0
   

I've been saying it all along! Before the big bang...

 
 
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2008 08:48 pm
Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?



Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn?t go there ? at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors ? and so the question didn?t make sense from a scientific view.
But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a ?quantum bounce,? where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering.

Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours. Their study will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

?The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang,? Singh told PhysOrg.com. ?It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours.?

The finding builds on previous research, with some important differences. Last year, Penn State physicist Martin Bojowald used a simplified version of LQG to show that a universe ?on the other side? of the bounce could have existed. However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of ?cosmic amnesia.?

But Corichi and Singh have modified the simplified LQG theory further by approximating a key equation called the quantum constraint. Using their version, called sLQG, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce.

?This means that the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours,? Singh said. ?The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.?

That means that our universe today, roughly 13.7 billion years after the bounce, would share many of the same properties of the pre-bounce universe at 13.7 billion years before the bounce. In a sense, our universe has a mirror image of itself, with the Big Bang (or bounce) as the line of symmetry.

?In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same,? said Singh. ?It will follow the same dynamical equations, the Einstein?s equations when the universe is large. Our model predicts that this happens when the universe becomes of the order 100 times larger than the Planck size. Further, the matter content will be the same, and it will have the same evolution. Since the pre-bounce universe is contracting, it will look as if we were looking at ours backward in time.?

Specifically, Corichi and Singh calculate that the change in relative fluctuations across the bounce is less than 10-56, a number which becomes even smaller for universes that grow larger than 1 megaparsec (our universe is somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000 megaparsecs).

As the researchers explain, having an identical twin universe would not necessarily mean that every single feature of both universes would be identical. For instance, it doesn?t imply that there was another you that existed at some point, a person who has already lived your life.

?If one were able to look at certain microscopic properties with a very strong microscope ? a very high-energy experiment probing the Planck scale ? one might see differences in some quantities, just as one might see that twins have different fingerprints or one has a mole and the other does not, or a different DNA,? Singh said.

As Singh explained, there are still many questions regarding the details of the possible pre-bounce universe.

?The biggest question is whether these features survive when we consider more complex situations,? he said. ?For example, one would like to know whether some structures present in the previous universe ? like galaxies ? will leave some imprint in the new expanding one that will give rise to identical structure or just 'similar.' For instance, it could happen that, in the previous universe, galaxies formed in a different way, so one might have a different distribution of galaxies on the other side. We will be able to answer this question when we understand these models.?

Ultimately, Corichi and Singh?s model might even tell us what a future universe would look like. Depending on how fast our present universe is accelerating ? which will ultimately determine its fate ? there?s a possibility that a generalization of the model would predict a re-collapse of our own universe.

?Such a universe will have many bounces from one branch to another,? Singh said. ?It is also possible that universes in different branches will be identical.?

More information: Corichi, Alejandro, and Singh, Parampreet. ?Quantum bounce and cosmic recall.? Arxiv:0710.4543v2. Accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.

Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,381 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
DiversityDriven
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 06:45 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Quote:
The theory suggests the possibility of a “quantum bounce,” where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe.
So what triggered the bounce? I know, it was the great spaghetti monster in the sky.
I wonder if Corichi and Singh practice religion? They evidently have faith in there theory. So FF, do you believe in there opinion? If you do does that make it fact? Sab thinks so?
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 07:15 am
@DiversityDriven,
DiversityDriven;55893 wrote:
So what triggered the bounce? I know, it was the great spaghetti monster in the sky.
I wonder if Corichi and Singh practice religion? They evidently have faith in there theory. So FF, do you believe in there opinion? If you do does that make it fact? Sab thinks so?


Fail again.

Trying to stick faith into science. Looking for the (verb)-er behind it all. Here's a suggestion, bring forth evidence showing that such a being exists, and we'll talk. Until then... well... it's faith.

All this time you've been aiming at ol Charlie D and his Beagle while quantum theory poses the bigger threat to your worldview.

Go LHC! Find that god particle!
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2008 12:44 pm
@DiversityDriven,
DiversityDriven;55893 wrote:
So what triggered the bounce? I know, it was the great spaghetti monster in the sky.
I wonder if Corichi and Singh practice religion? They evidently have faith in there theory. So FF, do you believe in there opinion? If you do does that make it fact? Sab thinks so?


did you not read the article? It clear states that the bounce was cause by the collapse of a previous universe, it doesn't require much brain power to guess what caused the one before that...
DiversityDriven
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 08:55 am
@Sabz5150,
Sabz5150;55896 wrote:
Fail again.

Trying to stick faith into science. Looking for the (verb)-er behind it all. Here's a suggestion, bring forth evidence showing that such a being exists, and we'll talk. Until then... well... it's faith.

All this time you've been aiming at ol Charlie D and his Beagle while quantum theory poses the bigger threat to your worldview.

Go LHC! Find that god particle!
I don't have to try, faith is there. Like your faith in Darwinism of which you practice everyday. You think it takes faith to believe there was a trigger, or does science say there was one?
Quote:
Here's a suggestion, bring forth evidence showing that such a being exists, and we'll talk.
When you prove the big bang wasn't triggered. What do you think the trigger was, science guy? The big spaghetti monster in the sky?
Quote:
All this time you've been aiming at ol Charlie D and his Beagle while quantum theory poses the bigger threat to your worldview.
You claim it's one of the biggest anchors of your beliefs. I think i'm chippin at the right thing.
So on a second note. Big Bang. Caused or uncaused/cause? I anticipate another side step.
DiversityDriven
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 08:58 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;55907 wrote:
did you not read the article? It clear states that the bounce was cause by the collapse of a previous universe, it doesn't require much brain power to guess what caused the one before that...


What started it all? Things in motion tend to stay in motion. That's at rest tend to stay at rest. and for every action there is a reaction. There had to be a cause to come from a finite point, correct?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 10:57 am
@DiversityDriven,
DiversityDriven;56055 wrote:
There had to be a cause to come from a finite point, correct?


Says who? :dunno:
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 12:23 pm
@DiversityDriven,
DiversityDriven;56054 wrote:
I don't have to try, faith is there. Like your faith in Darwinism of which you practice everyday.


Faith implies belief without evidence. I believe with evidence. Ergo, not faith. It's as simple as that, doesn't make a difference how you try and spin it.

Science is about natural answers to natural questions. Nothing more, nothing less. Faith is not required when I can observe and see for myself the facts.

Quote:
You think it takes faith to believe there was a trigger, or does science say there was one?


I never said that. That's you trying to use typical creationist rhetoric and failing miserably. Science does not try and refute this "trigger", but it does not allow for a supernatural (READ: untestable, unpredictable, without evidence) one. Just like science does not allow for gravity to be defined as "invisible magnet gnomes pulling all things towards each other", science does not allow for an "invisible supreme being creating all with a snap of his cosmic finger".

Quote:
When you prove the big bang wasn't triggered.


Again with this "trigger" thing. Let me ask this: What difference does it really make if there was a trigger or not? Your hypothesis still lacks solid ground because you cannot show evidence or run tests based on YOUR trigger (i.e. God).

Bringing us to...

Quote:
What do you think the trigger was, science guy? The big spaghetti monster in the sky?


The trigger? A phase transition. If you do not know what this is, tough tits.

The result of this phase transition? The Big Bang.

Quote:
You claim it's one of the biggest anchors of your beliefs. I think i'm chippin at the right thing.


Like chipping at a diamond with a mica hammer. You have no clue what you are talking about, spewing constant and damn near predictable creationist flawed arguments. Guess what? They fail every single time. It is obvious to just about everyone that your science knowledge does not surpass mid-level high school from the 90's and your understanding of scientific terminology and methods is non-existent. Hell, I've had to teach you why you improperly apply YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS* in a debate, after which you went on this rant about the definition of "objectivity" (which you also failed at). That's sad... that is just sad.

Quote:
So on a second note. Big Bang. Caused or uncaused/cause? I anticipate another side step.


Caused by a near instant phase transition. We have evidence of this. Your point? Oh, GOD did it? Okay, show your evidence. What physical, empirical evidence do you have of this God? I'd love to see it.

