 |
| A vision of cosmic time: is the universe finite or eternal? |
This is not a post of "the God of the gaps" type where the gaps in scientific knowledge are heralded as a confirmation that God is required to solve all the puzzles of the world we live in - and beyond. Rather, this post would encourage scientific endeavour as a humble service to humanity.
That humble service element is often missing in what we hear from scientists who use discoveries to push whatever theories or metaphysical stances infatuate them at the time.
What brings this to the fore is an article by scientists entitled "Observing more disk galaxies than theory allows", published on the phys.org news website. It gets into the subject of how the mode of thinking of scientists governs their methods and their interpretation of observations. The opening line is this:
The Standard Model of Cosmology describes how the universe came into being according to the view of most physicists.
The uncertainty surrounding that "standard model" approach is further seen in Merriam-Webster's definition of "cosmology" as:
1: a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe
also: a theory dealing with these matters
The authors of the phys.org article explain what is significant about their article:
Researchers at the University of Bonn have now studied the evolution of galaxies within this model, finding considerable discrepancies with actual observations. The University of St. Andrews in Scotland and Charles University in the Czech Republic were also involved in the study. The results have now been published in the Astrophysical Journal.
They continue:
Most galaxies visible from Earth resemble a flat disk with a thickened center. They are therefore similar to the sports equipment of a discus thrower. According to the Standard Model of Cosmology, however, such disks should form rather rarely. This is because in the model, every galaxy is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. This halo is invisible, but exerts a strong gravitational pull on nearby galaxies due to its mass. "That's why we keep seeing galaxies merging with each other in the model universe," explains Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa of the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn.
The most striking piece of information is this:
In the current study, Kroupa's doctoral student, Moritz Haslbauer, led an international research group to investigate the evolution of the universe using the latest supercomputer simulations. The calculations are based on the Standard Model of Cosmology; they show which galaxies should have formed by today if this theory were correct. The researchers then compared their results with what is currently probably the most accurate observational data of the real Universe visible from Earth.
"Here we encountered a significant discrepancy between prediction and reality," Haslbauer says: "There are apparently significantly more flat disk galaxies than can be explained by theory." However, the resolution of the simulations is limited even on today's super-computers.
It may therefore be that the number of disk galaxies that would form in the Standard Model of Cosmology has been underestimated. "However, even if we take this effect into account, there remains a serious difference between theory and observation that cannot be remedied", Haslbauer points out.
As it happens, there is an alternative to the Standard Model, the MOND (MilgrOmiaN Dynamics) theory. "MOND's predictions are consistent with what we actually see," Kroupa said. So, in this there is a challenge for the Standard Model.
The researchers say:
However, the exact mechanisms of galaxy growth are not yet fully understood, even with MOND. Additionally, in MOND, Newton's laws of gravity do not apply under certain circumstances, but need to be replaced by the correct ones. This would have far-reaching consequences for other areas of physics.
"Nevertheless, the MOND theory solves all known extragalactic cosmological problems despite being originally formulated to address galaxies only," says Dr. Indranil Banik, who was involved in this research.
The outcome of the study would be very satisfying for Kroupa, who has made a big investment in developing the alternative model. He says:
"Our research group in Bonn and Prague has uniquely developed the methods to do calculations in this alternative theory."
Despite his confidence, Kroupa adds:
"Our study proves that young physicists today still have the opportunity to make significant contributions to fundamental physics."The rivalry between theories or cosmologies relating to galaxy growth bear similarity to the cosmological theories about the beginning of the universe.
However, to equate a "theoretical 0" moment with the unique act of creation by God would be wrong because scientific cosmologies and that involving belief in God and God's works are distinct. Science cannot provide a sure foundation for religious arguments, "which of themselves, are outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences”, Pope Pius XII said as far back as 1951.
In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pius remarked that “true science discovers God in an ever-increasing degree—as though God were waiting behind every door opened by science”, thus praising scientists for their work in what can be seen as the wonder of God's handiwork.
The Catholic Church had already come to terms with evolution but is has been taking note of its implications for philosophical and theological conceptions of human nature. Of course, just as science is still unsure of the mechanisms of gravity, it is clear science still does not fully understand evolution, with environmental factors now being given more consideration over the simplistic Darwinian "survival of the fittest".
But with regard the distinction between the Church's belief and the scientific cosmology of the origins of the universe I am going to examine the ideas presented in an article titled "Cosmology and Creation" by William E. Carroll, distinguished visiting professor at the School of Philosophy at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law in Wuhan, China.
Carroll surveys the writings of Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest and astrophysicist, one of the original proponents of what is now called Big Bang cosmology:
By the 1950s, Lemaître had developed a clear understanding of the methodological separation between theological and cosmological levels of discourse, a clarity not always present in his early years. In an essay written after World War II (but left by Lemaître in manuscript), he noted that the initial expansion of the universe from a primeval atom might be referred to as “a beginning”. But he continued:
“I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in that sense that if something has happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. A pre-existence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something starting from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.”
And so we have today the scientific world molding a cosmology that would have the Big Bang originate from "nothing".
What is the Church's view? Carroll again quotes Pius, who was referring to a universe expanding from a primordial state:
“[I]t is quite true that the facts established up to the present time are not an absolute proof of creation in time. . . . The pertinent facts of the natural sciences, to which We have referred, are awaiting still further research and confirmation, and the theories founded on them are in need of further development and proof before they can provide a sure foundation for [religious] arguments, which of themselves, are outside the proper sphere of the natural sciences.”
Carroll comments:
Pius did not claim that the new cosmology provided a scientific proof for the absolute beginning of the universe, nor that it constituted a cosmological confirmation of creation.
We must distinguish between specific arguments about creation based on cosmological theories concerning the beginning of the universe, and broader arguments about the existence of God based on our knowledge of nature and its processes. Further, knowing that God exists is not the same as knowing that God is the Creator.
In a communication to a conference in 1958 Lemaître noted, as Carroll reports:
[...] that his primeval atom hypothesis “remains outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendent Being. . . . For a believer, it removes any attempt in familiarity with God . . . [since God remains] hidden even at the beginning of the universe.”
One of the Church's most prominent thinkers, Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th Century, had already come to a conclusion on this matter, guiding the Church's approach to science in modern times. Thomas wrote, according to Carroll:
“That the world had a beginning . . . is an object of faith, but not a demonstration of science. And we do well to keep this in mind; otherwise, if we presumptuously undertake to demonstrate what is of faith, we may introduce arguments that are not strictly conclusive; and this would furnish infidels with an occasion for scoffing, as they would think that we assent to truths of faith on such grounds.”
"That with reason alone one can know God exists is traditional Catholic teaching", Carroll states, a stance built on the acknowledgement of the ancients that we perceive a reality that enables our reason to make true statements.
Further, the way the Church uses scientific findings in its metaphysical pondering is illustrated by matters highlighted by Pius in his 1951 address. Carroll writes:
Pius emphasized two topics: the mutability of things, including their origin and their end, and “the teleological order which stands out in every corner of the cosmos.” He reminded his audience that modern physics had discovered examples of mutability in the universe not dreamt of before, on the level of both the macrocosm and the microcosm: “Thus physics has provided a multiplicity of empirical facts which are of tremendous assistance to philosophical reasoning.” Pius argued that science had broadened and deepened the empirical foundation on which rests the argument from the mutability of the world to “the existence of an Ens a se [a Being that exists of and through itself], immutable by His very nature.”
The teleological order refers to the apparent purpose and beauty of the order found in the natural sphere, large and small, enabling the functioning of those seeking discoveries that are solid in reality as foundations for further exploration.
In conclusion, this post posits, firstly, that an assumed conflict between religion and science is a false perception of the Church's position, certainly, and one would hope absent from the thinking of those dedicated to the humble service of humanity, which is the vocation of the scientist. Secondly, we must take to heart the distinction between the cosmologies, that is, the theories or doctrines espoused by parties within the varies scientific communities, and the observations made. An example might be the metaphysical declarations that neuroscientists make about the non-existence of the spiritual "mind" based on their observations of the brain.
See the following posts for further interesting discussions on these matters:
💢 Gould's principle of Non-Overlapping Magisteria - go here
💢 Dali and the beauty of science - go here
💢 Big Bang Theory - go here
💢 Curious facts about Earth's existence - go here
Ω If you like this blog, go to
my Peace and Truth newsletter
on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post
is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment