. Its appearance in Isaiah 40:22 in the waw consecutive with Qal imperfect form implies that God has spread out the heavens. This one verse and the combination of the other ten verses both state that God is continuing to stretch out the heavens and has stretched them out. This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is in perfect accord with astronomers’ observations of the universe and their theoretical construct of the big bang creation model.¹⁶

I asked Rea if he thought there was any possibility that the 11 Bible passages declaring that God stretches out the heavens could be figuratively referring to something other than a literal expansion of the universe. His reply was he thought it to be unlikely. He explained that if the intent was figurative rather than literal there would be only one or two independent Bible verses making the claim, not 11, and there would be only one or two Bible authors making the claim, not five. Furthermore, the use of all three Hebrew verb forms in the 11 passages left little doubt, in his opinion, that the Holy Spirit inspired five different human authors to proclaim we live in an expanding universe.

Independent of Rea, I was impressed that in Job’s list of natural wonders and miracles God has performed, he included the stretching out of the heavens and grants God exclusive credit. Job 9:8 states, “He [God] alone stretches out the heavens.” Astronomers have determined that the physical constants governing cosmic expansion manifest by far the most spectacular measurable fine-tuning (10⁹⁶ times greater than anything designed and manufactured by humans) to make physical life possible in the universe.¹⁷

Figurative language is used in Isaiah 40:22 and Psalm 104:2. In these two passages, the stretching out of the heavens is likened to one unfurling and stretching out a tightly wrapped tent, akin to a backpacker removing his wrapped-up tent from his backpack and stretching it out so that he can occupy it. This analogy provides an additional response to the claim made by some theologians that only the recent expansion of the universe can be discerned from the 11 biblical texts.

The figure of speech employed in Isaiah 40:22 and Psalm 104:2 provides a good scientific analogy for the universe’s expansion. In big bang cosmology the universe begins as an infinitesimally small volume. The expansion of the universe causes the space surface of the universe to grow ever larger. All the matter and energy of the universe, including all the galaxies, stars, and planets, are constrained to the three-dimensional surface of the universe.

I now agree, therefore, that it is possible the Bible declared four, not just three, distinct features of the universe. John Rea and I ended up writing an article detailing where and how the Bible proclaimed at least three and maybe four distinct features of the universe.¹⁸

Cosmic expansion from a space-time beginning under constant laws of physics, where one of those laws is a pervasive law of decay, implies that the temperature of the universe will cool down in a predictable manner. The laws of thermodynamics (decay) predict that any system undergoing adiabatic (without transfer of heat or mass to an environment outside the system) expansion will experience a drop in temperature proportional to the degree of expansion. Therefore, the cooling down of the universe could also be a biblically predicted cosmic feature.

Some theologians think that Rea’s interpretation of 11 Old Testament passages implying an expanding universe could be concordist overreach. (I hold to moderate concordism, meaning that several discoveries in nature will reveal concordance with some of the words of Scripture.) One of the theologians who participated in a workshop Reasons to Believe held on dual revelation on June 24–25, 2022, Vern Poythress (professor of New Testament, biblical interpretation, and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary), wrote the following in an email sent to me on June 29, 2022:

The Hebrew tense system is very different from English. Context of use is necessary to narrow down the function of any one occurrence. There are a multitude of contexts, and a variety of meaning implications that go with the contexts. The tense system in Hebrew is in many ways more about aspect than tense (as a grammatical specification of time at which the event occurred). This is especially evident in poetry. Parallel poetic lines may have a perfect in the first line and an imperfect in the second line, or vice versa, to enhance the rhyming of ideas that is customary in parallel lines.

In Job 9:8 are two participles, both translated as simple past tenses in the English Standard Version: “stretched” and “trampled.” Verse 9 has another participle, which context shows must designate a one-time event in the past.

So, what is the point in the poetic image of stretching out the heavens? Isaiah 40:22 has one of the fuller renderings,

who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Both lines draw an analogy with a piece of cloth, “a curtain” or “a tent (cover).” As the initial draft of your manuscript recognizes, the image evoked in Isaiah 40:22 “is likened to one unfurling and stretching out a tightly wrapped tent.” Ps. 104:2 is not as elaborate, but similar. The occurrence of a number of such passages in the Bible does not show that some special information is being conveyed. Rather, it is a reinforcement of the point made in any one of them.

The comparison with a tent brings God’s work into connection with Israelite work. The poetic association that is primary is probably the ease and mastery and confidence with which God has structured creation. The Bible also speaks of God “founding” the earth. Both are naturally associated with Israelite habitations. Houses have foundations; even tents have stabilization with pegs. The roof of a house is a matter for considerable labor, in order to make sure it does not collapse. By comparison, a tent is easy. One or two poles to hold up the middle, and one stretches out the tent cloth over them. One of the points of the comparison is that it is easy for God. And the purpose is to make something “to dwell in.” That is another reason why the comparison is a favorite one. God dwells in his world (Jeremiah 23:24). But, the world is preeminently a dwelling for mankind.

If one wants to press for something literal here, as John Rea does, it goes against the poetic context of most of the verses. But then the literal picture that one does get is of material cloth—which has some elasticity but only of a minor kind, not like an elastic band—being stretched until it is taut. It evokes the power and wisdom of God. It need not supply any technical information as to how God is dealing with spatial measurements of the size of the cosmos. We can evoke Calvin’s principle (with which I basically agree), discussed in his commentary on Genesis, that Moses writes about what ordinary people could observe.

I would contend that not reading cosmic expansion into the Bible’s statements on the universe is not soft concordism. Neither is reading the expansion of the universe into the same biblical statements hard concordism. They are both examples of the dynamic nature of moderate concordism. They exemplify the need for ongoing theological and scientific research and the integration of science and theology so that progressively more accurate determinations of the boundaries of moderate concordism can be established.¹⁹

The reality that the Bible made declarations of at least three specific features of the universe millennia ago and stood alone until a century ago—outside of commentaries on the Bible—in making these declarations, stands as strong evidence that the Bible was supernaturally inspired by the One who created and designed the universe. It is evidence we can use to persuade unbelievers that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

For me, seeing elements of the big bang model declared in the Bible was not the strongest evidence for scientific concordism. Without a doubt scientific concordance played a major part in my recognizing that the Bible was the inspired, inerrant Word of God. However, I dedicated my life to Jesus Christ several months before physicists discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by the big bang cosmic creation model. Much more so than elements of big bang cosmology in the Bible, the concordance of the chronological sequence and description of creation events in Genesis 1 and the descriptions of science and creation in Job 37–39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 with the established scientific record convinced me that the Bible was God’s Word (for details and documentation see my book, Navigating Genesis²⁰).

Hindsight or Foresight?
In one university forum debate I had with the executive director of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer, he told the audience that my claims of the Bible predicting some of the big bang features of the universe were examples of hindsight biblical interpretation. He declared that I was falsely reading into biblical passages features of the universe that I knew were true based solely on astronomical observations made in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Shermer contended that I was imposing literal interpretations upon Bible passages that are clearly intended to be figurative. As proof that I was falsely reading details about the universe into biblical texts, he asserted that no one previous to the twentieth century had ever interpreted these biblical texts in the manner I was claiming. He emphatically declared that the Bible did not predict any of the big bang features of the universe.  

To be clear, neither John Rea nor I have ever claimed that the Bible teaches all the fundamental features of the big bang creation model. We are saying that it teaches three or four of the several dozen big bang features of the universe that astronomers have identified.

Is It Just Hindsight Interpretation?
The nontheists, besides Shermer, who have engaged me about the Bible and the big bang avow that they do not need to read my articles on the Bible and the big bang or the biblical passages I cite to know that my claims are wrong. They say, like Shermer, that no theologian previous to the twentieth century ever commented on the Bible making such claims. This lack, they insist, is sufficient evidence that it is just my twenty-first–century astrophysical bias that makes me think the Bible teaches big bang features of the universe.

These skeptics, though, tend to not dispute that the Bible teaches that the laws of physics are constant and that one of those laws is a pervasive law of decay. The claim for the former is stated in passages in Genesis 1–3, Jeremiah 33, Romans 8:19–22, and Revelation 21:1–5. The claim for the latter is found throughout Proverbs and especially in Ecclesiastes and Romans 8:18–22. Nontheists, whether familiar or unfamiliar with these Bible passages, perceive that these two properties—at least as far as Earth and its life are concerned—would have been evident to at least some pre-twentieth-century populations simply based on their observations of the natural realm. It is worth noting, however, that there were pre-twentieth-century religions and beliefs that denied these two cosmic properties.

Pre-Twentieth-Century Theologians on Ex Nihilo Creation
Michael Shermer and the nontheists I have engaged dispute that any theologians previous to the twentieth century had ever discerned that the Bible teaches an ex nihilo (from nothing) beginning for the universe or that the Bible teaches the universe has expanded and is expanding. However, many pre-twentieth-century Jewish and Christian theologians wrote about the Bible’s teachings concerning the characteristics of the universe. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight only some of the comments by a few of the more prominent ones.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (120–202), stated, “God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist.”²¹

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote in his Confessions, “You [God] were, and besides you nothing was. From nothing, then, you created heaven and earth.”²² Later in Confessions he added, “You created them [the heavens and the earth, that is, the material universe] from nothing, not from your own substance or from some matter not created by yourself or already in existence. . . . You created the matter from absolutely nothing and the form of the world from this formless matter.”²³

The most famous of the medieval Jewish theologians, Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), also known as the Rambam, wrote extensively about Old Testament declarations concerning the beginning of the universe. In his 13 Principles of Faith, Maimonides stated, “We believe that this Oneness is necessarily primary. All that exists other than Him is not primary in relationship to Him. There are many references in the Scriptures. This is the fourth Principle, as affirmed by the verse (Deuteronomy 33:27): ‘God who preceded all existence is a refuge.’”²⁴ Here, Maimonides explicitly states that the universe cannot be eternal; it must have a beginning.

In The Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides elucidated what the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) stated about God, the universe, space, and time. He wrote that the entire universe “was brought into existence by God after having been purely and absolutely nonexistent.”²⁵ Maimonides declared that Moses in the Torah asserted “that there is nothing eternal in any way at all existing simultaneously with God.”²⁶ Therefore, according to Maimonides, the Mosaic position puts forth a view of creation that is both ex nihilo and de novo (from [the] new).

Maimonides explains that creation de novo does not mean God exists in time and space and picks a particular moment to begin his creations.²⁷ He asserts that time itself is one of these creations. It is not eternal; only God is eternal. Only God is responsible for creating the universe.²⁸ Maimonides also clarifies his definition of “nothing” and the impotence of nothing: “if nothing is pure and absolute, it cannot be the material cause of anything; it is, after all, nothing.”²⁹

Pre-Twentieth-Century Theologians on Cosmic Expansion
Shermer and the nontheists I have engaged especially dispute that any theologian previous to the twentieth century had ever discerned that the Bible teaches that the universe has expanded and is expanding. There is at least one. Medieval Jewish theologian Moses Nachmanides (1194–1270), also known as Rabbi Moses ben Nahman Girondi, wrote in his Commentary on Genesis about the expansion of the universe:

“At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.”³⁰

There may have been others besides Nachmanides who wrote about, lectured, or discussed cosmic expansion previous to the twentieth century. However, one reason why we should not expect a lot of written resources on cosmic expansion from scholars previous to the twentieth century is that cosmic expansion was not an issue for skeptics of Christianity whereas a cosmic beginning definitely was. Nontheists throughout all centuries recognized that a cosmic beginning implies a cosmic Beginner and that an ex nihilo cosmic beginning implies that the Beginner must be an Entity possessing the capacity to operate freely and create independent of matter, energy, space, and time. Therefore, while Christian and Jewish apologists felt compelled to defend the doctrine of a cosmic beginning and creation ex nihilo in particular, no such compulsion drove them to address cosmic expansion.

A conclusion that can be drawn from the works of pre-twentieth-century Jewish and Christian apologists is similar to the “discussion” between Vern Poythress and John Rea. There is no reasonable doubt that the Bible taught at least three fundamental features of big bang creation models. A case can be made that the Bible also taught a fourth feature of the universe—expansion from the cosmic creation event.

Biblical Cosmology Implications
The Bible’s unique position among texts from the ancient world in its specific and unambiguous details about the origin and history of the universe has profound implications. Twentieth and twenty-first-century discoveries about the universe are bringing more attention to biblical texts describing the origin and characteristics of the universe. These discoveries establish that the universe has a beginning, which implies the existence of a cosmic Beginner. They also imply that the universe has been designed, extraordinarily fine-tuned, for the existence of life.  

These discoveries demonstrate that the Bible possesses unique predictive power. Georges Lemaître, Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, and George Gamow were not the first humans to talk and write about the big bang creation model. That credit goes back to biblical authors Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Paul, and the author of Hebrews. This success in uniquely predicting specific features of the universe millennia ahead of scientific discoveries of such cosmic features provides strong evidence that the source of the Bible’s message is from the Being who created and designed the universe. Such evidence implies that all humans would be wise to read, understand, and submit to the entire content of the Bible.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, “A Beginner’s—and Expert’s—Guide to the Big Bang: Sifting Facts from Fictions,” Reasons to Believe (June 30, 2000).
2. Vesto M. Slipher, “Radial Velocity Observations of Spiral Nebulae,” The Observatory (August 1917): 304–306.
3. Albert Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Annalen der Physik 49, no. 7 (1916): 769–822, doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702.
4. Alexander A. Friedmann, “Über die Krümmung des Raumes,” Zeitschrift für Physik 10, no. 1 (1922): 377–386, doi:10.1007/BF01332580.
5. Abbé Georges Lemaître, “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91, no. 5 (March 13, 1931): 483–90, doi:10.1093/mnras/91.5.483. The original paper appears in French in Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, Tome XLVII, Serie A, Premiere Partie (April 1927): 49.
6. Edwin Hubble, “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 15 (March 1929): 168–73, doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168.
7. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 33–198.
8. Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (1931): 450, doi:10.1038/127447a0.

9. Arthur S. Eddington, “On the Instability of Einstein’s Spherical World,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 90, no. 7 (May 9, 1930): 672, doi:10.1093/mnras/90.7.668.
10. Albert Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (February 8, 1917): 142–152.
11. Herman Bondi and T. Gold, “The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108, no. 3 (1948): 252–270, doi:10.1093/mnras/108.3.252; Fred Hoyle, “A New Model for the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108, no. 5 (1948): 372–382, doi:10.1093/mnras/108.5.372.
12. John Gribbin, “Oscillating Universe Bounces Back,” Nature 259 (January 1, 1976): 15–16, doi:10.1038/259015c0.
13. John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 105.
14. Walton, The Lost World, 61.

15. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 25–122.
16. Ross, 33–76, 85–122.
17. Ross, 45–55.

