In the early XVII Century, Galileo Galilei was sentenced by the Roman Inquisition to indefinite imprisonment for his support of Copernican astronomy - a heliocentric “Universe” and a spherical Earth - by providing great amounts of evidence supporting those theories. The Catholic Church didn’t appreciate the evidence because it opposed its own beliefs... Business as usual. I personally find it quite ironical that the latest discovery regarding the shape of our Universe may upset them once more. Cosmologists recently discovered that our Universe is flat! In words of Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, it is “Flat, flat, flat…flat as a pancake!” The irony is easy to catch, but how this fact should worry the Church probably isn't immediately clear. I will first attempt to explain how it is we know our Universe has that particular shape, and once I’ve done that, I’ll explore the inherent implications of a flat Universe and how much trouble they can spell for theology.
The Greek mathematician Euclid (300 B.C.) is considered the father of Geometry. He discovered something you may remember from high-school: the sum of all the angles in any given triangle will add up to 180-degrees. What you may not remember, however, is that this theorem only holds true on a flat surface like your desk, which is also known as a Euclidean space (Figure “A”). If you trace a triangle on a concave surface (like a bowl), the resulting shape will be hyperbolic, with the sum of its angles being smaller than 180-degrees (Figure “B”). And finally, if you do the same on the surface of the Earth, running along the equator and through any two meridians, the resulting shape will be a spherical triangle, with a sum of angles larger than 180-degrees (Figure “C”).
This relatively simple theorem can be used to determine the shape of the Universe; all we need is a very large ruler that can trace triangles at a cosmic scale. If the resulting triangle is spherical, it means the Universe is closed, if it’s hyperbolic, the Universe is open, and if the triangle is Euclidean, it is proof of a flat Universe. In 2001, by analyzing the results from high-altitude balloon experiments, everything indicated within 15% accuracy that the Universe is boringly flat. By using observations from WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), we now know that the Universe is flat with a margin of error of only 0.4%. The specific measuring mechanics are not easy to explain - they involve the afterglow of the Big Bang, the opaque wall created by the high temperatures of the early Universe, our relative distance to that barrier and some basic trigonometry - but the simplicity and elegance of the concept are awe-inspiring. It is not an overstatement to say these observations may very well be the greatest achievement in the history of Cosmology.
So now that we’ve proven that the Universe is flat, let’s dig a little deeper into the implications of this discovery:
A flat Universe may seem aesthetically boring, although mathematically, it is as beautiful as can be. Einstein's general relativity theory indicates that the Universe's curvature is associated with the gravitational energy of the objects it carries during its expansion. But what happens in a flat Universe (i.e. with no curvature) such as ours? The positive energy from massive objects exactly cancels out with their negative gravitational energy. Simply put, it means we live in a Universe with a total net energy equal to… this gives me goose-bumps: Zero! It is hence possible that our whole Universe popped into existence, out of absolutely nothing. How about that?
“But how did it all start?” I can almost hear
them shouting. A quantum fluctuation is one of the most educated guesses.
Quantum fluctuations are not something made-up to make this story stick
together; we can see them happening everywhere in the Universe, even in the
middle of vacuum (the most accepted definition of "nothing"). Tiny
particle pairs, blinking into existence, out of nowhere, out of nothing…
Nothingness is inherently unstable, and it is possible that one of these
quantum fluctuations set the open-ended “creation” of positive energy and
matter into motion (The Big Bang) -ever expanding, ever accelerating-, while
the resulting amount of negative energy in the form of gravity -ever more
negative- maintains the equilibrium of zero net energy. In all fairness, I
should emphasize that although a theoretical possibility, the assumption of a
quantum fluctuation as the original "trigger" still lies in the realm
of speculation. With that out of the way, I can say that I much prefer the
contemplation of unproven theoretical possibilities rather than the tedious
repetition of certified lies.
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) once asked the rhetorical question:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?” assuming there must be
someone responsible for the existence of everything. That same question has
been used over and over again, almost as a flagship, by semi-sophisticated
apologists asserting the existence of a Creator. Why should we accept the
logical fallacy of the Supernatural being at the origin of the Natural
World? It just doesn’t follow. Putting God at the beginning of space-time doesn’t
answer anything and only complicates things further. Anyone with a pulse should
then logically ask: “If a Creator created the Universe, who created this
Creator?” This will inevitably lead the asker into an infinite regression that
doesn’t help him very much in the quest for truth.
Scientists have now found a possible explanation for the creation
of everything, and if proven wrong, they will gladly dismiss the idea ipso facto
to continue searching elsewhere. Theists will inevitably make all sorts of apologies
in order to maintain the status quo. The diametrical difference between
stances clarifies everything, leaving the natural skeptic with a rather easy
choice.
The old guys in Rome, Mecca and every other
bastion of obscurantism stand on thin and receding ice… Scientific warming will
get them sooner rather than later.
Sources:
-Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing.
-NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/
-Special thanks to my childhood friend Dr. Daniel Finkelstein-Shapiro for his time and scientific insights.
-Special thanks to my childhood friend Dr. Daniel Finkelstein-Shapiro for his time and scientific insights.
No comments:
Post a Comment