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

When astronomers discovered that the universe is constantly expanding, some scientists, including Stephen Hawking in his doctoral thesis, used Einstein’s General Relativity to demonstrate that this expansion implies a “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, the absence of a beginning.

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

There are many attempts to replace General Relativity because it is considered incomplete. It’s just that, while effective in explaining the universe on a grand scale, Einstein’s theory is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Its “weaknesses” become remarkable when theoretical physicists try to apply it to black holes, more precisely in the infinitesimal tiny point called singularity, where the black hole’s mass is concentrated.

Interestingly, a General Relativity itself predicts the existence of singularities, but it cannot resolve them because there is no theory of quantum gravity. In other words, Einstein’s work cannot explain how the singularity — theoretically smaller than any known particle — manages to have such an extreme gravitational field. In fact, all mathematics “breaks” when scientists try to understand the singularity.

Want to catch up on the best tech news of the day? Go and subscribe to our new channel on youtube, Canaltech News.

Every day a summary of the main news in the tech world for you!

Artistic design of the 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 at a singularity. So, in an attempt to understand how gravity works in the quantum universe, physicists eventually come up with new “theories of everything.” Sometimes they just complement General Relativity, but there are also some 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 the String Theory and the Causal Set Theory are just hypotheses, as it is still not possible to test and observe your predictions through the scientific method. They carry the term “theory” (usually used when science proves a certain explanation for an observation) because they are mathematical theories, that is, they have their own set of axioms, postulates and elements. To be considered a physical or scientific theory, it is necessary to test its predictions.

That said, the Chance Set Theory proposes that space and time have a fundamental unit, or

quantum. Just as the fathers of quantum mechanics defined light as being emitted in quantized “packages of energy,” this theory says that spacetime is made up of its own “packages,” so to speak. This is an interesting approach as it does not seek a quantifiable gravity (as hypotheses about the existence of the graviton particle, responsible for gravity) do, but rewrites the nature of spacetime.

(Image: Reproduction/Gerd Altmann/Pixabay)

If spacetime is quantum, a number of implications must be considered. There would be fundamental particles, or discrete units of spacetime, and some limits would be imposed on events that can occur in the universe. In other theories, space and time are continuous, so they allow two points to be as close as possible to each other, both in space and time, but this is not allowed in quantum mechanics. In it, discrete units, or packages, do not accept a “middle ground”. You can have two discrete light units (which we call photons), but you can’t have 1.5 light units.

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 restricted to the size of the “spacetime particle” itself. In this way, not only does time become a physical manifestation, singularity becomes impossible. With no singularities in the universe, there are no more conflicts with gravity to resolve.

However, if there are no singularities in the universe, there is also no Big Bang. So how did the universe start? This is where the new article by Bruno Bento and Stav Zalel, from the University of Liverpool and Imperial College London, respectively, comes in. They explore the implications of Causal Set Theory, especially the beginning of the Cosmos, and claim that the universe has always existed.

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

Born in Portugal and PhD in String Theory, Bento explains that “in the original formulation and dynamics of the Causal Set, classically speaking, a causal set grows out of nothing into the Universe we see today. In our work, instead, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite for the past, so there is always something before “. This does not mean that the Big Bang did not exist — not least because there is convincing evidence of this event — but that it was a moment in the evolution of this causal set.

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

Penrose and Hawking have already warmly defended the idea that there was another universe before ours, more specifically 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, in the latter, there is no singularity. Bento and Zalel’s work is in pre-print on arXiv and is awaiting peer review.

Source: Science Alert

Did you like this article?

Subscribe your email on Canaltech to receive daily updates with the latest news from the world of technology.

451646 451646

451646

Related Articles

Back to top button