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.

[Dimensio]

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.

If you do not desire unsolicited responses to your statements, you should send your statements as private messages, not public postings.

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

Insulting me does not change the fact that your postings are public, nor does it make your claims about Junior's argument any less false.

[pageonetoo]

Give up your straw man...

[Quark2005]

I notice the Evos are not waxing techno on this one. They are leaning more to the lame joke and personal attack mode. The technobabble is not as well developed in the area of pre-bigbang pseudoscience.

Why, does religion offer a better answer as to what happened before the Beginning?

A Comparion of ideas:

1) What happened before the dawn of the universe:

Creationism: Don't know

Science: Don't know

2) What happened after the dawn of the universe:

Creationism: Make stuff up

Science: Study empirical evidence, form hypotheses, make predictions, test predictions, validate theory (hence the Big Bang).

I'll take B, please.

[Dimensio]

As I have said, your insults do not demonstrate that you are correct.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

You give (false) choices of 1) or 2) and take "B". heh heh

[pageonetoo]

As I have said, your insults do not demonstrate that you are correct.

I learned a long time ago, that opinions are like a..holes. Everybody's got one...

I appreciate the attention, but you and I both know there is no reason for us to have a dialogue. You are as convinced of yours, as I have faith in mine. We'll see who wins in the end... I can wait, in peace.

The day will come, when we will all know the Answer!

[Bryan24]

So scientific inquiry, by rule, excludes God from any and all parts if the equation?

I guess that is why so few scientists believe in God.

BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, and it appears you haven't, anytime the subject of The Big Bang and anything that came before it is raised, God/Atheism is a central part of the discussion.

[Dimensio]

I appreciate the attention, but you and I both know there is no reason for us to have a dialogue. You are as convinced of yours, as I have faith in mine. We'll see who wins in the end... I can wait, in peace.

Your statements have no relevance to your misrepresentation of Junior's statements. Are you attempting to evade admission of error?

[Dimensio]

So scientific inquiry, by rule, excludes God from any and all parts if the equation?

Yes. The existence or workings of any deities is outside of the realm of scientific investigation. Any "God-related" events that may occur can never be accurately explained by the scientific method; the scientific answer in all such cases will either be incorrect or "unknown".

BTW, if you haven't figured it out yet, and it appears you haven't, anytime the subject of The Big Bang and anything that came before it is raised, God/Atheism is a central part of the discussion.

This is only because individuals such as yourself raise the issue.

[Bryan24]

So, gentlemen, do you believe there is a God?

Do you believe there is a spiritual realm beyond the physical realm in which our physical bodies exist?

[pageonetoo]

No, it takes knowledge of the evidence. That you are incapable of understanding a subject has no bearing on the subject's validity. A three-year-old doesn't understand calculus; it does not mean calculus is crap.

I used an extrapolation of his arguments, if you must stay on this. You must be starving for attention.

I can use the same terms to better explain it to you.

No, it takes knowledge of the evidence. That you are incapable of understanding a subject has no bearing on the subject's validity. (if) A "scientist" doesn't understand God; it does not mean God is crap.

Now, go and play in your sandbox.

[Junior]

And that has to do with this subject how? I notice that, as soon as the anti-science types run out of blatherings they immediately draw the "do you believe in God" card, as if, by changing the subject, they can regain the initiative.

T'ain't gonna happen. We're not discussing the Almighty. We're discussing the Big Bang.

[Dimensio]

I used an extrapolation of his arguments, if you must stay on this.

It is impossible to derive the statement "There is no God" from Junior's argument without being dishonest. Junior did not once reference God or the supernatural prior to your misrepresentation of his statements, either directly or indirectly.

[pageonetoo]

We're discussing the Big Bang.

Bullshit. You're proselytizing. You have a system built on faith in your "science". and you feel obligated (mor like compelled) to perpetuate it. It's nothing that I don't get from Jehovah's Winesses. They just go door-to-door...

You have a right to your opinion. It is based on assumption and conjecture. some things you can prove, some you can't. I can do the same with my "primitive superstition"! You can doubt God, and try to exclude Him from the conversation, but that denial doesn't make it so! He is inextricable for most of us.

[pageonetoo]

Why are you so obsessed with talking about God, and when will you stop pinging me with your crap? You want relevance, and attention. You get neither with your simplistic approach. But, i guess all "scientists" can't shoot rockets!

[Quark2005]

You give (false) choices of 1) or 2) and take "B". heh heh

Are you sure?

[Junior]

To someone like you for whom everything is religion, it might look like proselytizing. Science is based on reproduceable observation, evidence and testing -- not on divine revelation. No faith is required.

Can you provide reproduceable evidence for God? If not, then bringing Him into this discussion is nothing more than an attempt to obfuscate. Once you provide empirical evidence for the Almighty, then you can use Him in a scientific discussion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"What happened before the Big Bang?"

[Bryan24]

I'm serious. Dimensio sounds like he is a complete atheist. That is no skin off my nose if he is. But it would be nice to know, for discussion's sake, what his root values are.

Same for you. I'm guessing you are an atheist also, but, I could be wrong.

It is pretty clear in your discussions of science, you do not acknowleldge God.

Now, it could be you and Dimensio are simply hyper-discplined scientists. Fine.

But, it would be nice to know what a person believes while you are discussing with them.

Anything unreasonable about that?

BTW, I recognize that you regard me as an idiot and have total disdain for anything I say. But I would like to know if you believe in God or not?

[Dimensio]

Why are you so obsessed with talking about God,

You were the one who introduced the subject, when you used it to misrepresent Junior's argument. Your attempt to blame me for your non-sequitur does not show you to be correct.