New origin of universe model pours water on Big Bang theory

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2015.18

New origin of universe model pours water on Big Bang theory

The prevailing model of cosmology, based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, puts the universe at around 13.8 billion years old and suggests it originated from a “singularity” – an infinitely small and dense point – at the Big Bang.

To understand what happened inside that tiny singularity, physicists must marry general relativity with quantum mechanics – the laws that govern small objects. Applying both of these disciplines has challenged physicists for decades. “The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity, because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” says Ahmed Farag Ali, a physicist at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Egypt.

In an effort to bring together the laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity, and to solve the singularity puzzle, Ali and Saurya Das, a physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada, employed an equation that predicts the development of singularities in general relativity. That equation had been developed by Das’s former professor, Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri, when Das was an undergraduate student at Presidency University, in Kolkata, India, so Das was particularly familiar and fascinated by it.

When Ali and Das made small quantum corrections to the Raychaudhuri equation, they realised it described a fluid, made up of small particles, that pervades space. Physicists have long believed that a quantum version of gravity would include a hypothetical particle, called the graviton, which generates the force of gravity. In their new model — which will appear in Physics Letters B in February1 — Ali and Das propose that such gravitons could form this fluid.

To understand the origin of the universe, they used this corrected equation to trace the behaviour of the fluid back through time. Surprisingly, they found that it did not converge into a singularity. Instead, the universe appears to have existed forever. Although it was smaller in the past, it never quite crunched down to nothing, says Das.

“Our theory serves to complement Einstein’s general relativity, which is very successful at describing physics over large distances,” says Ali. “But physicists know that to describe short distances, quantum mechanics must be accommodated, and the quantum Raychaudhui equation is a big step towards that.”

The model could also help solve two other cosmic mysteries. In the late 1990s, astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating due the presence of a mysterious dark energy, the origin of which is not known. The model has the potential to explain it since the fluid creates a minor but constant outward force that expands space. “This is a happy offshoot of our work,” says Das.

Astronomers also now know that most matter in the universe is in an invisible mysterious form called dark matter, only perceptible through its gravitational effect on visible matter such as stars. When Das and a colleague set the mass of the graviton in the model to a small level, they could make the density of their fluid match the universe’s observed density of dark matter, while also providing the right value for dark energy’s push2.

“This is the first time that anyone has shown that these two major problems in cosmology can be solved simultaneously by the quantum Raychaudhuri equation,” says Ali.

“We feel a deep sense of satisfaction that this model may resolve some of the most important cosmological issues in one stroke,” adds Das.

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Sounds like the revival of the Aether theory, which was disproven by the Michelson-morley experiment.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sounds like the revival of the Aether theory, which was disproven by the Michelson-morley experiment.

Not really. The Luminiferous Aether was imagined to be the medium through which light waves were propagated. There does not seem to be any analog of that in Ali and Das's work, as described here. If I understand correctly, they are simply proposing that the Raychaudhuri equation represents a gravity field, and that this equation can reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

[Sparko]

Not really. The Luminiferous Aether was imagined to be the medium through which light waves were propagated. There does not seem to be any analog of that in Ali and Das's work, as described here. If I understand correctly, they are simply proposing that the Raychaudhuri equation represents a gravity field, and that this equation can reconcile General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

But everyone knows the pan-dimensional mice created the universe as a giant computer.

[Cow Poke]

Sounds like the revival of the Aether theory, which was disproven by the Michelson-morley experiment.

I was thinkin that exact same thing!

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But everyone knows the pan-dimensional mice created the universe as a giant computer.

6*9=42

[Sparko]

6*9=42

[shunyadragon]

But everyone knows the pan-dimensional mice created the universe as a giant computer.

Dr. No took care of the pan-dimensional mice.

[Carrikature]

Very neat.

[seer]

Very neat.

I like my Scotch neat...

[37818]

But everyone knows the pan-dimensional mice created the universe as a giant computer.

No. the pan-dimensional mice had contracted the creation of the earth as that computer. And the meaning of life is 42.

[Leonhard]

And the meaning of life is 42.

Actually, 42 is the answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything. Unfortunately nobody knows what this question actually is, so having the answer is rather useless.

[JonF]

Maybe a being in another universe knows the question. But a universe in which both are known is impossible.

[thewriteranon]

Actually, 42 is the answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything. Unfortunately nobody knows what this question actually is, so having the answer is rather useless.

Although "how many roads must a man walk down?" is pretty good.

[rwatts]

Unfortunately nobody knows what this question actually is, so having the answer is rather useless.

"What is the question?" is the question - I think.