Einstein was wrong and the Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe, says this theory – The Clare People


When astronomers discovered that the universe was constantly expanding, some scientists, including Stephen Hawking in their dissertation, used Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity to demonstrate that this expansion meant the “beginning” of everything – the Big Bang. Today, this idea is accepted by the scientific community, but another theory wants to replace it with a new understanding of space, time and the very beginning of the universe. Or rather, no beginning.

  • After all, how big was the universe at the start of the Big Bang?
  • Here’s how the universe “lost” its chance to generate life right after the Big Bang
  • The study reveals details about the first microsecond after the Big Bang

There are many attempts to replace general relativity because it is considered incomplete. Quite simply, Einstein’s theory, while effective at explaining the universe on a large scale, is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Its “weaknesses” become notable when theoretical physicists try to apply it to black holes, or more precisely at an infinitely small point called singularity, where the black hole’s mass concentrates.

Interestingly, general relativity itself predicts the existence of singularities but cannot solve them since there is no theory of quantum gravity. In other words, Einstein’s work cannot explain how a singularity – theoretically smaller than any known particle – manages such an extreme gravitational field. In fact, all the math “breaks down” when scientists try to understand a singularity.

Want to know the latest tech news of the day? Subscribe to our new youtube channel, Canaltech News.

Every day a summary of the most important news in the world of technology for you!

Artistic design of a gravity probe B in Earth orbit to measure the curvature of space-time, proving general relativity (Image: Reproduction / NASA)

This problem inevitably leads us to the Big Bang because, according to this theory in its most classical explanation, the universe started with a singularity. So, in trying to understand how gravity works in the quantum universe, physicists eventually come up with new “theories of everything”. Sometimes they supplement the general theory of relativity, but there are also completely different ideas, like the famous string theory. Another, more recent, is the causal set theory.

At this point it is important to clarify that both string theory and causal set theory are only hypotheses as it is still not possible to test and observe your predictions with the scientific method. They are called “theory” (usually used when science proves some explanation of observation) because they are mathematical theories, that is, they have their own set of axioms, postulates, and elements. In order to accept a physical or scientific theory, it is necessary to test its predictions.

That said, the odds set theory suggests that space and time have a basic unit, that is

quantum. Just as the fathers of quantum mechanics defined light as emitted in quantized “energy packets”, this theory says that space-time consists, so to speak, of its own “packets”. This is an interesting approach because it does not look for measurable gravity (as the graviton particle hypotheses do), but rewrites the nature of space-time.

(Photo: Reprodukcja / Gerd Altmann / Pixabay)

If space-time is quantum, there are a number of implications to consider. There would be fundamental particles, or discrete units of space-time, and the events that may occur in the universe would be placed under certain constraints. In other theories, space and time are continuous, so they allow two points to be as close to each other as possible, both in space and time, but this is not allowed in quantum mechanics. In it, discrete units or packages do not accept the “middle”. You can have two separate units of light (which we call photons), but you cannot have 1.5 units of light.

This means that if the random set theory is correct, there is a limit to how close two points can be to each other, and that limit is limited to the size of the “space-time particle” itself. In this way time not only becomes a physical manifestation, but the singularity also becomes impossible. Without the singularity in the universe, there are no more conflicts with gravity to be resolved.

However, if there are no singularities in the universe, there is also no Big Bang. So how was the universe created? Here comes a new article by Bruno Bento and Stav Zalel, from the University of Liverpool and Imperial College London, respectively. They study the implications of causal set theory, especially the beginning of the cosmos, and argue that the universe has always existed.

This timeline of the universe shows another hypothesis, with a period of inflation that takes place before the events usually attributed to the Big Bang (Image: Reproduction / Roen Kelly / BICEP2 Collaboration)

Portuguese-born and PhD in string theory, Bento explains that “in the original formulation and dynamics of the causal set, classically speaking, the causal set grows out of nothing in the universe that we see today. In our work, on the other hand, there would be no Big Bang as the beginning, because the causal set would be infinite to the past, so there is always something ahead. ” This does not mean that the Big Bang did not exist – not only because there is compelling evidence for it – but that it was a moment in the evolution of this set of causes.

In short, opera, the universe already existed before the Big Bang, we just don’t know anything about what it might have looked like. This is also correct. Today, many scientists accept some hypotheses about the events that took place before the Big Bang itself. One of the big names dealing with this idea is Roger Penrose, winner of the Nobel Prize for demonstrating alongside Stephen Hawking the properties of black holes.

Penrose and Hawking were already vehemently defending the idea that there was another universe before ours, or more precisely, another cosmos that expanded and then retracted until it returned to the singularity. The difference between this hypothesis and the causal set theory is that there is no singularity in the latter. The works of Bento and Zalel are already being prepared for printing on arXiv and awaiting a review.

Source: Science Alert

Did you like this article?

Subscribe to your Canaltech email for daily updates with the latest tech news.

451646 451646


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar