According to the scientists’ new hypothesis, the universe had no beginning, but would always exist. Here’s what we know (also about the Big Bang)
We have always been accustomed to the idea that the Big Bang corresponds to the beginning of the universe, in a temporal sense. But what if this wasn’t the case? If the universe had no beginning, but only an evolution called the Big Bang, how would you react? According to a study conducted by physicist Bruno Bento of the University of Liverpool, the universe had no beginning, but is believed to have always existed and only recently evolved into what we have always called the Big Bang.
Advertisement
The beginning of the universe is not as they told you
We have already told you about quantum gravity. This is perhaps the most frustrating problem facing modern physics. In practice we are faced with two extraordinarily effective theories of the universe: quantum physics and general relativity. The first describes three (electromagnetism, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force), if we talk about microscopic quantities. With general relativity, however, we have the most complete description of gravity ever conceived.
Incomplete theory
Despite its strengths, however, the theory of general relativity is incomplete. Or rather, it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. In at least two places: at the center of a black hole and at the beginning of the universe. These regions are called “singularities,” points in space-time where our laws of physics do not apply. They crumble, because gravity becomes incredibly strong there. To solve the mysteries of singularities, physicists need a microscopic description of strong gravity, also called quantum theory of gravity (string theory and loop quantum gravity are just a few examples).
The theory of random sets
In all current theories of physics, space and time are continuous. They form a kind of smooth fabric that underlies our daily reality. In such a spacetime, two points can be as close to each other as possible, and two events can occur as close in time to each other as possible. With a different approach, however, which Professor Bento calls “causal set theory”, we can re-imagine space-time as a series of parts, or space-time atoms. Such a theory would place strict limits on how close two events can be in space and time, since they cannot be closer than the size of this atom.
Some examples on the Big Bang
Let’s take an example: the screen through which you are reading this article is fluid, compact, readable in short. But if you try to get close to the display with a magnifying glass, you would find that there are a lot of pixels dividing the space on the screen and that it would be impossible to bring two images on the screen closer to a single pixel. But what does all this mean in simple terms?
In causal set theory, one atom of space-time grows at a time, causing the set of points in space-time to become larger and larger. This approach allows us to clearly eliminate the problem of the Big Bang singularity, because according to this theory singularities could not exist. It is impossible, in fact, for matter to be compressed into points smaller than a space-time atom. According to Bento, therefore, there would not be a Big Bang at the beginning of the universe, since something infinite would exist in the past. The universe, in short, . The Big Bang would be nothing more than an evolution of this causal set of points, not a real beginning.
Read more:
