Scientists Claim To Have Discover What Existed BEFORE The Beginning Of The Universe!

Non-scientific versions of the answer have invoked many gods and have been the basis of all religions and most philosophy since the beginning of recorded time.

Now a team of mathematicians from Canada and Egypt have used cutting edge scientific theory and a mind-boggling set of equations to work out what preceded the universe in which we live.

In (very) simple terms they applied the theories of the very small – the world of quantum mechanics – to the whole universe - explained  by general theory of relativity, and discovered the universe basically goes though four different phases.

More importantly they discovered what came before this universe was.. another universe or more accurately another ‘cosmological phase’.

Despite being infinite in size our universe is cyclical and has always existed in one of four stages.

The universe is expanding, and the expansion is speeding up, but the team believes that certain modification motivated by quantum mechanics will ultimately halt the expansion and pull the whole lot back to a near infinite point – at which stage the universe will start expanding again.

The paper, called ''Non-singular and Cyclic Universe from the Modified GUP'', written by Maha Salah, Fayçal Hammad, Mir Faizal, Ahmed Farag Ali, is super complex but Prof. Mir Faizal  outlined the main points of this paper.

According to him  they have incorporated quantum mechanical effects in cosmology using an approach called the modified GUP. 

This approach  changes  the equation for cosmology  in a very interesting way. It predicts four distinct phases for our universe - the present phase of the universe being just one of those phases.

There is a phase before the big bang in this cosmological model, and it is possible to know about that phase of the universe by studying the physics of present phase of our universe.

Professor Mir Faizal said: “In our cosmological model the universe did not start with the big bang, but there was a phase transition from one phase of the universe to another. 

“This is possible because  the universe can  exist in four different phases,  like ordinary water can exist in three different phases. Just as we can know about the properties of ice, by studying water which has formed from it, we can know about pre big bang cosmology by studying the physics of this universe.

“Using our cosmological model we can study the physics of the cosmological phase before the beginning of our universe.''

In their model they have been able to  study the pre Big Bang state of the universe. The equations in their model predict  that the expansion of the universe will come to a halt and then will immediately be followed by a contracting phase.

Prof Mir added: “When the equations are extrapolated beyond the maximum rate of contraction, a cyclic universe scenario emerges. “Other cosmologists have suggested a big bang and big crunch scenario – but those model have singularities.

“Singularities are bad in physics as they indicate a place where the laws of physics breakdown, and at such places one cannot use physics to get meaningful results.

“This new cosmological  model  does away with such  singularity. The big bang singularity can therefore also be avoided by using the modified GUP-corrections to the cosmology.”

In their cosmology model, the cyclic nature of the universe occurs as a result of incorporating quantum effects into a cosmological model of the universe. 

Prof Faizal explained that even though there are many different mind-bending approaches to quantum gravity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, what most of these different approaches have in common is that there is a minimum length below which space does not exist.

Many of these approaches also predict that there is  also  a maximum energy and no object in the universe can have an energy beyond that maximum energy.

They research team incorporated the effect of having a minimum length and an maximum energy  into a cosmological model, and then they  ended up with a cyclic universe.

Asked about the philosophical and even possible theological implications of his work Prof. Mir said: ''No one draws any philosophical or  theological implications of a finite or an  infinite spatial dimension, and time is just another dimension, so why should it be treated any differently.

“In any case, I do not believe in a God of gaps, with big bang being a big gap, but in a God who made the mathematics describing reality so perfect that there are no gaps, not now and not at big bang.'' 

Prof Faizal has also worked on the Large Hadron Collider investigating doors to other universes.

The Big Bang is not The Beginning of Our Universe — It’s Actually the End of Something Else Entirely

Sean Carroll is a physicist at Caltech. His research includes theoretical physics and astrophysics, especially cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He has published several research papers dark matter and dark energy, modified gravity, violations of Lorentz invariance, extra dimensions, topological defects, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, causality violation, black holes, and the cosmological constant problem.

He is currently focused on origin of the universe and the arrow of time, including the roles of inflation, baby universes, and quantum gravity. In his recent video by Techinsider, he explains what existed before Big Bang and it actually means. So watch and learn:

Scientists Claim To Have Discover What Existed BEFORE The Beginning Of The Universe!

Non-scientific versions of the answer have invoked many gods and have been the basis of all religions and most philosophy since the beginning of recorded time.

Now a team of mathematicians from Canada and Egypt have used cutting edge scientific theory and a mind-boggling set of equations to work out what preceded the universe in which we live.

In (very) simple terms they applied the theories of the very small – the world of quantum mechanics – to the whole universe - explained  by general theory of relativity, and discovered the universe basically goes though four different phases.

More importantly they discovered what came before this universe was.. another universe or more accurately another ‘cosmological phase’.

Despite being infinite in size our universe is cyclical and has always existed in one of four stages.

The universe is expanding, and the expansion is speeding up, but the team believes that certain modification motivated by quantum mechanics will ultimately halt the expansion and pull the whole lot back to a near infinite point – at which stage the universe will start expanding again.

The paper, called ''Non-singular and Cyclic Universe from the Modified GUP'', written by Maha Salah, Fayçal Hammad, Mir Faizal, Ahmed Farag Ali, is super complex but Prof. Mir Faizal  outlined the main points of this paper.

According to him  they have incorporated quantum mechanical effects in cosmology using an approach called the modified GUP. 

This approach  changes  the equation for cosmology  in a very interesting way. It predicts four distinct phases for our universe - the present phase of the universe being just one of those phases.

There is a phase before the big bang in this cosmological model, and it is possible to know about that phase of the universe by studying the physics of present phase of our universe.

Professor Mir Faizal said: “In our cosmological model the universe did not start with the big bang, but there was a phase transition from one phase of the universe to another. 

“This is possible because  the universe can  exist in four different phases,  like ordinary water can exist in three different phases. Just as we can know about the properties of ice, by studying water which has formed from it, we can know about pre big bang cosmology by studying the physics of this universe.

“Using our cosmological model we can study the physics of the cosmological phase before the beginning of our universe.''

In their model they have been able to  study the pre Big Bang state of the universe. The equations in their model predict  that the expansion of the universe will come to a halt and then will immediately be followed by a contracting phase.

Prof Mir added: “When the equations are extrapolated beyond the maximum rate of contraction, a cyclic universe scenario emerges. “Other cosmologists have suggested a big bang and big crunch scenario – but those model have singularities.

“Singularities are bad in physics as they indicate a place where the laws of physics breakdown, and at such places one cannot use physics to get meaningful results.

“This new cosmological  model  does away with such  singularity. The big bang singularity can therefore also be avoided by using the modified GUP-corrections to the cosmology.”

In their cosmology model, the cyclic nature of the universe occurs as a result of incorporating quantum effects into a cosmological model of the universe. 

Prof Faizal explained that even though there are many different mind-bending approaches to quantum gravity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, what most of these different approaches have in common is that there is a minimum length below which space does not exist.

Many of these approaches also predict that there is  also  a maximum energy and no object in the universe can have an energy beyond that maximum energy.

They research team incorporated the effect of having a minimum length and an maximum energy  into a cosmological model, and then they  ended up with a cyclic universe.

Asked about the philosophical and even possible theological implications of his work Prof. Mir said: ''No one draws any philosophical or  theological implications of a finite or an  infinite spatial dimension, and time is just another dimension, so why should it be treated any differently.

“In any case, I do not believe in a God of gaps, with big bang being a big gap, but in a God who made the mathematics describing reality so perfect that there are no gaps, not now and not at big bang.'' 

Prof Faizal has also worked on the Large Hadron Collider investigating doors to other universes.

Scientists Claim To Have Discover What Existed BEFORE The Beginning Of The Universe!

Non-scientific versions of the answer have invoked many gods and have been the basis of all religions and most philosophy since the beginning of recorded time.

Now a team of mathematicians from Canada and Egypt have used cutting edge scientific theory and a mind-boggling set of equations to work out what preceded the universe in which we live.

In (very) simple terms they applied the theories of the very small – the world of quantum mechanics – to the whole universe - explained  by general theory of relativity, and discovered the universe basically goes though four different phases.

More importantly they discovered what came before this universe was.. another universe or more accurately another ‘cosmological phase’.

Despite being infinite in size our universe is cyclical and has always existed in one of four stages.

The universe is expanding, and the expansion is speeding up, but the team believes that certain modification motivated by quantum mechanics will ultimately halt the expansion and pull the whole lot back to a near infinite point – at which stage the universe will start expanding again.

The paper, called ''Non-singular and Cyclic Universe from the Modified GUP'', written by Maha Salah, Fayçal Hammad, Mir Faizal, Ahmed Farag Ali, is super complex but Prof. Mir Faizal  outlined the main points of this paper.

According to him  they have incorporated quantum mechanical effects in cosmology using an approach called the modified GUP. 

This approach  changes  the equation for cosmology  in a very interesting way. It predicts four distinct phases for our universe - the present phase of the universe being just one of those phases.

There is a phase before the big bang in this cosmological model, and it is possible to know about that phase of the universe by studying the physics of present phase of our universe.

Professor Mir Faizal said: “In our cosmological model the universe did not start with the big bang, but there was a phase transition from one phase of the universe to another. 

“This is possible because  the universe can  exist in four different phases,  like ordinary water can exist in three different phases. Just as we can know about the properties of ice, by studying water which has formed from it, we can know about pre big bang cosmology by studying the physics of this universe.

“Using our cosmological model we can study the physics of the cosmological phase before the beginning of our universe.''

In their model they have been able to  study the pre Big Bang state of the universe. The equations in their model predict  that the expansion of the universe will come to a halt and then will immediately be followed by a contracting phase.

Prof Mir added: “When the equations are extrapolated beyond the maximum rate of contraction, a cyclic universe scenario emerges. “Other cosmologists have suggested a big bang and big crunch scenario – but those model have singularities.

“Singularities are bad in physics as they indicate a place where the laws of physics breakdown, and at such places one cannot use physics to get meaningful results.

“This new cosmological  model  does away with such  singularity. The big bang singularity can therefore also be avoided by using the modified GUP-corrections to the cosmology.”

In their cosmology model, the cyclic nature of the universe occurs as a result of incorporating quantum effects into a cosmological model of the universe. 

Prof Faizal explained that even though there are many different mind-bending approaches to quantum gravity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, what most of these different approaches have in common is that there is a minimum length below which space does not exist.

Many of these approaches also predict that there is  also  a maximum energy and no object in the universe can have an energy beyond that maximum energy.

They research team incorporated the effect of having a minimum length and an maximum energy  into a cosmological model, and then they  ended up with a cyclic universe.

Asked about the philosophical and even possible theological implications of his work Prof. Mir said: ''No one draws any philosophical or  theological implications of a finite or an  infinite spatial dimension, and time is just another dimension, so why should it be treated any differently.

“In any case, I do not believe in a God of gaps, with big bang being a big gap, but in a God who made the mathematics describing reality so perfect that there are no gaps, not now and not at big bang.'' 

Prof Faizal has also worked on the Large Hadron Collider investigating doors to other universes.

Finally, This is What happened before the Big Bang

Let’s face it: to think that the universe has a history that started with a kind of birthday some 13.8 billion years ago is weird. It resonates with many religious narratives that posit that the cosmos was created by divine intervention, although science has nothing to say about that.

What happened before time began?

If everything that happens can be attributed to a cause, what caused the universe? To deal with the very tough question of the First Cause, religious creation myths use what cultural anthropologists sometimes call a “Positive Being,” a supernatural entity. Since time itself had a beginning at some point in the distant past, that First Cause had to be special: it had to be an uncaused cause, a cause that just happened, with nothing preceding it.

Attributing the beginning of everything to the Big Bang begs the question, “What happened before that?” That’s a different question when we are dealing with eternal gods, as for them, timelessness is not an issue. They exist outside of time, but we don’t. For us, there is no “before” time. Thus, if you ask what was going on before the Big Bang, the question is somewhat meaningless, even if we need it to make sense. Stephen Hawking once equated it with asking, “What’s north of the North Pole?” Or, the way I like to phrase it, “Who were you before you were born?”