18. Hugh Ross with John Rea, “Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!,” Reasons to Believe (July 1, 2000). The article has been reissued as an RTB101 paper and appears as a chapter in both The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (pages 25–31) and A Matter of Days, 2nd ed. (pages 135–144).
19. Hugh Ross, Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2023): chapter 9.
20. Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1–11 (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014).
21. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 10.2 in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 370.
22. Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (London, UK: Penguin Books, 1961), Book XII.7, 285.
23. Augustine, Confessions, 344.
24. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Guide II.13, 281.
25. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Guide II.13, 281–82; Kenneth Seeskin, “Metaphysics and Its Transcendence” in Kenneth Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 92.
26. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 281–82; Seeskin, The Cambridge Companion, 92.
27. Maimonides, 281–82; Seeskin, 92.
28. Maimonides, 281–82; Seeskin, 92.
29. Maimonides in Kenneth Seeskin, Searching for a Distant God: The Legacy of Maimonides (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 71.
30. Ramban (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, translated by Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), 23–24. For a free online source see: Moses Nachmanides (Ramban), Al Ha Torah 1:1 in DannyM, “Nahmanides and the Big Bang,” Evidence for God from Science (June 24, 2011), https://www.discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=36015, accessed 1/30/23.

The post What Does the Bible Say about the <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Failed Big Bang Prediction?
In the big bang creation model, the universe begins with only one element: hydrogen, consisting of a single proton. As the universe expands from the cosmic creation event, it gets colder. (The second law of thermodynamics implies that any system that expands will become cooler in proportion to the degree of expansion that occurs.) Between 3 and 4 minutes after the cosmic creation event, the universe spends about 20 seconds passing through the temperature window when nuclear fusion can occur.

The standard big bang creation model predicts that 24.5% of the primordial hydrogen by mass will be fused into helium and a trace amount of lithium by the time the universe is 4 minutes old and too cold for any further nuclear fusion to occur. Therefore, the first stars to form in the universe, according to the big bang model, will be devoid of any elements heavier than lithium.

For different reasons, atheists and young-earth creationists have cited the failure of astronomers to find any stars that are comprised of only hydrogen, helium, and lithium as evidence that the big bang model has been falsified. To sustain their belief in strict naturalism, atheists need the universe to be at least thousands of times older than the 14-billion-year age the big bang creation model predicts. Atheist plasma physicist, Eric Lerner, author of the book, The Big Bang Never Happened,² claims that all the helium in the universe came from the nuclear furnaces of stars and that stars have been burning not just for billions of years but for infinite time. In his and other atheistic cosmic models where the universe is much older than 14 billion years, there will be no stars with a high ratio of helium to elements heavier than helium. The reason is that for every kilogram of helium produced by stellar burning, about 0.3 kilograms of elements heavier than helium are produced.

To sustain their interpretation of Genesis, young-earth creationists need the universe to be a million times younger than the big bang age. John Hartnett, Rod Bernitt, and Jonathan Sarfati, respectively, have written: “These original stars have never been observed, hence they were nothing more than hypothetical . . . It [the big bang model] vitally needs those Population III stars or there is no story.”³ “Their existence [of Population III stars] remains a matter of conjecture, not fact.”⁴ “The total absence of these stars counts as a falsified prediction of Big Bang cosmology.”⁵ 

Successful Big Bang Prediction
What these and other atheists and young-earth creationists fail to acknowledge to their readers is that the big bang creation model predicts that the spectra of the universe’s firstborn stars, aka Population III stars, that would reveal a composition of 75.5% hydrogen, 24.5% helium, a trace amount of lithium, and nothing else would be undetectable by present-day telescope power. The model predicts that detecting such spectra will be challenging even for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

For all stars, the formation time is inversely proportional to the star’s mass. Stars greater than 20 times the Sun’s mass will form in less than 100,000 years. Stars as massive as the Sun will take millions of years to form. Stars 8–80% of the Sun’s mass will take tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years to form. Similarly, the length of time it takes for a star to burn through all its nuclear fuel is inversely proportional to the star’s mass. Stars bigger than 100 times the Sun’s mass will burn up in just a few tens of thousands of years. Stars 20–60 times the Sun’s mass consume all their nuclear fuel within a million to a few tens of millions of years. The Sun’s nuclear furnace has been burning for the past 4.57 billion years and has 4.57 billion years of nuclear fuel remaining. The smallest stars will take more than a trillion years to burn through all their nuclear fuel.

In the big bang creation model, stars will begin to form when the universe is about 200 million years old. The first of these first stars will be the most massive stars. These most massive stars will burn up and become very faint in less than a million years after they form. Thus, the only way they can be detected is by observing them at distances that correspond to the epoch in the universe’s history when they would have been undergoing nuclear burning. Those distances are at 13.6 billion light-years. Not even the JWST can detect and measure the spectrum of an individual star at that distance, at least not without help.  

Finding the First Stars
With the help of a gravitational lens, the JWST may be able to detect and measure the spectrum of an individual star 13.6 billion light-years away, especially if that star is undergoing a supernova eruption.⁶ It will take a just-right cluster of galaxies located at the just-right distance along a straight line connecting the JWST with the distant star. The gravity of such a cluster of galaxies will bend the light from the distant star in such a manner as to create a gravitational lens that can increase the magnification power of the JWST by a factor of several thousand times (see figure 1).

The JWST is powerful enough by itself to detect and measure the spectrum of a large, compact cluster of very massive firstborn stars 13.6 billion light-years away. However, the stars would all need to be the same mass and form at the same time.

