HOW TO CREATE A UNIVERSE
From quantamagazinehttps://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
WHERE WE COME FROM?
"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: big bang, cork to cork, cosmic inflation, cyclic universe, multiverses, no boundary proposal., shuttlecock, singularity
posted by Victor Mechán Mendez at 9:44 PM
|
0 comments
.+Photo+Author.jpg)
