Have we found the universe that existed before the Big Bang?

io9 ^ | 11/19/10

[LibWhacker]

Have we found the universe that existed before the Big Bang? The current cosmological consensus is that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago with the Big Bang. But a legendary physicist says he's found the first evidence of an eternal, cyclic cosmos.

The Big Bang model holds that everything that now comprises the universe was once concentrated in a single point of near-infinite density. Before this singularity exploded and the universe began, there was absolutely nothing - indeed, it's not clear whether one can even use the term "before" in reference to a pre-Big-Bang cosmos, as time itself may not have existed yet. In the current model, the universe began with the Big Bang, underwent cosmic inflation for a fraction of a second, then settled into the much more gradual expansion that is still going on, and likely will end with the universe as an infinitely expanded, featureless cosmos.

Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most renowned physicists of the last fifty years, takes issue with this view. He points out that the universe was apparently born in a very low state of entropy, meaning a very high degree of order initially existed, and this is what made the complex matter we see all around us (and are composed of) possible in the first place. His objection is that the Big Bang model can't explain why such a low entropy state existed, and he believes he has a solution - that the universe is just one of many in a cyclical chain, with each Big Bang starting up a new universe in place of the one before.

Have we found the universe that existed before the Big Bang?

How does this help? Well, Penrose posits the end of each universe will involve a return to low entropy. This is because black holes suck in all the matter, energy, and information they encounter, which works to remove entropy from our universe. (Where that entropy might go is another question entirely.) The universe's continued expansion into eventual nothingness causes the black holes themselves to evaporate, which ultimately leaves the universe in a highly ordered state once again, ready to contract into another singularity and set off the next Big Bang.

As alternative theories go, it's not without its merits, but there's no evidence to support it...until now. He says he's found evidence for his ideas in the cosmic microwave background, the microwave radiation that permeates the universe and was thought to have formed 300,000 years after the Big Bang, providing a record of the universe at that far distant time. Penrose and his colleague Vahe Gurzadyan have discovered clear concentric circles within the data, which suggests regions of the radiation have much smaller temperature ranges than elsewhere.

So what does that mean? Penrose believes these circles are windows into the previous universe, spherical ripples left behind by the gravitational effects of colliding black holes in the previous universe. He also says these circles don't work well at all in the current inflationary model, which holds all temperature variations in the CMB should be truly random.

Here's where the fun begins. If the circles are really there and are really doing what Penrose says they're doing, then he's managed to overthrow the standard inflationary model. But there's a long way to go between where we are now and that point, assuming it ever happens.

The inflationary model has become the consensus for a good reason - it's the best explanation we've got for the universe we have now - and so cosmologists will examine any results that appear to disprove it very critically. There are also a couple key assumptions in Penrose's theory, particularly that all particles will lose their mass towards the end of the universe. Right now, we don't know whether that will actually happen - in particular, there's no proof that electrons ever decay.

[mad_as_he$$]

Currently there is more evidence to support the big bang than there is to support blackhole theory. LHC may change that, if so OK. BTW it is not my theory.

[Dead Corpse]

Currently, more people are trying to make their careers by "proving" inflationary/deflationary cosmology than are willing to look at evidence to the contrary.

Think about it though. Most of our theories of how things work are all based on closed and isolated systems. Everything we've seen of the Universe so far doesn't necessarily lend itself to being a "closed" system. Physicists knot themselves up coming up with extra-dimensions to make some of the observational data match their equations.

What does a black hole do? It sucks in matter and energy and strips it down to a level where even quarks act funny. As a blackhole radiates (one of the few things I think Hawking really got right), this energy is leached back into space-time via virtual particle pairs. Background radiation anyone? The blackhole phenomena becomes an anti-entropy device in essence. No "luke warm soup", no "big crunch", no BS...

Very neat. Very tidy. Dr. Occam can give a heck of a haircut.

I realize it isn't your theory, please consider it a generic "you". Sorry about that...

[r9etb]

It seems you view logic and mathematics as if they were effectively attributes of God, while I see them as creatures of God.

Well, as to my part ... yes and no. I think we agree on the fact that God created the universe and acts within the universe -- and I'm positing that the nature of the universe, the way it's put together, is a reflection of the nature of God Himself, and not only the consequences of decisions God could have made either way.

God does stuff; and to do so, He has to act some way. Why would we assume that the way He acts, does not reveal something to us about the nature of God Himself? ("For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made....")

If we consider math and its extraordinary power to describe the universe .... well, what exactly is math, anyway?

The principles of mathematics are evidently something we discover. And as those principles are apparently not anchored in time or space or matter, one might even go so far as to suggest that mathematical principles are in some sense "eternal." Perhaps mathematics is part of the way God expresses Himself: when He spoke the Word, surely He used a language -- surely He had concepts with which to express what was on His mind? And being made in His image, perhaps we're able to understand the language, too? (Not saying that math is the only part of that language....)

I think God has only one "fixed property": He cannot lie. ... God was never "constrained" by anything other than Truth (or so it seems to me) in the Beginning.

Truth as opposed to what? If Truth, what about non-truth? Or ... if God is "I AM," what about "Not I AM?" I'm sure you see where this is leading...

If God is "constrained" by Truth, doesn't that make somehow make logic an essential part of God's nature, rather than something He created after the fact?

I'm not saying that my view is "better" than yours, only that it's not the same as yours.... And it's marvelous to discuss these issues with you!

I agree that it's marvelous -- not least because we're able to enjoy the give and take, and to discuss things without rancor. You're a real gem, ma'am, and I'm fortunate to know you.

[betty boop]

The principles of mathematics are evidently something we discover. And as those principles are apparently not anchored in time or space or matter, one might even go so far as to suggest that mathematical principles are in some sense "eternal." Perhaps mathematics is part of the way God expresses Himself: when He spoke the Word, surely He used a language — surely He had concepts with which to express what was on His mind? And being made in His image, perhaps we're able to understand the language, too? (Not saying that math is the only part of that language....)

It seems to me mathematical principles are universals. If this guarantees them status as "eternals," then so be it.

What I do know, or rather have "remembered" thanks to the great mathematician Robert Rosen, is that mathematics is ***THE*** universal natural language. It is the very language of natural law, and also of the natural sciences.

All other natural languages are confined to given cultures. But members of disparate cultures who speak "mathematics" are instantly on the same page, regardless of the native tongue they inherited from their forebears. It's really quite a miraculous thing!

And so it seems that you and I agree that mathematics and logic are essential, and that they have divine significance.

I so welcome your excellent essay/post! My substantial reply will have to wait, however, till after Thanksgiving. I am chief cook and bottle washer of this annually celebrated family event. That means I'm probably going to be gone from FR the next couple of days.

But I'll be thinking of what you wrote!

Meanwhile, I came across something in John D. Barrow's Pi in the Sky: Counting, Thinking, and Being that seemed spot-on to the problems we deliberate here. He evinces various ways of imagining the relation of God to mathematics in a figure (page 256) which I render here:

Arrrggghhhh! I can't get the image to "flip" (invert) no matter what file format I try. I apologize: Good luck to anybody who's trying to read this image!!!

Still, It seems I'm a candidate for (a). And maybe you, dear r9etb, are a candidate for (b)! Maybe....

Anyhoot, may God's blessings be with you and all your loved ones on Thanksgiving Day!

Thank you ever so much for writing, dear r9etb. I hope to be speaking with you again soon!

Also thank you so very much for your kind words.

[betty boop]

Arrrggghhhh! I can't get the image to "flip" (invert) no matter what file format I try. I apologize: Good luck to anybody who's trying to read this image!!!

P.S.: Please disregard the above whining. The graphic did not display well in FR preview; but it seems to render okay in the real thing....

[Quix]

Thanks for your pings to your great posts.

[r9etb]

I'd be a candidate for (a) as well.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving!

[TXnMA]

Thank you, Dear Sister, for our gret, thought-provoking posts -- and for your self-flipping images... LOL!

The article sent me off on another tangent: If Penrose has, indeed, detected evidence of order and structure in the "prep for the Big Bang," would that imply planned order, design and purpose in the preparation?

Hmmmm! Makes one wonder Who might have done that...? ;-)

[LibWhacker]

It would seem so. I recently read that photons cannot decay; in relativity theory their clocks are stopped from the point of view of every frame of reference.

[The Cajun]

It would seem so. I recently read that photons cannot decay; in relativity theory their clocks are stopped from the point of view of every frame of reference.

One theory I like since their "clocks are stopped" zero time running in their reference frame then length contraction should be infinite. No time or distance in a photon's reference frame (from the photon's point of view). Solves the "spooky action at a distance problem" between two entangled photons because there is no distance between them in their reference frame.

Waiting for the better educated to throw rocks at me ;^)

[Texas Songwriter]

If eternity future is possible..why not eternity past?..

There are no "actual infinites". Look at this. Today is the last day of all days. But tomorrow will be the last day of all days. Therefore infiite past has changed from infinite days to infinite days + one more day. Ergo there cannot be an infinite past. This is Kalams argument of the cosmological argument for a beginning of the universe (very simplified form). The general theory of relativity asserts that time, space, matter, and energy had a beginning. This was confirmed and supported by Wilson and Penzias in finding the bacground ratiation from the beginnning of the universe, as well as COBE, WMAP, the Red Shift, the second thermal law.

[hosepipe]

Time is such a three dimensional concept..
To "flesh" time is very real and solid.. even axiomatic..
To the "spirit" time may be liquid.. in a metaphorical sense..

I believe there are two dimensions/realms.. 1) this one.. 2) the spiritual dimension..
Time could be an "element" like water,,, gas, liquid, solid..
But in this dimension time being/appearing solid..

Just as there can be "dark" matter/energy in this realm..
There could also be "dark" time.. maybe liquid or even gas.. in a allegorical sense..
How can you talk of these things?.. Allegorically of course..

[Alamo-Girl]

The funny thing is science fundamentally is devoted to the elucidation of causes of natural phenomena. Why is it acceptable for science to turn a blind eye when it comes to the cause or origin of time itself?

Indeed. It is not acceptable and a few physical cosmologists do admit that the inability to explain real time is a weakness of their theories (e.g. Steinhardt and Hawking.)

Physical causality is taken as a given in all such theories - but physical causality requires both space and time.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

And Happy Thanksgiving!

[betty boop]

Happy Thanksgiving, dearest sister in Christ!

May our Lord's blessings be with you and all your dear ones today — and always!

[LibWhacker]

Absolutely true. Bizarre but true. To a photon, it's almost as if the universe is two dimensional. Whichever direction it travels and whatever object exists in that direction, to the photon, that thing is already at hand. There is zero distance between it and the photon, as you say. To the photon, everything in the universe which lies in that direction appears to exist in a plane, right in front of its nose. Truly bizarre stuff.

It's what the universe would look like to us if we could approach the speed of light arbitrarily close. You could go anywhere in the universe in the blink of an eye, from your point of view. But to an outside observer stuck on Pluto, say, (the earth probably won't be here), it'll take you tens of billions of years.

(No, everybody, I'm not a physicist. So if I've got it wrong, pipe in and straighten me out! I'd appreciate it.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Our Thanksgiving was wonderful, dearest sister in Christ! I pray yours was as well!

[TruthFactor]

More from the Barry Kumnick TOE I posted from previously. See his remarks about photons in the comment.

I just discovered the direct mathematical equation that represents the universe....

Unfortunately, the proper mathematical symbols won't display on this forum :(

Here is the closest I can get to it here:

U = { L(L(L(L inf))) }

where: U = the Universe L = Lambda dagger = Anti-lambda = transinfinite recursive lambda quantum decomposition L = Lambda = transfinite recursive lambda quantum composition inf = infinity = the singularity

This decomposes into the following two direct lambda quantum calculus equations:

L(L inf) = inf represents Energy and Matter L(L inf) = inf represents Dark Energy and Dark Matter

where inf = black hole singularity composed of white hole quantum foam inf = white hole singularity composed of black hole quantum foam

In words, this equation says the universe is the self-dual symmetric direct lambda quantum composition and direct lambda quantum decomposition of a singularity.

In simple terms:

- The finite is the composition of the decomposition of the infinite.

-The infinite is the decomposition of the composition of the finite.

In more technically correct terms:

- The finite is the transfinite recursive direct lambda quantum composition of the transinfinite recursive direct lambda quantum decomposition of the infinite.

- The infinite is the transinfinite recursive direct lambda quantum decomposition of the transfinite recursive direct lambda quantum composition of the finite.

Basically, the universe is the symmetric composition and decomposition of the singularity. This creates a complex scalar temporal and anti-temporal energy field which creates a dynamic balance between temporal energy and anti-temporal dark energy respectively.

Next, the temporal and anti-temporal complex scalar fields compose and decompose symmetrically and anti-symmetrically. This creates the SO(2) and SO(3) unitary groups which compose and decompose to form the energy color / anti-color and the dark energy color / anti color fields. (You get 3 colors and 3 anti-colors for energy and 3 colors and 3 anti-colors for dark energy).

The color and anti-color virtual energy fields then compose and decompose with their adjoint representations to create the virtual gluon plasma field with 8 types of virtual energy gluons and 8 types of virtual dark energy gluons.

The rest of the standard model of particle physics follows, except there is a hidden mirror sector composed of dark energy and dark matter that mirrors the parity of the energy and matter universe, thus causing parity conservation over the universe as a whole. In addition, there is no Higg's boson and photons are stationary relative to spacetime, but spacetime expands at the speed of light, providing the illusion that light travels at the speed of light from the perspective of an observer inside a white hole event horizon (us).

Representational Physics (my TOE) appears to account for the existence and structure of:

Energy Dark Energy Time Space Matter Dark Matter Antimatter Gravity Mass

It also explains: The cause of the expansion of the universe The cause of the speed of light The cause of the Big Bang It explains why the singularity in the Big Bang is a source of energy and matter instead of a sink. Quantum Entanglement Observation The neural representation of perception, qualia, and thought Consciousness

It also appears to be consistent with QM, GR, SR and the standard model of particle physics with the addition of a hidden mirror sector with mirror energy and mirror matter, except there is no Higgs Boson.

B. Kumnick