What was Before the Big Bang? An Identical, Reversed Universe

by Ian O'Neill on April 14, 2008

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Graphic of the Big Bounce concept (Relativity4Engineers.com)
So what did exist before the Big Bang? This question would normally belong in the realms of deep philosophical thinking; the laws of physics have no right to probe beyond the Big Bang barrier. There can be no understanding of what was there before. We have no experience, no observational capability and no way of travelling back through it (we can’t even calculate it), so how can physicists even begin to think they can answer this question? Well, a new study of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) is challenging this view, perhaps there is a way of looking into the pre-Big Bang “universe”. And the conclusion? The Big Bang was more of a “Big Bounce”, and the pre-bounce universe had the same physics as our universe… just backwards… Confused? I am

LQG is a tough theory to put into words, but it basically addresses the problems associated with the incompatibilities behind quantum theory and general relativity, two crucial theories that characterize our universe. If these two theories are not compatible with each other, the search for the “Theory Of Everything” will be hindered, disallowing gravity to merge with the “Grand Unified Theory” (a.k.a. the electronuclear force). LQG quantizes gravity, thereby providing a possible explanation for gravity and a possible key to unlocking the Theory Of Everything. However, from the outset, LQG has many critics as there is little direct or indirect evidence backing up the theory.

See the previous Universe Today article on Loop Quantum Gravity»

Regardless, much work is being done into this area of research. The primary consequence to come from LQG is that it predicts that the Big Bang which occurred 13.7 billion years ago was actually a “Big Bounce”; our universe is therefore the product of a contracting universe before the Big Bang. The previous universe (or our universe “twin”) contracted to a single point (which could be interpreted as a “Big Crunch”) and then rebounded in a Big Bounce to produce the Big Bang as we’ve learned to accept as the birth of the universe as we know it. But until now, although the pre-bounce universe has been predicted, its characteristics could not be known. No information about the pre-bounce universe could be observed in today’s universe, the Big Bounce causes a “cosmic amnesia”, destroying all information of the previous universe.

Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario are working on a simplified Loop Quantum Gravity (sLQG) theory where they approximate the value of the “quantum constraint”, a key equation in the LQG theory. What happens next is a little surprising. From their calculations, it would appear that a universe, identical to our own, with identical mechanics, existed before the Big Bounce.

…the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours. The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.” – Parampreet Singh

We are not talking about an alternate dimension; we are talking about an identical universe with the same space-time and quantum characteristics as our own. If we look at our universe now (13.7 billion years post-bounce), it would be identical to the universe 13.7 billion years before the Big Bounce. The only difference being the direction of time would be opposite; the pre-bounce universe would be reversed.

In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same. It will follow the same dynamical equations, the Einstein’s equations when the universe is large. Our model predicts that this happens when the universe becomes of the order 100 times larger than the Planck size. Further, the matter content will be the same, and it will have the same evolution. Since the pre-bounce universe is contracting, it will look as if we were looking at ours backward in time.” – Parampreet Singh

Analysing what happened before the Big Bang is only part of the story. By making this approximation of a key LQG equation, Singh and Corichi are working on models where galaxies and other physical structures leave an imprint in the pre-bounce universe to influence the post-bounce universe. Would these structures be distributed in similar ways? Will the structures in one universe be similar or identical to structures in the other universe? There may also be an opportunity to look into the future of this universe and predict whether the conditions are right for another Big Bounce (once can imagine repeated bounces, producing a cycle of universes).

For now, this research is highly theoretical and any observational evidence will remain sparse for the time being. Although this is the case, it does begin to probe the big question and may push physics a bit closer toward describing what existed before the Big Bang…

Source: Physorg.com

About

[Follow me on Twitter (@astroengine)]

[Check out my space blog: Astroengine.com]

[Check out my radio show: Astroengine Live!]

Hello! My name is Ian O'Neill and I've been writing for the Universe Today since December 2007. I am a solar physics doctor, but my space interests are wide-ranging. Since becoming a science writer I have been drawn to the more extreme astrophysics concepts (like black hole dynamics), high energy physics (getting excited about the LHC!) and general space colonization efforts. I am also heavily involved with the Mars Homestead project (run by the Mars Foundation), an international organization to advance our settlement concepts on Mars. I also run my own space physics blog: Astroengine.com, be sure to check it out!

  • http://toddsieling.com Todd Sieling

    There are a lot of contradictions in the subject, which is understandable given that it pushes against the edge of what can be understood scientifically. But the one that leaps out at me is that there can be no information observed from the past universe, yet its structures dictate the structures that appear in the following universe. Wouldn’t that be a carrying over of information?

    It also seems weird to think about time as something contained by the universe, and yet to try and imagine something ‘before’ the universe – it sorta breaks down, but I think I’m focussing on the strict semantics too much. This really does edge against the realm of spirituality as much as it does science. Fun stuff to think about, though – thanks for the writeup!

  • Molecular

    Maybe the Universe is more like the contents inside of a lava lamp. It could be oozing into existence, stretching out, expanding, swelling up, with some parts of itself breaking off, forming yet smaller parts which then expand, or, contract, and even merge with other parts, infinitely. :)

  • RL

    It may just be that since we’re of this universe, we’ll never be able to understand or know what lies outside of it in a scientific way. All of our techniques and logic are based on the physics of the universe we live in. We may never know what was there before the Big Bang…

    …I think all of this is in the realm of hypothesis until someone can find a way to test these ideas.

  • http://www.spacebull.com Eric Conrad

    I”m gonna put my 2 cents in and say that this is a numbers game only. Until we find physical evidence, which good scientists will do. I look forward to ideas on how to test this theory, and their results!

  • Dark Gnat

    If time did not exist before our universe began, then there is no “before” the big bang.

    There is no way we can know how the universe worked before that, because our very ways of thinking are a result of the current post-bang universe. We simply are not capable of understanding the events before, because there is no “before” for us to perceive.

  • Eric Near Buffalo

    good point

  • ray matesevac

    all very interesting but where did the very first bit of energy or matter come from?

  • StirFry

    This is all very nice and all very speculative. What caused this expansion and contraction in the first place? I mean, without bringing in “god” and the rest of that baggage.

  • Yo Mommy

    Utter total garbage. Get a life!

  • mark

    Markus Stone writes: “must read”
    So if this clumpy universe of ours really did expand from a singularity, why, that sounds pretty much like a black hole running backwards, doesn’t it? Matter being regurgitated from a singularity. Given the fact that matter in our universe seems to like to clump together, eventually the fate of all matter must eventually be to get sucked back in to a singularity (black hole). What’s left of the earth will surely eventually go down that big ol’ gurgler at the middle of the milky way – and then what? Oops, there goes the Magellanic clouds. And Andromeda got a bit too close – oops there you go! And so on and so forth…

    So I’m thinking here that the universe just vacillates back and forth. Singularity in forwards time is just called a black hole, singularity in reverse time is called a big bang. Everything starts with one and ends with the other. Whether you’re traveling ‘forwards’ or ‘backwards’ through time is simply a matter of perspective. Same way a particle in forwards time behaves exactly the same an anti-particle in reverse. It’s all just a matter of perspective.

    I’m thinking maybe they’re the same thing. Matter falls into the black hole. That matter can no longer see anything of the universe from whence it came because of the event horizon now enclosing it. Relativity predicts an equal and opposite parallel universe inside a black hole with a second singularity with of exact opposite characteristics – a white hole where matter can only escape (in other words a big bang that can only exist within the confines of the black hole’s event horizon).

    If our universe were born from a white hole singularity inside a black hole, it would look essentially the same, as we cannot see beyond the edge of our event horizon. As our black hole / universe absorbs more matter, the event horizon expands, which is analogous to the expansion of the universe itself.

    It’s already been theorized that micro black holes could behave exactly like normal atomic particles, as both are simply singularities. Perhaps they are the same thing and our universe is simply a seething mass of singularities of various scales moving in opposite directions on a timeline – one way for matter, the other for antimatter (or normal matter who’s time happens to be running backwards).

    Markus,

    I agree with you and I’m thinking as the same as you are with the black holes. Maybe we came from a black hole that had back fired. Why are we finding more and more black holes? I do think the birth of our universe has something to do with the black holes. Does it seem that there is a black hole in every solar system? What happens (if) all these black holes and matter becomes one big black hole? Are we a universe made an existing universe????

    I do think it all does have something to do with the black holes, but the question is how did it all start???

    Markus, I think you have excellent points which I do agree with and thinking on the same level as you. Excellent!!!!

    Mark

  • rusty shackleford

    I’m no conquerer of ignorance, in fact I’m quite ravaged by it, but I wonder why people don’t see religion as inferior intelligence. For example trying to cut down a tree with a knife, they have much more efficient means of accomplishing that now (chainsaws), so isn’t science the progressing intelligence of existence, making religion a failed hypothesis? Does anyone honestly think that people back then had the capacity to confirm their assumptions? I think the people who created religion as a means to tame people, pooped behind bushes. It seems to me they just didn’t have the technology to comprehend the world around them so they came up with whatever might comfort those best to deal with death and keep everyone from running amuck. Could it be the religious creators we just mere children in the evolution of intelligence? It seems obvious to me…
    I’m not hating on religion I just see it as nothing more than wishful thinking and an out of date idea…

    so maybe this point we are at now is another stage of understanding, trial and error. Its good to have options, process of elimination will eventually find the answer so long as there are minds hungry enough for it.
    For those who still cling to religion, I think they’re just affraid to abanndon their belief for the fear of being ignorant, or maybe they just don’t want to accept the end and have to rely on the after life to console their anxiety.

    These new ideas are just the next step to the answer, there can only be so many ideas and with the race for it growing ever faster, eventually someone will find the evidence to solidify one of these hypothesis. That’s life, understanding, and there’s plenty of it. I don’t know the inner workings of the big bang, but it makes me think, and gives me a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart to appreciate the actual fact of being aware of such important information. Its nice to be informed, so thanks for this mind opening discussion, I have certainly enjoyed absorbing all this and sorting it out in the logical file cabinet. Aren’t we all just like the kid that keeps asking why. Why? Because its human nature. That’s all I know. Thanks for enduring my ramblings, I feel better now. Good luck in life everyone :-j

  • Steve

    Conservation of 4-space momentum for both universes

    Wait. does this mean an identical “me” is being subjected to a preposterous amount of BS on a daily basis but in reverse?

    Or is the reverse relative and I am the one going in reverse? and I though I was moving ahead in life!

    Has physics explained all the anti-entropy machines running around this planet yet?

  • kanada

    Untill someone fits gravity into quantum mechanics its hard to take this to seriously. The absence of gravity from quantum theory is the equivalent of not understanding dirt and its relation to plants.

  • Ryan

    where would the universe get too before it started to contract again, and whats on the other side of that threshold

  • rbrt

    man i like dave chapelle too. he is so funny :D

  • ella

    a lot of you ppl have really good points.
    however, the multiple theories concerning pre-big bang will be very difficult to prove. i think the answer would be too complex for any human to thorughouly comprehend. it would be nice to somewhat understand the greatest mysteries of the universe, but maybe were not meant to know them. if there are other solar systems in our universe that contain other planets than hold intelligent life, then perhaps there are other universes beyound ours. anything is possible.

  • Dulce

    I don’t have much difficulty imagining what came before the big bang anymore than I have trouble imagining where I was for 13+ billion years. Space and time were created by the big bang. There simply was nothing prior to that – as far as we know.

    And if we eventually learn otherwise, great!

  • Tom

    Before the big bang and the universe, there was only God.

  • Les Schonbrun

    It seems likely that we can never know about what, if anything, preceded the big bang. On the other hand, it is only relatively recently that science has learned that there was a big bang. The Idea of a cyclical universe seems much more likely to me than the possibility that at one moment nothing existed and a moment later the big bang occurred. The concept of big crunches and big bounces seems much more in keeping with what we know about how nature works.

    I’d like to add another thought to ponder. It seems likely to me that if we learn that the universe is, indeed, cyclical, we will later learn that there are other cyclical universes and these universes are parts of a larger system. Ultimately, we will accept the realization that existence is infinitely complex. Beginnings and creations are human concepts. The nature of nature is infinite complexity.

  • CFIBAI

    Universe=White=Mirror=Opposite= Big Bang therefore white none expanding…….

Previous post:

Next post: