Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.

Saturday, June 08, 2019



"What will lead us to make great efforts to know our universe. Answer: Perhaps, with the growing knowledge that we have today, in the future, an advanced human civilization will create a new universe, either because we are fleeing from universal cataclysmic events, either because we want better designs, or because we want to be immortals. This saga  was initiated by  Lemaître and continued by Hawking and others......".

There are cosmology models, which could explain the origin of our universe and of living beings.1) BIG BANG THEORY. After solving the equations of Einstein, on the geometry of the universe, the catholic physicist Georges Lemaître, postulated that our universe was expanding; opinion backed by astronomers V.M. Slipher, C.W. Wirtz and E. Hubble after observing a redshift of light from spiral nebulae. Thanks to this finding, Lemaître, proposed in 1931 the hypothesis that the universe would have originated in the explosion (Big Bang) of a primeval atom: a dense, hot point, full of energy, continued by an expansion (cosmic inflation). An objection to this theory was made by Alan Guth, in 1980, who said that physicists would accept such a theory, if the expansion had been disordered, chaotic, instead of smooth and orderly with possibilities of being flat because of gravity. Additional objections: where did the energy come from to expand the universe? What was there before the Big Bang? 2) THEORY OF NO BOUNDARY PURPOSAL. In 1981, Stephen Hawking argued before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences of the Vatican that the early universe originated in a space-time without limits (no boundary proposal), blurry, with  form of a cap-off, similar to the south pole of the earth : a singularity without limits, without beginning or end, starting from a scratch, where time did not exist, as it was potentially contained in the singularity of the primal atom. Space and time would be born after the Big Bang. According to this theory, the concept of a principle of the universe has no meaning, because its origin was the emergence of a singularity in the pre-Big Bang space. This state of Hartle-Hawking, although without principle, is not necessarily a universe in a stationary state. In 1983, James Hartle, conceived the universe like a  badminton projectile (shuttlecock), with a bottom diameter equal to 0, widening gently and gradually in the opposite part. This conical  form, explained in an equation (wave function of the universe), covered  all the past and the future. According to Hawking, it made no sense to ask what was there before the Big Bang, because there was no notion of time to refer to. However, in 2014, Hartle (University of California), reconceptualized time: every moment in the universe would be a cross section of the conic area. Correlating the size of the universe in each cross section with other properties (entropy, which increases from the bottom to the feathers of the shuttlecock), would configure an emergent arrow of time. Another objection to Hartle, was that at the bottom of the shuttlecock, the correlations of time are not so reliable, because this cease, being replaced by pure space. At this point, Neil Turok (Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada), commented that these ideas represented an initial quantum description of the cosmos. 2 years later, Turok and collaborators said that they would accept the viability of a universe without limits, only if it were curved outwards from a point without dimensions growing in a similar way to the actual universe. Hawking and Hartle argued that unlimited universes tend to be huge, smooth, flat and expansive. Turok and others, refuted Hartle and Hawking's with new math techniques that improved the predictions. In 1915, Einstein said that the concentrations of matter and energy distort the matter and energy of space and in 1960, Hawking and Penrose proved that when the space-time  is bent intensely, as happens inside a black hole or a Big Bang, these collapse infinitely curving towards a singularity, so, Einstein's equations stop working, being needed  a new quantum theory of gravity.  After being calculated the integral path of these collisions  was possible to obtain the wave function (probabilistic distribution of universe emergencies or possible states, after the collision of particles). Thanks to this, the wave function of the universe was described as the sum of all possible paths that a smooth expansion of a universe can take, starting from a point. it is the sum of many stories of universes with   different sizes, shapes and dimensions, with a high probability that one of them has a smooth, smooth, flat conformation. If we did not find one such as ours, the wave function of the universe built for a universe without limits would be an error.  At present, physicists know 2 possible dominant expansions of calculation, which the universe can have. After the start of the expansion from a scratch, these universes expand according to Einstein's theory of gravity and space-time. One of these 2 solutions resemble our universe, being at large scales: soft and speckled randomly with energy, due to quantum fluctuations during inflation. If this possible solution dominates the wave function, in experiments performed in minispaces, it will be possible to imagine that a more detailed and accurate version of the wave function without limits could serve as a viable cosmological model of the real universe. And, if the 2 dominant stories had locations on the map, this should be resolved at some point, because the trend is that we should adopt is only one way, rather than an integration of both. In this regard, in an article published in 2017, Turok, Feldbrugge and Lehners adopted an expansive cosmic path promoted by the second dominant solution,  adopting real, rather than imaginary values ​​for physics, to make sense. In experiments performed in minispaces, only the contours that capture a coherent history of expansion make sense. On the other hand, quantum mechanics requires normalizable probabilities, in which the highly fluctuable universe designed by Turok does not take place. In 1960 John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt, argued that the wave function of the universe could not depend on time, because there was no external clock, to measure it and because the amount of energy in the universe tends to be zero forever. Always innovative and shortly before dying Hawking already used holography, treating space-time as a hologram, in which the total geometry of the represented past could predict the present. On the other hand, Turok, Latham Boyle and Kieran Finn, developed a cosmological model without limits, that instead of continuing with the badminton projectile (shuttlecock),  charts the  bottoms  of 2 united universes : cork to cork, with time fluctuating in 2 directions, matter and antimatter, right and left, forward and backward in time, with the objection that  mirror images of the universe, unite in a singularity that requires a depth understanding of the unknown quantum theory of gravity. 3) THEORY OF THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE. Sustained in 1980, by Vilekin and Linde, based on a theoretical rebirth of the tunnel propossing, to understand how the universe would have been formed from nothing. It conceives the birth of the universe as a tunnel-like quantum mechanical event, similar to when a particle emerges beyond a barrier in a quantum experiment, favoring empty universes, being large amounts of matter and energy necessary to be viable. Its advantage is that the proposed tunnel favors the emergence of multiple universes, full of energy and matter like ours.

Labels: , , , , , , ,