Humanity’s Fleeting Moment in the Age of Creation

Breath Among the Stars: Humanity’s Fleeting Moment in the Age of Creation

 lim ju boo alias lin ru wu

Summary (in blue): 

Modern cosmology estimates that the universe began 13.79 billion years ago, according to the ΛCDM model and precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The Earth formed later, approximately 4.54 billion years ago, based on radiometric dating of ancient meteorites and terrestrial minerals.

Against these vast spans of time, the human life - at its fullest reaching around 100 years, is but a fleeting whisper. Let us place our existence into perspective.

 

Scaling Human Life to Cosmic Time

If the entire age of the universe (13.79 billion years) were compressed into one day (24 hours):

One human lifetime of 

100 years would last  for

 only  0.000627 seconds 

≈ 0.627  milliseconds which is  less than

 the  blink of an eye.

If the age of Earth (4.54 billion years) were compressed into one day:

100 human years would 

last 0.001903  seconds 

≈ 1.9 milliseconds 

A breath within a breath of time.

 

Methuselah’s Life in Cosmic Scale

Methuselah, the longest-lived person recorded in Scripture, lived 969 years

(Genesis 5:27).

 

If Earth’s 4.54 billion years were a single day:

969 years ÷ 4.54×109×86400

 

≈ 0.0184 seconds

 

Methuselah’s nearly millennium-long life becomes ~0.018 seconds - eighteen-thousandths of a second.

 

Even the longest human life is a soft tap on eternity.

 

Human Civilisation: A Moment on a Clock Without Hands

Human civilisation arose roughly 6025 years ago (~4000 BC). 

6025 / 4.54 × 109 ≈ 1.33×10−6

That means organised human civilisation occupies only 0.000133% of Earth's history.

Our cities, our monuments, our sciences and wars, our empires and religions,
all within a microscopic sliver of time.

Sacred Time and Divine Perspective

The book of Genesis speaks of six days of creation and a seventh day of rest.
Interpretations range from literal 24-hour days to vast epochs, to theological poetry about divine purpose and order.

Scripture reminds us:

“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day.”

(2 Peter 3:8)

Not a conversion formula, but a revelation that human time and God’s time are not the same currency.
Eternity is not measured in seconds; it is the absence of clocks.

Some theologians say God exists outside time.

Modern physics echoes this idea: time began with the Big Bang.
The Creator, if He is eternal, stands beyond the ticking of ions and stars.

A Somber Reflection

 

When our lifespan is a blink against the universe, our wealth, pride, and earthly accomplishments shrink into silence.

 

Where will our souls journey when our thousandth of a second here is done?
What eternal value do we build in the breath between birth and death?

 

As Psalm 90:12 prays:

 

“Teach us to number our days,
that we may gain a heart of wisdom.”

Life is not small because its time is short - it is sacred, precisely because it is brief.

Let us live wisely, love graciously, give generously,
and prepare our hearts for the eternity beyond this whisper of earthly time.

Let me rewrite an extended version to the above essay below in dark blue: 

The universe is approximately 13.79 billion years old, according to the standard cosmological model (Lambda−CDM model) and measurements of the cosmic microwave background. The age of the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.54 billion years, with an uncertainty of less than 1%. This figure was determined using radiometric dating of meteorites, based on the understanding that the solar system's bodies formed at roughly the same time. If the Universe is 13.79 billion years old, and Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and the maximum human lifespan on Earth is 100 years, what fraction is 100 years of human lifespan compared to the age of the universe and Earth, respectively? Based on the provided scaling, a human lifespan of 100 years would be represented by approximately 0.000627 seconds if the age of the universe (13.79 billion years) is scaled to one day. If the age of the Earth (4.54 billion years) is used instead, 100 years would be approximately 0.001903 seconds. According to the Bible, God created the universe and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh day. This narrative is found in the first book of the Bible, Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The sequence of creation events over the six days is described as follows: 

Day 1: Light was created and separated from darkness, forming day and night. Day 2: A firmament (sky or atmosphere) was created to separate the waters below from the waters above. 

Day 3: Dry land and seas were formed, and vegetation (plants and trees) was created. 

Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars were created to govern the day and night and to mark seasons and years. 

Day 5: Living creatures of the sea and birds were created. 

Day 6: Land animals and humans (Adam and Eve) were created. 

Day 7: God rested from all His work, blessing the seventh day and making it holy, establishing the pattern for the Sabbath day of rest.  

Interpretations of the "days" vary among different Christian and Jewish traditions. Some, known as young-earth creationists, interpret them as six literal, 24-hour periods. Others interpret the "days" as extended periods of time (the day-age view) or as a literary framework to convey theological truths about creation and the importance of a weekly rest cycle, rather than a strict chronological account. 

But according to cosmology, the Universe including Earth was born 13.79 billion years ago. If that is the case, how many seconds it took for God as equivalent to a year for humans. To calculate how many human seconds equate to one of God's years based on the two given time frames (6 Biblical days vs. 13.79 billion cosmological years), we first establish the ratio of "God's time" to "human time" for a humans. The Bible does not provide a single, direct conversion rate between "God's time" and "human time" in the way required to perform the requested in our calculation. Interpretations of the six days of creation vary widely, even among biblical scholars:  

Literal 24-hour days: Some interpret the "days" as six consecutive 24-hour periods, suggesting a young Earth (around 6,000 years old based on genealogies), which directly conflicts with the cosmological age. 

Long periods of time (Day-Age Theory): Other interpretations view the "days" (using the Hebrew word yom, which can mean an indefinite period) as long epochs, potentially millions or billions of years, which can be reconciled with scientific timelines. 

Figurative or theological meaning: Many mainstream theological views consider the creation narrative as a symbolic account meant to teach about the purpose of creation and the value of the Sabbath, rather than a literal scientific or historical timeline. 

Time relativity: Some interpretations use modern physics (like Einstein's theory of relativity and time dilation near a massive gravitational source like the Big Bang's origin point) to suggest that six days from God's perspective could span billions of years from an Earth-based perspective. 

God is outside of time: A common theological stance is that God exists outside of human time entirely, so applying human time units to God's actions is meaningless.  One biblical verse, 2 Peter 3:8, states: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." This passage, often quoted in discussions of this nature, uses the word "as" or "like", indicating a figure of speech about God's eternal nature and perception of time, not a literal mathematical formula for time conversion.  Because there is no fixed, biblically defined conversion rate, it is impossible for us to calculate how many seconds for God would equal a year for humans in a universally accepted biblical framework.  

However, if you insist I answer despite my explanation, then since 13,790,000,000 (13.79 billion) human years which is the age of creation of this universe is then 6 God days ≈ 2,298,333,333 human years. The question asks is not how many seconds it was to God for a year for humans. This means we are comparing a period of 1 human year to the equivalent time in God's frame of reference.  Any calculation is not about how many human seconds equal a "God's year" (which is not defined in the problem), but rather determining the ratio of God's time to human time implied by these two accounts. Based on the premise that God created the universe in 6 days which corresponds to 13.79 billion human years, the implied ratio is that each one of God's days is equivalent to approximately 2.3 billion human years. This demonstrates an immense difference in the perception or scale of time between the two perspectives.  Methuselah was 969 years old when he died, making him the longest-living person mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. He was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah, according to the Book of Genesis. If the age of Earth at 4.54 billion years old was just a day, how many seconds would that be for 969 years. In other words, if Earth was a day old, how many seconds did Mathuselah lived? The straight answer without going into all those calculations is, Methuselah lived for only approximately 16.66 seconds. Life is a fleeting shadow. Let me remind all this somber thought for our souls for our human lifespan here in this world, compared to the age of the universe. If the age of the universe (13.8 billion years) were represented as a single day (24 hours), then our human life span at maximum of 100 years would last only approximately 0.23 milliseconds, or less than a thousandth of a second. If 4.54 billion years of Earth's history is represented as 24 hours, then 100 years of our life here in this world would only last for about 0.0000000045 seconds. Remind ourselves to where would our souls would carry all those wealth and properties we built and invested here on Earth  into another world to spend eternity there in those teeny-tiny fraction of one second we live here in this world ? Human civilization began between approximately 4000 and 3000 B.C. in early centers like Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus Valley. These early civilizations developed complex societies with advancements in agriculture, architecture, and art, marking the start of a new era of human development.  4000 BC is approximately 6025 years ago from the present (2025). This is calculated by adding the years from 4000 BC to the current year, 2025, and remembering to account for the fact that there is no year 0 in the Gregorian calendar. This means human civilization existed only 1.327 x 10^ -6 (0.000001327) of a fraction since the birth of Earth

I shall follow up my above article next on: 

"The Dual Symphony of Existence: Opposites, Mirrors, and the Balance of All Things"

 Selected References

 

1. Planck Collaboration (2020). Planck 2018 Results. VI. Cosmological Parameters.

2. Dalrymple, G. Brent. The Age of the Earth. Stanford University Press, 1991.

3. NASA, WMAP & Planck Mission Cosmology Data

4. Genesis 1–2, 5; 2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:12 (Holy Bible)

Why is the Sky Dark at Night?

 

For hundreds if not thousands of years mankind has always looked into the night skies amazed at the twinkling of stars above against a very dark sky.

But why is the sky dark at night? This simplistic answer of an idiot would say, this is because there is no sun at night. But that’s not the answer. We have an estimated 250 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy each contributing a tiny quantum of light no matter how far away or how dim, but collectively would have set the night skies as bright as the day. But the night skies are still dark?

Let me give a simple explanation on my own.

Let us divide the Universe into layers of shells, each shell containing untold billions of stars like in our Milky Way. We see the Milky Way as a river of faint lights stretching from one end of the horizon to the other end, along with other brighter stars scattered across the night sky. Let us say what we see with the naked eyes are the nearest stars,

However, all of them, whether near or far, are enclosed inside the closest shell of ours – the Milky Way Galaxy.  We can see the night skies, if without clouds and light pollution from cities are ablaze with stars and star lights.  

Let us now take the nearest galaxy to our Milky Way, which is the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, 0.0.7 million light years away as our next nearest shell of stars. The stars there are dimmer of course and we need a telescope to see them. Then the third major shell of stars contains the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.54 million light years away. The stars there too collectively give us some light albeit dimmer.  

We then go further to the next outer 4^th shell, that contains the nearest giant galaxy called Maffei 1, which is 11 million light years away. We then look further and further into the outer shells beyond. As we see further and further away, each shell of stars adds on their lights to the inner ones towards Earth. The furthest ones can hardly be seen from Earth, but clearly visible as a river of lights to its closest neighbouring shell of galaxies, the same as we can see the Milky Way as our closest shell of stars and their lights.

Hence if we assume the Universe is infinite, each shall add on their lights to its closest inner shell towards Earth. Logically, no matter how faint the star lights were, whether from a near distance or to infinite distances, they all add up and contribute their bits of quantum energy to each shell all the way from infinity till here until our night skies would be aglow far brighter than our day skies. But it is not.

Our night skies are still dark except for star lights and our Milky Way. In simple thinking, the Universe must be limited with stars and their lights.  Our Observable Universe is believed to be 46.508 billion light years in radius, beyond which, if it is expanding, we cannot see their lights as they are still travelling towards us if they are not pulled back again in some distant future by the total sum of their gravitational forces into a single point (singularity) as it was before the Big Bang.

Let us now look at this problem in another way, in my personal way. Shall we?  Let's go! 

The distance to the Galactic Center of our Milky Way is approximately 8 kiloparsecs (26,000 light years away from Earth in the direction of the constellations Sagittarius, Ophiuchus, and Scorpius, where the Milky Way appears brightest, visually close to the Butterfly Cluster (M6) or the star Shaula, south to the Pipe Nebula. Our best estimates tell us that the Milky Way is made up of approximately 100 billion stars. These stars form a large disk whose diameter is about 100,000 light years. Some put their estimate at 400 billion stars. Let us say they form the first inner shell in volume of the Observable Universe.  Since the universe has been expanding for 13.8 billion years, the comoving distance (radius) is now about 46.6 billion light-years. Thus, volume (4/3 πr³) equals 3.58×10⁸⁰ m³ and the mass of ordinary matter equals density (4.08×10⁻²⁸ kg/m³) times volume (3.58×10⁸⁰ m³) or 1.46×10⁵³ kg. Since the radius of the Observable Universe is 46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×10²⁶ m, its surface area (A) = 4 pi r2 would be 2.7 x 10 ²²  (27 followed by 21 zeros) square light years.

If we take the Andromeda galaxy 2.54 million light years away as the next shell, then its shell surface area would be 8 x 10¹³ square light years and a shell layer which is its volume minus the volume of our Milky Way. This works out to be 6.8 x 10¹⁹ – 5.2 x 10¹⁴ = 6.8 x 10 ¹⁹ cubic light years. But as we go further and further away, both the spherical areas, as well as their volume becomes larger and larger.  In such a scenario we expect the Universe to contain more and more galaxies emitting more and more light. But this may not be the case. The galaxies may be uniformly distributed throughout the Universe no matter how far away. We shall discuss this shortly.

Nevertheless, given such horrendously massive volume and surface areas, the Observable Universe would contain as many as an estimated 2 trillion (2 followed by 24 zeros) galaxies and, overall, as many as an estimated 10²⁴ stars, far more stars (and earth-like planets) than all the grains of beach sand on planet Earth. Imagine all the lights from those untold myriads of stars shining collectively towards Earth had Earth been the centre of the Universe which of course it is not. Earth then theoretically at night would be aflame far brighter than the Sun. But it is not.

So, our theory may not be right here because we assume that the expanding Universe is like a balloon filled with water with dust particles in them, each particle representing the galaxies and stars inside with more and more particles, each as a “galaxy” towards the skin of the balloon as it expands with water. The water-filled balloon will be aglow like a powerful electric bulb on its surface, less at its centre. But it is not.  Hence, we need to think out of the box in another direction.

In a technical forum paper, I presented at Oxford in November 2019 just before the Covid pandemic, I suggested the expanding Universe is like a balloon filled with air, not water, with the galaxies marked outside on the surface of the balloon, and not inside. In such a scenario, as the Universe expands, the markings of particles representing each galaxy will fly away (separate away) from each other on the surface, and not from the centre of the balloon unlike the case of a water -filled balloon. In other words, the Universe has no centre. The galaxies just fly away from each other with no fixed centre.  As the Universe expands it gives no chance of any light to accumulate at any point. That would, I suggested in my paper, the reason why there was no accumulation of light at any point, and hence this would be the reason in my personal analysis, why it is dark at night.   

The question we need to answer now is, is the Universe finite with a finite age and finite size?  This is 200-year-old question astronomers like Olbers have asked. Olbers had come to a strange conclusion based on all that was known about the Universe at that time, the night sky should not have been dark. In fact, the entire heavens should have been glowing as brightly as the Sun because it was already thought that if the universe was infinite, it should contain an infinite number of stars. If this was so, then no matter how faint or distant the stars were, each of the infinite number of stars would then contribute a tiny bit of light from the nearest to the most distant ones, making the entire sky look as bright as day. But it is not. The sky at night is still dark. So, there must be another reason.

This is the problem Olbers raised in his paper of May 7, 1823, the cosmological model of the time suggested every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of the Sun. There should be no night. Olbers proposed a solution: the light from more distant stars was absorbed by dust or other material floating in space. The English astronomer John Herschel later pointed out this couldn’t be right because anything absorbing that much light would eventually heat up enough to glow. When Olbers died on March 2, 1840, at the age of 81, the riddle we know today as Olbers’ paradox was unsolved.

For my lay gentle readers here, as well as for those who are trained and qualified in astrophysics and cosmology further away, let us admit that the night sky basically dark no matter what our explanation.  

But a bit of thinking will tell us if there is a uniform distribution of stars in space there should not be dark anywhere in the sky.

If we look in any direction, we should be able to see a star somewhere. But this argument does not work, and the sky is still dark at night. This phenomenon is called Olber’s paradox, named after Dr. Heinrich M, W. Olber who was actually an ophthalmologist, a specialist eye doctor who turned to become an astronomer to ask this question why the sky is dark at night although this question has been discussed more than a hundred years earlier. This is similar to my interest from medicine and medical research during my adult working life into my interest in astronomy since a child.

One might think that the easiest way out of this paradox, as was realized in Olber’s time, is simply to say that there is dust or other interstellar matter absorbing the light from the distant stars and galaxies. But this energy would heat up the interstellar dusts slowly bit by bit and given enough astronomical length of time will cause all the matter in the Universe to glow up intensively, brightening the night skies uniformly. So, we are back to this paradox Olber asked, why then is the sky dark at night?

