Probing Question: What happened before the Big Bang?

Pennsylvania State University ^ | 03 August 2006 | Barbara Kennedy

[PatrickHenry]

The question of what happened before the Big Bang long has frustrated cosmologists, both amateur and professional.

Though Einstein's theory of general relativity does an excellent job of describing the universe almost back to its beginning, near the Big Bang matter becomes so dense that relativity breaks down, says Penn State physicist Abhay Ashtekar. "Beyond that point, we need to apply quantum tools that were not available to Einstein."

Now Ashtekar and two of his post-doctoral researchers, Tomasz Pawlowski and Parmpreet Singh, have done just that. Using a theory called loop quantum gravity, they have developed a mathematical model that skates right up to the Big Bang -- and steps through it. On the other side, Ashtekar says, exists another universe with space-time geometry similar to our own, except that instead of expanding, it is shrinking. "In place of a classical Big Bang, there is in fact a quantum Bounce," he says.

Loop quantum gravity, one of the leading approaches to the unification of general relativity with quantum physics, was pioneered at the Institute of Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Penn State, which Ashtekar directs. The theory posits that space-time geometry itself has a discrete "atomic" structure, Ashtekar explains. Instead of the familiar space-time continuum, the fabric of space is made up of one-dimensional quantum threads. Near the Big Bang, this fabric is violently torn, and these quantum properties cause gravity to become repulsive, rather than attractive.

While the idea of another universe existing prior to the Big Bang has been proposed before, he adds, this is the first mathematical description that systematically establishes its existence and deduces its space-time geometry.

"Our initial work assumes a homogenous model of our universe," Ashtekar acknowledges. "However, it has given us confidence in the underlying ideas of loop quantum gravity. We will continue to refine the model to better portray the universe as we know it and to better understand the features of quantum gravity."

***

Abhay Ashtekar is holder of the Eberly family chair in physics and director of the Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry in the Eberly College of Science. He can be reached at ava1@psu.edu.

The finding reported above was published in Physical Review Letters in May 2006. The research was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and the Penn State Eberly College of Science.

[Bryan24]

(Shaking head slowly).....

Hmm, before the Big Bang, speculation, conjecture, Quantum theory, but no "God/NoGod" specualtion?

Strange thread you want there.

[Rock N Jones]

And for the umpteenth time, there was no "explosion." Spacetime expanded rapidly

So did the Atomic Bomb.

[Dimensio]

Hmm, before the Big Bang, speculation, conjecture, Quantum theory, but no "God/NoGod" specualtion?

"God" is an inappropriate subject of scientific inquiry.

[pageonetoo]

When has Junior claimed that "there is no God"? Please reference a specific posting.

I made no post to you. If you have a question related to my post, state it. Do not try trojan horses, nor other deflective tactics.

I made a post simplifying his argument. You've not been pinged... and it's not Howdy Doody time yet!

[js1138]

An uncaused event must have an infinite origin.

There is, nevertheless, at least one instance of an event or entity that has no cause or precedent.

With that in mind, your assurance that quantum events have causes is vacuous. We know from the existence of existence that not everything has a cause or precedent. The lack of causation for quantum events is consistent with pure logic.

What has to be rethought is the concept of causation. That is obviously faulty.

[tortoise]

Take that away and you deal with the timeless qualities of Consciousness, Being, Mind... God.

The "timeless qualities" of those things has not been established, largely because they have not been defined.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

"God" is an inappropriate subject of scientific inquiry.

I don't believe that at all. My view is that science is the study of nature. I believe that the universe is designed and God is the only thing natural, that God is real and the universe only an illusion of our senses. Therefore all science is really an attempt to transcend the universe and study God.

[Bryan24]

"God" is always an acceptable answer when the answer you are calculating comes up = unknown, incalculabe, infinity, or Nan(not a number)

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Placemarker

[Miles the Slasher]

"Probing Question: What happened before the Big Bang?"


Answer: The Big Dinner Date

[DarkSavant]

The "timeless qualities" of those things has not been established, largely because they have not been defined.

Nor is it possible to. Only a conscious being is capable of even remotely understanding what consciousness of mind even is. The try to define it would be infinitely self-referential. i.e. I'm conscious of my consciousness.

You could try to circumvent the issue by saying consciousness is a function of matter, which is the equivalent of saying "I'm conscious of matter affecting my consciousness", which brings the dead end of being forced to be conscious of the matter that produced that thought, and it becomes impossible again.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

There is, nevertheless, at least one instance of an event or entity that has no cause or precedent.

Eternity has no need of a cause, only things that happen in real time.

With that in mind, your assurance that quantum events have causes is vacuous. We know from the existence of existence that not everything has a cause or precedent. The lack of causation for quantum events is consistent with pure logic.

You are assuming your conclusion since the existence of existence is a quantum event and you know nothing about its cause.

What has to be rethought is the concept of causation. That is obviously faulty.

No  s  kidding.

[pageonetoo]

[Dimensio]

I made no post to you.

You made a posting to a public forum. If you do not wish for others to respond to your statements then you should refrain from making them in public.

If you have a question related to my post, state it. Do not try trojan horses, nor other deflective tactics.

My question was directly related to your post. You suggested that someone had claimed that "there is no God", but no postings thus far in this discussion have suggested such a thing.

I made a post simplifying his argument.

My response was in your apparent misstatement of Junior's conclusion in your "simplification". Nowhere has Junior stated or implied that "There is no God".

[Dimensio]

I don't believe that at all. My view is that science is the study of nature. I believe that the universe is designed and God is the only thing natural, that God is real and the universe only an illusion of our senses

What evidence have you for the entity known as "God"?

[pageonetoo]

What part of "I wasn't talking to you" don't you understand? If the person I pinged cared to respond, he/she would have.

You may need to see someone about your megalomania... or maybe just your eyesight.

[Dimensio]

"God" is always an acceptable answer when the answer you are calculating comes up = unknown, incalculabe, infinity, or Nan(not a number)

That is incorrect. In scientific inquiry, the only correct answer to an unknown is an admission that it is unknown.

This does not explain why you have introduced the irrelevant subject of athiesm.

[js1138]

What evidence have you for the entity known as "God"?

That depends on which pill you took.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

What evidence have you for the entity known as "God"?

Read all my other posts in this thread and the responses to them. It is basically all here.

[NCC-1701]

"...Faith :)..."

Did you mean this?: