A new mathematical model developed at the University of Pennsylvania made it possible to better calculate what was before the Big Bang - it turns out that there was a shrinking universe
New discoveries about another universe that collapsed and appears to have given birth to the universe we live in were announced in the July 1 issue of the online version of the journal Nature Physics, and will also appear in the August print version of the magazine.
"My research presents a new mathematical model that we can use to derive new details about the properties of the quantum state when passing through a Big Bounce, which replaces the classical idea of the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe" says Martin Bojwald, professor of physics at Pennsylvania State University ( Penn State). Bojwald's research also hypothesizes that while many properties of the early universe can be learned, people will always be uncertain about some of those properties because his calculations reveal a feature known as "cosmic forgetting" as a result of the enormous quantum forces at the Big Leap. The idea that the universe was created in a big bang has been a major obstacle in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the big bang model has long been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's theory of general relativity, the Big Bang originated at the singular point where the volume of the universe was zero, but it also contained infinite density and an infinitely large amount of energy.
Now, however, Bojwald and other physicists at Penn State claim to be exploring territory unknown even to Einstein - the time before the Big Bang - using a mathematical model of a time machine known as a Quantum Gravity Loop. This theory, which combines Einstein's theory of general relativity with the equations of quantum physics that were not yet developed in Einstein's time. This is the first mathematical model description that consistently establishes the Big Leap theory and draws conclusions about the properties of the earlier universe from which it branched. For scientists, the Great Disappearance opened a crack in the fence between the two universes - which we see as the Big Bang.
"Einstein's general theory of relativity does not include quantum physics, whose equations must be integrated to describe the extreme energies that dominated our universe during the very early stages of its development," explains Bojwald, "however, we have now arrived at the quantum gravity loop theory, a theory that includes quantum physics." .
The quantum gravity loop was first developed at Penn State's Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, and is now used as a leading approach in the attempt to unify general relativity and quantum physics, Bogewald claims. The scientists use this theory to follow the universe backwards in time and found that at its starting point the volume of the universe was tiny but not zero and that the energy was maximum but not infinite. As a result of these limitations, the equations of the theory continue to produce valid mathematical results even after this point considered in classical physics as the Big Bang, providing scientists with a window into the periods before the Big Bang.
"Quantum theory indicates that the fabric of time-space has a geometric structure that is woven into the one-dimensional fabric of quantum theory. This fabric is violently torn under the extreme conditions governed by quantum mechanics near the Great Recession, causing gravity to become repulsive, so that instead of disappearing into infinity as predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, the universe shrinks back in a sort of Great Recession and gives birth to the expanding universe we experience today. The theory reveals a universe that contracted before the Big Bang, with a space-time fabric that would otherwise be similar to the one we know in today's universe.
Bojwald found that he had to create a new mathematical model that would use the theory of quantum gravitational loops to study the pre-Big Dipper universe with greater precision. "It was necessary to develop a more accurate model within the theory of the quantum gravity loop, a model that would be more modern than the existing numerical methods, which require evaluations of the solutions one by one and provide results that are not as general and complete as we would like" explains Bojwald. He developed a mathematical model that provides accurate analytical solutions by solving several mathematical equations.
In addition to achieving accuracy, Bujwald's model is also much shorter. He reformulated the models of quantum gravity using a different mathematical description, which he says makes possible the exact solution of the equations and also allows to simplify the process. "The early numerical models looked much more complex, but their solutions looked very clean, which hinted at the existence of simpler models," he said.
Bujvald came to other interesting conclusions after discovering that at least one of the parameters of the previous universe did not survive the journey through the Great Dilation and therefore the next universe (ours) may be an imperfect copy of the previous one. "The return of a perfectly identical universe seems inevitable due to the inevitable property of cosmic oblivion.
The research was partially funded by the National Science Foundation.
For information about the research on the Pennsylvania State University website
30 תגובות
About thirty years ago I pondered a lot about the big bang and came to the conclusion that there had to be a strong force that would make the big band exist. From this, I believed that there is a cycle
This topic . Hence, before the Big Bang there was a cosmos that contracted until it collapsed and the collapse caused the Big Bang. I should point out that I am not a scientist.
I wrote at that time to several scientists in Israel and most of them did not reply to me. The person who replied wrote to me that the theory I put forward is not the accepted theory. Today there are scientists who rely on
about the quantum theory and claim that Sue's theory is correct. I would love to hear comments from scientists
who are engaged in the field.
Thanks. very interesting.
Good.
I also received his answer to the very question in which he detailed a number of things about the state of the theory, but in general he recommended me to quote Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
It follows from there that the issue is still in the preliminary and speculative stages and it is difficult to have a firm opinion about it.
I sent him the question and it turns out that I was wrong by about 170 miles.
He sent me directions from the University of Pennsylvania (UPENN) to the State University of Pennsylvania (Penn State).
I asked him to tell me if there was anything he knew about the matter.
Ghost:
I have no idea.
I will try to ask a friend of mine who is a professor at Penn State (the university in question) who specializes in related fields (mainly string theory) and if he has something to say - I will ask him for permission to publish his words here.
Machel
Do you have any idea about the correctness of the things in the article (Bujwald's theory)?
The question is clear from the whole story, is it tasty?!
If not then I don't buy!!
Wait, so that means the universe repeats itself every time it dies? And every time everything is the same and everything that is happening now will happen again and again and again ad infinitum?
pain
Hi there!
Lador, if you don't stop this flooding, you will be contacted by the police. Avi Blizovsky
I did not understand anything!
I didn't understand mainly 3 things:
3) What the hell is this disproving!! (Eventually I understood, but only a little).
2) The theory of the "quantum gravity loop" is constantly mentioned, but it is not clear to me what it is, how it was discovered and how it makes it possible to "go" back in time.
1) Until it is explained how they discovered it, why they think it is true and what is in this theory that is not in the others, I will have time to believe that there is truth in these things.
In other words: it is impossible to present an entire theory as a fact and as "this is how this is and this is this"!
Lair
Your response is correct! But wrong! (no, that's not a mistake)
Correct - because science, in its essence, posits theories that can be disproved, both by experimental discoveries and by theoretical-mathematical considerations.
Wrong - because it is clear from your response that you have an "anti" approach to the scientific method, and even though you did not say this explicitly, it seems that you are advocating the religious method that holds that the world as-is was created by God in 6-7 days and all knowledge about the world is written in the Torah. You are only Ignores the achievements of science and its successes…..
The big and innovative idea in Bujvald's research, in my understanding, is that the universe at time 0=t had a volume greater than zero! and the density
(matter and energy) had finite values. The question is now, what orders of magnitude of volume, mass and energy are we talking about?
What is beautiful about Bojwald's idea is: a) It fits well with the human intuition (at least mine) that mass and energy cannot be "compressed" into a singular point (in the mathematical sense of the concept of point). b) That it stems from theoretical-mathematical considerations, that is, from the mathematical model and not from "logical" considerations. From the above, the following question arises: Can the above model be used also for black holes? That is, does a black hole also have a nucleus of matter with finite density and finite dimensions that are smaller than the dimensions of the event horizon of the black hole? I believe that the Bojwald model has far-reaching consequences not only in cosmological research but also in astrophysics.
Lavi Bilobazsky Neil Armstrong arrives in Israel
A few points according to the order of the following commenters:
To Avi Bilizovsky: It is definitely worth bringing such an article here. I am not criticizing the scientist or you as its editor. What is published in Nature or another scientific journal can certainly receive a platform here and it is true and interesting. The criticism is not about the publication here but about the research itself. The publication here actually enlightened my eyes and for that I thank you.
D. Peretz: I am not against any of your words. There is a point in your words (by the way, including the matter with the monster and Elvis) and I do not claim that esoteric research should be banned or stopped funding. What amazes me is that precisely such super esoteric research is at the forefront of science and receives huge budgets at the expense of slightly less sexy things.
Sabdarmish Yehuda: I agree with you and not from an understanding of the material but rather from a different point of view. In the end, scientific interpretation or interpretation in general is filtered by the senses and brains of humans. This is not my claim and it seems to me that Yom has claimed it before. Science is a serious subject and I, as a scientist, understand this. At the same time, it must be remembered and reminded to Hamon (who finances this research) that the overly serious attitude towards such alleged findings is ridiculous. When you erect a building according to the laws of physics, you have done something plausible - whether the science behind it is true or not, accurate or less so - it doesn't matter that much. The building is standing. But when it comes to metaphysical science like these models (models!! Damn it! Is it a finding at all? It's a model! It's an option) and even more when it comes to, as Sabdarmish Yehuda says in an inaccessible place... the whole thing smells very dubious. At the same time, if we go back to Peretz there is always room for research and asking questions. It's just that it's also appropriate to guide the public to take science in its proper proportion
Ami Bachar
The laws of physics have never been measured in the vicinity of a singular point, therefore it is impossible to determine their correctness in the vicinity of singular points, therefore everything written in the article is finger-sucking and completely unfounded. That is, not only is it impossible to know what happened before the big bang, but it is also impossible to know what happened near the big bang!!!!!!!!
point.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lavi Bilovsky Neil Armsring arrives in Israel
From what I understand, it is not necessary that the universe always behaves like a spring. The previous universe collapsed to dimensions where the equations show that gravity changes its direction and therefore "exploded" back. But it is not necessary for this scenario to repeat itself because "at least one of the parameters of the previous universe did not survive the journey through the Great Reckoning". It is possible that this explains the difference between the current universe and the previous one - the current one is accelerating its expansion and is expected to expand ad infinitum.
Correct me if I'm wrong. In general, it would be nice if some physics professor would expand a little on the subject on this wonderful website 🙂
And father-thank you very much for publishing the article!
I must make it clear..I am not a participant in the attack and ridicule of science!! This theory, like thousands of others, is as legitimate as the criticism of it (and maybe the criticisms in the future) as well as the possibility that it will be found correct in the future after tests (experiments in this field are almost impossible) from different directions...everything is possible!
Because the same mockery can be applied to any other scientific theory, for example string theory or the old theory of relativity!! The scientists are trying with the tools they have to try and understand how it all started and how nature works and where we are expected to go and what is happening in the depths of the universe etc.. and without a theory it will be ridiculous at first no matter how much it is it will be blind science shooting in a vacuum!!
My review touched on the matter as much as I could in terms of my limited understanding of science and with light bites and not in the way of spilling the baby with all the theories and the numerous achievements of science without them our lives will return to the bronze days of disease and manual labor!
And by the way, the monster from Loch Ness was seen listening to Elvis who sang and played on a boat in the lake and there was a steaming fog around them.
Let's put it this way - if such an article was published in a popular journal, I doubt I would refer to it, but since it appeared in one of the publications related to Nature (peer-reviewed) and since it was partially funded by the NSF, at least an article in science is worth it?
It's amazing how seriously scientists, as well as the public, treat such mumbo jumbo voodoo. model? mathematical?? gravity loop??? Everyone was divided?
It's a shame all this money that we gave to this strange research that is at the forefront of science and will receive more budgets was mostly not directed towards something a little more reasonable. For example, finding the monster Loch Ness.
I'm having trouble getting volume or increased space!! The space must exist first and only the material spreads within it! How can you even prove that this space was not there before?? If the substance does not change and its size is maintained all the time, how much more is the space, only that in the case of space the contractions or expansions or any physical event occur in it and therefore it is an unchanging and constant data that only to our eyes can appear to shrink or expand. The space inside it, it is easy to forget that the inner space grows in the outer space without which the balloon will not inflate! If, for example, it will be inside a box with a given space, then the degree of its inflation will correspond to the size of the box even if the balloon can be inflated ten times that much!!
So if space is a fixed data (which can grow at the expense of space external to the universe and not by itself) and as far as I'm concerned dark energy and dark matter are the main players in the creation of the universe (every universe similar to ours) and matter including us is the product of creation and these two desires ..that's why the cat's barking of the universe is heard Disproved as a whole theory and it is not clear what difficulties he came to justify..because from experience as long as you don't know what the questions were it is difficult to understand the answers and therefore it is not clear why he came to the conclusion that there is a need to trace the universe backwards!! And who left first? The material? the space? The dark matter? Or the dark energy preceded them all!!
Just as the big bang did not explain the expansion of the universe in detail and there may have been several explosions (and there will be more?) so the speculation skips over reality and it seems to me that there won't be much left of it in a few years (I have a feeling for these things!)! And believe me, if it was something new that speaks logically, I would support it immediately...and it happened in the past in all kinds of fields!!
This warning does not speak to me and I do not understand the need for it and what it is supposed to answer!!
Apart from that, any theory about the universe that does not include its three components, i.e. dark energy, dark matter and visible matter... will be incomplete and local only and will not truly describe the real universe!!
Very interesting... Until now you (the scientists) have claimed that the question "what was before the big bang" has no meaning because before the big bang the concept of "time" did not yet exist and therefore there was no "before", and suddenly, wonder of wonders, it turns out that it was before.... so where is your credibility ? Do you change your mind every Monday and Thursday?
The same goes for the speed of light, to this day scientists have constantly claimed that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light, but amazingly, I recently saw a program on the Discovery Channel where they claimed that one of the scientists was able to transfer digital music information between two places (transmitter and receiver) at a speed that is 5 times greater From the speed of light! So maybe you have already decided………?
to the horizon Thanks for the comment. fixed.
To Boris:
Regarding the second part of your question: I think it is meant that the universe behaves elastically (like a spring). That is, now the universe is in a phase of acceleration, but at a certain point there will be a deceleration, until the speed of expansion passes 0 on the other side.
Thanks Abbi, interesting article.
Very interesting, thanks for the article.
In the third paragraph from the end, whether when written
"This fabric is called violently under the conditions"
Is it meant to be 'torn' and not 'read'?
I read something similar in Eretz some time ago, to be honest the current text is much more understandable, although the concept of "the great monitoring" is not so understandable, does it mean the inflationary model?
How does this quantum gravity model deal with the observation that the universe is expanding rather than contracting, which makes the model of a shrinking and expanding universe a bit problematic.
I didn't understand a word!!!!
He did not publish the news to Avi Bilovski