* http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2891/#post54641
0 Replies
 
DiversityDriven
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 05:59 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;56068 wrote:
Says who? :dunno:

Logic.
DiversityDriven
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 06:19 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Quote:
Faith implies belief without evidence.
I asked if your believed, you said yes. That's all i require.
Quote:
Science is about natural answers to natural questions. Nothing more, nothing less.
So what of the un-natural? If you can't see it, it ain't there? Kinda like black matter?
Quote:
I never said that. That's you trying to use typical creationist rhetoric and failing miserably. Science does not try and refute this "trigger", but it does not allow for a supernatural one.
"Science does not try to refute it" What do you think the cause is? No opinion? "but it does not allow for a supernatural one" Can it discount it 100%?
Quote:
Again with this "trigger" thing. Let me ask this: What difference does it really make if there was a trigger or not?
Ask yourself that, goes against physics don't it?
Quote:
Your hypothesis still lacks solid ground because you cannot show evidence or run tests based on YOUR trigger (i.e. God).
But yet a trigger occured by your own judgement? And you to will not define nor be able to test your hypothesis, correct? Be it God or spaghetti?
Quote:
The trigger? A phase transition. If you do not know what this is, tough tits.
How very scientific of you, i might add that this is very objective of you as well?
Quote:
The result of this phase transition? The Big Bang.
You can't explain one, why should i ask about the other.
Quote:
Like chipping at a diamond with a mica hammer. You have no clue what you are talking about, spewing constant and damn near predictable creationist flawed arguments. Guess what? They fail every single time. It is obvious to just about everyone that your science knowledge does not surpass mid-level high school from the 90's and your understanding of scientific terminology and methods is non-existent. Hell, I've had to teach you why you improperly apply YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS* in a debate, after which you went on this rant about the definition of "objectivity" (which you also failed at). That's sad... that is just sad.
Do i have to know what i'm talking about? Doesn't appear so. I seem to keep you runnin in circles fairly easy.
Quote:
Caused by a near instant phase transition. We have evidence of this.
Who's we? And by near, how close is that?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 06:35 pm
@DiversityDriven,
DiversityDriven;56106 wrote:
Logic.


where does it say that?

Tell me why the universe cannot be infinite!
0 Replies
 
Sabz5150
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 08:01 pm
@DiversityDriven,
DiversityDriven;56107 wrote:
I asked if your believed, you said yes. That's all i require.


Belief by fact, not faith Smile That's where the line is drawn.

Quote:
So what of the un-natural? If you can't see it, it ain't there? Kinda like black matter?


Well, it helps to call it by its proper name if you want to be taken seriously.

Here's the trick with dark matter. It's effects can be observed.

Quote:
"Science does not try to refute it" What do you think the cause is? No opinion?


A phase transition. Simple enough. Already answered that one.

What's your opinion?

Quote:
"but it does not allow for a supernatural one" Can it discount it 100%?


It can't discount it even 1%. The problem is it can't account for it either. It's not scientific. Therefore, not science. NEXT.

Quote:
Ask yourself that, goes against physics don't it?


Not at all.

Quote:
But yet a trigger occured by your own judgement? And you to will not define nor be able to test your hypothesis, correct? Be it God or spaghetti?


I love debating creationists Smile It reminds me of teaching a dog card tricks.

A trigger? Yes. Cause? Phase transition. Pretty straightforward. We've one over this multiple times.

Quote:
How very scientific of you, i might add that this is very objective of you as well?


Why, thank you. The facts point to what I explained, look them up for yourself.

Quote:
You can't explain one, why should i ask about the other.


Now you've cranked the bulls*it meter to the max. You don't want to put your faith on the scientific block. You know it will fail. You know I will chop your argument into confetti and blow it in your face.

And enjoy every last bit of it Very Happy


Quote:
Do i have to know what i'm talking about? Doesn't appear so.


To not come out looking like a complete idiot, yes, kinda helps.

Quote:
I seem to keep you runnin in circles fairly easy.


Just showing off my knowledge. It's fun, at your expense.

Quote:
Who's we? And by near, how close is that?


We? Oh, we're the inhabitants of a place known as "reality".

"Near" is not a distance. Sheesh, you can't even get THAT right. Read the words "near instant". That means it was an almost instantaneous change.

Wow, this is what humanity breeds? We're screwed.
Numpty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 07:54 pm
@Sabz5150,
Mr Driven,....ASS,....HANDED,.....TO YA!! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I've been saying it all along! Before the big bang...
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 08:07:15