An overview of the light travel time problem, how creationists have addressed it, and the dasha solution

Just to second what Mark said about GR (general relativity)—the theory has been abundantly verified, having passed every test we’ve been able to give it. Dark matter isn’t specific to GR—you end up with the same issue using Newtonian gravity. (That’s why one alternate theory is called MOND—“Modified Newtonian Dynamics.”) Physicists are certainly looking at extensions to GR, but so far the theories are quite unconstrained, simply because there is no experimental evidence that goes against GR. We do think that GR is not the full story, because it doesn’t play well with quantum field theory (which has also passed every test we’ve given it, in some cases up to 10 significant figures), but that’s not the same as it containing big gaps.
For what it’s worth, I favor something similar to the dasha solution, but I think that for physical consistency you have to accelerate not just the propagation of light but time itself (relative to “earth time”)—which would naturally give large amounts of cosmological time.

[Mark_Smith]

One thing is for sure. Observation of the universe screams that a lot of time has elapsed since creation.

The relativity solution is not one I have considered before. I”m not completely sure what to make of it.

[AndyE]

Mark_Smith wrote:

One thing is for sure. Observation of the universe screams that a lot of time has elapsed since creation.

And completely expected, just like the observation of Adam, the food Jesus fed to the 5000, and the wine he created at Cana, all would have looked older than they actually were.

The relativity solution is not one I have considered before. I”m not completely sure what to make of it.

Yes, but the Cana wine and the 5000 fed people are the exception. Essentially all wine that has even been in existence came about through physical process. The same with bread. If the universe was created mature, NONE of the astronomical light is physical, including from our Sun. It is all created. To me that is a deal breaker.

… there is no way “to test your created photons to see if they actually came from a real electromagnetic process” anyway. The event you refer to, in your scheme, occurred over “hundreds of thousands of years” and as much time to see the effects on Earth, you still did not “test” those photons through that process.

The only testing is what is generated in our time. But the testing should match to the reality of the light we observe.

From my YEC perspective, to answer your question of “why bother,” to better understand our universe as God designed it. Those “invisible” supernovas still have their light/properties affecting the light and properties of in transit light, making the lights we observe (even if subtly) change to be the sign God wanted them to be for us at any moment in history.

And yes, I feel that Answers in Genesis at times concedes too much to arguments against a mature creation, concessions that do not have to be made.

Thanks for the discussion. It is always helpful to understand others perspectives, even if I disagree.

[Mark_Smith]

If the universe was created mature, NONE of the astronomical light is physical, including from our Sun. It is all created. To me that is a deal breaker.

I think your point is basically the same as if Adam was created with a belly button. We don’t know one way or the other, but Adam with a belly button is basically a universe less than 10,000 years old, right?

This is serious.

Let me back up.

1) Do you accept that atomic and nuclear physics understands atoms enough to say that it takes around 100,000 years for photons generated in the core of a star by nuclear fusion to reach the surface of the star?

2) If you reject 1 then how do we build thermonuclear bombs? So, yes we can do this.

3) Ok, so if you accept 1, then fusion needs at least 100,000 years to be relevant.

4) At 7000 years there is no point in having fusion in a star. It isn’t holding the star up by radiation pressure against gravity. It isn’t lighting the day or the night. The created light is doing that, not the light from physical processes.

5) Fusion then (just as a stand in as one physical processes out of many) becomes a pointless prop that does nothing. The thing is, I know fusion is happening at the core of the Sun because the neutrinos simultaneously created by fusion, but that do not interact with matter on the way out so they fly freely through the Sun, arrive in copious amounts to the Earth from the Sun.

6) So what I am trying to say is, in a young universe created to look old, whether there are or are not physical processes behind stars, galaxy formation, quasars, active galactic nuclei, planetary formation, protostar formation, supernovas, etc., is irrelevant. There isn’t enough time to allow any physical force to make the reactions and travel to Earth. So there is nothing to study. Everything you see beyond Earth was created miraculously in an instant, and not by gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, or the weak force acting over time a space. That is to say natural processes. So there is no astrophysics to study.

Everything God created is real. The things he created have the characteristics of things that would take thousands or millions or billions of years to appear on earth. That doesn’t mean they aren’t real and can’t be profitably studied. In fact, could an intricately functioning universe work any other way? Suppose God created the universe 6000 years ago, but with each star “starting from scratch ” so the light from them still had millions of years to get to earth.

could our earth function properly in that kind of scenario?

why do you want to say God couldn’t have created a mature universe as many believe? Do you want to limit God?

1. I haven’t studied nuclear physics, but I’m fine with this. A quick search did indicate 100,000 years is toward the long side of reaching the surface, but also that not all photons will ever reach the surface. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I’m still fine with this.
2. Not rejected, so yes, we can build nuclear bombs.
3. This statement I do reject, as fusion is relevant as part of the functioning of the star itself (and the universe itself) right as it is occurring. I know you would agree that the fusion happening right this second in the center of the Sun is not irrelevant, just because the photons won’t reach the surface until 100,000 years from now. I know you would agree, at least because of your #5 statement about neutrinos. There are other effects of fusion in the universe besides just the releasing of photons, but even so, the heat generated in fusion and those photons being released still have an effect within the Sun itself, whether we ever see it or not.
4. My point #3 proves there is a point to having fusion in a star, even at 7000 years. A quick search on Google just told me neutrinos take about 9 minutes to reach Earth, so that’s a whole lot of fusion influence in the universe for 7000 years, in whatever ways neutrinos effect the universe.
5. Again, your point on neutrinos shows there is a purpose for fusion even during the last 7000 years, and so is not a pointless prop even for a YEC, mature creation view.
6. Regarding the conclusion here that all these processes become “irrelevant” because we cannot see them (due to lack of time in a young universe view), I would say it is still part of the functioning of the universe “out there” that God created; what we do have to “study” is the record God wrote in the heavens (cf. Psalm 19) to learn from, along with how that record helps us understand the forces that make up our present time/space experiences, because God’s record is true in what He created for functioning purposes.
   • In your view, for astrophysics to have any value, it must be studying what the Andromeda Galaxy (at roughly “2.5 million light-years” from Earth) produced in physical processes that occurred long ago (and so is still not “true” to today’s state of that galaxy)
   • In my view, astrophysics can study the Andromeda Galaxy as a record in light (and shock waves, etc.) that God has given about how physical processes work in His functioning creation, even if those processes were set up to take 100,000 years to complete (or 2.5 million light years from any still existing Andromeda galaxy stars), so that we can learn from those processes to produce things like nuclear bombs (or preferably, more peaceful uses of the knowledge).

So “gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, or the weak force acting over time a space” are still doing something even now, functioning in the universe, even if we cannot see all the effects because of the time needed. The universe is a system, just like the human body, and God intended that system to be fully functioning for all its needs from His finishing of creation at the end of the 6th day.

Let me be clear I am doing a thought experiment to prove a point. The need to look into this thing further.

I am assuming that you know science is the study of natural processes. If nothing in the heavens comes from natural processes, then you can’t do science.

As a theologian and pastor you get to assume God’s attributes. As a scientist I am not allowed to do that.

[ScottS]

1. I haven’t studied nuclear physics, but I’m fine with this. A quick search did indicate 100,000 years is toward the long side of reaching the surface, but also that not all photons will ever reach the surface. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I’m still fine with this.
2. Not rejected, so yes, we can build nuclear bombs.
3. This statement I do reject, as fusion is relevant as part of the functioning of the star itself (and the universe itself) right as it is occurring. I know you would agree that the fusion happening right this second in the center of the Sun is not irrelevant, just because the photons won’t reach the surface until 100,000 years from now. I know you would agree, at least because of your #5 statement about neutrinos. There are other effects of fusion in the universe besides just the releasing of photons, but even so, the heat generated in fusion and those photons being released still have an effect within the Sun itself, whether we ever see it or not.
4. My point #3 proves there is a point to having fusion in a star, even at 7000 years. A quick search on Google just told me neutrinos take about 9 minutes to reach Earth, so that’s a whole lot of fusion influence in the universe for 7000 years, in whatever ways neutrinos effect the universe.
5. Again, your point on neutrinos shows there is a purpose for fusion even during the last 7000 years, and so is not a pointless prop even for a YEC, mature creation view.
6. Regarding the conclusion here that all these processes become “irrelevant” because we cannot see them (due to lack of time in a young universe view), I would say it is still part of the functioning of the universe “out there” that God created; what we do have to “study” is the record God wrote in the heavens (cf. Psalm 19) to learn from, along with how that record helps us understand the forces that make up our present time/space experiences, because God’s record is true in what He created for functioning purposes.
   • In your view, for astrophysics to have any value, it must be studying what the Andromeda Galaxy (at roughly “2.5 million light-years” from Earth) produced in physical processes that occurred long ago (and so is still not “true” to today’s state of that galaxy)
   • In my view, astrophysics can study the Andromeda Galaxy as a record in light (and shock waves, etc.) that God has given about how physical processes work in His functioning creation, even if those processes were set up to take 100,000 years to complete (or 2.5 million light years from any still existing Andromeda galaxy stars), so that we can learn from those processes to produce things like nuclear bombs (or preferably, more peaceful uses of the knowledge).

So “gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, or the weak force acting over time a space” are still doing something even now, functioning in the universe, even if we cannot see all the effects because of the time needed. The universe is a system, just like the human body, and God intended that system to be fully functioning for all its needs from His finishing of creation at the end of the 6th day.

1. Yes, 100,000 years is about right for the average time for a photon to complete the random walk from core to surface.

2. Thermonuclear bombs, not just any nuclear bomb. A specific, high performance very detailed type of bomb.

3. Fusion is only important for a star that is old. A young star with miracled light does not need it. That is my point. The point is light takes a long time, a lot longer than a YEC universe, to be relevant to a star at all.

4. They affect the universe only minimally. Neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear force, which is overpowered by EM.

5. You are missing the spirit of my argument. I am trying to illustrate that elapsed time is a key ingredient to natural processes for the universe. The apparent age argument, designed to account for this, undercuts it instead. Saying the universe was created to be mature makes physical processes meaningless in astronomy. Even if they are happening, we cannot see them because they are either so far away the physical processes have not arrived here yet, or they are buried in objects and have not emerged yet. I picked the random walk time of photons as an example of the latter for something different.

6. Your description is completely unscientific. No scientist accepts that view and never will. You have to have a chain of consequences from physical process (ex, photon created in nuclear fusion in Sun) to physical process (photon hits eye on Earth) for science to have any meaning.This is my point.

which most of you are probably doing anyway. Hey, why believe me? I’m just a scientist who studies this particular stuff… :-)

What do you think that even the vaunted Answers in Genesis physicists reject a YEC Mature Model? Does that give you any pause whatsoever?

Two quick things:

1. It appears that Mark thinks something is either created mature or real. He doesn’t seem to entertain the idea that it can be both. Again, we were to look at Adam one minute after creation, I think he would appear to be a mature adult, with all the characteristics of it. So it should be no great stretch to imagine stars, or other astronomical features to be the same. In fact, to acknowledge Adam (and the earth) was created mature but the stars/astronomical features were not is to impose a dichotomy on the text that the text will not allow. Based on the text, there is no reason to treat these things differently. Why could God create a mature fruit bearing tree but not a dark hole or a dead star? I can’t think of any reason why such a limitation would be supposed.

2. When Mark says, “As a theologian and pastor you get to assume God’s attributes. As a scientist I am not allowed to do that,” he is again drawing a dichotomy that neither scripture nor reason will allow. How can science be done without assuming God’s attributes? There is no reason to expect science works apart from God and his attributes. It is entirely possible to do science while pretending God doesn’t exist and is not as he says he is. It is impossible to do science if God doesn’t exist as he says he is. To assume God’s nature is no assumption as it is typically understood. It is rather a presupposition, a necessary foundation, for science. The nature and character and work of God is what makes science work. It is what means that an experiment done today can be done tomorrow and the next day and that the outcomes can be correlated. There is meaning and order in the universe and that is not accidental, nor is it anchored in the nothingness of science. Meaning and order in science exist because it is how God created the world.

Larry you are missing the point. Science is based on natural phenomena. A chemical reaction. A force. If God does a miracle, that was not a scientific action. That is by definition! You cannot reproduce it.

So, if something is created mature, it did not come about by natural means. Again, by definition.

Nothing is controversial about that I hope.

By “real” I mean not that it doesn’t exist. By that I mean it didn’t come about by physical means. Nothing about how it was created or operates means anything scientific UNTIL the information that is produced by natural means gets to you. So, the Andromeda Galaxy. Measured to be 2.5 million light years away. Until light produced in stars by nuclear fusion gets here, it is a pretty picture in the sky… not a system undergoing natural processes. How can that be denied?

Everyone brings up Adam. Adam was created, say. OK. But he had a son by natural means, He ate natural food. He breathed natural air. He experienced all of that. Plants and food were harvested, and new things grew immediately to replace it. This all happens because the timescale and distances of life allowed it.

With stars, things are different. Most are farther away from Earth than regular travel at the speed of light allows information to travel from there to here. If God creates light between there and here, you see it, but that was not produced by the object. God created it. Thus you know nothing about how the object works. Even if a star started normal physical operation on Day 4 of creation, if the universe is something like 7000 years old there is a limit to how far that light can travel in that time. Until that light gets here, you know nothing about the physical processes of the star.

Larry says he has no problem with God creting dead stars. Did he make dead people?

You are assuming that since God is good and true etc. it matches natural production, but it is an assumption. Science doesn’t work like that. Again, by definition. So the cost of a mature creation is the loss of the ability to make any scientific conclusions about object beyond the light travel of the age of the created universe. Even AiG agrees with this.

Worse that that, as I have tried to argue above, internal processes in most astronomical objects like stars take longer than the YEC age of the universe to even get out of the object. And, even more, death of objects like stars take a long time to come about. We see the remnants of dead stars all over the place!

Larry says he has no problem with God making dead stars and “dark holes” (not sure what that is…). What about dead people?

My point, said as succinctly as I can.

If the universe was created YEC but made mature, then the cost of that maturity is the loss of knowledge of how celestial objects like stars, black holes, quasars, galaxies, operate in a physical sense because to “do science” requires a physical connection with physically produced objects. Physical here means “by natural processes and forces”. Miraculously produced objects and effects do not reflect the operation of physical processes by definition.

So, if the universe is YEC mature, there is no astronomical science to be done, or that can be done

[Mark_Smith]

My point, said as succinctly as I can.

If the universe was created YEC but made mature, then the cost of that maturity is the loss of knowledge of how celestial objects like stars, black holes, quasars, galaxies, operate in a physical sense because to “do science” requires a physical connection with physically produced objects. Physical here means “by natural processes and forces”. Miraculously produced objects and effects do not reflect the operation of physical processes by definition.

So, if the universe is YEC mature, there is no astronomical science to be done, or that can be done