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.

[tcostell]

Obscure "Jonah Goldberg reference" BTTT

[John W]

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

From what?

[Lee'sGhost]

Beat me to it.

[LRS]

What happened before the Big Bang?

Since the deterioration has already started-

-the answer to question is:

the Islamofascist was seen in the neighborhood...

[Vaquero]

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229a.htm

[JimRed]

What happened before the Big Bang?

"In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..."

Verse memorized in childhood; chapter and verse reference long since forgotten.

[Loud Mime]

Who was it that said we have three dimensional minds in an eight dimensional world......or something like that?

[KeepUSfree]

Amazing that you use "revisions" as evidence that scientists are idiots.

Such is your non-logic that you get it all backwards.

SEe, making mistakes and LEARNING from them is a sign of intelligence. Sticking to the same tired, old paradigm - in the face of overwhelming evidence - THAT is the realm of zealots and idiots. Kinda like the Muslims ACTUALLY THINK there will be 72 virgins waiting for them....well, that ain't happenin'. Nor will St. Peter meet you at the gates of "heaven". The Great Crow will not swoop down to gather your soul, and the Flying Spagetti Monster (B.H.N.A.) will not envelop your soul in Marinara sauce.

I'm amazed when zealots use "learning" as evidence that their "non-learning" is correct.

[sirchtruth]

No I crawled out of the little box that the clerics tried to confine me in.. ...You got it backwards.

No, you're still in a box, it's just one wrapped with blinding gift paper.

[Perdogg]

I stole that one from Johnny Carson circa 1981.

[Lee'sGhost]

LOL! That's where I got it, too. RIP, Johnny Carson.

[patriot_wes]

Here kids, have a little acedemic BS with your corn flakes.

Ashtekar says, exists another universe with space-time geometry similar to our own, except that instead of expanding, it is shrinking.

but daddy - "how big was the universe and what made it shrink er expand, er?

We don't know kids, but it ought to be worth another $100,000 grant to find out. And isn't that really what research is all about?

[sirchtruth]

From what?

I can't figure out if it is God that has always existed or space? Considering time/space wasn't even considered a dimension until Einstein, I put God as my first choice. How many dimensions must be out there we don't know about?

[true_blue_texican]

It's easier than all of that. There was no Big Bang. The Universe has existed forever and will continue to exist forever. It changes and evolves and grows larger structures. Some things get destroyed. Some things get created. But there is no such thing as creation ex-nihilo, it's more like recycling.

[pageonetoo]

I'm amazed when zealots use "learning" as evidence that their "non-learning" is correct.

You, my friend, are an excellent example to use for the term "zealot".

I'll trust in God, thank you. Logic is good for games and speculation.

I guess the ability to disagree is not within the realm of science... /s

By the way, show me the remains of the "persons" who we replaced a few thousand years ago in the deserts of Africa... I'm sure there are lots of examples of the "morphed" beings, we "evolved" from. After all, "science doesn't make mistakes". They just can't seem to find the right answers.

The fact that man is able to calculate orbits, does not necessarily rule out the existence of God. It just reveals what a good job He did, when He spoke this universe into existence. It expanded really quick, didn't it?

Bang!

"If a tree falls in the forest..."

[pageonetoo]

Spacetime expanded rapidly.

Let me get this right.

Science gives value to theory.

Theory says spacetime expanded rapidly.

Science says things happen with standard deviation, and standard patterns. Example stated deviastes beyond normal expectation.

Theory proves "Science" is easily fooled!

Science is pretty vain, isn't it?

[NonLinear]

I think it is John 1:1

[litehaus]

"God retired?".....I believe the line was : It was a good play, I think I'll do it again sometime.

[Mr. Jeeves]

It's easier than all of that. There was no Big Bang.

There was a Big Bang because we can see its remnants. But that doesn't mean it was the Big Bang - the Universe is apparently more vast than we imagined and Big Bangs might be happening all over the place, too far away for us to perceive.

[agere_contra]

in the face of overwhelming evidence

You have overwhelming evidence of what? That the Universe created itself? Seriously, publish it if you've got it.

Some on this thread may not know about the Anthropic Principle - the idea that this Universe appears to have been designed to allow us to exist. Out of all the infinitely variable boundary conditions of the Universe: the Gravitational constant, the relative strength of the Strong and Weak forces, and many others the Universe just *happens* to have, or to embody, the exact set of parameters which make matter, space and life possible.

Change a constant by a few decimal places, and the Universe would consist only of hydrogen, or only of baryons - or it would have lasted only a few millenia before crunching back on itself. The odds of getting even carbon-synthesis to work are extraordinary small, and everything else has to be "just right" as well

The odds are literally infinitesimal that our Universe just happened to get it right. The religious theory that the Universe was designed - and designed for us - is strongly supported by the extraordinary unlikelihood of the Universe being able to support us.

The usual (atheistic) defence against the Anthropic Principle is to take refuge in the tired Star-Trek trope of there being quadrillions of parallel Universes, one of which is ours.

This is unscientific. Any "other" Universe would have to be completely orthogonal to this one, with no interaction of any kind. If a scientist could detect another Universe, he would have - by definition - simply have detected more of 'the' Universe.

Atheists (those who understand the Anthropic Principle anyway) must insist on there being unthinkable infinities of rigidly unknowable Universes in order for us to have become self-selected observers of this one Universe - the one that happens to have the right conditions for life. This "Million Spheres" approach to cosmogeny is literally unprovable, and therefore unscientific.