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.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

I have no idea what you are talking about. The universe is mostly empty space. You don't need matter to have space. Heck, even an atom is mostly empty space.

Ask yourself. How do you measure/prove a "space" exists sans matter/energy?

It's kind of like Neil Bohr's Copenhagen Principle. If you can't measure it...it doesn't exist.

[sirchtruth]

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena.

What I'm pointing out is scientist can scheme and call evolution a "Theory", but it is NOT in the true sense of the definition you've provided...Evolution is conjecture because there is not a scientific testable, observable phenomena of change from ONE species to a totally different species that's ever been observed. WHY, because by science's own acknowledgement, there is not enough time to observe this FULL phenomena, only minute changes, or mutations.

Which I don't have a problem with science saying, "Based on the observances we believe Evolution occurs." However, what agendized science says is, "Based on these observances, Evolution occurs."

Wrong...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You never figured out how to write...

Of course, being illiterate as you are, you must accept the Christian myth; it is self-evident by your use of the 666 Christian terminology of your pathetic user name...

Aging dung dries up, blows away and diminishes greatly in odor. In a covered jar or vessel, it ferments... And thus, we have your vapid commentary intra muros, wafting forth with putrified scent from such a container being loosened.

[sirchtruth]

; religious belief is neither a scientific fact nor a scientific theory.

Agreed. But I'm saying evolution doesn't even rise to a religion, it's really more of a cult...

[aruanan]

Probing Question: What happened before the Big Bang?

The Big Gasp.

[Coyoteman]

What I'm pointing out is scientist can scheme and call evolution a "Theory", but it is NOT in the true sense of the definition you've provided...Evolution is conjecture because there is not a scientific testable, observable phenomena of change from ONE species to a totally different species that's ever been observed. WHY, because by science's own acknowledgement, there is not enough time to observe this FULL phenomena, only minute changes, or mutations.

This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[freedumb2003]

GREAT link!

[Coyoteman]

; religious belief is neither a scientific fact nor a scientific theory.

Agreed. But I'm saying evolution doesn't even rise to a religion, it's really more of a cult...

That you don't agree with the theory of evolution does not make it either a religion or a cult.

Science marches on, whether you say yea or nay.

[freedumb2003]

Agreed. But I'm saying evolution doesn't even rise to a religion, it's really more of a cult...

Like those Physicists, Chemists, Astonomers, Geneticists -- followers of their foolish views, the lot of 'em!

[freedumb2003]

Ping to my new tag -- a paraphrase of your great post.

[sirchtruth]

What really interests me here is space-time, and whether or not it existed before this so-called big bang?

Did space-time come into existance at that point of this event? How do you imagine outside space-time?

For another time perhaps: How can a thing not get any smaller?

[freedumb2003]

And I don't plan on getting sidetracked tonight. I might even "sleep" (whatever that is -- I am Googling it now).

[js1138]

I've been away since early afternoon. Did I miss anything?

[sirchtruth]

Science marches on, whether you say yea or nay.

I support HONEST science 100%...Whether I agree or not that evolution is a cult puts no MORE fact into the conjecture that Man evolved.

[freedumb2003]

Did space-time come into existance at that point of this event? How do you imagine outside space-time?

We know space-time has different properties under different conditions. We can infer from that that there must be something outside.

But I am far from an expert in this area -- I guarantee my thoughts are 100% speculation.

[sirchtruth]

Like those Physicists, Chemists, Astonomers, Geneticists -- followers of their foolish views, the lot of 'em!

They become only foolish views if they try and parade conjecture and speculation as fact.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If nothing else there is that three degree microwave radiation everywhere.

It's full of gravity, too.

[HayekRocks]

Incredibly funny that the Big Bang theory is the immaculate conception of a Jesuit astronomer...

Georges Lemaitre was not a Jesuit. He was educated by the Jesuits, but I assure you, that is not sufficient! He was a diocesan priest.

I suspect, looking at the general intemperance and ignorance of your posts, that you are claiming to be atheist only in a futile attempt to discredit atheism. Be it as it may; please do not attempt to comment on Catholic Orders if you are completely ignorant of them.

Come to think of it, the same rule holds for your posts on evolution.

[DaGman]

So if 99.999999999% of people don't understand what the hell they're talking about here and don't believe it does that mean they should teach "the controversy".

[freedumb2003]

They become only foolish views if they try and parade conjecture and speculation as fact.

All of science is inference. You think anyone has ever seen a graviton? How about cosmic strings? Quantum Physics is 100% inference -- the items being studied cannot be directly observed.

So explain why the Theory of Gravity (which is much more vague than TToE) is OK. Or maybe you have a problem with that, as well?