Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Probing Question: What happened before the Big Bang?
Pennsylvania State University ^ | 03 August 2006 | Barbara Kennedy

Posted on 08/04/2006 4:26:21 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bewareofluddites; bigbang; bloodbath; cosmology; fakeatheist; fascistfrannie; generalchat; genesisidolater; goddooditamen; idiotswithgrants; juniorstantrum; origins; phpap; prematurepanspermia; runningwolfspout; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 521 next last
To: PatrickHenry

Impressive math no doubt, but not worth throwing over the currently popular model.


81 posted on 08/04/2006 8:53:25 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
how did something explode from nothing?

That is already answered. A superior question would be 'why did something explode from nothing.'

82 posted on 08/04/2006 8:55:05 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc30
The universe is mostly empty space

Empty of some things, packed to the gills with other things. No part of the universe is absolutely empty. If nothing else there is that three degree microwave radiation everywhere.

83 posted on 08/04/2006 8:57:38 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Probing Question: What happened before the Big Bang?

The Long Hiss. (Imagine sound of a lighted fuse.)

84 posted on 08/04/2006 8:59:47 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Actually, I was referring to matter in space. It is mostly empty, but as you correctly pointed out, there is a lot of matter concentrated in a few places (e.g. neutron stars). But my comment still stands. Even what we call solid objects, like my desk or your car, are mostly empty on the atomic scale. There is still a lot of room for compression.


85 posted on 08/04/2006 9:01:20 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RichardW
I've never been able to figure out how something got created out of nothing.

How matter is brought into existence through creation is not the same as asking for the origin of God.

You should know that something is eternal. If matter is eternal, it is divine.

86 posted on 08/04/2006 9:03:31 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
[ This is absolute time when you need it! ]

Absolute time.. WHAT a concept...
A Rolex moment with a see in the dark radium dial.. for most..
An ancient chinese water clock for others..

For those in the moment.. time is absolute..

87 posted on 08/04/2006 9:21:46 AM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith; agere_contra
Either could be true and there is nothing to indicate one is more certain than the other.

Hold on there pard. There are some folks who hold quantum interference as prima facie evidence of a multiverse - it is the different universes interacting. And then there's the proposed test (by Deutsch I think) of using a quantum computer to test the multiverse. IIRC, he proposes a quantum computer programmed to solve a yes/no problem. If the computer tells you it defintely determined the answer but can't say what it was, then half of the computation was done in a different universe.

For my part both are too tenuous to be convincing.

88 posted on 08/04/2006 9:25:50 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Even such a simple thing as an electron is not a solid particle with a given dimension. It cannot be said that there is empty space between a proton and an electron in a simple hydrogen atom since for all we know the electron fills the entire space. We cannot say what the diameter of a proton might be except by specifying a process of bouncing another proton off it and measuring the bounce. What most call solid matter is not solid matter but could well be nothing at all but some multidimensional curvature of space. If nothing else, the curvature exists and if that is what solid matter is then space is filled completely.


89 posted on 08/04/2006 9:26:04 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
It was obviously methaphor.

Not only isn't that obvious, it obviously wan't given past behavior.

90 posted on 08/04/2006 9:27:06 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; All

Hmmmmm....probabry much rubrication.....


91 posted on 08/04/2006 9:27:23 AM PDT by musicman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
methaphor

Methaphor--an illustration by a chemically-enhanced orator.

92 posted on 08/04/2006 9:36:02 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Thank you for making the post that I felt compelled to make ...LOL


93 posted on 08/04/2006 9:42:26 AM PDT by mother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

What has atheism to do with the discussion?


94 posted on 08/04/2006 9:43:12 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: doc30
An understanding of basic physics would let you know this.

You ever hear of Plasma Physics?

lectromagnetism is very weak on that scale and has virtually effect on the masses (i.e. stars, planets, comets, galaxies, dust clouds).

The above statement is precisely what I said that is wrong in BB and GR. They are more relevant than you think. Check out Plasma Cosmology.
95 posted on 08/04/2006 9:52:28 AM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

The Big Bang is more readily likened to an inflating balloon.


96 posted on 08/04/2006 10:00:18 AM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
I guess you were there!

I wasn't there when O.J. slaughtered his wife, either, but I have a high degree of confidence he did it.

97 posted on 08/04/2006 10:02:01 AM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
It sure takes a lot of faith, to believe the crap all the "educated" people bring us.

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.

98 posted on 08/04/2006 10:06:32 AM PDT by Junior (Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Dude.... there was NO explosion! Space-time expanded. Picture an uninflated balloon with a number of dots on it. Now picture that balloon being inflated. The dots move away from one another as the surface of the balloon expands no? Well, the surface of the balloon is space-time and the dots are galaxies. That is your "big bang".
99 posted on 08/04/2006 10:06:34 AM PDT by mother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
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.

So who designed God's universe?

100 posted on 08/04/2006 10:12:54 AM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 521 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson