Brown Dwarfs -New Link between Stars & Planets Discovered
Ultimate Human-Powered Brain Scanner -A Self-sustaining Mind Reader

Are We a Duplicate Universe of the One Prior to the Big Bang?

Bigbang_2 Science has long failed to provide anything stable that could suggest what came before the Big Bang. General Relativity curls up in to the fetal position and demands to be left alone whenever anyone brings the idea of “what came before” to it.

Physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, are proposing that what came before the Big Bang may have been eerily familiar.

A new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has cropped up in recent years, and while there is a lot of math and science to this theory, one of its assumptions is that instead of a Big Bang spacetime singularity, there was a Big Bounce.

“The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang,” Singh told “It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours.”

Previous work on the LQG showed that there had been a universe on the other side, but while it showed valid math, there was no chance to observe in our current universe the state of the pre-bounce universe. This is because, under the previous theory – worked upon by Penn State physicist Martin Bojowald – there was nothing preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.”

Corichi and Singh have modified the LQG by approximating a key equation called the quantum constraint. Their version is called the sLQG, and it shows that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce.

“This means that the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours,” Singh said. “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.”

“In the universe before the bounce, all the general features will be the same,” said Singh. “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.”

But the researchers are quick to point out that this second universe is not full of duplicates of us. It does not suggest that every particle on the other side is exactly the same, and that there is someone who has lived your life. It is pretty much as if the “evil Spock” from the old Star Trek episodes had been from the previous world, not a parallel dimension.

A non-Star Trek description would be; “If one were able to look at certain microscopic properties with a very strong microscope – a very high-energy experiment probing the Planck scale – one might see differences in some quantities, just as one might see that twins have different fingerprints or one has a mole and the other does not, or a different DNA,” Singh said.

In the end, Corichi and Singh’s model may even be able to show us what our own future universe will look like. Depending on how fast our own universe is accelerating, there’s a possibility that – through generalizing their model – a re-collapse of our own universe is possible.

Posted by Josh Hill.


If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on Digg, Reddit, or StumbleUpon.Thanks!

Related Galaxy posts:

Angels or Demons? LHC's $6 Billion Journey to the Beginning of Time
"Lord of the Rings" -Europe's Galactic Machine
The God Particle -The Holy Grail of Physics: has it been found?

Source Link:


I was fascinated about the YIN YANG design when I looked at it... and I had a dream about that told me that we are in a half black part of it and the white dot of it denotes all things that we can see in our universe particularly stars and all the living things.... black part is known to us because we live there.. the white part... great energy...

I was thinking of something quite similar to this when I read somewhere that the universe will stop expanding at one point and will start to implode. The idea was that our universe implodes causing a kind of 'inverse' big bang subsequently creating an inverse universe. Then at one point the inverse universe implodes recreating our universe and were stuck in an infinite loop of recreation. This also led me to a theory on 'Deja Vu'. That Deja Vu is the bodies evolution beyond time (this infinite loop).

There is no experimental evidence supporting the idea that a big bang happened, nor any experimental evidence that could explain the mechanism. All that's called proof is actually complex theoretical mathematics.

The Hubble law cannot predict the location of nearby galaxies as a function of redshift, and so it cannot predict the location of far way galaxies either. The Doppler effect explanation for redshift is therefore false. Doppler effect may be responsible for some redshift, but the prevalence of red to blue shift is not evidence of a big bang. Also, there's no experimental evidence that even if space were expanding that it would drag stars or light along with it. It was always pure conjecture.

The microwave background could have any number of different causes. Predictions of the background temperature made from methods other than the big bang assumption are more accurate. Predicting the background temperature from heat released by visible stars is a good example of a simple theory that more accurately predicts background radiation levels than the big bang.

The notion that there is proof for the big bang is the result of media presentation. There is not actually any evidence, just as there was not actually any evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapons. We believe both ideas (well, used to believe one now) for the same reason.


What a great comment!


I meant Ryan, not Tim

It is releiving to know a duplicate universe is not phantasy.
Fernando J. Bezares-Dones

This concept of a previous universe is very consistent with the "Grand Rebirth" model of the origin of our universe that I set forth in my cosmology in Our Solarian Legacy: Multidiemnsional Humans in a Self-Learning Universe. The yin/yang forces of destruction and construction would cause a universe to atrophy and reproduce itself (perhaps as in the concept of the psychoplasmic biofield associated with the notion of reincarnation in living species).

It is a valuable addition to the discussion. Paul Von Ward

Fernanso, in a materially, energetically and spatially conserved universe that sort of death and rebirth or yin/yang forces you speak of is an almost necessary conclusion. Substitute a galaxy cluster for what you now call a universes, the entirety of our universe for your multi-verse, and you've gotten to basically the same place.

And Iginious, thank you.

Mr. Von Ward, I made same mistake as Ininious above and read the name at the top of the post as the author. I was responding to your comment and not Fernanso's.

So how does the Second Law of Thermodynamics fit into this theory?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)