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.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You don't understand. Nothing happened before the big bang, yet it was a purely natural phenomenon in spite of the fact that nature did not exist until afterward. In other words, the big bang was caused by its result. Apparently.

[Dimensio]

It has no relevance to YOU.

This does still not explain why you introduced the subject of atheism into this discussion.

[PatrickHenry]

Amazing that this cosmology thread survived so long.

It hasn't. It's been hijacked by the "I'm gonna witness anywhere I want" gang and dragged into the Dark Ages.

[exit82]

I wish I was that clever. See my post, #49. It's an old joke I heard somewhere else.

[RightWhale]

Yeah. Well, I was going to mention that the paper was accepted in 'Letters,' which is where informal proposals go. If it were a formal theory article or monograph it would be accepted in the journal proper after appropriate peer review. Who knows, the proposal might be adopted into the model in some form. It certainly would take care of the what happened before Time began question, but the what happens outside the universe question will never be sufficiently explained to non-mathematicians. That's the way it appears it will be until we become interested in math and science as a country again.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, I was going to mention that the paper was accepted in 'Letters,' which is where informal proposals go.

I'm not sure of that. Physical Review Letters is the name of the journal, and it's probably the most prestigious in the whole field of physics. The article doesn't say it was published as a letter, although maybe it was.

[sirchtruth]

You are completely clueless! Just because YOU post some farcial explanation doesn't mean everyone has to buy it, hook, line, and sinker? What an arrogant prick to think YOUR explanation is the END ALL explanation, especially when you were not around to witness an event. Your opinion, and research (bad ones at that), don't explain jack! You may have an convoluted explanation, but it's not fact, or are you totally deluded in the cult of evo to realize this?

BTW, it's ALL opinion, no fact. You actually have yet to show a FACT. Way to keep track of meaningless post, you must be so proud of yourself! Welcome to FAITH 101!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

www.cosmologystatement.org

[Dimensio]

Insulting Ichneumon does not alter the fact that you have repeatedly and knowingly misrepresented the subject of the Big Bang.

[balrog666]

Yes any discussion of what happened before the "big bang" is open season for the inclusion of any gods whatsoever into the dialogue. A rational person probably wouldn't be so defensive about including only one out of the thousands of gods worshipped throughout our history. But, like most in the religious community, you already know everything, and no other belief system can possibly be entertained.

You are unwilling to discuss actual science so most people would prefer to leave you in you self-chosen intellectual ghetto.

The jokes on you, friend... You are a blip on the radar to all the gods, demons, and pixies in the universe! No matter how much you try to dispel the notion, your beliefs are nothing but smoke and laughter for the truly chosen!

Give us a break and try arguing your position with positive, evidentiary comments rather than bullsh!t beliefs that any three-year-old could happily entertain. Or are you too afraid you may be wrong and be condemned to the Hell of Being Cut to Pieces for all ETERNITY!

[Popman]

snicker

[Coyoteman]

BTW, it's ALL opinion, no fact. You actually have yet to show a FACT.

This is a fact (data point). A cute one too!

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The Big Cigarette came after.

LOLOLOLOLOL

[PatrickHenry]

You don't understand. What to you -- in your scientific worldview -- may look like a complete mental collapse is really a blessed event. These guys are witnessing. Leave them be.

[Chances Are]

Well, why did they call it the "Big Bang"? Why didn't they simply name it, "the rapidly-expanding spacetime"? You, know, truth in advertising and all that...

CA....

[Coyoteman]

Big bang pushed back two billion years

16:26 04 August 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Zeeya Merali

Our universe may be 15% larger and older than we thought, according to new measurements of the distance to a nearby galaxy.

[snip]

Source.

[PatrickHenry]

Yes, we've got a thread on that: ASTRONOMERS CRUNCH NUMBERS, UNIVERSE GETS BIGGER.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What an arrogant prick to think YOUR explanation is the END ALL explanation, especially when you were not around to witness an event."

Touched a nerve I see. Your manners need improvement.

BTW were you around to witness the Resurrection?

[Coyoteman]

Yes, we've got a thread on that: ASTRONOMERS CRUNCH NUMBERS, UNIVERSE GETS BIGGER.

Take part of a day off to work and look what happens.

Haven't seen that thread (obviously), but I can bet the outcome: hijacked by the usual suspects.

[sirchtruth]

How can I misrepresent something that has no basis in fact, other than scientist guesses and opinions? You evo's can't stand the fact that the best explanations you can come up with are JUST GUESSES and conjecture.

It's highly arrogant to think just because science speculates about an event, it's written in stone...

You evo's can sit there and study the events,(all power to you to find the solution), but to proclaim an "explanation" the end all of the argument is so pompas, you deserved to be flicked away like nats...

What I have a hard time with, is sometimes "we" are not arguing the same definate perceptions.

I do not misrepresent the agendized science proclaimations...If I misrepresent TRUE/PURE science then it is not ME misrepresenting it, it is those with an agenda that I repeat.

It obviously PO's you evo's that my opinion can hold equal weight infront of the general public.