Everything we know about the Big Bang could be wrong
Could the Big Bang theory be wrong? A proposed new model of the universe argues yes the universe has no origin point at all.
In science, the theories with the most staying power are the ones that explain what we don't know with the most simplicity and elegance. And surprisingly enough, the simplest new theory in quantum physics may be the one that's most difficult for us to wrap our heads around: That the universe has been around since, well, forever.
Up until now, the theory that's made the most logical sense to explain how the universe began is the Big Bang, which holds that the universe came to being about 13.8 billion years ago as a result of a single event that launched the universe into a continuous state of expansion. Although this theory has long held its own as a way of understanding Einstein's theory of general relativity, as scientists have delved deeper into the fascinating world of quantum physics, the Big Bang model has been a bit shakier.
Now researchers working in Egypt and Canada have proposed a new model with a much simpler idea of the beginning of the universe: There wasn't one. Ahmed Farag Ali of Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology in Egypt, together with Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have presented their research in a paper called " Cosmology from quantum potential " published in Physics Letters B. The new model makes quantum corrections to a previously known equation which used a theory of quantum trajectory originally proposed by the legendary physicist David Bohm. Using the corrected equation to fit Einstein's theory of general relativity, the researchers came up with a model that implies that the Big Bang singularity never happened.
The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that none of the equations that explain what happened in the singularity can take us all the way back to the moment the singularity actually, er, happened. Instead, the laws of physics can only explain what occurred from the moment the universe achieved what's known as the Planck Temperature, which happened after the theoretical singularity. Another basic problem is that if the universe is expanding, it must have been expanding from an area that was, at one point, incredibly small and denseperhaps even infinitely small and dense.
The new model moves away from the "expanding universe" theory. It also sidesteps the matter of the universe's previous infinite size and density, which the paper calls the "smallness problem," by relying on a "cosmological constant" term that puts the universe at a finite size. In other words, instead of originating from a single point in a singularity, the universe has simply always been around. Speaking to Nature Middle East last month, Ali said the theory helped unify quantum mechanics and general relativity:
Our theory serves to complement Einsteins general relativity, which is very successful at describing physics over large distances...But physicists know that to describe short distances, quantum mechanics must be accommodated."Scientists have long appreciated that a more accurate model of the universe might leave out the Big Bang entirely. But the implications of this new model are quite radical, in that not only does it sidestep the Big Bang, but it also sidesteps numerous other theories that scientists have been working with for decades to explain parts of quantum theory that don't fit into the Big Bang modellike the theory of cosmic inflation to explain the universe's rapid exponential growth from its previous small point.
The model also avoids utilizing the theoretical existence of Dark Energy to explain why the universe began to quickly accelerate about 7 billion years into its existence. The AliDas model proposes that the universe is filled with quantum fluid, perhaps made up of theoretical massless particles called gravitons, which are thought to help mediate the effects of gravity. Instead of Dark Energy causing objects to accelerate and expand, the theory argues that instead, the quantum fluid exerts a slight but constant force on objects to cause the expansion of space.
Finally, the model also potentially explains a phenomenon called Hubble's Law , which has long been seen as proof of the expansion of the universe, in terms that don't actually rely on space-time.
The researchers told Phys.org that they were motivated to explore the theory after realizing what the implications were for problems related to the Big Bang. "It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das noted.
Doubtless this theory, like all good theories, provides more questions than answers. It's not quite a complete theory of quantum gravity, though it may hold up under future theories. It also, sadly, puts paid to the idea that the universe came from a giant black hole .
Still, in a science where the current standard visions of the universe involve concepts like anti-matter, superstrings, ten dimensions (or more), membrane universes, and multiverses, a theory like this one seems refreshingly like a return to the basics.
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
This is the great thing about science - its adherents are eager to admit when they might be wrong, and even more eager to prove that they were wrong.
Hal,
Embrace G-d now, before it's too late.
Critical scientific breakthrough!
It's gotta be because God likes the sound of random tiny explosions.
This is kind of cool... but I wonder if it works? They have been trying to prove the theory of everything for years now. String theory is very complex, and it always runs into problems with Einstein's theory... but sill, I am not sure if I get why the universe would be expanding.
In scientific terms if you can define the beginning you therefore might well be able to define the end. In the Bible the begets and killings by angels with wings and floods of gigantic proportions with no explanation of where the water went or came from as even when the ice caps melt again the oceans rise 17 to perhaps 30 feet. Leaves a lot of high ground. Granted it will drastically alter food chains and loose lots of tillable land but remember the north pole and south pole land will be available. Why cannot there be beings from another planet that fly with their own wings. After all we have duck billed platypus a semi aquatic, web-footed, egg-laying AUSTRALIAN mammal who would believe that.
I've always thought about the universe as another cycle in nature. It expands and then contracts. It never ends and never begins; it just is.
Well said and I don't disagree. But mankind being the inquisitive creature we are keep trying.
I would guess knowing that planets survival depends on the sun. Knowing other planets and moons have frozen water lends one to believe it didn't arrive as an Ice cube and while ice does in fact flow over time its highly likely our sun was much hotter in eons past and those planets Mars Saturn may well have been habitable.
There must have been a beginning at one point. If in fact God or a supreme being of any name started it then where did they come from. Its kind of like the chicken and an egg. The thought of primordial ooze from muck just doesn't hack it. Does it really make a rats ass. No we have to work with what we've got. All humans are different as well as we are in fact genetically almost identical and all related as we are also related genetically to Elephants monkeys apes cats and dogs. that explains a lot about politicians. Ever see a Dog protect its bone. So goes top 1% as they snarl at the rest of humanity seeing us as sub humans.
Or the amulet worn around a cats neck as I seem to remember. We or our solar system resembles an atomic structure as do all others. That is a very simple unscientific example.
I think beginnings and ends are a human concept. Getting your brain wrapped around the thought of infinity is difficult, but that one thought changed physics and math forever.