Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

esocid writes "Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn't go there — at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors — and so the question didn't make sense from a scientific view. But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a "quantum bounce," where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing."

Comments

Thanks for furthering your agenda!

[CodyRazor]

Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.

If the likes of stephen hawking and albert einstein with general reletivity cant work it out how are illiterate goat herders from 2000 years ago supposed to have done it?

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda!

[HeronBlademaster]

Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for God to obey the laws of physics (or create them, for that matter). Arguments about whether this theory or that law proves or disproves the existence of God are stupid - for example, it is possible that God decided to create man through evolution.

I, too, know many scientists who are actively religious. Most of them say things along the lines of "my studies in field X have opened up to my mind the glory of God" or "the universe and its workings bear witness that we are God's creation".

I'm not trying to say that science can prove or disprove religion (or vice versa)... that's impossible. All I'm saying is that if you believe in God, science isn't going to contradict that belief.

And before I get flamed by people saying "you're just trying to explain away problems so you can still believe in God", it is my firm opinion that any valid belief in God will be consistent with science - any valid religion should be able to withstand that sort of scrutiny. As of yet, I personally have not come across anything scientific that cannot be reconciled with my religious beliefs. There is a world of difference between blindly explaining away problems and reconciling apparent issues.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda!

[Lijemo]

Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.

By "religious question", they mean, "according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, it is impossible, even in theory, to generate a falsifiable hypothosis about what happened before the big bang. Therefore, any discussion of what happened 'before' cannot be scientific, and hence is religions/philisophical discussion, not science".

TFA is about some folks claiming "actually, we DO have a hypothosis that is, at least in theory, falifiable".

"Science" is about studying things that are measurable, empirical, and/or falsifiable, whether one beleives that's ALL there is in the universe or not. "Religion" includes things that are not always empirical and falsifiable, and that cannot, even in theory, be scientifically tested. "Philosophy" includes all of the above and then some.

Whether something is or is not science, and whether something is or is not real, are two seperate questions-- whether or not one feels both questions have the same answer.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda!

[HeronBlademaster]

That in and of itself is only a problem when people blindly follow a particular translation of their holy text rather than try to discern what the true meaning of the text was in its original language. For example, to understand the prophecies of Isaiah, one must understand Jewish culture in the time of Isaiah. To understand the Mosaic Law, it is highly useful to understand the world at the time of Moses. And so on and so forth.

Many people forget that, and they assume that their version of the Bible is completely correct - even when it has been shown to be a flawed translation. My copy is the King James Version, but it has footnotes pointing out where a translation differs from the original greek or hebrew, for example. Even the original is not always enough, however; one must read the scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit in order to fully understand what the original author's intent was. (No flames, please, general slashdot populace, it's just what I believe.)

Does anyone know ...

[jonfr]

Does anyone know what they are speaking about ? But I doubt that there is a twin universe that is now gone. I am more on the line that there is a parallel universe that is almost like our own, expect Bush wasn't president of the U.S and we now have people on Mars and so on. That universe had Al Gore as president.

Re:Does anyone know ...

[ScentCone]

Bush wasn't president of the U.S and we now have people on Mars and so on. That universe had Al Gore as president.

Ah, I see. Because... when Gore and Clinton were in charge of NASA, there were plans in place and programs under way to have people on Mars by now, only 7 years later, and that got stopped cold by Teh Evil Bush. I wonder what else was under way while Clinton and Gore were running the executive branch? Say, the rapid build up of Al Queda tranining camps in Afghanistan, and the launching of plans to re-attack the WTC? The recession we were in as they left office? The changes in your alternate universe have to go back a lot farther than Gore not getting selective votes counted just the way he wanted in Florida in order to have people on Mars now, as we're talking. Of course, you know that, and you're just trolling.

Physicist Theory?

[snl2587]

This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing.

Or Hindu belief...

hurts my head

[INeededALogin]

Adams said it best: "The Universe, as has been observed before, is an unsettlingly big place, a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore."

Re:And... what was before that?

[Joe U]

It had to expand from something the first time, didn't it? No, it didn't and that's where things get really interesting.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory

[TheRealMindChild]

To use your analogy, draw a grid on the balloon. When you inflate the balloon, the grid squares grow. But one unit is still one unit. If you had to measure around the balloon, it would be x squares, regardless the size. This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference. You are measuring it outside of the universe, and it just doesn't work like that.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

You are pointing to imperfections in an analogy and claiming they are flaws in the concept the analogy is meant to describe. The balloon analogy is not a premise supporting expansion. It's just a visual aid.

This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference.

No, we are on the balloon. The surface of the balloon is a 2D representation of our 3D space. Talking about the inside of the balloon is nonsensical.

Re:Is heat death still possible under this theory?

[Arancaytar]

"I'm curious about this" ironically becomes "I CAT" in an acronym.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory

[TheRealMindChild]

No, we are on the balloon. The surface of the balloon is a 2D representation of our 3D space.

You are trying to oversimplifying it and it is getting in the way. The balloon is our universe. Drawing a grid on the outside would be akin to cubing up a block of cheese. Get past the fact that it is drawn on a 2d surface. This represents cubes of space/time within our universe.

In the end, the change in distance is offset by the change in time, which makes it a non-issue.

An unrelated, but equally technical postulation would be, imagine that everything in the universe was growing! Everything is also moving away from each other at a proportional ratio to how fast it is growing. Use any numbers you want. When it comes down to it, IT DOESN'T MATTER, because everything would be the same in our frame of reference. It would only be different to someone outside of our universe, who isn't affected.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory

[DavidTC]

Everyone here is apparently rather stupid.

If I leave your house traveling at the speed of light, and look back an hour later, I'll see your house exactly as I left it. (Pretending that time would actually pass enough for me to 'see' anything.)

So, 'relatively', anyone who also left at the same time, in any direction, at any speed, looks like they're 'relatively' an hour away! Because they're standing at my starting point motionless!

Of course, as no one can actually do anything at the speed of light, even assuming they could reach it, this concept is rather stupid.

Which is why all this discussion is rather stupid. The original poster apparently doesn't realize that when scientists talk about seeing things farther away than the age of the universe, they're actually talking about where they are now, not where they are when the light that is now reaching us left them.