From the book “THE PURPOSE GUIDED UNIVERSE”
By Bernard Haisch
ALL DARK LETTERS BY Keith Hunt
Is the Universe itself accidental or purposeful? On this issue the National Academy of Sciences has taken the following official position:
Religions and science answer different questions about the world. Whether there is a purpose to the universe or a purpose for human existence are not questions for science.... Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.
The Universe is an amazingly friendly place for life. This may seem like an odd thing to say, given how dark, empty, and forbidding space is. There is no sunny blue sky, no gentle summer breeze. What did the Apollo astronauts see and experience on their way to and from the moon?
The Sun was shining, but as a harsh, blazing Sun in an absolutely black sky. A Sun that heated one side of the spacecraft past the boiling point of water, while the shaded side of the craft froze at temperatures of more than 100 degrees below zero. And the fact that the spacecraft could travel at speeds of more than 20,000 mph with no resistance was due to the lack of air. Space is a pretty deep vacuum, good for whizzing through but not hospitable to life.
Beyond the solar system conditions are harsher still. Imagine traveling not a mere 180 thousand miles to the Moon, nor even several billion miles to the outermost planets: Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, no longer a full-fledged planet, now just a dwarf planet, but a good outpost at the outer limits of the solar system. Travel instead 10 trillion miles, halfway to the nearest star, Alpha Centauri. Look out your starship window and there you will see the Sun as just another point-like star in a pitch black sky. There is no heat to speak of, no light other than from the pinpoints of stars, and an even more perfect vacuum than that between the Earth and the Moon.
The temperature a thermometer would register is a mere 5 degrees Fahrenheit above absolute zero. That temperature, minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit, comes from the faint glow left over from the Big Bang that started the Universe, a glow that is invisible to the naked eye, but measurable with radio telescopes.
Cold, dark, empty…. with trillions of miles of emptiness between stars. How is the Universe friendly to life? The friendliness lies in the laws of nature. There are at least 10 fundamental properties of the Universe that together have just the right values to make life possible.
The Force of Gravity to the Electric (Coulomb) Force
The first fortuitous property involves two forces of nature that we experience every day: gravity and electricity. Electricity is produced when electrons stream through a conductor. In every house, electric currents made up of electrons flow back and forth at 60 cycles per second (50 in Europe) through wires and outlets. Electricity works because electrons have a negative charge. Electrons repel other electrons because of this charge. On the other hand electrons attract protons, which are positively charged, with exactly the same strength.
Electrons and protons are particles of matter. That means that in addition to the electric force (called the Coulomb force) there is an almost infinitesimally small force of gravity between electrons and other electrons, or between electrons and protons. It is the ratio of the gravitational force to the electric force that is the first key value setting the stage for life.
If the gravitational force were 10 times stronger than it is, relative to the electric force, stars would be smaller and have shorter lifetimes. Our Sun is about 4.6 billion years old, about halfway through its life. In a universe with a stronger gravitational force—relative to the electric force—the Sun would have burned itself out by now, cutting short the time for evolution of life on the surface of any planets in such a solar system.
[THE AUTHOR BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION AS HOW GOD CREATED; THE 4.6 BILLION YEARS IS GUESS WORK BASED UPON EVOLUTION OF THINGS SEEN, BUT AGE COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED IN THEM, AND NOT SLOW SLOW SLOW THIS AND THAT COMING TOGETHER….. WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW GOD DID IT. THE BIG BANG MAY OR MAY NOT BE HOW GOD STARTED IT ALL. INTERESTING THOUGH IS THE FACT THAT EVOLUTION SCIENCE TAKES US BACK TO WHERE THERE WAS NO MATTER, AND THEN SUDDENLY THERE WAS. PROVING GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND IT DID NOT ALWAYS EXIST; THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT WAS SO….. SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING AS WE WOULD LOOK AT MATTER - Keith Hunt]
And the planets too would be affected. They would likely be smaller and denser, with higher surface gravities. Any creatures that did manage to evolve in spite of the limited time would be far smaller than we are.
Galaxies would also be affected. Our Sun is part of the pinwheel-shaped Milky Way Galaxy containing at least 100 billion stars. But in a Universe with a stronger gravitational force, galaxies would be smaller; stars would be closer together. This has the consequence that stars would sometimes pass closely enough to each other to perturb the orbits of planets. That would likely change the climate of a planet, not a good thing when you want long-term stable conditions for life to evolve.
Between the abbreviated lifetimes of stars, the altered conditions on the surfaces of Earth-like planets, and perturbations by neighboring stars it is unlikely that life as we know it could have arisen if gravity were much stronger than it is relative to the electric force.
And on the other hand, if gravity were much weaker, far fewer stars would form, hence far fewer planets on which life can arise.
The Nuclear Force
Stars that serve as suns for hospitable planets are the necessary environments for life. Nuclear reactions power stars. As Einstein discovered in 1905, matter can be converted into energy…. and vice versa. This is crucial to the existence of stars. It's where their energy comes from.
Stars begin their lives as huge, contracting clouds of gas, primarily composed of hydrogen. Hydrogen is the simplest element, number one in the Periodic Table. It consists of one proton (the nucleus) and one electron. As the gas compresses due to its own gravity, the gas cloud shrinks to form a round star. It heats up and becomes extremely dense at its core.
Inside the star, electrons are stripped from the protons and move around freely. When the gas achieves a hundred times the density of water and a temperature of 20 million degrees Fahrenheit, nuclear reactions begin. In a multistage process, several hydrogen nuclei (which are just single protons) are converted into helium, the next simplest element whose nuclei consist of two protons and two neutrons. (This is possible because part of the process converts two of the protons into two neutrons.) Figure 4 shows schematically the input and output products of the most prevalent branch of the proton-proton fusion chain powering the Sun.
The two protons and two neutrons that make up a helium nucleus are tightly bound by the nuclear force that holds them together. This is different from the hydrogen nucleus, which is just a single proton and thus requires no binding together of protons and neutrons by the nuclear force. It is this binding caused by the nuclear force that releases energy. Another way to look at it is to say that the mass of the resulting helium is slightly less than the sum of the initial hydrogen nuclei, by 0.7 percent. That 0.7 percent loss of mass becomes—via Einstein's E=mc2—the energy that powers a star and causes it to shine.
The hydrogen-to-helium conversion takes place in several steps involving the creation of intermediate products. First there is deuterium, which is heavy hydrogen consisting of a proton and a neutron. Then helium-three, light helium, is created, consisting of two protons and a single neutron.
The strength of the nuclear force is critical for these intermediate products to be created.
Specifically it is the first reaction in the series that is crucial, the one that makes deuterium. Two protons collide and stick together thanks to the nuclear force. Then one of the protons becomes a neutron, and thus you have deuterium. If the nuclear force were 10 to 20 percent stronger than it is, this reaction would have occurred so efficiently in the Big Bang itself that all the hydrogen in the early universe would be converted into deuterium, leaving no hydrogen to power stars, hence no stars.
On the other hand, if the nuclear force were 10 to 20 percent weaker, deuterium would be unstable and the rest of the hydrogen-into-helium process would be short circuited. Stars would never be able to tap in to the nuclear energy that powers them. In that case, stars would likely collapse into black holes instead of shining through liberation of nuclear energy.
The Density of Matter
For thousands of years, the Earth was thought to be at the center of the cosmos. The Sun, the Moon, and five lights in the night sky called planets circled around the Earth at different rates. Constellations comprised of about 10,000 lights called stars moved together around the Earth. This was the Universe of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, Europe in the Middle Ages. No one knew how big it was, but probably not much more than familiar distances on Earth. And above the firmament of the stars was heaven.... with hell presumably deep down in the bowels of the Earth.
The Universe of today is a vastly different place. Even the Solar System is a whole lot bigger than the imagined Universe of antiquity. The outermost reaches of our solar system are several billion miles from the Sun. Then, it is another 25 trillion miles to Alpha Centauri, our nearest stellar neighbor in the Milky Way Galaxy. Our Galaxy has a diameter of about a million trillion miles. There are roughly as many galaxies in the Universe as there are stars in the Milky Way: several hundred billion. And the size of the entire Universe is impossible to grasp except in the abstract terms of numbers: about 100 billion trillion miles.
Born in an unimaginable fireball of trillions of degrees—the Big Bang—the Universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years.
[WELL THAT IS SCIENCE DE-PRESSING THE UNIVERSE, AS IT IS TODAY, BRINGING IT BACK TO A LESS THAN A PIN POINT; BUT GOD MAY HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN THAT; WHAT WE SEE TODAY MAY NOT BE THE WAY IT WAS ALWAYS; WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW - Keith Hunt]
Astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered in the 1920s that the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it is receding. Imagine it like a balloon blowing up. Eventually, far enough away, that recession velocity equals the speed of light itself. And that is our wall of visibility: the Hubble horizon. Like a fish trying to swim upstream against a rapid current, the light will never make progress toward us. It will forever recede away. That's as far as we will ever see with our most powerful instruments.
[“IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED….” IS PLURAL IN THE HEBREW, SO “IN THE BEGINNINGS GOD CREATED….” OR AS FENTON TRANSLATED “BY PERIODS GOD CREATED…..” HOW AND IN WHAT WAY THOSE “PERIODS” WERE, WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW - Keith Hunt]
In one sense we know immeasurably more about the Universe than the ancients did. But we also know curiously less. The ancients may not have understood the workings of the Universe, but they surely thought they could see all of it: the Sun, the Moon, five planets, and several thousand stars.
But today, 25 percent of our modern Universe is comprised of dark matter. We can't see it with our best instruments, but there is unmistakable evidence in the gravitational behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies that it exists. Something major is influencing the motions of stars and galaxies. We have no idea what it is. It could be new types of particles. It could be something else. No one knows.
Apart from its intrinsic mystery, dark matter is important because it is the major component in determining the average density of the Universe.
If you take the stars, the planets, the gas and dust clouds in interstellar space and imagine distributing all their atoms uniformly throughout the Universe, you would wind up with about one single atom on average in a volume the size of a small closet. That's how much is due to the known type of matter.
There is about five times as much dark matter. Both ordinary matter and dark matter exert gravity, which causes an attractive tug on the expanding universe.
Knowing how rapidly the Universe is expanding it is possible to calculate just how much matter, ordinary and dark, there would have to be to cause the Universe to stop expanding. That amount of matter is called the critical density, the amount that is just enough to halt the expansion but not quite enough to cause a recollapse of the Universe. If the Universe had on average the critical density, it would expand ever more slowly, stopping altogether at a time infinitely far in the future. More than the critical density and the Universe would collapse.
As it turns out, the actual density is about 30 percent of the critical density. But if you extrapolate back in time, a 30 percent of critical density today translates into a 99.999999999999999 percent of critical density one second after the Big Bang. This is amazingly close to 100 percent; in fact, one part in a million billion according to British cosmologist Sir Martin Rees.
Here is the amazing fine-tuning. If the density immediately after the Big Bang had been only 99.9 percent of critical, without all the other decimal-place nines, the density today would be many orders of magnitude less. This would have the consequence that the Universe would be expanding too fast for stars and galaxies to form.
And had it been just a fraction of a percent greater than 100 percent of the critical density at the very beginning, the Universe would have collapsed long ago.
Thus we have the situation that if the overall density of matter in the Universe had been higher or lower than it was at the very beginning, and by an utterly infinitesimal percentage, we would either have a lifeless Universe with black holes instead of stars, or else nothing but a tenuous gas filling the Universe instead of stars and planets. A millionth of a millionth percent difference either way at the time of the Big Bang would have doomed the Universe one way or the other. That is an impressive fine-tuning.
The Dark Matter Ratio
As reported in New Scientist (Dec. 6, 2008), the fact that dark matter is five to six times more abundant than ordinary matter is of considerable significance.
That ratio is conducive to the formation of galaxies—whose stars are likely to have planets. But because ordinary matter and dark matter "probably formed via radically different processes shortly after the Big Bang" there is no obvious reason why their ratios should be so close. Dark matter could just as well have outdone ordinary matter by a thousand to one….or a million to one. Chalk up another fortuitous coincidence conducive to the formation of life-bearing planetary surfaces.
The Even Bigger Mystery of Dark Energy
An even bigger mystery guest than dark matter came to the table in 1998: dark energy, something completely different from dark matter.
For decades astronomers had been measuring the expansion of the Universe with ever greater precision. The standard question was: Would the Universe keep expanding forever in spite of the gravitational self-attraction of all the matter in the Universe, or would that attraction win out in the end and pull the Universe back together into a Big Bang in reverse—you might say, a Big Crunch?
But no one seriously considered what the huge telescopes methodically measuring spectra of exploding stars, so-called supernovae, would show: that far from slowing down due to the gravitational self-attraction of matter, something was forcing the expansion of the Universe to accelerate, to speed up.
That something is called dark energy.
Like dark matter, we can't see it.
But whereas dark matter is some unknown stuff, it still obeys the law of gravity. Dark energy is double the mystery. Not only do we not know what it is, we also do not know how it manages to defy the law of gravity by acting to push things apart. It acts like anti-gravity. And to top it off, the amount of dark energy comprises 70 percent of the Universe.
A minor increase in the amount of dark energy would have blown the Universe into a massive expansion without stars and planets. Things could have been very unfriendly for life.
If the Big Bang had left the Universe in a smooth and uniform state of expansion, the Universe today would contain dark matter and rarefied hydrogen and helium gas with the density cited previously: about one atom of gas in a volume the size of a closet. But there would be no stars, no galaxies, no planets, and no other heavier elements.
Fortunately, for some reason, the aftermath of the Big Bang was not a perfectly uniform Universe. Small dumpiness that began as quantum fluctuations occurred, whose effects were magnified by gravity. But if this dumpiness had been greater or lesser by a factor of 10, the Universe would not have become a hospitable place for life.
Had it been 10 times more clumpy we would have a Universe filled with enormous black holes, containing the mass of an entire galaxy or more. Had it been 10 times less, galaxies would have had a difficult time forming at all. Stars would be further apart, and thus the heavy elements created in a first generation of stars—especially the carbon and oxygen essential for life—would be far less likely to condense into second-and third-generation stars—like our Sun—and simultaneously provide the raw material for the formation of planetary systems.
The Chemistry of Life: Carbon and Oxygen
All life as we know it is based on carbon.
Where does carbon come from?
It is formed in the more massive stars that continue their nuclear reactions past the hydrogen-into-helium stage, and ultimately spew heavy elements back into the Universe when they end their lives in supernova explosions. The steps are hydrogen into helium, then helium into beryllium, and then helium plus beryllium into carbon. But beryllium is very unstable and quickly decays, so that last step should hardly ever occur…. except for the fact that nature has provided a curious energy resonance that makes the reaction happen so quickly that carbon is formed before the beryllium can decay. That's why we have carbon in the Universe, and that's the key ingredient for life.
This leads to another fortuitous circumstance of the opposite sort. A similar resonance might reasonably be expected to exist leading to carbon quickly reacting to form oxygen, leaving no carbon behind. But such a resonance does not exist. Nature conspires to form some oxygen in massive stars, but not enough to wipe out the critical carbon. The end result is that we get just the right amount of both carbon and oxygen, and both are the essential elements for life.
That Ordinary Extraordinary Liquid: Water
Even ordinary water has some odd properties that are crucial for life. Its boiling point is about 250 degrees Fahrenheit higher than that of comparable liquids. This allows it to act as a liquid in a range of temperatures conducive to biological structure.
Its freezing properties are also fortuitous. As science journalist Robert Matthews wrote in the British magazine New Scientist:
The fact that solid water—Ice—defies convention by being less dense than its liquid state has stopped the oceans from freezing solid from the bottom up and killing all marine life.
The ice cubes floating in your drink, rather than sinking to the bottom, are yet another reminder that the laws of the Universe are rather special.
Even more curious is the fact that zero-point energy stretches the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in the water molecule in just the right way to allow the hydrogen atoms to link up with neighboring molecules more easily. (The zero-point energy is the underlying sea of energy due to quantum fluctuations, see www.calphysics.org/zpe.html or The God Theory.) Felix Franks of Cambridge University makes the point that swapping the hydrogen with its heavier isotope deuterium results in a liquid—heavy water—that is chemically identical, yet poisonous to all but the most primitive organisms. As Franks says: "The only difference is in the zero-point energy."
Without overinterpreting, it is interesting that zero-point energy may indirectly be involved in biology via its role in stretching the hydrogen bond in water.
Which is Heavier? Neutron or Proton
In an article in New Scientist, Paul Davies points out that it matters a great deal that the neutron is 0.1 percent heavier than the proton. If it were the other way around, all protons that resulted from the Big Bang would long since have changed into neutrons, and this would preclude the formation of atoms. And without atoms there would be no Universe as we know it. As it is, neutrons are stable when they are part of an atomic nucleus, but decay quickly into protons, electrons, and neutrinos when they are free. But it takes a permanently stable proton to have led to the formation of stars and other matter.
What Happened to All the Anti-matter?
Every fundamental particle of matter has an equal and opposite twin of antimatter.
The positron is a positively charged electron. An anti-proton is a negatively charged proton made up of anti-quarks. It is in principle perfectly possible to have antimatter atoms of all the elements. Planets and stars made of antimatter would be just like planets and stars made of ordinary matter. There is no reason we could not have anti-people. When the Universe was created in the Big Bang, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter created. The problem is that matter and antimatter immediately and completely destroy each other on contact, resulting in a burst of energy. For that reason we would not have a life-friendly universe, or any universe at all, if matter and antimatter had been created in equal amounts. We would have a Universe of all energy and no matter.
We also know that the stars and galaxies we see in the Universe must also be made of matter, rather than antimatter, because there are hydrogen atoms and other gases everywhere in space, and if half of that were antimatter there would be constant collisions between matter and anti-matter and astronomers would see annihilation signatures.
It is possible to infer from our knowledge of the Big Bang that for every 30,000,000 particles made of antimatter, there must have been 30,000,001 particles of matter. On average the 30,000,000 matter-antimatter pairs completely annihilated each other, leaving on average one particle of ordinary matter. It is that leftover one out of 30,000,000 out of which our Universe is made. Why this amazing almost but not complete cancellation? No one knows.
What to Make of This
I propose that these fortuitous "just right" laws of nature point to a creator. Arguments for the existence of a creator based on the apparent complex design of things, both animate and inanimate, go far back, no doubt into prehistory. Today that goes by the name Intelligent Design, a cause being promoted nowadays with a good deal of political motivation behind it. But from astrophysics to biology we have discovered adequate natural causes for the rich variety of things on this planet and in the cosmos (given the right laws of nature to begin with).
Darwinian evolution has impressive explanatory power. Whether examples of so-called irreducible complexity— certain biological systems that appear too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors while also too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations—prove to be temporary distractions or fatal flaws in evolution is not an issue that will be considered here.
The question is whether the fundamental properties of the Universe itself, the laws of physics, manifest some specialness whose result is the existence of life, and perhaps even whose purpose is the existence of life.
The noteworthiness of the special properties discussed here is not in dispute.
Carl Sagan alluded to some of them, although they were not as well known at the time. Books are out by authors such as British cosmologist Sir Martin Rees (Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe) and Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind (The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design) that take these fortuitous properties as well established.
The extent to which scientists take these fortuitous properties seriously can perhaps be gauged by what they are willing to postulate in order to make sense of them.
That ranges from the inferred existence of a huge number of other undetectable universes numbering one followed by 500 zeroes. To put that in perspective, the number of atoms in the Universe is only 10 followed by around 80 zeroes, essentially nothing by comparison.
And that's on the low side!
The upper limit is a literally infinite number of other universes. What does that gain you?
Return to the Copernican Principle. It basically asserts that if something appears unique or special, that is almost certainly a fluke of observation. The Sun appears to be going around the Earth once a day. It sure looks that way and appeared to our ancestors as proof positive that the Earth was special, being at the center of the Universe. But in fact the Earth is rotating, and that's all there is to it.
The Copernican Principle explanation of our special Universe would go something like this:
Yes, we and the Universe seem to be made for each other, but that does not mean our Universe was planned this way. It merely means that there must be a lot of other universes that are different from ours. In fact, there must be universes having all possible characteristics, a full range of properties, whatever they may be. But since those other universes are not hospitable to life as we know it, we could never find ourselves in one of those universes. We could only have originated in this universe, and that's why we find ourselves here.
It is a logical argument.
But you are forced to accept the pre-existence of laws or fields of some kind. Quantum fluctuations, often taken as the origin of our universe, cannot happen without quantum laws.
The assumption of a huge number, perhaps even an infinite number, of other undetectable universes is also a weighty requirement.
And then there is the personal problem. If universes arise at random, then there is no ultimate purpose in our lives. This argument can be attacked as irrelevant. If that's how it is, then that's how it is: accept it and move on.
There is a purpose for our lives, from my perspective, one that is completely consistent with everything that science has discovered about the universe and about life on Earth. This purpose includes the Big Bang, a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth, and Darwinian evolution.
YOU SEE THOUGH BELIEVING IN A GOD, THIS AUTHOR BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION, SLOW, SLOW, AND MORE SLOW…. CREATION BY EVOLUTION - Keith Hunt]
This perspective assumes that an infinite conscious intelligence pre-existed before the creation of physical matter. It does not seem possible to have a universe without the pre-existence of something. This something might be an ensemble of physical laws generating infinite random universes or it might be an infinite conscious intelligence. Present-day science cannot resolve this pre-existing something, and it seems that neither view is more rational than the other.
At first glance it might seem that one view is supported by evidence and the other is not. The accounts of the mystics and the meditative, prayerful, and sometimes spontaneous exceptional experiences of human beings throughout history provide experiential evidence for the existence of an infinite conscious intelligence. There appears to be zero evidence for random universes, although this is a popular scientific theory. Scientists fond of the random universe theory will reject the experiential type of evidence for an infinite conscious intelligence as merely subjective. This reduces the contest of views to a draw: zero on both sides.
The idea of an infinite conscious intelligence with infinite potential, whose ideas become the laws of physics of our Universe and others makes sense to me. The consciousness providing purpose can be called God, who transforms potential into experience and gives our universe a purpose. There is a vast difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. Making it happen, experiencing what it feels like, and savoring the sensations provide the difference between theory and practice. It is more satisfying to play the game than it is to theorize about the rules.
“….the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine" is what astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote in the 1930s about his observations.
I proposed something along those lines in The God Theory, that the origin of matter, energy, the laws of nature in this Universe and all others that may exist, arise ultimately from consciousness.
God desires to experience his potential. The life of every sentient being expresses God's ideas and abilities. What greater purpose could there be for each of us than to create an experience for God?
Because we are the incarnations of God in the physical realm, God experiences the richness of his potential through us…..
YES GOD DID SEE ALL THAT HE MADE AND SAID, “IT WAS GOOD” - GENESIS 1.
THE BREADTH AND THE VARIETY OF EVERYTHING IN THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE, IS MIND-BENDING; THE DISTANCE, THE GREATNESS, THE POWER OF IT ALL, THE HUMAN MIND CANNOT REALLY COMPREHEND IN FULL MAJESTY.
THEN THE DEPTHS OF WHAT SCIENCE IS NOW ABLE TO GO DOWN AND SEE, INTO ATOMS AND INTO THE ATOMS THEMSELVES, IS UNBELIEVABLE TO SEE.
THERE ARE LAWS THE UNIVERSE MUST HAVE IN ORDER TO EXIST THE WAY IT EXISTS. WHEN PHYSICAL MATTER AS WE KNOW IT CAME INTO BEING, THE LAWS GOVERNING IT ALSO HAD TO COME INTO BEING.
HOW DID EVOLUTION BRING SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING; AND BRING LAWS INTO EFFECT TO GOVERN THE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING?
JUST NOT POSSIBLE!
THE UNIVERSE IS HELD TOGETHER - DOING ITS THING WE MAY SAY; THE BIBLE SAYS IT IS HELD TOGETHER BY THE VERY POWER OF GOD, WHO BROUGHT IT ALL INTO BEING.