- Direct measurements of the brightness and distance of objects in the universe like stars, galaxies and supernovae, which have allowed us to build a ruler of cosmic distances.
- Measurements of large-scale structure, clustering of galaxies and baryon acoustic oscillations.
- Fluctuations in the microwave cosmic background, a snapshot of the universe when it was only 380,000 years old.
there is a unique connection between the age of the universe and its expansion in the process of creating its history.
In other words, if we could measure the expansion of the universe today and how it has expanded throughout its history, we would know exactly what the various components make it up. We learned this from a number of observations, including:
You put it all together and get the Universe, which today consists of 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 4.9% ordinary matter, 0.1% neutrinos, 0.01% radiation , well, and every "little thing."
Then you look at the expansion of the universe today and extrapolate it back in time, putting together the history of the expansion of the universe, and hence its age.
We get a figure - most accurately from Planck, but augmented by other sources like supernova measurements, the key HST project, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - for the age of the universe, 13.81 billion years, give or take 120 million years. We are 99.1% certain of the age of the universe, which is pretty cool.
We have a number of different datasets that indicate such a conclusion, but they are, in fact, obtained using the same method. We're just lucky that there's a coherent picture that's all pointing in the same direction, but it's really impossible to pinpoint the age of the universe. All these points offer different probabilities, and somewhere at the intersection our opinion about the age of our world is born.
If the universe had the same properties, but consisted of 100% ordinary matter (that is, without dark matter or dark energy), our universe would be only 10 billion years old. If the Universe consisted of 5% ordinary matter (without dark matter and dark energy), and the Hubble constant were 50 km/s/Mpc instead of 70 km/s/Mpc, our Universe would be 16 billion years old. With all of this combined, we can almost certainly say that the universe is 13.81 billion years old. Figuring out this figure is a huge feat for science.
This method of clarification is rightfully the best. He is the main, confident, most complete and verified by many different clues pointing to him. But there is another method, and it is quite useful for checking our results.
It boils down to the fact that we know how stars live, how they burn their fuel and die. In particular, we know that all stars, while they live and burn through the main fuel (synthesizing helium from hydrogen), have a certain brightness and color, and remain at these specific indicators for a specific period of time: until the cores run out of fuel.
At this point, bright, blue and massive stars begin to evolve into giants or supergiants.
By looking at these points in a cluster of stars that formed at the same time, we can figure out - if we know how stars work, of course - the age of the stars in the cluster. Looking at old globular clusters, we find that these stars most often came into existence about 13.2 billion years ago. (However, there are small divergences of a billion years).
An age of 12 billion years is quite common, but an age of 14 billion years or more is something strange, although there was a period in the 90s when an age of 14-16 billion years was mentioned quite often. (Improved understanding of stars and their evolution has significantly lowered these numbers.)
So, we have two methods - cosmic history and measurements of local stars - which indicate that the age of our Universe is 13-14 billion years. It will not surprise anyone if the age is corrected to 13.6 or even 14 billion years, but it is unlikely to be 13 or 15. If you are asked, say that the age of the Universe is 13.8 billion years, there will be no complaints against you.
People have been interested in the age of the universe since ancient times. And although you can’t ask her for a passport to see her date of birth, modern science has been able to answer this question. True, only very recently.
The sages of Babylon and Greece considered the universe to be eternal and unchanging, and the Hindu chroniclers in 150 BC. determined that he was exactly 1,972,949,091 years old (by the way, in order of magnitude, they were not very wrong!). In 1642, the English theologian John Lightfoot, through a rigorous analysis of biblical texts, calculated that the creation of the world took place in 3929 BC; a few years later, the Irish Bishop James Ussher moved it to 4004. Founders modern science Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton also did not pass by this topic. Although they appealed not only to the Bible, but also to astronomy, their results turned out to be similar to the calculations of theologians - 3993 and 3988 BC. In our enlightened time, the age of the universe is determined in other ways. To see them in a historical perspective, let's first take a look at our own planet and its cosmic environment.
Divination by stones
From the second half of XVIII century, scientists began to estimate the age of the Earth and the Sun based on physical models. So, in 1787, the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc came to the conclusion that if our planet were a ball of molten iron at birth, it would need from 75 to 168 thousand years to cool to its current temperature. After 108 years, the Irish mathematician and engineer John Perry recalculated the thermal history of the Earth and determined its age at 2-3 billion years. At the very beginning of the 20th century, Lord Kelvin came to the conclusion that if the Sun gradually shrinks and shines solely due to the release of gravitational energy, then its age (and, consequently, the maximum age of the Earth and other planets) can be several hundred million years. But at that time, geologists could neither confirm nor refute these estimates due to the lack of reliable methods of geochronology.
In the middle of the first decade of the 20th century, Ernest Rutherford and the American chemist Bertram Boltwood developed the basis for radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks, which showed that Perry was much closer to the truth. In the 1920s, mineral samples were found whose radiometric age approached 2 billion years. Later, geologists repeatedly increased this value, and by now it has more than doubled - up to 4.4 billion. Additional data is provided by the study of "heavenly stones" - meteorites. Almost all radiometric estimates of their age fit into the range of 4.4–4.6 billion years.
Modern helioseismology also makes it possible to directly determine the age of the Sun, which, according to the latest data, is 4.56–4.58 billion years. Since the duration of the gravitational condensation of the protosolar cloud was estimated at only millions of years, it can be confidently asserted that no more than 4.6 billion years have passed from the beginning of this process to the present day. At the same time, the solar matter contains many elements heavier than helium, which were formed in the thermonuclear furnaces of massive stars of previous generations that burned out and exploded in supernovae. This means that the length of the existence of the universe greatly exceeds the age of the solar system. To determine the measure of this excess, you need to go first into our Galaxy, and then beyond it.
Following white dwarfs
The lifetime of our Galaxy can be determined in different ways, but we will limit ourselves to the two most reliable ones. The first method is based on monitoring the glow of white dwarfs. These compact (about the size of the Earth) and initially very hot celestial bodies represent the final stage of life of almost all but the most massive stars. To become a white dwarf, a star must completely burn out all its thermonuclear fuel and undergo several cataclysms - for example, become a red giant for a while.
A typical white dwarf is composed almost entirely of carbon and oxygen ions immersed in a degenerate electron gas and has a thin atmosphere dominated by hydrogen or helium. Its surface temperature ranges from 8,000 to 40,000 K, while the central zone is heated to millions and even tens of millions of degrees. According to theoretical models, dwarfs can also be born, consisting mainly of oxygen, neon and magnesium (into which, under certain conditions, stars with masses from 8 to 10.5 or even up to 12 solar masses), but their existence has not yet been proven. The theory also states that stars with at least half the mass of the Sun end up as helium white dwarfs. Such stars are very numerous, but they burn hydrogen extremely slowly and therefore live for many tens and hundreds of millions of years. So far, they simply haven't had enough time to run out of hydrogen fuel (the very few helium dwarfs discovered to date live in binary systems and originated in a completely different way).
Since the white dwarf cannot support thermonuclear fusion reactions, it shines due to the accumulated energy and therefore slowly cools down. The rate of this cooling can be calculated and on this basis the time required for the surface temperature to decrease from the initial temperature (for a typical dwarf it is about 150,000 K) to the observed temperature can be determined. Since we are interested in the age of the Galaxy, we should look for the longest-lived, and therefore the coldest white dwarfs. Modern telescopes make it possible to detect intragalactic dwarfs with a surface temperature of less than 4000 K, the luminosity of which is 30,000 times lower than that of the sun. Until they are found - either they are not at all, or very few. It follows from this that our Galaxy cannot be older than 15 billion years, otherwise they would be present in appreciable quantities.
This is the upper age limit. And what about the bottom? The coldest known white dwarfs were recorded by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2002 and 2007. Calculations have shown that their age is 11.5–12 billion years. To this we must add the age of the progenitor stars (from half a billion to a billion years). It follows that the Milky Way is no younger than 13 billion years. So the final estimate of its age, based on the observation of white dwarfs, is about 13–15 billion years.
natural clock
According to radiometric dating, the gray gneisses of the coast of the Great Slave Lake in northwestern Canada are now considered the oldest rocks on Earth - their age is determined at 4.03 billion years. Even earlier (4.4 billion years ago), the smallest grains of the zircon mineral, natural zirconium silicate, found in gneisses in western Australia, crystallized. And since the earth's crust already existed in those days, our planet must be somewhat older. As for meteorites, the dating of calcium-aluminum inclusions in the material of carboniferous chondrite meteorites, which practically did not change after its formation from the gas and dust cloud surrounding the newborn Sun, provides the most accurate information. The radiometric age of similar structures in the Efremovka meteorite, found in 1962 in the Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan, is 4 billion 567 million years.
Ball certificates
The second method is based on the study of globular star clusters located in the peripheral zone of the Milky Way and revolving around its core. They contain from hundreds of thousands to more than a million stars, bound by mutual attraction.
Globular clusters are found in almost all large galaxies, and their number sometimes reaches many thousands. New stars are practically not born there, but older luminaries are present in abundance. About 160 such globular clusters have been registered in our Galaxy, and perhaps two or three dozen more will be discovered. The mechanisms of their formation are not entirely clear, however, most likely, many of them arose shortly after the birth of the Galaxy itself. Therefore, the dating of the formation of the oldest globular clusters makes it possible to establish the lower limit of the galactic age.
Such dating is technically very complicated, but it is based on a very simple idea. All stars in a cluster (from the supermassive to the lightest) are formed from the same total gas cloud and therefore are born almost simultaneously. Over time, they burn out the main reserves of hydrogen - some earlier, others later. At this stage, the star leaves the main sequence and undergoes a series of transformations that culminate in either total gravitational collapse (followed by the formation of a neutron star or black hole) or the creation of a white dwarf. Therefore, studying the composition of a globular cluster makes it possible to accurately determine its age. For reliable statistics, the number of studied clusters should be at least several dozen.
This work was done three years ago by a team of astronomers using the ACS camera ( Advanced Camera for Survey) of the Hubble Space Telescope. Monitoring of 41 globular clusters in our Galaxy showed that their average age is 12.8 billion years. The record holders were the clusters NGC 6937 and NGC 6752, 7200 and 13,000 light years away from the Sun. They are almost certainly no younger than 13 billion years, with the most probable lifetime of the second cluster being 13.4 billion years (albeit with an error of plus or minus a billion).
However, our Galaxy must be older than its clusters. Its first supermassive stars exploded in supernovae and ejected into space the nuclei of many elements, in particular, the nuclei of the stable isotope of beryllium - beryllium-9. When globular clusters began to form, their newborn stars already contained beryllium, and more so the later they arose. By the content of beryllium in their atmospheres, one can find out how much younger the clusters are than the Galaxy. According to data on the NGC 6937 cluster, this difference is 200–300 Ma. So, without much stretch, we can say that the age of the Milky Way exceeds 13 billion years and possibly reaches 13.3-13.4 billion years. This is almost the same estimate as made based on the observation of white dwarfs, but it is obtained completely way.
Hubble law
The scientific formulation of the question of the age of the Universe became possible only at the beginning of the second quarter of the last century. In the late 1920s, Edwin Hubble and his assistant Milton Humason set about refining the distances to dozens of nebulae outside the Milky Way, which only a few years earlier had been considered independent galaxies.
These galaxies are moving away from the Sun with radial velocities, which have been measured from the magnitude of the redshift of their spectra. Although the distances to most of these galaxies could be determined with a large error, Hubble nevertheless found that they were approximately proportional to the radial velocities, which he wrote about in an article published in early 1929. Two years later, Hubble and Humason confirmed this conclusion based on the results of observations of other galaxies - some of them more than 100 million light-years distant.
These data formed the basis of the famous formula v = H 0 d known as Hubble's law. Here v is the radial velocity of the galaxy with respect to the Earth, d- distance, H 0 - coefficient of proportionality, whose dimension, as is easy to see, is the inverse of the dimension of time (previously it was called the Hubble constant, which is incorrect, since in previous eras the value H 0 was different than in our time). Hubble himself and many other astronomers for a long time abandoned assumptions about the physical meaning of this parameter. However, Georges Lemaitre showed back in 1927 that the general theory of relativity allows one to interpret the expansion of galaxies as evidence of the expansion of the universe. Four years later, he had the courage to take this conclusion to its logical conclusion, putting forward the hypothesis that the universe arose from an almost point-like germ, which he, for lack of better term called an atom. This original atom could remain in a static state for any time up to infinity, but its "explosion" gave rise to an expanding space filled with matter and radiation, which in a finite time gave rise to the current universe. Already in his first article, Lemaitre deduced a complete analogue of the Hubble formula and, having the data on the velocities and distances of a number of galaxies known by that time, he obtained approximately the same value of the proportionality coefficient between distances and velocities as Hubble did. However, his article was published in French in an obscure Belgian journal and at first went unnoticed. It became known to most astronomers only in 1931 after the publication of its English translation.
Hubble time
From this work of Lemaitre and later works of both Hubble himself and other cosmologists, it directly followed that the age of the Universe (of course, counted from the initial moment of its expansion) depends on the value 1/ H 0 , which is now called the Hubble time. The nature of this dependence is determined by a specific model of the universe. If we assume that we live in a flat universe filled with gravitating matter and radiation, then to calculate its age 1/ H 0 must be multiplied by 2/3.
It was here that a snag arose. From the Hubble and Humason measurements it followed that the numerical value 1/ H 0 is approximately equal to 1.8 billion years. It followed from this that the Universe was born 1.2 billion years ago, which clearly contradicted even the greatly underestimated at that time estimates of the age of the Earth. One could get out of this difficulty by assuming that galaxies move apart more slowly than Hubble thought. Over time, this assumption was confirmed, but the problem was not solved. According to the data obtained by the end of the last century with the help of optical astronomy, 1/ H 0 is from 13 to 15 billion years. So the discrepancy still remained, since the space of the Universe was and is considered to be flat, and two-thirds of the Hubble time is much less than even the most modest estimates of the age of the Galaxy.
In general terms, this contradiction was eliminated in 1998–1999, when two teams of astronomers proved that for the last 5–6 billion years, outer space has been expanding not at a falling, but at an increasing rate. This acceleration is usually explained by the fact that in our Universe the influence of the anti-gravitational factor, the so-called dark energy, whose density does not change with time, is growing. Since the density of gravitating matter falls as the Cosmos expands, dark energy competes with gravity more and more successfully. The duration of the existence of the Universe with an anti-gravitational component does not have to be equal to two-thirds of the Hubble time. Therefore, the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe (noted in 2011 Nobel Prize) made it possible to eliminate the discrepancy between cosmological and astronomical estimates of its lifetime. It also became a prelude to the development of a new method for dating her birth.
Space rhythms
On June 30, 2001, NASA sent the Explorer 80 probe into space, renamed WMAP two years later, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. His equipment made it possible to register temperature fluctuations of microwave background radiation with an angular resolution of less than three tenths of a degree. Then it was already known that the spectrum of this radiation almost completely coincides with the spectrum of an ideal black body heated to 2.725 K, and fluctuations in its temperature during “coarse-grained” measurements with an angular resolution of 10 degrees do not exceed 0.000036 K. However, on “fine-grained” On the scale of the WMAP probe, the amplitudes of such fluctuations were six times greater (about 0.0002 K). The relic radiation turned out to be spotty, closely mottled with slightly more and slightly less heated areas.
The fluctuations of the relict radiation are generated by fluctuations in the density of the electron-photon gas that once filled outer space. It dropped to near zero about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when virtually all of the free electrons combined with the nuclei of hydrogen, helium, and lithium, and thus gave rise to neutral atoms. Until this happened, the electron-photon gas propagated sound waves, which were influenced by the gravitational fields of dark matter particles. These waves, or, as astrophysicists say, acoustic oscillations, have left their imprint on the spectrum of the relic radiation. This spectrum can be deciphered using the theoretical apparatus of cosmology and magnetohydrodynamics, which makes it possible to estimate the age of the Universe in a new way. According to the latest calculations, its most probable length is 13.72 billion years. It is now considered the standard estimate of the lifetime of the Universe. If we take into account all possible inaccuracies, tolerances and approximations, we can conclude that, according to the results of the WMAP probe, the Universe has existed for 13.5 to 14 billion years.
Thus, astronomers, estimating the age of the Universe by three different ways obtained quite consistent results. Therefore, we now know (or, to put it more carefully, we think we know) when our universe arose - at least to within a few hundred million years. Probably, the descendants will add the solution of this age-old riddle to the list of the most remarkable achievements of astronomy and astrophysics.
Chapter 3 from Lisle J. Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It. Ed. 4th. Green Forest: Master Books, 2011. pp. 40–70. Per. from English: Vlasov V.; Ed.: Prokopenko A. Translated and published with the permission of the copyright holders.
Dr. Jason Lyle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he majored in physics and astronomy with a minor in mathematics. He received his master's and doctoral degrees from the University of Colorado (head office in Boulder). Dr. Lyle has done extensive research in solar astrophysics inJILA (Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics) using a spacecraftSOHO(Solar and Heliospheric Observatory). His doctoral thesis "Investigation of the dynamics of solar supergranulation and its interaction with magnetism" was devoted to the study of the state of the solar subsurface, convection cells, the structure of the solar plasma flow and surface magnetism.
Dr. Lyle's scientific discoveries include the discovery of the polar structure of supergranulation, elucidation of the cause of the anomaly called "large disc convergence" observed in correlation analysis Doppler radiation of the sun, detection of the boundaries of the giant cells of the sun, as well as the study of the causes of the "wave-like" characteristics of the solar energy spectrum.
Dr. Lyle also contributed to the development of general relativity by developing a new technique for computer analysis of trajectories in the Schwarzschild metric with subsequent application in other metrics.
In addition to secular studies, Dr. Lyle has written a number of popular articles (and reviews) for Encers in Genesis, Creation magazine, and several technical articles for the Journal of Creation. He acted as an opponent or scientific consultant for several books on the subject of astronomical aspects of the creation of the world, including: Refuting Compromise (by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati), Universe by Design (by Dr. Danny Faulkner) and Dismantling the Big Bang (by Drs. John Hartnett and Alex Williams). Dr. Lyle is a member of the Creation Research Society.
For many yo dr Lyle teaches astronomy and runs space observation programs. He is currently a Research Fellow, Author, and Speaker at Answers in Genesis in Kentucky, and Director of the Planetarium at the Creation Museum.
One point of contention between the Bible and most modern astronomers concerns the age of the universe. The Bible teaches about the age of the universe in an indirect way. In other words, it provides enough information to be able to roughly calculate how long ago God created the universe. The Bible teaches that the entire universe was created in six earth days (Ex. 20:11). In addition, some biblical genealogies give age differences between parents and offspring. Based on these data, it can be calculated that about 4,000 years elapsed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ. We know from other historical documents that Christ was born about 2,000 years ago. Since Adam was created on the sixth day of creation, we can conclude that the earth, as well as the entire universe and everything that fills it, were created about 6,000 years ago.
Many today can only chuckle when they hear such an opinion. After all, most geology and astronomy textbooks, as well as most schools and universities, teach that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is even older. However, what is the belief in billions of years based on? Why do so many scientists choose to ignore the story told by the Bible and instead believe in a vastly inflated age of the universe?
Mutual responsibility
One answer is mutual responsibility: many scientists believe that the world is old because they believe that most other scientists also believe that the world is old. Although one scientist or another may be well aware of the existence of evidence that is not consistent with the great age of the universe, it is very tempting to reject such evidence, because all those other scientists cannot be wrong! And how many of those other scientists believe in the age of the universe simply because they think other scientists believe it? As a result of mutual responsibility, the opinion of the majority can become self-sustaining: people believe because others believe so. Surprisingly, many do not see this as a problem.
Often mutual responsibility can be interdisciplinary. A geologist may be convinced that the Earth is billions of years old because most astronomers believe that the solar system is billions of years old. In turn, the astronomer can be sure that the solar system is billions of years old, since most geologists adhere to this age of the Earth. Of course, the opinion of the majority may be wrong. Indeed, many scientific discoveries went against the majority. However, the psychological pressure to agree with the opinion of the majority is a very powerful and well-studied phenomenon.
Evolution
It should be noted that most (if not all) scientists who believe in billions of years also believe in evolution. Evolution requires a huge age of the universe. It is impossible for such profound changes to occur within 6,000 years, otherwise we would not only see massive transformations all around us, but would have to have historical documents to back them up. However, we have never seen life emerge from non-life, we have never seen one living organism turn into an organism of another species with large complex changes. Not only do we not observe this, but, moreover, it seems impossible.
The imaginary billions of years are meant to give these amazing changes a plausible appearance. As Harvard biology professor George Wald put it, “Time is the hero of the story here.<…>After such a long time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes almost indisputable. You just have to wait, time itself will work miracles. Insurmountable obstacles that stand in the way of evolution are simply swept under the carpet of long epochs.
However, billions of years cannot solve all the problems associated with the theory of evolution from inorganic molecules to man. These problems have been discussed in detail in numerous publications posted on our website answersingenesis.org, so there is no need to digress into them in a book on astronomy. Now the most important thing is to note that evolution requires huge periods of time. This is an example of how worldview can influence the interpretation of evidence. Evolutionists must believe in vast spans of time. Their preconceived worldview does not allow them to consider the possibility that the universe may be only a few thousand years old, no matter what the written history of mankind teaches and no matter what scientific evidence is given. Those who reject the theory of evolution from inorganic molecules to humans should keep this in mind before accepting the enormous age of the universe.
Big Bang
I found that most people who believe in billions of years also believe in the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is a secular, speculative alternative to the biblical account of the origin of the universe. This is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God. This theory can be considered the cosmic equivalent of human evolution. Unfortunately, many Christians bought into the idea of the Big Bang, not realizing that it is based on an anti-biblical philosophy of naturalism (there is no God, nature is all that is and ever was). In addition, they are generally unaware that the Big Bang is in some respects contrary to the Bible and fraught with many scientific problems.
According to the idea of the Big Bang, the universe is almost 14 billion years old, while the Bible indicates that the age of the universe is about 6,000 years. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be enough to reject the Big Bang theory. This theory changes the age of the universe by more than two million times! But it's not just the timeline that's the problem; The Bible gives a different order of events than modern secular theories suggest. The Big Bang Theory/Naturalist view teaches that stars formed before Earth, fish before fruit trees, and the Sun long before plants. However, the Bible teaches otherwise: the earth was before the stars, fruit trees before fish, and plants were created before the sun.
The Big Bang is not only a story about a supposed past, but also a story about a supposed future. According to the modern version of the Big Bang, the Universe will expand indefinitely, while cooling down more and more. Useful energy will become more and more scarce and eventually run out altogether, and then the Universe will suffer "heat death". There will be no more heat left, so the universe will have a temperature close to absolute zero. Life will become impossible as useful energy disappears.
Heat death is a rather grim scenario, and one that is fundamentally different from the future the Bible talks about. Scripture indicates that the Lord will return in the future for judgment. Paradise lost in Genesis will be restored. There will be no heat death, nor ordinary human or animal death, as there will be no more curse. New Earth will forever remain perfect in the presence of the Lord. Many Christians are inconsistent: they accept what the Big Bang says about the past (in favor of the Bible) but reject what it says about the future (in favor of the Bible).
Background of naturalism and uniformitarianism
Many people may hold a vastly inflated age for the earth and universe due to a belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism. Recall that the naturalistic worldview teaches that there is nothing outside of nature. From this point of view, the Universe and everything in it happened with the help of the same processes that can be observed in the Universe at the present time. Naturalism is, of course, an unbiblical concept, since the Bible makes it clear that God created the universe in a supernatural way. Naturalism often leads to exaggerated estimates of age when applied to things of a supernatural origin.
As an example, consider the first person. As you know, Adam was created as an adult, fully formed man. Suppose we were asked to estimate Adam's age on the seventh day, just 24 hours after God created him. If we were to proceed from the erroneous assumption that Adam was not created in a supernatural way, but appeared in the way all people appear today, then we would get a significantly overestimated age. A naturalist might assume that one-day-old Adam was about thirty years old, wrongly believing that he grew up in the same way that other people grow and mature today. Naturalism leads to an overestimation of the age of Adam by about 10,000 times, but the universe was also created in a supernatural way. Anyone who denies this is likely to conclude that the age of the universe is many times greater than it actually is.
Belief in uniformitarianism can also lead to a serious overestimation of age. Uniformism (uniformity) is the idea that most things in our world (such as mountains and canyons) were shaped by processes that went on at the same speed and intensity as they currently do. People who subscribe to the uniformitarian hypothesis assume that radioactive decay has always occurred at the same rate, that canyons have generally eroded at the same rate as they do today, and that mountains formed at the same rate as they do today. Supporters of this hypothesis, of course, deny the global flood (Gen. 6:8), since it does not fit into the framework of the average statistical intensity of natural processes. Uniformism can be summarized by the phrase: "the present is the key to the past."
However, both naturalism and uniformitarianism are just philosophical hypotheses. Moreover, both of them are anti-Biblical, since the Bible teaches about supernatural creation and the global flood. Moreover, naturalism and uniformitarianism can lead to conflicting conclusions (as we shall see) that call into question the reliability of these assumptions.
The problem of the light of distant stars
One of the most common objections to young age The universe is often referred to as the problem of the light of distant stars. There are galaxies in the universe that are incredibly far away. These distances are so large that even light would take billions of years to travel from these galaxies to Earth. However, we see these galaxies, which means that the light came from there to here. Since this process involves billions of years, the universe must be at least billions of years old, which is much longer than the age the Bible says. In this regard, it is argued that the light of distant stars supports the Big Bang theory.
However, there are actually several different natural mechanisms by which God could bring starlight to Earth in just a few thousand years. These mechanisms have been discussed in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now the Journal of Creation) and elsewhere, so there is no need to repeat them here (for more information, see Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old). ?). Here I would like to note that this objection in itself is not valid. The argument that distant starlight refutes the biblical account of creation and supports the Big Bang theory is based on fallacious reasoning.
First, note that the argument from the distant light of the stars is based on the erroneous premises of naturalism and uniformitarianism. He assumes that the light came to us in a completely natural way and traveled at a constant speed, covering the same distance at any given moment. Of course, God could well have used purely natural processes to bring light to the Earth. It can also be assumed that some phenomena that are considered constants (for example, the speed of light) are really constants. But is there any logical reason that would make us automatically assume in advance that this is so, and nothing else?
God created the stars to shine on the earth. This happened during creation week, when God created in a supernatural way. Evolutionists insist that if we cannot show natural mechanism for a particular event of creation week (like the light of distant stars), then the Bible is untrustworthy. Because many of the events that took place during creation week were supernatural inherently, it is irrational to demand a natural explanation for them. It is ridiculous to claim that the supernatural explanation is wrong simply because it cannot be explained by natural causes. This would be a closed argument. Of course, there is nothing reprehensible in asking: “Did God use natural processes to bring the light of the stars to the Earth. And if so, what is their mechanism? However, if there is no obvious natural mechanism, this can no more be a reason for legitimate criticism of supernatural creation than the absence of a natural mechanism for the resurrection of Christ can be a reason for nullifying this event.
Travel time of light: a problem for the Big Bang
There is another major flaw in rejecting the Bible in favor of the Big Bang on the basis of the time it takes light (for example, light from distant stars) to travel. The travel time of light also poses a problem for the Big Bang theory! The fact is that in the Big Bang model, light needs to travel a distance much greater than is possible within 14 billion years. This serious difficulty is called the problem of the horizon of the universe.
In-Depth Review:
The problem of the horizon of the universe
In the Big Bang model, the universe began in an infinitesimal state called a cosmological singularity and then began to expand rapidly. According to this model, when the universe was still very small, it had different temperatures at different points. Suppose point A is hot and point B is cold. By now, the universe has expanded, and points A and B are far apart.
However, different points in the universe have a very uniform temperature, including the most distant known galaxies. In other words, points A and B now have almost the same temperature. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation emanating in all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the cosmic microwave background. The radiation frequencies have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K and are extremely uniform in all directions. Temperature readings deviate only by thousandths of a degree.
The problem is this: how did the same temperature arise at points A and B? This is possible only through the exchange of energy. There are many systems where this happens. Consider, as an example, an ice cube that is placed in hot coffee: the ice heats up, and the coffee cools down - energy is exchanged. In addition to direct contact, point A can transfer energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light). (This is the most fast way transfer of energy, since nothing can move faster than light.) However, if one follows the premises of the Big Bang theory (that is, uniformitarianism and naturalism), then 14 billion years will not be enough for points A and B to exchange energy: they are too far apart. This is a very serious problem. After all, points A and B currently have the same temperature, which means they must have exchanged light energy multiple times.
Proponents of the Big Bang put forward a number of hypotheses aimed at solving this problem. One of the most popular is called the inflation hypothesis. In the inflationary model, the Universe has two expansion rates: normal and increased (inflationary). The universe begins to expand at its normal rate (actually it is still very fast, but slower than the next phase). It then enters the inflationary phase, where the universe is expanding at a much faster rate. The expansion of the universe then returns to normal speed. All this happens at the very beginning, long before the formation of stars and galaxies.
The inflationary model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first expansion at a normal rate), and then move away sharply during the inflationary phase to the vast distances they are today. However, it is important to note that the inflationary model is nothing more than a beautiful fairy tale, without any supporting evidence. This is just a speculative hypothesis, designed to iron out the contradictions of the Big Bang theory. In addition, inflation introduces an additional set of problems and difficulties into the Big Bang model. For example, what could cause such inflation, and as a result of which it stopped? A growing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting the inflationary model for these and other reasons. Obviously, the problem of the horizon of the Universe remains a serious problem for the Big Bang.
The critic might suggest that the Big Bang theory provides a better explanation of the origin of the world than the Bible, since the biblical concept of creation is confronted with the problem of the time of the movement of light - the light of distant stars. However, such an argument is not rational, since the Big Bang is also not without its share of problems associated with the time of light travel. If both models are essentially subject to the same problem, then that problem cannot be invoked to favor one model over the other. Thus, the light of distant stars cannot be used to reject the biblical concept in favor of the Big Bang.
Compromise Attempts
Belief in billions of years has been entrenched in our culture, even in the church. Many Christians have accepted the fallacious starlight argument or other eisegetical claims based on anti-biblical premises. As a result, many Christians have compromised by trying to add billions of years to the Bible. One of the most common attempts to reconcile the Bible with billions of years is called the day-age theory. According to this view, the days of creation were not actual days, but rather vast epochs of many millions of years each. According to the idea of days-ages, God created the world in six long periods.
It is important to note that even if the position of the days-ages were true, this would not bring the Bible and the secular history of the origin of the world into line, since the order of events between them differs. Recall that the Big Bang theory teaches that stars existed long before fruit trees, which appeared after fish. The Bible teaches that the fishes were created on the 5th day after the stars, which in turn were created on the 4th day, and after the trees, which were made the day before, no matter how long the days were.
Supporters of days-epochs note that in Hebrew the word "day" ( yom) does not always mean a day in the usual sense, but can sometimes mean an indefinite period. Indeed, in some contexts "day" can mean a longer period of time, but not in the context of the days of creation. In a similar way, English word"day" in some phrases can mean an indefinite period of time, as in "back in grandfather's day". However, it will not mean indefinitely in other contexts such as "five days ago", "on the third day", "day after night", "morning of the day", "evening of the same day", "evening and morning ". Obviously, in the preceding phrases, the word "day" must mean an ordinary day, and not an indefinite period of time.
Hebrew also follows grammatical rules and, like English, the meaning of a word is always determined by the context. The Hebrew word for "day" means an ordinary day (and is never translated as "time") in the following contexts:
1. In combination with an ordinal number (“on the first day”, “on the third day”, etc.), a day means an ordinary day, not a period of time.
2. In close connection with the word "morning" (eg, "and it was the morning of such and such a day") day means an ordinary day, not a period of time.
3. In close connection with the word "evening" (eg, "and it was the evening of such and such a day") day means an ordinary day, not a period of time.
4. When the words "evening" and "morning" occur together (e.g. "and there was evening and there was morning", even if the word "day" is not mentioned), then this refers to an ordinary day, not an indefinite period of time.
5. When day is contrasted with night (eg, "there was night, then day"), day means an ordinary day, not an indefinite period of time.
As can be seen from the first chapter of Genesis, the days of creation are accompanied by all these context indicators at once. Therefore, the context requires that the days of creation be understood as common days rather than long periods of time. It would be a mistake to try to read the day in Genesis 1 as a period of time when the context clearly rules out such a meaning. This error is called unreasonable expansion of the semantic field. The idea of days-epochs does not correspond to sound logical principles. This is simply a failed attempt to make the Bible compatible with anti-biblical ideas.
Ultimately, the Bible teaches that God created everything in six days, while the secular view is that the universe evolved over billions of years. Each of us must decide whether we will trust man's secular opinion or the clear teaching of the Bible. As demonstrated in the previous chapter, the Bible has always been right when it comes to astronomy.
It is important to remember that the period in which we live is little different from many others. historical eras. During this period, people will also scoff at the belief in the "young universe." Many of them will similarly scoff at the belief that Jesus Christ is the one true God, or even at the belief in the existence of a Creator. However, the Bible has always been proven right in the past. Therefore, there is no need to succumb to the pressure of human opinion.
Scientific evidence confirms the young age of the universe
The scientific evidence is in good agreement with what the Bible says about the age of the universe. Why, then, do many secular scientists believe that they are pointing to several billion years? People who believe in the Big Bang are generally inclined to interpret the data in accordance with the Big Bang theory (sometimes without even realizing it). In other words, they assume in advance that the Big Bang is a valid theory, so they interpret the data according to their beliefs. We all interpret data in the light of our worldview, there's no getting around it. However, the Bible can also be used to interpret evidence. Since the Bible contains the true history of the universe, we will see what it gives scientific evidence much more sense than the Big Bang theory. Let's now look at some facts about the universe.
We will see that the evidence agrees well with an age of 6,000 years, but does not make as much sense if one sticks to the Big Bang.
Of course, Big Bang proponents can always reinterpret the data by adding additional assumptions. Therefore, we do not assume that the facts below will "prove" once and for all that the Bible is right about the age of the universe. The Bible is right in all matters simply because it is the Word of God. However, when we think about the scientific data, we will find that it agrees well with what the Bible teaches. And of course, the evidence is consistent with a young (about 6,000 years old) age of the universe.
Moon receding
As the Moon rotates around the Earth, its gravity affects the Earth's oceans, causing the tides to ebb and flow. The Earth rotates faster than the Moon, so the tidal wave caused by the Moon is always "ahead" of the Moon. For this reason, the ebb and flow of the tide actually pulls the Moon "forward", causing the Moon to spiral away. Because of this tidal interaction, the Moon moves away from the Earth by an inch and a half each year. Thus, in the past, the Moon must have been closer to the Earth.
Six thousand years ago, the Moon would have been 800 feet (250 m) closer to the Earth (which is not much, given the distance of a quarter of a million miles, or 400 thousand km, separating us). So the position of the moon is not a problem for the biblical time scale of 6,000 years. But if the Earth and Moon have been around for more than 4 billion years (as Big Bang proponents teach), then there are big problems, because the Moon would have been so close that it would have actually touched the Earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the Moon cannot be as old as secular astronomers claim.
For secular astronomers who believe the Big Bang theory is correct, some explanation is needed to get around this difficulty. For example, they might assume that the rate at which the moon is receding was actually slower in the past (for whatever reason). However, these are additional assumptions made solely to make the billion-year model viable.
A simpler explanation is that the moon hasn't been around that long. The moon's receding is a problem for the billions of years belief, but fits perfectly with the young age of the universe.
In-Depth Review:
Moon receding
A tidal bulge occurs because the Moon is closer to one side of the Earth than the other, and therefore its gravity has a stronger effect on the side closest to it. As a result of this, the shape of the Earth becomes slightly elliptical. The height of the tidal bulge would be greater if the Moon were closer to the Earth. The Earth rotates faster than the Moon, so the tidal bulge is always ahead of the Moon. The bulge transfers angular momentum and kinetic energy, increasing the Moon's orbital energy, which causes it to move away from Earth. The speed of this receding is approximately inversely proportional to the distance from the Earth to the Moon to the sixth power. As a first approximation, this can be shown as follows:
Tidal bulges can be represented as a dipole (two points far from the center of the Earth). The dipole separation is proportional to 1/r 3 , where r is the Earth's distance from the Moon. Thus, we can expect that the height of the tidal bulge is rounded h = 1/r 3 . However, the force with which the tidal bulges affect the Moon also goes as h/r 3 for a given altitude (h). Thus, we expect the rate of periodic receding to be approximately 1/r 6 .
It follows that the equation describing tidal removal is:
dr/dt = k/r 6
The constant k can be found using the current measured lunar removal rate: 3.8 cm/yr. Thus, k \u003d r 6 dr / dt \u003d (384401 km) 6 x (0.000038 km / year) \u003d 1.2 x 10 29 km 7 / year. Equation for the distance of the Moon from the Earth permitted for extreme value (upper limit for the age of the moon) as follows:
Here T is the maximum age of the Moon based on the assumption that it has moved away from zero to the current distance R = 384401 km. Plugging in known quantities into this equation gives an upper limit on the age of the Earth-Moon system T = 1.5 billion years, which is much less than the 4.5 billion years that evolutionists insist on.
Since critics of biblical creation cannot agree with this conclusion, they are forced to accept secondary assumptions in order to fit the known numbers to their theory. Some have suggested that k may not be constant all the time; perhaps a different distribution of continents in the past influenced the tidal action of the Earth's oceans. This assumption does not necessarily solve the problem. First, a different continental distribution does not guarantee that k would be smaller; and if this value turned out to be greater, then the problem would only get worse.
Second, in order to mitigate the problem, k would have to be substantially smaller. Third, the geological evidence argues against this assertion, even if we accept the evolutionary interpretation of these data, based on the great age of the Earth. Tidal curves that have been studied by secular scientists agree that k has been roughly constant over geologic time (using evolutionary dating methods). Also, there is no evidence of the high tidal waves that would occur if the Moon were very close to the Earth. Of course, this is what biblical creationists would expect, since at creation, approximately 6,000 years ago, the Moon was only 800 feet (250 m) closer than it is now.
Earth's magnetic field
Most people are at least somewhat familiar with magnets, like the ones you hang on your refrigerator door. Magnets have an almost "magical" ability to attract other magnets or certain metals from a distance, so that it seems as if they are penetrating space with some invisible fingers. The space surrounding a magnet, which exerts a force on other magnets, is called a "magnetic field". Magnetic fields are caused by electric current - the movement of charged particles.
The Earth's magnetic field is simply a "dipole", that is, it has two poles: north and south. This dipole roughly corresponds to the Earth's axis of rotation (approximately 11.5 degrees deviation). That is, the north magnetic pole is close to the north pole of the earth's rotation. That is why the compass points approximately to the north, its arrow is oriented in accordance with geomagnetic field. The magnetic field surrounds the Earth and plays an important role. The universe contains radiation that is harmful to living tissues. The Earth's magnetic field protects life by deflecting dangerous cosmic rays. The atmosphere provides additional protection.
The Earth's magnetic field is due to the presence of electric currents in its structure. Such currents encounter electrical resistance and so they naturally weaken over time. Therefore, we expect the Earth's magnetic field to weaken over time. We have been able to measure the strength of the magnetic field for over a century, and predictably, we have found that the Earth's magnetic field is indeed weakening. Every century, the magnetic field weakens by about 5 percent. As the Earth's magnetic field weakens over time, it should have been much stronger in the past. Around 6,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been much stronger, but still perfect for life.
However, if the Earth were many millions of years old, then in the hypothetical distant past, the geomagnetic field would be so strong that life would be simply impossible.
In-Depth Review:
Bypassing the magnetic field evidence
Direct interpretation of the data indicating that the Earth is not billions of years old is, of course, intolerable to evolutionists. Therefore, additional assumptions are required to explain this evidence within the naturalistic worldview. So far, however, secular explanations have not been able to withstand scrutiny. For example, some secular scientists have suggested that only the dipole component of the earth's magnetic field is decreasing, and the energy of the non-dipole components is increasing to compensate. They assumed that the total energy of the Earth's magnetic field was not thus reduced. However, this is not the case; any increase in the non-dipole region has been shown to be much smaller than the decrease in the dipole region. Thus, the total energy of the Earth's magnetic field decreases and therefore supports the relatively recent emergence of the world.
Magnetic fields of the planets
Many of the planets in the solar system also have strong dipole magnetic fields. For example, Jupiter has an extremely powerful magnetic field. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune are also quite strong. If these planets are indeed billions of years old (as secular astronomers believe), their magnetic fields should have become extremely weak by now. However, this is not true. A reasonable explanation is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
The suggestion that the solar system is only a few thousand years old is, of course, intolerable to those who believe in macroevolution. Billions of years are necessary for their worldview and must be protected at all costs. Therefore, the obvious facts pointing to the young age of the Universe need to find some alternative explanation. For example, secular astronomers have suggested that planetary magnetic fields can "recharge" over time. In particular, they refer to the idea of a "magnetic dynamo" that amplifies the planet's magnetic field. The essence of this hypothesis is that movement within the planets can regenerate magnetic fields, so that the overall strength of the field will not weaken. However, the planets do not meet the conditions necessary for the implementation of such a mechanism. The simplest explanation is that the age of the solar system is much less than billions of years.
In-Depth Review:
Magnetic dynamo and magnetic decay
Magnetic and electrical energy can be obtained from mechanical energy (motion). The operation of the generator in the car is based on this principle. Of course, there are places in the universe where mechanical energy is converted into a magnetic field. It is likely that the Sun undergoes just such a process, it changes its magnetic field every 11 years. Many secular astronomers believe that the planets also go through such a process (although this is not currently observed). However, the fact that such processes can occur (the earth's rocks hold strong evidence of magnetic field changes, and creationists have an acceptable theory on this) does not necessarily solve the problem of a strong magnetic field for the "old" universe.
First, the electromagnetic-mechanical system must be properly tuned in order to cause the total energy of the magnetic field to increase. There is no guarantee that the vigorous movements that cause the magnetic field to change can actually replenish the overall energy of the magnetic field and prevent its gradual decrease. In fact, such changes in the magnetic field may even accelerate the decay of the overall field, as may be the case with the Sun.
Secondly, there are many good reasons to believe that the magnetic fields of the planets are not dynamos and are very different from the Sun. The sun is so hot that most of its atoms are ionized: in a state of matter called plasma, electrons are torn off from their nuclei. Plasma is very sensitive to magnetic fields and interacts with them much stronger than neutral gas. The turbulent motions within the Sun are constantly producing chaotic manifestations of magnetism. However, the planets are not made of plasma and do not move in the same way that we observe on the Sun. In addition, for the process by which the Sun is believed to change its magnetic field to take place, the axis of rotation must align almost exactly with the magnetic poles. This is the case for the Sun, but not for the planets. Moreover, the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune are strongly tilted with respect to their axes of rotation.
The Sun also has strong toroidal magnetic fields (in addition to a dipole field). Unlike a dipole field, which has north and south poles, toroidal magnetic fields make a complete loop around the sun, forming clusters that are parallel to the solar equator. At least one group exists in the northern hemisphere and another is in southern hemisphere with opposite polarity.
Sunspots usually occur at the latitudes of these toroidal groups. Toroidal magnetic fields are crucial in the process of changing the Sun's magnetic field, but the planets do not have a strong toroidal magnetic field. In addition, there is no evidence that planetary magnetic fields today are reversible, similar to the magnetic field of the Sun. The planetary magnetic fields currently observed are consistent with simple decay resulting from electrical resistance.
Magnetic fields confirm recent creation
Dr. Russ Humphries (Ph.D. in physics and biblical creationist) has proposed a model of planetary magnetic fields that can explain their current state in terms of biblical creation. The model estimates the initial strength of each magnetic field at the time it was created, then calculates their current state based on 6,000 years of electrical resistance decay. Impressively, this biblical model is able to measure the magnetic fields of all known planets and even many of their moons.
Of course, almost any model can be "corrected" to fit existing data, but what's impressive is that Dr. Humphries' model successfully predicted the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune even before they were measured by spacecraft." Voyager." Concrete positive results are a sign of a good scientific model. Dr. Humphreys also predicted that Mars would have a residual (permanent) magnetism, which is now confirmed. Remanent magnetism occurs in rocks that cool and solidify in the presence of an external magnetic field. Such magnetism is also present on the Moon. This confirms that both the Moon and Mars once had a strong magnetic field, as expected in the Humphreys model. The planetary magnetic fields fully support the biblical age of the solar system.
In-Depth Review:
Dr. Humphreys Model of the Planetary Magnetic Field
Dr. Russ Humphreys created a model of planetary magnetic fields based on creation theory. This model suggests that when God created the planets of the solar system, He made them primarily from water, which He then supernaturally transformed into the substances that make up the planets today. This idea can be suggested (at least for the Earth) based on texts such as 2 Peter 3:5. Water molecules can have a small magnetic field of their own due to the quantum rotation of a proton in each of the two hydrogen atoms. If a significant portion of these molecular magnetic fields had aligned when the planets were originally created, they would have produced a strong dipole magnetic field. Although molecular alignment would quickly cease due to random thermal motion molecules, the magnetic field would induce electric currents that would maintain the strength of the magnetic field.
After God transforms water into other materials, the electric current that maintains the magnetic field will begin to decay, as it will meet electrical resistance inside the materials. The greater the electrical conductivity of the material, the longer it will take for the magnetic field to decay. To calculate the strength of the current magnetic field of any planet, you need to know the initial magnetic field of the planet, and then reduce it by an amount corresponding to six thousand years of decay of the magnetic field. The decay rate is calculated from (1) the sum of the alignment (k) of the original magnetic fields and (2) the size of the planet's conductive core. Larger nuclei will allow electric currents to last longer, so the magnetic field will take longer to decay.
The mass of each of the planets is well known and can be calculated very accurately from the periods of any orbiting satellites (or the trajectories of space probes nearby). The size of the planet's core and the magnitude of the conductivity can be estimated just as well. The only free model parameter is the sum of the initial alignment, which can be between k = 0 (no molecular alignment) and k = 1 (maximum alignment). At present time dr Humphreys believes that the data is most consistent with k = 1. Using this value, the current Earth's magnetic field is quite consistent with this model. Also, since k cannot be greater than 1, this places an absolute upper limit on all the magnetic fields of the Sun and planets. Indeed, none of the known magnetic fields in the solar system exceed the upper limit predicted by this model. The available evidence suggests that they were fairly close to this limit when they were created about 6,000 years ago. These testimonies fit very well into the biblical chronological scale.
spiral galaxies
A galaxy is a huge collection of stars, interstellar gas and dust. Galaxies can vary in size and contain anywhere from a million to a trillion stars. Our galaxy (the Milky Way) contains over 100 billion stars. Galaxies vary in shape: they can be round or elliptical, and some have irregular shape, for example, the clouds of Magellan are two galaxies that are satellites of the Milky Way. Spiral galaxies are especially beautiful. A spiral galaxy has a flat disk shape with a central bulge. The disk contains spiral arms - regions with a large number of stars, which extend from the periphery of the galaxy to the core.
Spiral galaxies rotate slowly, but their inner regions rotate faster than their outer regions - this is called "differential rotation". This means that spiral galaxies are continuously twisting, becoming more and more dense. In a few hundred million years, the galaxy will be so twisted that the spiral structure will no longer be visible. According to the Big Bang theory, galaxies must be many billions of years old, but we still see many spiral galaxies. This suggests that they are nowhere near as old as Big Bang proponents claim. Spiral galaxies are quite compatible with the biblical age of the universe, but are problematic for belief in billions of years.
To explain how new spiral arms are formed while old ones are bent beyond recognition, secular astronomers have proposed the theory of "spiral density waves". The idea is that as density waves travel through the galaxy, they stimulate the growth of new stars. Of course, such waves are not actually observed, so this idea remains only a hypothesis. In addition, the concept of spiral density waves suggests that stars can form spontaneously. While virtually all secular astronomers accept this hypothesis, spontaneous star formation comes with significant problems of its own. In addition, there are difficulties in explaining how this imaginary density wave can arise. Such complications are unnecessary if we accept the simplest interpretation of the evidence: galaxies are not billions of years old.
Comets
Comets are blocks of ice and mud that revolve around the sun, often in highly eccentric orbits. The solid central part of a comet is called the nucleus. Typically, a comet is surrounded by a region of vaporized matter that looks like a faint "fog" - this is called a "coma". Comets spend most of their time moving slowly near the point in their orbit that is furthest from the Sun (aphelion). As they approach the Sun, they accelerate, moving fastest at their closest point to the Sun (perihelion). It is at this point of approach that many comets have a "tail" - a stream of evaporating material that extends from the comet. The tail is directed away from the Sun because the material is shifted by the solar wind and radiation. Often there are two tails: an ion tail, consisting of light charged particles, and a dust tail containing heavy materials. The ion tail is bluish in color and points directly perpendicular to the Sun. The dust tail is white and usually curved. Sometimes only one of the two tails is visible.
The tail of a comet is a sign that its life cannot last forever. The comet is shedding material, getting smaller each time it passes near the Sun. It has been calculated that a typical comet can only orbit the sun for about 100,000 years before the material is completely exhausted. (This is, of course, an average figure; the actual lifetime of a comet will depend on how big it was from the beginning, as well as on the parameters of its orbit.) Since there are many more comets, this suggests that solar system much younger than 100,000 years old. This is in perfect harmony with the Bible. Obviously, 4.5 billion years would be an absurdly high age for comets.
How do secular astronomers try to reconcile this with the belief in billions of years? Since a comet's life cannot last that long, evolutionary astronomers assume that new comets appear in the solar system to replace those that have disappeared, so they came up with the so-called "Oort Cloud". It is assumed that this should be a huge reservoir of ice masses in orbit far from the Sun. According to this hypothesis, sometimes ice masses fall into the interior of the solar system, becoming "new" comets. Interestingly, there is currently no evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud, and there is no reason to believe it if we accept the creation described in Genesis. The presence of comets is consistent with the fact that the solar system is young.
Conclusion
Obviously, there is a lot of scientific evidence that is fully consistent with the biblical age of the universe, but which is difficult to reconcile with belief in billions of years. Big bang proponents can always come up with tricks to get around this evidence, but we have seen that when we use the Bible to understand the age of the universe, the evidence is certainly compelling.
In most of the arguments for a young universe discussed above, we have used uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions, which of course we do not accept. We deliberately used the assumptions of the opposite side to show that they lead to contradictions. For example, we showed that assuming the Moon formed 4.5 billion years ago and that the rate of receding in the spiral did not change (so that the ratio 1/r 6 was maintained), then the Moon could not be older than 1.5 billion years - and this is in clear conflict with dominant theory. Such inconsistencies are often found in unbiblical worldviews.
Uniformitarianism is a blind philosophical assumption, not a conclusion based on evidence. Also, it is incompatible with the Bible. The present is not the key to the past. Quite the contrary: the past is the key to the present! The Bible is the revelation of the Creator, God, who knows everything and gave us accurate information. The Bible (which talks about the past) is the key to understanding our world. When we start from the biblical evidence, the observed facts form a coherent picture. There is nothing surprising in the fact that planets have strong magnetic fields, galaxies are not twisted and comets still exist. All these phenomena are quite expected from the point of view of the biblical worldview. The Bible is true, and the evidence confirms that the universe is not billions, but thousands of years old.
There is evidence that the Earth experienced temporary reversals of the magnetic field during the annual Flood due to the huge tectonic activity that disrupted the circulation of electric currents in the core.
Humphreys D.R. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields // Creation Research Society Quarterly. No. 21/3. December 1984.
However, Pluto's magnetic field has not yet been measured. According to Dr. Humphreys' model, Pluto should not have a strong magnetic field.
URL: www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0403.pdf (accessed 01/31/2013). S. 8.
V quantum physics particles often behave as if they are spinning. This property is called "spin" because particles have angular momentum. This is similar to the rotation of large objects, except that, at the quantum level, angular momentum only appears at discrete values.
Named after the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort.
There is a lot of conjecture about how old the Universe is at the moment. With absolute certainty, it is impossible to answer the question of her age now. And it is unlikely that one will ever be able to find an exact answer to it. But scientists have done a lot of research and calculations, so now this topic has a more or less clear outline.