To ask from science to “explain” the First Cause is to ask science to explain its own structure. It’s to ask for a scientific model that uses no precedents, no previous concepts to operate. And science can’t do this, just as you can’t think without a brain.

Saint Augustine posited that time and space emerged with creation. For him, it was an act of God, of course. But for science?

Scientifically, we try to figure out the way the universe was in its adolescence and infancy by going backward in time, trying to reconstruct what was happening. Somewhat like paleontologists, we identify “fossils” — material remnants of long-ago days — and use them to learn about the different physics that was prevalent then.

The premise is that we are confident that the universe is expanding now and has been for billions of years. “Expansion” here means that the distances between galaxies are increasing; galaxies are receding from one another at a rate that depends on what was inside the universe at different eras, that is, the kinds of stuff that fill up space.

The “Big Bang” was not an explosion

When we mention the Big Bang and expansion, it’s hard not to think about an explosion that started everything. Especially since we call it the “Big Bang.” But that’s the wrong way to think about it. Galaxies move away from one another because they are literally carried by the stretch of space itself. Like an elastic fabric, space stretches out and the galaxies are carried along, like corks floating down a river. So, galaxies are not like pieces of shrapnel flying away from a central explosion. There is no central explosion. The universe expands in all directions and is perfectly democratic: every point is equally important. Someone in a faraway galaxy would see other galaxies moving away just like we do.

(Side note: For galaxies that are close enough to us, there are deviations from this cosmic flow, what’s called “local motion.” This is due to gravity, The Andromeda galaxy is moving toward us, for example.)

Going back in time

Playing the cosmic movie backward, we see matter getting squeezed more and more into a shrinking volume of space. Temperature rises, pressure rises, things break apart. Molecules get broken down into atoms, atoms into nuclei and electrons, atomic nuclei into protons and neutrons, and then protons and neutrons into their constituent quarks. This progressive dismantling of matter into its most basic constituents happens as the clock ticks backward toward the “bang” itself.

For example, hydrogen atoms dissociate at about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, atomic nuclei at about one minute, and protons and neutrons at about one-hundredth of a second. How do we know? We have found the radiation left over from when the first atoms formed (the cosmic microwave background radiation) and discovered how the first light atomic nuclei were made when the universe was merely a few minutes old. These are the cosmic fossils that show us the way backward.

Our experiments can currently recreate conditions that existed when the cosmos was one trillionth of a second old. For us, that seems like an absurdly small number, but for a photon - a particle of light — it's a long time, allowing it to travel a trillion times the diameter of a proton. When discussing the early universe, we must set aside our human time norms and intuitions.

Of course, we want to keep returning as near to t = 0 as possible. But we finally meet a brick wall of ignorance, and all we can do is extrapolate our current hypotheses, looking for signs of what was going on far earlier, at energy and temperatures we can't test in the lab. One thing is certain: very near to t = 0, Einstein's general theory of relativity, our current theory defining the characteristics of space and time, fails.

This is the world of quantum mechanics, where distances are so small that we must rethink space as a granular environment rather than a continuous sheet. Unfortunately, no viable theory exists to characterise this granularity of space or the physics of gravity at the quantum scale (known as quantum gravity). Of course, there are contenders, such as superstring theory and loop quantum gravity. However, there is currently no evidence pointing to either of the two as a credible description of physics.

Quantum cosmology does not provide an answer.

Nonetheless, our curiosity drives us to push the boundaries closer to t = 0. What else can we say? In the 1980s, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, and Andrei Linde developed three models of quantum cosmology in which the entire universe is regarded as an atom using an equation similar to that used in quantum mechanics. In this equation, the universe is a wave of probability that connects a quantum realm with no time to a classical realm with time — i.e., the universe we live in, which is now growing. The shift from quantum to classical would represent the true birth of the universe, with the so-called Big Bang being an uncaused quantum fluctuation as random as radioactive decay: from no time to time.

Is one of these simple models valid, and hence the scientific explanation for the First Cause? Could we use quantum physics probability to eliminate the requirement for a cause entirely?

Regrettably, no. Sure, such a model would be an incredible intellectual achievement. It would be a huge step forward in understanding the origin of all things. However, it is insufficient. Science cannot occur in a vacuum. It requires a conceptual framework to function, which includes concepts such as space, time, matter, energy, calculus, and conservation rules for quantities such as energy and momentum. A building cannot be built from ideas, and models cannot be built without concepts and laws. To request that science "explain" the First Cause is to request that science explain its own structure. It is to request a scientific model that operates with no precedents or previous conceptions. And science, like you, cannot do this without a brain.

The First Cause remains a mystery. You can pick religious faith as an answer, or you can trust science will solve everything. But, like the Greek Skeptic Pyrrho, you can embrace the boundaries of our reach into the unknowable with humility, enjoying what we have accomplished and will undoubtedly continue to accomplish, without the need to know and explain all. It's fine to be left in the dark.

Curiosity is blind without mystery, and mystery is lame without curiosity.

The Big Bang is not The Beginning of Our Universe — It’s Actually the End of Something Else Entirely

Sean Carroll is a physicist at Caltech. His research includes theoretical physics and astrophysics, especially cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He has published several research papers dark matter and dark energy, modified gravity, violations of Lorentz invariance, extra dimensions, topological defects, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, causality violation, black holes, and the cosmological constant problem.

He is currently focused on origin of the universe and the arrow of time, including the roles of inflation, baby universes, and quantum gravity. In his recent video by Techinsider, he explains what existed before Big Bang and it actually means. So watch and learn:

The Big Bang Never Happened - And There Might Be Traces of an Earlier Universe, Scientist Claims

For nearly half a century, the Big Bang theory has been accepted by many as the best explanation for how the universe began. But what if it was wrong – and the universe’s current expansion was actually preceded by an earlier phase, and there are still traces of that ‘previous’ universe?

Some physicists are now challenging the idea of ‘the beginning of time.’ Instead of a Big Bang event that started it all 13.7 billion years ago, some suspect the universe may experience ‘bouncing’ phases of contraction and expansion.

vvvvv

“I believe the Big Bang never happened,” said physicist Julian Cesar Silva Neves, who works as a researcher at the University of Campinas’ Mathematics, Statistics & Scientific Computation Institute (IMECC-UNICAMP) in Sao Paulo State, Brazil.

In a new study published to the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, Neves argues that there may be no need for the spacetime singularity – or, the Big Bang. Instead of springing into existence, the current expanding universe may have been preceded by a contraction phase. The idea stems from the theory that a ‘Big Crunch’, in which the universe collapses on itself, could lead to an ‘eternal succession of universes.’

The process would create extremes in temperature and density, leading to an inversion and a ‘bounce’ that allows for expansion.

“In order to measure the rate at which the Universe is expanding with the standard cosmology, the model in which there’s a Big Bang, a mathematical function is used that depends only on cosmological time,”said Neves. “Eliminating the singularity or Big Bang brings back the bouncing Universe on to the theoretical stage of cosmology. The absence of a singularity at the start of spacetime opens up the possibility that vestiges of a previous contraction phase may have withstood the phase change and may still be with us in the ongoing expansion of the Universe.”

 

The new argument is inspired by the behaviour of ‘regular’ black holes. In a black hole, the core contracts to form a singularity, with extreme density and gravitational attraction. But, Neves argues that this singularity does not define a black hole – instead, the event horizon does, or the ‘membrane’ which indicates the point of no return.

“Outside the event horizon of a regular black hole, there are no major changes, but inside it, the changes are deep-seated,” Neves says. “There’s a different spacetime that avoids the formation of a singularity.”

Neves and supervisor lberto Vazques Saa, a Professor at IMECC-UNICAMP, devised a scale factor inspired by physicist James Bardeen, who considered the mass of a black hole not as a constant, but as something dependent on the distance to the center. This modified the solution to the general relativity equations on black holes, and gave rise to what’s known as the ‘regular’ black hole.

“Regular black holes are permitted, since they don’t violate general relativity,” said Neves. “The concept isn’t new and has frequently been revisited in recent decades.”

The researchers used a similar approach to eliminate the singularity. Neves says the hypothesis can be tested “by looking for traces of the events in a contraction phase that may have remained in the ongoing expansion phase.” This could include “remnants of black holes from a previous phase of universal contraction that may have survived the bounce.”