Forming the First Stars
Both atheists and young-earth creationists have asserted that star formation is impossible in an environment devoid of elements heavier than helium and that the minuscule amount of lithium produced in the big bang will be of no help. Big bang theorists agree that the trace amount of lithium produced by the big bang cannot play a significant role in star formation.⁷

While it’s difficult to form stars starting with only hydrogen and helium, it’s not impossible. The challenge is how to get primordial gas clouds—without the benefit of elements heavier than helium to form dust—to cool sufficiently so that they can condense to form stars. Heat tends to disperse the gas. For a star to form, gravitational collapse must overcome thermal expansion within a particular gas cloud. Thus, two circumstances must occur: (1) the mass of gas must be sufficient to generate a strong gravitational collapse, and (2) some means, independent of dust, must exist to cool the gas.

Calculations show that where only hydrogen and helium exist, the only possible cooling factor is molecular hydrogen (H₂). This H₂ will permit only very massive stars to form. However, all big bang creation models predict that some of the primordial hydrogen will be deuterium (HD, heavy hydrogen atoms comprised of a proton and a neutron). HD molecules provide much more efficient cooling than H₂ molecules. Thus, the combination of cooling by H₂ and HD molecules permits stars as small as 70–80% of the Sun’s mass to form.

Stars just 80% of the Sun’s mass will sustain nuclear burning for 17.5 billion years. Therefore, no matter how early in the universe’s history such stars form, they will still be burning today. This nuclear-burning longevity means that astronomers need not look billions of light-years away to find such stars. Some should exist in or near our galaxy.

Discovery of Firstborn Stars
As noted, stars less massive than the Sun will take tens of millions of years to form. During this formation time, they will become slightly polluted by the ashes of very massive firstborn stars that form, burn up, and explode all within less than a million years. Additional pollution will occur thereafter. A low-mass firstborn star that is now 13.6 billion years old will accrete—over its 13.6-billion-year history—a small quantity of heavy elements from the interstellar medium. The ashes from the exploded remains of supergiant stars pollute the interstellar medium.

In high stellar-density regions, the present-day pollution level is too high for astronomers to reliably detect the difference between a polluted firstborn star and a relatively unpolluted second-generation star. However, for a low-mass firstborn star residing in a very low stellar density region, pollution from the interstellar medium will be so low that there will be no doubt that astronomers are observing an old firstborn star rather than any kind of second-generation star.

Calculations by three Japanese astronomers⁸ showed that an old firstborn star in a region of low stellar density can accumulate up to, but not more than, 1/100,000th as much iron per unit mass as the Sun presently possesses, while it would be impossible for any kind of second-generation star to possess so little iron. The halo of our galaxy is where the stellar density is low enough to make unmistakable identifications of firstborn stars.

So far, astronomers have discovered seven firstborn stars in our galaxy’s halo. These stars are HE 0107-5240, J0815+4729, J0023+0307, HE 1327-2326, SMSS J160540.18-144323.1, SDSS J102915+172927, and SMSS J031300.36-670839. Relative to the Sun, they possess, respectively, 250,000, 300,000, 400,000, 500,000, 1,600,000, 10,000,000, and 38,000,000 times less iron per unit mass as the Sun.

Resolving the Calcium Abundance Anomaly
In firstborn stars, where astronomers have a measurement of the calcium abundance, the amount of calcium is anomalously high. It is so high that the only possible explanation for its abundance, if the star is indeed a firstborn star, is if the star formed in close proximity to another firstborn star where that star’s mass exceeded 45 times the Sun’s mass and that star had a supernova eruption where both the star’s outer layers and its metal-rich core was ejected.⁹ If the small-mass firstborn star is polluted by the high-mass firstborn star’s outer layers and metal-rich core before the small-mass firstborn star fully forms, then the small-mass firstborn star’s calcium abundance can be accounted for. However, this pollution scenario is so improbable that it caused some astronomers to doubt whether the star SMSS J031300.36-670839, which possesses an indisputably high calcium abundance, really is a firstborn star.

An international team of 36 nuclear physicists and astronomers led by Liyong Zhang suggested another possible explanation for the calcium abundance anomaly.¹⁰ They pointed out that the nuclear furnaces of very massive firstborn stars, long before small-mass firstborn stars fully form, will fuse hydrogen into helium not only by the proton-proton cycle but also by the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen (CNO) cycle. They noted that experimental measurements of the nuclear ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰Ne breakout reaction rate had only been determined at relatively high energy levels. They explained that if there was a substantial nuclear ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰Ne breakout reaction occurring below a million electron volts, that CNO breakout reaction would explain SMSS J031300.36-670839’s calcium abundance via pollution from a single high-mass firstborn star’s scattered outer layers alone.

The reason why experimental measurements of the nuclear ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰Ne breakout reaction rate have not been done at energy levels below a million electron volts is that the cosmic gamma-ray background radiation at those energy levels overwhelms any possible signal from the nuclear 19F(p, γ)20Ne breakout reaction. Zhang’s team overcame this limitation by measuring the nuclear 19F(p, γ)20Ne breakout reaction rate in the China JinPing Underground Laboratory (CJPUL). The CJPUL is the best cosmic-ray-shielded underground laboratory in the world. It’s located under 2,400 meters (7,900 feet) of overbearing rock. The cosmic-ray-induced background is about a hundred times less at CJPUL than it is at the second-best cosmic-ray-shielded physics laboratory, the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso under the Gran Sasso mountain in Italy.

Zhang’s team discovered that an important CNO nuclear ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰Ne breakout reaction occurs at 225 kiloelectron volts. Nuclear physicists had previously estimated from their calculations that a nuclear ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰Ne breakout reaction likely occurred at 225 kiloelectron volts, but that it would not produce much calcium. Zhang and his colleagues’ measurements revealed that the nuclear ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰Ne breakout reaction at 225 kiloelectron volts is 5.4–7.4 times the rate that nuclear physicists had previously estimated. This additional factor of 5.4–7.4 times explains the calcium observed in the oldest, extremely iron-poor stars under the assumption that these stars are firstborn stars that have been polluted during their formation by the outer layers exploded off high-mass firstborn stars during supernova eruptions.

Next Steps
The CJPUL is still under construction. When completed, the lab will have 50 times the physics laboratory space that it currently possesses. It will be poised to make precision measurements of nucleosynthesis reactions presently hidden by the cosmic ray background.

Meanwhile, the highest priority mission targets for the JWST are to determine the elemental abundance levels and ratios of the oldest stars and the most distant—hence, the first to form—galaxies in the universe. The combination of a more detailed understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis and comprehensive measurements of the elemental abundances of the oldest stars and earliest galaxies will yield the most definitive and finely detailed tests of the big bang creation model.   

Philosophical Implications
The combination of CJPUL measurements and JWST observations will not only yield yet another definitive test of the big bang creation model, but it will also determine which of the several currently viable big bang creation models correctly explains the origin and history of the universe. Astronomers’ confidence in the reliability of the big bang model has increased through a series of observational tests. Those tests show a progression from confirmation of a hot big bang model to confirmation of an inflationary hot big bang model to confirmation of a ΛCDM inflationary hot big bang model (an inflationary hot big bang model where the universe’s most dominant component is dark energy and its second most dominant component is cold dark matter).

The combination of CJPUL measurements and JWST observations will inform astronomers which of the several ΛCDM inflationary hot big bang models correctly explains the origin, history, and structure of the universe. Though the quest for a holy grail is admirable, we at RTB see more. Such an advance will make an even stronger case that for thousands of years the Bible alone accurately predicted the fundamental characteristics of the universe. It should remove any rational doubt that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant message from the One who created and designed the universe so that billions of humans can know his purposes for creating the universe and human beings.

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross and John Rea, “Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!” Reasons to Believe, July 1, 2000; Hugh Ross, “Does the Bible Teach Big Bang Cosmology?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, August 26, 2019.
2. John G. Hartnett, “Have Population III Stars Finally Been Discovered?” Creation Ministries International (blog), March 3, 2016.
3. Rod Bernitt, “Stellar Evolution and the Problem of the ‘First’ Stars,” Journal of Creation 16, no. 1 (April 2002): 12–14.
4. Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) as Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Creation Book Publishers, 2011), 161.
5. Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (New York: Times Books, 1991).
6. Kenneth C. Wong et al., “Searches for Population III Pair-Instability Supernovae: Impact of Gravitational Lensing Magnification,” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 71, no. 3 (June 2019): id. 60, doi:10.1093/pasj/psz037.
7. Boyuan Liu and Volker Bromm, “Effect of Lithium Hydride on the Cooling of Primordial Gas,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 476, no. 2 (May 2018): 1826–1834, doi:10.1093/mnras/sty350.
8. Yutaka Komiya, Takuma Suda, and Masayuki Y. Fujimoto, “The Most Iron-Deficient Stars as the Polluted Population III Stars,” Astrophysical Journal Letters 808, no. 2 (July 30, 2015): id. L47, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/808/2/L47.
9. O. Clarkson, F. Herwig, and M. Pignatari, “Erratum: Pop. III i-Process Nucleosynthesis and the Elemental Abundances of SMSS J0313-6708 the Most-Iron Poor Stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 488, no. 1 (September 2019): 222–223, doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1676.
10. Liyong Zhang et al., “Measurement of ¹⁹F(p, γ)²⁰ Ne Reaction Suggests CNO Breakout in First Stars,” Nature 610 (October 26, 2022): 656–660, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05230-x.

The post <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Implications of Detecting the Universe's First Stars appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Eric Lerner’s Plasma Cosmology
Eric Lerner’s claim is nothing new. In fact, he articulated his claim 30 years ago in his book The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe! Instead of gravity driving the large-scale dynamics of the universe (as in big bang cosmology), Lerner’s plasma cosmology has electromagnetic forces dominating. According to Lerner, if plasma physics governs the formation of galaxies, stars, and all the features of the universe, the universe would have no beginning. And Lerner asserts that the big bang add-ons of dark matter and dark energy are unnecessary in his model.

As one might expect, the scientific community responded by acknowledging and addressing both the data Lerner used to argue against big bang cosmology as well as the evidence used to support his model. For one example of such a response, see this analysis by a colleague of mine from UCLA. Though last updated back in 2003, the criticisms of Lerner’s cosmology still apply today.

How Does JWST Impact the Discussion?
Lerner’s recent statements argue that the new JWST images refute the big bang and match the predictions of his plasma cosmology. However, we need to exercise caution. The strongest evidence for big bang cosmology arises from observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (by COBE, WMAP, Planck, and others) and from measurements of the distance/redshift relationship obtained by observing galaxies throughout the universe. None of the JWST images impact this evidence!

First, JWST was not designed—and has no capacity—to observe the CMB. Second, JWST was designed to investigate distant galaxies at high redshift to study their properties. None of the current JWST data undermines the copious evidence that redshift systematically increases with distance. JWST has found some distant galaxies that are larger and more developed than expected in many big bang models. Lerner claims these galaxy observations invalidate big bang models while matching predictions of his plasma cosmology.

Is the Big Bang Dead?
One should remember that these types of discrepancies occur rather frequently in science. For most of the 1970s, 80s, and into the 90s, astronomers couldn’t even agree whether the universe was closer to 10 billion years old or 20 billion years old because different measurement techniques gave different ages! During my scientific career, I have read published papers with star dates older than the age of the universe, cosmic structures too large to form given the universe’s age, and measurements showing the CMB as too smooth to form stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Interestingly, that last item was part of the evidence that prompted Lerner to develop his alternative cosmology model. Yet, in every example just listed, further research by the scientific community resulted in a better, more precise understanding of big bang cosmology.

We now know that quantum fluctuations in the earliest moments of the universe produced the necessary ripples in the CMB that ultimately developed into the structure seen in the universe. Furthermore, scientists have investigated the size of those structures and the CMB ripples to validate the mysterious dark energy that comprises around 70% of the universe’s energy density. Sometimes further investigation slowly eliminates the inconsistent measurements. Such is the case with discrepant star ages. Currently, most “older than the universe” stars have ages less than 14 billion years. However, analysis of a handful of stars still give ages slightly older than the universe. With ongoing investigation scientists expect resolution.

Other times, resolving one inconsistency leads to a previously unknown discrepancy. For example, we now know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Calculations based on the redshift/distance relationship provide that age of 13.8 billion years, but an analysis of the CMB ripples gives dates closer to 12.5 billion years. Given the copious evidence in support of big bang models, scientists welcome these discrepancies since they provide useful direction for future research to understand our big-bang universe in more detail!

One Final Thought on Alternative Models
Scientists routinely produce alternative models like Eric Lerner’s. Even with the tremendous experimental success of general relativity, a number of scientists favor a different approach known as MOND, where they modify Newtonian dynamics. Often MOND and GR (general relativity) calculations can both explain the data produced by observations of the universe. The fact that MOND solves the dark matter or dark energy problem by making them unnecessary makes MOND attractive to many scientists. That solution comes at the expense of MOND not providing a mechanism for explaining why gravity works. General relativity provided that mechanism as arising from the curvature of spacetime. Thus, for most scientists MOND introduces a larger problem than it solves.

Lerner’s plasma cosmology suffers a similar problem. Even if plasma cosmology predicted the CMB as well as the galaxy shapes and clustering and evolution with equal proficiency to big bang cosmology, it offers no workable explanation for the well-established redshift/distance relationship. Big bang cosmology provides a simple explanation—the universe is expanding.

The latest JWST images don’t justify the enormous attention Lerner’s model has recently received in the public sphere. Yet, Lerner’s plasma cosmology deserves a place at the table of models trying to explain our universe. Science advances when theory matches observation.

The post Do the James Webb Telescope Images Show the <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Didn't Happen? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Why Quasars Matter
In the late 1960s, astronomers Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge wrote a book in which they stated that no known physics could explain the observed properties of quasars if, indeed, they were billions of light-years away.¹ They concluded, therefore, that quasars “are comparatively nearby although still outside our galaxy.”² Further, they asserted that the observed properties of quasars, whether they reside at cosmological distances or are relatively nearby, demanded the rejection of big bang creation models. Since several of the big bang characteristics of the universe were predicted in the Bible thousands of years ago,³ much more was and is at stake concerning the properties of quasars than just astrophysics. The truthfulness and predictive power of the Bible concerning what it says about the universe and about the cosmic Creator is also at stake.

During my research stints, I observed that flat spectrum radio galaxies (galaxies showing radio brightnesses at high radio frequencies that are similar to those at low radio frequencies) exhibited radio brightnesses and luminosity variabilities that mimicked those of quasars.⁴ Therefore, I concluded that quasars likely existed in the cores of giant galaxies where optical telescopes could see the quasars but not their host galaxies. Years later, astronomers, using the next generation of powerful optical telescopes, successfully imaged the host galaxies of several quasars (see figure 1).

Many years later, astronomers demonstrated that the extreme luminosities and luminosity variations of quasars and flat spectrum radio sources could be explained by supermassive black holes (SMBHs). These astronomical objects weigh in at a hundred million to several billion times the Sun’s mass and accrete enormous amounts of gas, dust, and stars from their host galaxies. Today, more than a million quasars have been detected. The nearest one is about 600 million light-years away. The most distant is 13.15 billion light-years away. Quasar activity was more common in the distant past. The peak epoch of quasar activity was about 10 billion years ago.⁵

Quasar Birth Problem
The peak epoch of quasar activity at 10 billion years ago fits big bang creation models well. That date corresponds to when large galaxies would possess huge quantities of gas, dust, and debris to feed the SMBHs in their cores. However, the early birth dates for quasars present a problem. For quasars to exist when the universe is only 650 million years old means that SMBHs that are a hundred million plus times the Sun’s mass must exist at that time.

SMBHs begin to form through merger events between the burnt-out remains of large stars—small black holes and neutron stars. Using gravity wave telescopes, astronomers have detected over two dozen such merger events.⁶ Only in the cores of galaxies and globular clusters is the stellar density high enough where merger events can cascade. Cascading refers to the aftermath of the merger of two small black holes that, in turn, merge with the aftermath of the merger of two other small black holes and later the merger of now bigger black holes.

The largest existing stars form black holes that top out at 15 times the Sun’s mass. Before stars existed, the universe contained only hydrogen, helium, and a trace amount of lithium. The universe’s first stars formed from this mixture, which permitted much larger stars. These stars could produce black holes as much as 30 times the Sun’s mass.

Beginning with black holes 4–30 times the Sun’s mass, it seems impossible for galaxies to produce SMBHs exceeding one hundred million solar masses in less than 700 million years after the big bang creation event. Some astronomers had speculated that perhaps an early galaxy had evolved exotic conditions that generated an extremely high density of stars in its core. However, it is highly improbable that such conditions would be generated in multiple early galaxies. This improbability is known as the quasar birth problem.

Resolving the Quasar Birth Problem
An international team of five astronomers used the Enzo cosmology code—a sophisticated computer simulation—to accurately model the earliest stages of collapse of the progenitor halos of large galaxies.⁷ The team determined that strong, cold accretion flows in early galaxies drive violent supersonic turbulence that prevents star formation until dense mass clumps greater than 31,000 solar masses form. The formation of these clumps triggers catastrophic baryon (baryons are protons and neutrons) collapse, which results in the generation of “stars” weighing in at 31,000–40,000 times the Sun’s mass. Such stars never shine. They immediately collapse to form black holes.

The formation of hundreds to thousands of black holes weighing 31,000–40,000 times the Sun’s mass in the cores of large galaxies during the first half billion years of cosmic history provides the necessary seeds to generate SMBHs larger than 100,000,000 solar masses. This formation process is needed to explain the handful of quasars astronomers have discovered that are more distant than 13.1 billion light-years, corresponding to when the universe was less than 700 million years old.

Quasar Birth Problem Solution Implications
The resolution of the quasar birth problem demonstrated by the five astronomers only works for the subset of big bang creation models known as ΛCDM (lambda cold dark matter) big bang models. In these models, the dominant component of the universe is dark energy and the second most dominant component is cold dark matter.

The team’s resolution yields yet another example showing that the more we learn about the universe the more detailed, specific, and accurate the big bang creation model becomes. It also adds to the long list of observational, experimental, and theoretical tests that the big bang creation model has consistently passed. These demonstrations give all of us, both Christians and non-Christians, increasing certainty and confidence that the Bible indeed exhibits accurate predictive power in that it taught at least three fundamental features of the big bang universe thousands of years before astronomers discovered them. Those features include the beginning of the universe, constant laws of physics, and a law of decay that pervades the universe.

This established predictive power of the Bible is strong evidence that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant message from the One who created the universe. Consequently, the Bible’s message is one that no rational human being should ever dismiss or ignore.

Endnotes

1. Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge, Quasi-Stellar Objects (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1967).
2. Burbidge and Burbidge, Quasi-Stellar Objects, vi.
3. Hugh Ross and John Rea, “Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!” Reasons to Believe, July 1, 2000; Hugh Ross, “Does the Bible Teach Big Bang Cosmology?” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, August 26, 2019.
4. Hugh Norman Ross, Radio Sources with Low Frequency Cutoffs, Volumes 1 and 2 (Department of Astronomy, David Dunlap Observatory, University of Toronto, PhD Thesis, 1972).
5. Maarten Schmidt, Donald P. Schneider, and James E. Gunn, “Spectroscopic CCD Surveys for Quasars at Large Redshift. IV. Evolution of the Luminosity Function from Quasars Detected by Their Lyman-Alpha Emission,” Astronomical Journal 110, no. 1 (July 1995): 68–77, doi:10.1086/117497.
6. Hugh Ross, “How Gravitational Waves Help Explain the Universe’s History,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, March 10, 2016; Hugh Ross, “Neutron Star Merger Explains Why We’re Here (Expanded Version), Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), Reasons to Believe, November 3, 2017.
7. M. A. Latif et al., “Turbulent Cold Flows Gave Birth to the First Quasars,” Nature 607 (July 7, 2022): 48–51, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04813-y.

The post Birthing the First Quasars in a <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Big</em> Bang Universe appeared first on Reasons to Believe.