One answer to Olbers paradox lies in part the presence of the red shift in the expansion of the Universe. This does not mean that the answer to this paradox is just that the visible light from the distant galaxies is redshifted out of the visible, for at the same time ultraviolet light is continually being redshifted out of the ultraviolet into the visible

The point is rather that each quantum of light undergoes a real diminution of energy as it is redshifted. Thus, we do not see the level of brightness emitted at the surface of a faraway star. Consequently, we do not see the level of brightness emitted at the surface of a faraway star or galaxy because the energy that was emitted has been diminished by this redshift effect before it reaches us.

Since the energy, E, of a quantum at a given wavelength, A, corresponding to a certain frequency, v, is E = hv = hc / λ, the quantum has at first an energy corresponding to its original wavelength. As its wavelength gets longer, its frequency decreases because of the Doppler effect and Hubble’s law, the formula E = hc / λ shows that its energy diminishes. This energy is actually lost from the quantum.  

Of course, in Olber’s time, the large telescopes that later made the discovery of Hubble’s law possibly had not even been twinkles in the eyes of their builders who were not yet born. The discovery that one resolution of the paradox depended on the expansion of the universe had to await later generations.

There are some complications to this major point that we could mention. As we look out in space, we are looking back in time since light has taken a finite amount of time to travel. If we could see far enough, we could see the beginning of time before the formation of the Universe. This may be an equally valid way out from this dilemma. This may be a more valid contribution to the existence of Olber’s paradox than explaining it through redshifts of distant stars as old as 10²⁴ (1 trillion, trillion) years ago. However, the Universe is not that old based on Hubble’s law that puts it at 10¹⁰ (10 billion) years old that would be more appropriate.

We have to know about the expansion and the age of the Universe to answer Olber’s question, namely why is the sky dark at night? We may conclude that either it is expanding till the lights from distant stars near the edge of an expanding Universe could not reach us, or it is too young, assuming that if it had old enough to generate lots of stars that still we cannot see to ablaze the night skies with lights as bright as in the day.   

Having said this, British cosmologist Edward Harrison resolved the conflict in 1964. He showed that the main factor determining the brightness of the night sky is the finite age of the stars. The number of stars in the observable Universe is extremely large, but it is finite. This limited number, each burning for a limited time, spread over a gigantic volume, lets darkness manifest itself between the stars. Harrison later realised this solution had already been proposed not only by Edgar Allan Poe, but by British physicist Lord Kelvin in 1901. Observations in the 1980s confirmed the resolution proposed by Poe, Kelvin and Harrison. Olbers’ paradox had finally been put to rest.

In summary, a combination of the finite age and size of the observable universe, the absorption and scattering of light, the redshift of distant galaxies, and the selective direction of our line of sight contribute to the darkness of the night sky.

Other alternative explanations offered in summary form for this apparent paradox are:

1.      Finite Age of the Universe: The universe has a finite age, and light takes time to travel from distant stars. Therefore, we only see light from stars within a certain observable distance. Stars beyond this distance haven't had enough time for their light to reach us.

2.      Finite Size of the Observable Universe: The observable universe is not infinite. It has a finite size, and beyond a certain distance, galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of the universe. As a result, their light will never reach us.

3.      Absorption and Scattering of Light: Interstellar dust and gas can absorb and scatter light, reducing its intensity before it reaches us. This can contribute to the darkness of the night sky.

4.      Redshift: The expansion of the universe causes the light from distant galaxies to be redshifted. This means that the wavelength of the light is stretched, moving it towards the red end of the spectrum. In some cases, this can shift the light into the infrared spectrum, making it invisible to our eyes.

5.      Incomplete Sky Coverage: Even though there are many stars in the universe, our line of sight is not always directed towards them. The night sky appears dark because we are not constantly looking at the light-emitting objects in the universe.

It's fascinating to see how our scientific understanding has evolved over time and how various astronomers and scientists have contributed to solving this intriguing puzzle.

The finite age and finite size of the observable universe, along with the limited lifespan of stars, indeed provide a satisfactory explanation for why the night sky is dark despite the vast number of stars in the cosmos. It's a great example of how scientific inquiry and collaboration contribute to our understanding of the universe.

(A 2,759 worded essay in 9 pages)

Lim ju boo 

Postdoctoral CE Astronomy (University of Oxford)

The Origin of Heavens and Earth: Science vs The Bible

The origin and evolution of the heavens (Universe) began as a hot, dense point roughly 13.8 billion years ago. This event marked the beginning of the expansion of space, time, and matter. Since then, it has been expanding till what we can see now marks the observable universe.  The observable universe refers to the portion of the entire universe that we can potentially observe from our vantage point here on Earth. It includes all the celestial objects and phenomena that are within our range of detection, such as stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and cosmic microwave background radiation.

As for how far the observable universe extends, it's constantly expanding due to the expansion of the universe itself. The current estimate for the radius of the observable universe is about 46.5 billion light-years. This doesn't mean that the universe is only 46.5 billion years old, but rather, it reflects the distance that light has been able to travel since the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.

What lies beyond the observable universe, is a question that remains largely unanswered because what lies beyond is now so far away that light has no time to reach us. and hence we cannot see them. In fact, we are seeing light from the distant past from all objects that lie light years away.

The observable universe represents only a tiny fraction of the entire universe, and there could be much more beyond what we can see. One possibility is that the universe extends infinitely beyond the observable universe, meaning there's an infinite amount of space with an infinite number of galaxies and other structures. Another possibility is that the universe is finite but unbounded, meaning it curves back on itself in a way that makes it impossible to perceive its boundaries from within. There are also theories proposing the existence of multiple universes, each with its own set of physical laws and properties, which would lie beyond our observable universe. However, these ideas remain speculative and are areas of active research in cosmology.

The fact that the universe is expanding and stretching away from us is clearly summed up in these two verses in the Bible:

” Have ye not known? Have ye not heard? Has it not been told to you from the beginning? Have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

 It is He that sits upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, who stretched out the heavens as a curtain and spread them out as a tent to dwell in.”

(Isaiah 40:21-23)

Amazingly! How true and clearly predicted and told long, long even before Jesus Christ that only now in the 21^st century science knows and acknowledges.

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.

 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech or language, where their voice is not heard.

 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber and rejoicing as a strong man to run a race.

 His going forth is from the end of heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hidden from the heat thereof.”

(Psalms 19:1-6)

The Bible does not explain in technical details how the Universe began. But God gave us the brains to marvel at the evidence summarized below.  We cannot deny these scientific evidence by giving our own version and unsubstantiated “theories” whether from the church or otherwise.

 We need to respect Science that is evidence-based conducted by collective teams of brilliant hard-working scientists world-wide who gathered observational and experimental data to support their findings, besides admiring and worshiping God, the Creator of all things.

 The concept of creation ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing," is not explicitly stated in a single verse in the Bible. However, there are passages that are often interpreted to imply this concept.

One such passage is Genesis 1:1, which states:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." without giving the details. 

The phrase "heavens and the earth" is often understood to encompass the entire cosmos, suggesting that God created everything from nothing. This interpretation is supported by other verses in the Bible, such as Hebrews 11:3, which says:

"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

This verse suggests that God created the universe through His word, implying creation ex nihilo.

While the concept of creation ex nihilo is not explicitly stated in a single verse, it is a central tenet of many Christian theological traditions and is inferred from various passages throughout the Bible.

Genesis does not explicitly, and deniably tell us how earth and the heavens were created out of nothing as the Bible is not a science book to write on technical details. The Bible is a book on salvation for mankind.

Being silent on how it was created does not mean the universe came into existence out of nothing. The Bible does not explicitly claim ex nihilo directly.  It must have a beginning out of something. God gave scientists their brains to discover so that we can adore and worship Him.

Here’s what astrophysicists discovered through their evidence-based studies and data collection to come out with their Big Bang theory which is widely accepted among scientists including myself who have studied the mysteries of the Universe at Oxford University at post-doctoral level as the prevailing explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe. Here are some key pieces of evidence and observations in very brief summary form that support the Big Bang theory:

1. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB): The discovery of the CMB in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson provided strong evidence for the Big Bang. This radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the early universe and is observed uniformly in all directions, consistent with the predictions of the Big Bang model.
2. Hubble's Law: Edwin Hubble's observation in the 1920s that galaxies are moving away from us, and that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it is receding, supports the expansion of the universe. This expansion is a key prediction of the Big Bang theory.
3. Redshift of Galaxies: The redshift of light from distant galaxies indicates that they are moving away from us. This redshift is consistent with the expansion of the universe and provides additional support for the Big Bang model.
4. Abundance of Light Elements: The Big Bang model predicts the abundance of light elements such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium that were formed in the early universe. The observed abundances of these elements in the universe are consistent with the predictions of the Big Bang theory.
5. Large Scale Structure of the Universe: Observations of the large-scale distribution of galaxies and cosmic structures, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters, are consistent with the gravitational growth of structure predicted by the Big Bang model.
6. Nucleosynthesis: The Big Bang theory successfully predicts the formation of light elements through nucleosynthesis in the early universe. This process is supported by observations of the elemental abundances in the universe.
7. Age of the Universe: Measurements of the age of the oldest stars and the expansion rate of the universe are consistent with the age of the universe predicted by the Big Bang model.
8. Cosmic Inflation: Although not initially part of the original Big Bang theory, the concept of cosmic inflation has been proposed to explain certain features of the universe, such as its large-scale uniformity and flatness. While not directly observed, inflationary models are consistent with various observations, including the CMB.
9. Gravitational Waves: The detection of gravitational waves by experiments like LIGO and VIRGO provides further evidence for the Big Bang, as these waves are predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity and are a consequence of certain cosmological events, such as the rapid expansion of the early universe.

These evidence collectively support the Big Bang theory as the most plausible explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe. These evidence however is not exhaustive. There may be newer evidences yet to come to support the Big Bang theory on the Creation of the Universe even though some church believes heavens and earth were created by God out of nothing in seven days too (in the their eyes) against observational studies that put the age of the beginning of the heavens and earth at 13.7 billion years, with an error plus or minus of not more than only 200 million years old. 

A New Theory on The Origin of the Universe?

My brother-in-law, Engineer Ong Geok Soo recently sent me this link soliciting my comment, with this remarks "so how now"? 

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/big-bang-experts-singularity-bursts/7451/

It is about a new theory on the origin of the universe quite different from the current Big Bang theory that we know. 

Just in case readers are unable to open the link above, let me download it in pink.  

In a theory published in the Classical and Quantum Gravity by Dr. Richard Lieu, a physics professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, suggests an alternative to the explanation of how the universe began, leaving the Big Bang out of the equation and defying over 100 years of theories proposed by the most decorated scientists in history. While observing cosmic phenomena. While observing cosmic phenomena, Dr. Lieu concluded that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity might not be entirely correct, and added to the discussions the importance of abstract concepts that cannot be proven to exist.

The universe didn’t start with the Big Bang. 

The Big Bang Theory is the most accepted explanation for the origin of the universe, starting from a hot, small, and dense point, and it suddenly exploded, creating galaxies, rapidly expanding its domain approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and continuing to do so. The scientists do not know where it starts or where it ends, so they assume the universe continues to stretch. The initial period of rapid expansion formed what we see as the cosmos, with stars, planets, black holes, and galaxies.

According to Dr. Richard Lieu’s theory, instead of a big explosion , like the Big Bang the universe started with invisible, ultra-fast bursts called temporal singularities. This theory discards the need for dark matter and dark energy, respectively acting as a cosmic clue that holds everything together and the expansion power.

The theory goes against Einstein’s relativity studies.

In the same study that refutes the Big Bang theory, Dr. Lieu also states that gravity might exist without mass, going against the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein. The model created by the German scientist at the beginning of the 20th century states that mass in the universe, like planet Earth, bends spacetime, and that’s what generates gravity.

Apart from that, the study published in 2024 mainly focuses on the expansion of the universe through step-like bursts called “transient temporal singularities” that saturate the cosmos with matter and energy, happening so fast that it cannot be observed.

The study relies on two phenomena that have never been observed

In the update model challenging the Big Bang theory, Dr. Richard Lieu states that the singularities wink in and out of existence, and they act as stand-ins for dark matter, also producing what’s known as negative pressure, something Einstein approached in 1917 in a paper about the Cosmological Constant – a theory of general relativity representing a homogeneous energy density in spacetime, which causes the universe to accelerate its expansion.

In the update, the theory argues that dark matter and dark energy are not omnipresent, like it was thought, and they only appear during brief instances when matter and energy fill the universe uniformly, aside from minor spatial irregularities that later evolved into galaxies and other cosmic structures. Outside these moments, the forces are entirely absent.

Another study about dark matter being present in the universe came up in 1970 when the astronomer Vera Rubin and her colleagues found out that galaxies rotate faster at their edges than previously predicted, further supporting the idea of an unseen mass holding everything together.

The dark energy was “discovered” many years later, in 1998, by two teams of astronomers when observing stellar explosions from a supernova. They observed the universe’s expansion was accelerating, and not slowing down, leading to the concept of the repulsive force.

The difference between the initial model and the current one is the way it treats the temporal singularities. While the standard theory assumes a single event – the Big Bang – the new framework proposes that the bursts occur multiple times across the universe.

Let me very briefly explain this new theory vs the much more acceptable Big Bang theory giving my views and reasons to my brother-in-law.

The current evidences that support the Big Bang theory such as the expansion of the universe, including redshift and Hubble's Law, the abundance of light elements such as hydrogen and helium, the existence of afterglow from cosmic microwave background (CMB) and its uniform distribution of everything we  observe suggesting the birth of the universe originated from a single, very hot, dense point. 

 Let me now explain this further in a more technical manner the current overview of the Big Bang theory with its supporting evidences. 

The Big Bang Theory stands as the prevailing cosmological model explaining the origin and evolution of our universe. According to this theory, the universe began approximately 13.8 billion years ago from a singularity, a state of infinite density and temperature, then expanded and continues to expand to this day. 

The key lines of empirical evidence supporting this theory are - the expansion of the universe (redshift and Hubble’s Law), the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the abundance of light elements, and the large-scale homogeneity of the universe.

A. Expansion of the Universe: Redshift and Hubble's Law

Redshift and Hubble’s Law

In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that galaxies were moving away from us, and their light spectra were shifted toward the red end, known as redshift. This shift is explained by the Doppler effect, where the stretching of wavelengths indicates a receding source. The key relation Hubble discovered is now known as Hubble's Law:

$$v=$$H₀ × d 

where, 

v = recessional velocity of the galaxy

d = distance to the galaxy
H₀ = Hubble constant (current best estimate: ~$70\text{km/s / Mpc)}$

This relationship confirms that space itself is expanding, not just objects moving through space.

Modern Evidence

Recent projects that support this observation include:

1. Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Key Project

(Freedman et al., 2001)

B. Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) – Mapping 3D positions and redshifts of galaxies

C. Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) and eBOSS – Measuring large-scale structure through redshift-space distortions

Reference: 

Freedman, W. L., et al. "Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant." The Astrophysical Journal 553.1 (2001): 47.

 

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB):

Origin of the CMB

The CMB is the remnant thermal radiation from the hot, dense state of the early universe, emitted about 380,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to form hydrogen atoms, making the universe transparent to radiation.

Discovery and Measurements

1. Discovered accidentally by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965

2. COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) - first detected the anisotropies (tiny temperature fluctuations)

3. WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) – provided a full-sky map of CMB anisotropies

4. Planck Satellite (2013, ESA) – measured the CMB with unprecedented precision

These missions revealed that the CMB is nearly uniform (to 1 part in 100,000), consistent with a universe that was once in thermal equilibrium.

References:

1. Bennett, C. L., et al. "First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations." The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 148.1 (2003):  

2. Planck Collaboration. "Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters." Astronomy & Astrophysics 641 (2020): A6.

3. Abundance of Light Elements: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN)

Primordial Nucleosynthesis

In the first few minutes after the Big Bang, temperatures were high enough for nuclear fusion. This resulted in the formation of light elements:

a) Hydrogen (75%)

b) Helium-4 (25%)

c) Deuterium (trace)

d) Helium-3 and Lithium-7 (trace)

These predicted ratios are in excellent agreement with what is observed in the oldest stars and gas clouds. 

Supporting Observations: 

a) Quasar absorption spectra help determine primordial deuterium levels (e.g., Cooke et al. 2014)

b) Spite Plateau in metal-poor stars confirms lithium and helium abundance

Reference: 

Cooke, R. J., et al. "Precision measures of the primordial abundance of deuterium." The Astrophysical Journal 781.1 (2014): 31.

Large-Scale Homogeneity and Isotropy:

The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on scales >300 million light-years. This is evidenced by:

1. CMB uniformity

2. Large-scale structure surveys (e.g., SDSS, 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey)

3. Cosmic isotropy tests from radio sources, gamma-ray bursts, and quasars

This uniformity strongly implies an early state of high temperature and density, consistent with inflationary Big Bang models.

Reference: 

Tegmark, M., et al. "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey." The Astrophysical Journal 606.2 (2004): 702.

 Additional Evidence: Cosmic Inflation and Quantum Fluctuations: 

Inflation Theory, proposed by Alan Guth (1981), suggests the universe underwent a brief period of exponential expansion (~${\mathrm{10^-36}}^{}$ to$10^-32$ seconds after the Big Bang), explaining:

1. Flatness of the universe

2. Horizon problem
3. Lack of magnetic monopoles
4. Quantum fluctuations that seeded galaxy formation

The Planck satellite has measured these anisotropies with precision that aligns well with inflationary predictions.

Reference: 

Guth, A. H. "Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems." Physical Review D 23.2 (1981): 347.

Timeline Summary of Observational Support

Event	Age of Universe	Evidence
Planck Era	$< 10^-43$sec	Theoretical only
Inflation	$$	CMB fluctuations
BBN	First 3–20 mins	Light element           abundances
Recombination	380,000 years	CMB detected by COBE, WMAP, Planck
Galaxy formation	>400 million years	Redshifted galaxies (e.g., JWST)
Present day	13.8 billion years	Hubble redshift, structure surveys

The Big Bang Theory is supported by multiple independent and converging lines of evidence: the redshift-distance relation discovered by Hubble, the relic radiation of the CMB, the predicted and observed abundances of primordial elements, and the large-scale uniformity of the cosmos. All of these are consistent with a universe that began in a hot, dense, singular origin, the Big Bang, and continues to evolve.

While there remain open questions (e.g., nature of dark matter, dark energy, quantum gravity), the weight of evidence confirms the Big Bang model as the most compelling explanation for the origin of the universe.

Selected References and Resources

1. Freedman, W. L., et al. (2001) – HST Key Project, ApJ, 553:47.
2. Bennett, C. L., et al. (2003) – WMAP First Year Results, ApJS, 148:1.
3. Planck Collaboration (2020) – Planck 2018 results, A&A, 641:A6.
4. Cooke, R., et al. (2014) – Primordial Deuterium, ApJ, 781:31.
5. Guth, A. (1981) – Inflationary Universe, Phys Rev D, 23:347.
6. Tegmark, M., et al. (2004) – SDSS 3D Power Spectrum, ApJ, 606:702.
7. Peebles, P. J. E. (2020) – Cosmology’s Century, 8. Princeton University Press. Carroll, S. M. (2010) – From Eternity to Here: 

Let me give a summary overview of Dr. Richard Lieu’s “Temporal Singularity” Model: 

Dr. Richard Lieu, a physics professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, presents an alternative cosmological model that challenges the traditional Big Bang theory. Instead of a singular explosive origin, he proposes that the universe emerged from multiple, ultra-fast bursts termed “transient temporal singularities.” These bursts are hypothesized to instantaneously saturate the cosmos with matter and energy, occurring so rapidly that they elude direct observation .

Key Propositions:

1. Multiple Temporal Singularities: Unlike the singular Big Bang event, this model suggests that the universe's expansion results from numerous discrete bursts, each contributing to the creation of space-time and matter.

2. Gravity Without Mass: Dr. Lieu posits that gravity might exist independently of mass, challenging Einstein’s general relativity, which attributes gravity to the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.

3. Transient Dark Components: The theory argues that phenomena attributed to dark matter and dark energy are not constant but manifest only during these brief singularity events, providing temporary effects like negative pressure and gravitational influences.

However, my scientific context and evaluation is based on the alignment with observational evidence such as these:

1. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): The CMB's uniformity and minute anisotropies are well-explained by the standard Big Bang model and inflationary theory. Dr. Lieu's model would need to account for these observations, particularly how multiple singularities could produce the observed CMB characteristics.

2. Elemental Abundances: Big Bang nucleosynthesis accurately predicts the primordial abundances of light elements like hydrogen and helium. Any alternative model must replicate these predictions to remain viable.

3. Large-Scale Structure: The distribution of galaxies and cosmic structures aligns with predictions from the Big Bang model. A new theory must explain the formation and distribution of these structures without invoking continuous dark matter and energy.

4. Challenges and Considerations: Empirical Validation: The transient nature of the proposed singularities makes them difficult to detect or measure, posing challenges for empirical validation.

5. Theoretical Foundations: Suggesting gravity without mass requires a substantial revision of established physics principles. Such a claim necessitates robust theoretical backing and experimental evidence.

6. Consistency with Established Physics: The model must reconcile with the vast body of existing observations and experiments that support general relativity and the standard cosmological model.

Comparative Perspective with Other Alternative Models

Dr. Lieu's proposal joins a spectrum of alternative cosmological models:

Cyclic Universe Models: Propose an eternal series of expansions and contractions, avoiding a singular beginning.

Emergent Universe Scenarios: Suggest the universe existed in a quasi-static state before transitioning into expansion, circumventing a singularity.

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (Penrose): Posits that the universe undergoes infinite cycles, with each "aeon" beginning where the previous one ended.

Each of these models aims to address perceived shortcomings in the Big Bang theory, such as the initial singularity or the need for inflation, while striving to remain consistent with observational data.

Dr. Lieu's "transient temporal singularities" model offers a thought-provoking alternative to the traditional Big Bang narrative. While it challenges foundational aspects of current cosmological understanding, its acceptance hinges on its ability to provide testable predictions that distinguish it from existing models.  

Current observational evidence offers a coherent theoretical framework that integrates with established physics.

Continued research, peer review, and empirical testing will determine the model's viability within the scientific community. 

Having explained all the above, my personal feeling is, the Big Bang theory is more established with all the evidences I have given with the references I have provided. 

I feel Dr Lieu's "transient temporal singularities" is more theoretical yet to be confirmed by experimental observation and data. Personally I would prefer the existing  "Big Bang Theory" and I have already explained my views with solid evidences. 

Sometimes it is very difficult to accept multiple theories if all of them present evidences. We need to weigh on the stronger ones

I believe my view encapsulates the very heart of the scientific process, namely, to critically weigh evidence, remain open to new ideas, yet stand firmly with the theory best supported by empirical data.

Indeed, the Big Bang theory, though still evolving in some of its details, stands on a strong, interconnected web of observational pillars:

1. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) provides a snapshot of the infant universe.

2. Hubble's Law and redshift observations demonstrate ongoing expansion.

3. The primordial abundances of hydrogen, helium, and lithium match predictions from Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

4. The large-scale structure of the universe harmonizes with the inflationary model that supplements the Big Bang.

Dr. Richard Lieu’s “transient temporal singularities” model, while intellectually stimulating and theoretically imaginative, currently lacks such observational anchors. It's akin to an early sketch, still needing the empirical strokes that bring scientific paintings to life.

Science cannot accommodate all theories equally. It must prioritize those with predictive power, internal consistency, and empirical confirmation. As Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

I believe this would be a sound and reasoned judgment. Holding to the Big Bang model while remaining respectfully inquisitive about alternatives honors both logic and openness - hallmarks of a brilliant mind of a scientist.  

Should new observations one day support models like Dr. Lieu’s, science will evolve as it always does, but until then, the Big Bang remains our most compelling and beautifully supported explanation for the birth of the cosmos.

Let me now give readers  a comparative table of cosmological theories or further elaboration on inflation, dark matter, or CMB anisotropies. It would be my joy to do this as it was also one of my numerous technical forum discussions I presented at the University of Oxford when I was doing my postdoctoral in astronomy there.  

Comparative Table: Dark Matter vs. CMB Anisotropies

Aspect	Dark Matter	CMB Anisotropies
Definition	A form of matter that does not emit, absorb, or reflect light, making it invisible to electromagnetic detection.	Tiny temperature fluctuations (anisotropies) in the otherwise uniform cosmic microwave background radiation.
Discovered/Observed	Inferred in 1930s by Fritz Zwicky through galaxy cluster dynamics; confirmed by later rotation curve anomalies.	Discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson; anisotropies first precisely measured by COBE (1992), then WMAP and Planck.
Key Observational Evidence	- Galaxy rotation curves (stars orbit too fast to be explained by visible mass) - Gravitational lensing - Structure formation in simulations - Galaxy cluster dynamics (e.g., Bullet Cluster)	- COBE, WMAP, and Planck satellites show temperature variations across the sky (~1 part in 100,000) - Power spectrum matches predictions from inflation and ΛCDM model
Role in Cosmology	Explains the “missing mass” in galaxies and clusters; provides the scaffolding for structure formation.	Offers a snapshot of the early universe (380,000 years after the Big Bang); shows density fluctuations that seeded galaxies.
Temperature Range / Mass	Extremely cold (non-relativistic → “cold dark matter”); estimated total mass is ~5× visible matter.	Average temperature ~2.725 K; anisotropies on the order of ±0.0001 K.
Detection Method	Indirect only: via gravitational effects on visible matter, light, and cosmic structures.	Directly measured by microwave detectors in space (COBE, WMAP, Planck).
Constituents (Theoretical)	WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), axions, sterile neutrinos; unknown composition.	Not particles, but relic photons from the early universe’s last scattering surface.
Importance in ΛCDM Model	Crucial: Makes up ~27% of the universe’s mass-energy content.	Provides key support for inflation and determines parameters of the standard cosmological model.
Status of Understanding	Theoretically well-motivated but still undetected directly; nature remains one of cosmology’s biggest mysteries.	Well-understood; models and measurements (especially from Planck) agree with predictions to high precision.
Major Experiments/Surveys	- LUX-ZEPLIN, XENON1T (direct detection) - Fermi-LAT (indirect detection) - Large Hadron Collider	- COBE (1992), WMAP (2001–2010), Planck (2009–2013) satellites

How They Work Together in Cosmology

CMB anisotropies reveal the initial density fluctuations in the early universe.

Dark matter, through gravitational attraction, amplified these fluctuations, allowing galaxies and clusters to form.

Simulations of cosmic structure (e.g., Millennium Simulation) require cold dark matter to match the observed large-scale structure.

Without dark matter, the CMB power spectrum and galaxy formation timeline do not match observations.

Why These Are So Important

1. Dark Matter is the invisible framework holding the universe together, it explains how galaxies rotate, how clusters behave, and how structures formed.

2. CMB Anisotropies are the primordial blueprint, the fossilized imprint of the universe’s infancy.

Both are indispensable to our modern understanding. Indeed, the pursuit of truth is a noble and sacred calling, especially in a world often clouded by confusion, superficiality, and misinformation. But in that darkness, it is the sincere seekers like who carry the torch of enlightenment, refusing to be swayed by convenience or unexamined beliefs. 

Let us remind ourselves that knowledge must be tethered to discernment, and understanding must be clothed in humility.

 - lim ju boo