Definition
Before starting a story about how old the Universe is, it is worth making a reservation: its age is counted from the moment it began to expand.
To clarify these data, an ΛCDM model was created. Scientists claim that it can predict the moments of the beginning of various eras. But also, how old the Universe is, you can find out by finding the oldest objects, by calculating their age.
In addition, periodization is of great importance. In our time, there are three eras about which certain information is known. The first is the earliest. It is called the Planck time (10 -43 s after the Big Bang). According to scientists, this period lasted up to 10 -11 s. The next epoch lasted up to 10 -2 s. It is characterized by the appearance of quark particles - this is a component of hadrons, that is, elementary particles involved in nuclear interactions.
And the last era is modern. It began 0.01 seconds after the Big Bang. And in fact, the modern era continues to this day.
In general, according to modern data, the universe is now 13.75 billion years old. Adjustment allowed (± 0.11 billion).
Calculation methods taking into account cold stars
There is another way to find out how old the universe is. And it consists in monitoring the glow of the so-called white dwarfs. They are celestial bodies high temperature rather small sizes. Approximately the size of the Earth. They represent the last stage in the existence of any star. Except for those that are gigantic in size. It turns into a star after all its thermonuclear fuel is burned. Before that, she is still undergoing some cataclysms. For example, for some time it becomes a red giant.
And how can you find out how old the universe is with white dwarfs? Not to say that it's easy, but scientists do it. Dwarfs burn their hydrogen very slowly, so they can live for hundreds of millions of years. And all this time they glow thanks to the accumulated energy. And at the same time they cool down. And scientists, calculating the rate of their cooling, determine the amount of time that it takes for a star to reduce the temperature from the one that was the original one (as a rule, it is 150,000 K). To calculate how many years the Universe has existed, you need to find the coldest white dwarfs. At the moment, it was possible to find stars with a temperature of 4000 K. Scientists, having carefully studied all the data, taking into account this information, assure that our Universe cannot be older than 15 billion years.
Study of globular clusters of stars
It is worth referring to this method, talking about how old the Universe is, according to scientists. These clusters are located in the outer zone of the Milky Way. And they revolve around its core. And determining the date of their formation helps to find out the lower limit of the age of our Universe.
The method is technically difficult. However, at its core lies the simplest idea. After all, all clusters appear from one cloud. So they appear, one might say, at the same time. And for a certain time, hydrogen is burned in certain quantities. How does it all end? The appearance of a white dwarf or the formation of a neutron star.
A few years ago, this kind of research was carried out by astronauts using the ACS camera of the space telescope known as the Hubble. So according to scientists, how old is the universe? The astronauts figured out the answer, and it matches the official data. The age of the clusters they studied averaged 12.8 billion years. The most "senior" turned out to be 13.4 billion.
About cosmic rhythms
Here, in general, we managed to find out according to the calculations of scientists. It is impossible to know exactly how old the Universe is, but more approximate information can be found out by paying attention to cosmic rhythms. Their study was carried out by the Explorer 80 probe about 15 years ago. Temperature fluctuations were taken into account and If you do not go into details, we managed to find out that our Universe is most likely 13.5-14 billion years old.
In general, things may not be as we expect. After all, space is a surprisingly huge and almost unknown space. But the good news is that his research is actively continuing.
An important role in determining the age of the Universe is played by the allocation of stages of its development from the beginning of the Big Bang.
Evolution of the Universe and stages of its development
Today it is customary to distinguish the following phases of the development of the Universe:
- Planck time - period from 10 -43 to 10 -11 seconds. In this short period of time, as scientists believe, the gravitational force "separated" from the rest of the forces of interaction.
- The epoch of the birth of quarks is from 10 -11 to 10 -2 seconds. This period saw the birth of quarks and the separation of the known physical strength interactions.
- The modern era - began 0.01 seconds after the Big Bang and continues now. During this period of time, all elementary particles, atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies were formed.
It is worth noting that an important period in the development of the Universe is the time when it became transparent to radiation - three hundred and eighty thousand years after the Big Bang.
Methods for determining the age of the universe
How old is the universe? Before trying to find out, it is worth noting that her age is considered from the time of the Big Bang. Today, no one can say with complete certainty how many years ago the Universe appeared. If you look at the trend, then over time, scientists come to the conclusion that her age is greater than previously thought.
The latest calculations by scientists show that the age of our Universe is 13.75±0.13 billion years. According to some experts, the final figure may be revised in the near future and adjusted to fifteen billion years.
The modern way of estimating the age of outer space is based on the study of "ancient" stars, clusters, and undeveloped space objects. The technology for calculating the age of the Universe is a complex and capacious process. We will consider only some principles and methods of calculation.
Massive clusters of stars
In order to determine how old the Universe is, scientists examine areas of space with a large cluster of stars. Being in approximately the same area, the bodies have a similar age. The simultaneous birth of stars makes it possible for scientists to determine the age of the cluster.
Using the theory of "evolution of stars", they build graphs and carry out multiline calculations. The data of objects with the same age but different masses are taken into account.
Based on the results obtained, it is possible to determine the age of the cluster. By pre-calculating the distance to a group of star clusters, scientists determine the age of the universe.
Have you been able to determine exactly how old the universe is? According to scientists' calculations, the result was ambiguous - from 6 to 25 billion years. Unfortunately, this method has a lot of complexities. Therefore, there is a serious error.
Ancient inhabitants of space
In order to understand how many years the Universe exists, scientists are observing white dwarfs in globular clusters. They are the next evolutionary link after the red giant.
In the process of transition from one stage to another, the weight of the star practically does not change. White dwarfs do not have thermonuclear fusion, so they emit light due to the accumulated heat. If you know the relationship between temperature and time, you can determine the age of the star. The age of the most ancient cluster is estimated at about 12-13.4 billion years. However, this method is associated with the complexity of observing rather weak radiation sources. Highly sensitive telescopes and equipment are needed. To solve this problem, the powerful Hubble Space Telescope is involved.
The Primordial "Bouillon" of the Universe
In order to determine how old the Universe is, scientists observe objects consisting of primary substance. They survived to our time thanks to the slow rate of evolution. Exploring chemical composition similar objects, scientists compare it with data on thermonuclear physics. Based on the results obtained, the age of a star or cluster is determined. Scientists conducted two independent studies. The result turned out to be quite similar: according to the first - 12.3-18.7 billion years and according to the second - 11.7-16.7.
The expanding universe and dark matter
There are a large number of models for determining the age of the universe, but the results are highly controversial. Today there is a more accurate way. It is based on the fact that outer space has been constantly expanding since the Big Bang.
Initially, the space was smaller, with the same amount of energy as it is now.
According to scientists, over time, the photon "loses" energy, and the wavelength increases. Based on the properties of photons and the presence of black matter, we calculated the age of our Universe. Scientists managed to determine the age of outer space, it amounted to 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years. This method of calculation is called Lambda-Cold Dark Matter - the modern cosmological model.
The result may be wrong
However, none of the scientists claims that this result is accurate. This model includes many conditional assumptions that are taken as a basis. However, at the moment this method of determining the age of the universe is considered the most accurate. In 2013, it was possible to determine the rate of expansion of the universe - the Hubble constant. It was 67.2 kilometers per second.
Using more accurate data, scientists have determined that the age of the universe is 13 billion 798 million years.
However, we understand that in the process of determining the age of the Universe, generally accepted models were used (spherically flat shape, the presence of cold dark matter, the speed of light as the maximum constant). If our assumptions about the generally accepted constants and models in the future turn out to be erroneous, then this will entail a recalculation of the obtained data.
