"So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!" There Will Never Be Another 'Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy' (Weekend Feature)
James Cameron on "Avatar": The Message for Spaceship Earth (VIDEO)

What Came 'Before' the Big Bang? Leading Physicist Presents a Radical Theory (New VIDEO Weekend Feature)

Galaxy-iphone-wallpaper String theorists Neil Turok of Cambridge University and Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton believe that the cosmos we live in was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes (which they define as three-dimensional branes plus time) that were attracted toward each other by the leaking of gravity out of one of the universes. 

In their view of the universe the complexities of an inflating universe after a Big Bang are replaced by a universe that was already large. flat, and uniform with dark energy as the effect of the other universe constantly leaking gravity into our own and driving its acceleration. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets. 


Turok and Steinhardt were inspired by a lecture given by Burt Ovrut who imagined two branes, universes like ours, separated by a tiny gap as tiny as 10-32 meters. There would be no communictaion between the two universes except for our parallel sister universe's gravitational pull, which could cross the tiny gap. 


Orvut's theory could explain the effect of dark matter where areas of the universe are heavier than they should be given everything that's present. With their theory, the nagging problems surrounding the Big Bang (beginning from what, and caused how?) are replaced by an eternal cosmic cycle where dark energy is no longer a mysterious unknown quantity, but rather the very extra gravitational force that drives the universe to universe (brane-brane) interaction. 


Casey Kazan 


VIDEO 


 Source: http://endlessuniverse.net/ http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/

Comments

Whay is this purly specualtive concolosion is easier to make than believing in God? expalin garvity first, Governer of cosmos.

According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time

Time is God.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/9571

Our religion Scholars not immune and sometimes miss interpret and make blunders!!

but God is time,Infinite and absolute.

never liked this "brain" concept. To me, the Big Bang with a starting point of every thing (and also time) makes more sense then this...

Yeah, I agree with Kukainis. I don't go for the "two brains" concept, either. I mean, membrains like that never agree on anything, plus they leak gravity. I can tell you that ever since I had my prostate removed, I've been leaking gravity like crazy and my pants have dark matter all over them all the time. What a pain.

Another interesting theory but how could this be tested? Mere speculation.

If true it just pushes the question back further: how did the branes and that eternal cosmic cycle come into existence?


A universe or many universes in Strings and Branes is an existing theory.
It would coniugate pico-particles Physics with large scale Observable Physiscs.....somehow...I guess.

We cannot ignore that LHC and the relative accelerator in US are bending some old credence of large scale Physiscs with experiments on the particles (high energy)...:

FAQ : what is the time in the surrounding of the new particle created in a high energy collision when the new particle is forming for few milli-micro seconds ???

Nobody knows but a 'heavy local distorsion' of the time-space tissue can be easily hyphotesized...in fact many scientists feared that the Very high energy (The tens-hundreds of Tera eV)released in these collisions might have formed a black hole swallowing the entire planet....which fortunately never happened.

'Time is relative' GUYS and Dr. Einsten demostrated , after having theorized.

Time is force of gravity dependent ...and in fact the cluster of special Cesium oscillators linked to the GPS satellites fleet , 'average' their 'single times' in ofder to offset the influence of microgravity anomalies on planet earth.

On the observale physics the Black Holes distort the time at such an extent that a clock swallowed would stop running aside from the famous 'spaghetti effect'.

Time is so relative that a single universe could NOT explain the all.

In traditional inflationary model of this universe with a big-bang at the vertex...the 'time' did NOT exist before the expansion and hence before the singularity...

IT is a somewhat NAIVE model in such a way that even doctor Hawcking (an expert of Black holes and time )admitted that the theory of the singularity (the vertex of the big gang)had to be changed to a sort of champagne shaped form with NO big bang....NO start of the time...


Now the 'string and branes' theory comes in just as a theory but makes a lot of sense.

We are sorry for the traditional and VERY AGED theories on GOD...that some inspired writer (collecting various legends) wrote up in different versions-languages.

The very existance of GOD is of difficult comprehension for us humans beings 'very limited' and 'quasi-cognitive bipeds' of a very remote mini-plate dispersed in an average class of galaxy.

A universe in strings-branes or a 'multiverse' makes a lot of sense....but NOW must be proven ...otherwise it will remain a 'nice math based theory'.


Therefore while this class of articles is somewhat interesting ....again You Casey are talking about undemonstrated theory.

Regards



A universe or many universes in Strings and Branes is an existing theory.
It would coniugate pico-particles Physics with large scale Observable Physiscs.....somehow...I guess.

We cannot ignore that LHC and the relative accelerator in US are bending some old credence of large scale Physiscs with experiments on the particles (high energy)...:

FAQ : what is the time in the surrounding of the new particle created in a high energy collision when the new particle is forming for few milli-micro seconds ???

Nobody knows but a 'heavy local distorsion' of the time-space tissue can be easily hyphotesized...in fact many scientists feared that the Very high energy (The tens-hundreds of Tera eV)released in these collisions might have formed a black hole swallowing the entire planet....which fortunately never happened.

'Time is relative' GUYS and Dr. Einsten demostrated , after having theorized.

Time is force of gravity dependent ...and in fact the cluster of special Cesium oscillators linked to the GPS satellites fleet , 'average' their 'single times' in ofder to offset the influence of microgravity anomalies on planet earth.

On the observale physics the Black Holes distort the time at such an extent that a clock swallowed would stop running aside from the famous 'spaghetti effect'.

Time is so relative that a single universe could NOT explain the all.

In traditional inflationary model of this universe with a big-bang at the vertex...the 'time' did NOT exist before the expansion and hence before the singularity...

IT is a somewhat NAIVE model in such a way that even doctor Hawcking (an expert of Black holes and time )admitted that the theory of the singularity (the vertex of the big gang)had to be changed to a sort of champagne shaped form with NO big bang....NO start of the time...


Now the 'string and branes' theory comes in just as a theory but makes a lot of sense.

We are sorry for the traditional and VERY AGED theories on GOD...that some inspired writer (collecting various legends) wrote up in different versions-languages.

The very existance of GOD is of difficult comprehension for us humans beings 'very limited' and 'quasi-cognitive bipeds' of a very remote mini-plate dispersed in an average class of galaxy.

A universe in strings-branes or a 'multiverse' makes a lot of sense....but NOW must be proven ...otherwise it will remain a 'nice math based theory'.


Therefore while this class of articles is somewhat interesting ....again You Casey are talking about undemonstrated theory.

Regards


Science has become science fiction.

Try and answer the basic questions ~ like the cause of violence and govt sponsored criminality, first.

But no, its easier to speculate about tripe that cannot be proven or disproved in the name of science.

Religion leaves the cosmic questions alone, and instead tries
to solve the little human/moral problems in our daily
lives. Thus its easy to see how religion is actually far more scientific than this nonsense. Because it deals with real issues like morality.

Science without religion is like a gun without a barrel.
Its'll explode in your face soon enough.

Well it's just a theory that tries to explain it but like all others it just doesen't cut it. It apparently cannot explain what caused the exictence or creation of the very first universes or branes that are always existing in this cyclical evolution of each universe. It does not explain what, why and how the very first universe came into being and how time arised. It will take us much longer to get behind this..

Irrespective of dueling parallel universes, it has to start SOMEWHERE. What am I missing in this revolutionary discovery????? Hand of God...

To you religious people: stop crying "God" already. We KNOW God is a better answer. Why? Because God is a concept, nimrods. The concept of perfection and absolute power. Of course "God" can be the answer to ANY question, which is the exact reason "God" doesn't exist!

Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Now compare that to religion, which has continually been proven wrong by science about certain things, most of which involve the nature of our universe. The only difference here is that there is no wolf, cuz God isn't real.

Now, as for this theory about a Multiverse, I disagree with it's specific idea that gravity could leak from Universe to Universe and affect them in any "real" way. Gravity is a weak force, easily overcome by just about every other type of force in existence. A hyperspatial plane surrounding our Universe would contain trillions of times the gravitational strength of our entire universe, because all forces would be differentiated in it, rather than wrapped up into quarks and muons and gluons and protons and electrons and such. In fact, it makes more sense that our multiverse is itself contained within a multiverse that is made of things we can't understand.

Johnathan Ainsley Bain, or should I call you "Johnathan"?

At any rate, your response is utterly farcical. From the comfort of your no doubt spartan-ly ornated yet expensive computer chair, you have conflated a simple cosmological hypothesis with...not just an inane researcher...but with all science ever. What is this fascinating institute of hubris and foolishness that won't address your immediate concerns, like "the cause of violence". Of course, because science is a gigantic hive-mind that can only research one area at a time. Because no studies have been done on violence, ever, by universities and think tanks and corporations and the government.

Because religion, is the only thing you tell us. Because religion is extremely useful in deriving the solutions to inconsequential "human" problems like structural and electrical. Yeah, science draws blanks on either of those things. The poor fools! The unrepentant iconoclasts who don't understand their own absurdity!

"Science has become science fiction."

So it's not intuitive. The detractors of the airplane felt the same way. I wonder, who did science bear with at Kitty Hawk?

"But no, its easier to speculate about tripe that cannot be proven or disproved in the name of science."

Of course it is. Not everything can be immediately proven in science. That doesn't mean that it's a terrible obfuscation meant to trick people away from God. What, should people not speculate at all, just because the speculation is peculiar. Einstein thought a tremendous amount of energy was contained in just a grain of salt. What a weirdo.

"Science without religion is like a gun without a barrel.
Its'll explode in your face soon enough."

Grandiloquent phrases do not arbitrarily confer truth.

To all you religion freaks.

Go to church, and stop perpesting this very entertaining article.

You sound so ignorant, when you try preaching your religion - it's really pathetic. I'm a christian myself, but that's out of culture, nothing more nothing less. I dont go spreading my nonsence belief about a god somewhere.

Just because science cant explain everything, and probably never will, doesn't mean we should stop exploring - get it.

First of all, to those trying to bring religion into this discussion, you're doing a bad job of it. Try asking where your god came from instead of where these membranes came from. Science, at least, will admit when it's wrong and adjust its design to fit what it can observe, which has produced more proven miracles than all religions combines.

The issue at hand here is trying to theorize some way of explaining several things, including dark matter and why the actual force that gravity outputs is so weak. The explanation above is cut (rather poorly I think) and slightly dumbed down for the general public, most likely because the math involved is too complex to present easily, and not fully proven or understood by experts in the field.

The "leaking" theory of gravity explains both dark matter and why gravity works the way it does. Gravity works across humongous distances, holds galaxies together, and can even bend and trap light, but remains the weakest of the fundamental forces. If gravity actually existed in the second membrane and our experience is limited to the leakage that would help explain why it is so weak despite it's ability to cross distance easily.

As far as dark matter goes, if the distance between the membranes is not that far, then the gravity from the second 'brane will have an effect on particles in this universe, distorting our observations of their actual mass. This would help account for the ratio of dark matter to visible matter, because all of our observations would be skewed by the interaction of gravity across the 'branes.

And claudio, it's hard to read through all those spelling errors, though you seem to know a bit about what you're saying. The LHC and RHIC were never in any danger of creating black holes of any size. That was all media hype from scientists whose specialization was unsuited for the questions they were being asked. Sorry I can't provide a link, you'll have to search it yourself.

Just remember everyone, it's a theory, meaning they haven't come close to proving it yet, but it's exciting nonetheless because it could possibly be testable at some point.

Jonathan Ainsley Bain, you succeeded.

dumbest. post. ever.

Personally, I believe that the God who incarnated in Jesus and wrote (inspired) Genesis isn't threatened by this new theory.
It appears to be a smart theory - having our minds prisoner of the Big Bang ideas wasn't that satisfying.
Genesis is a religious text and doesn't claim to be the explanation of everything. Its sole purpose is to introduce the condition of man and God's plan to improve it.
It wasn't written to convince skeptics but to educate/enlighten those who seek spiritual truths.
Physicists do not seek these.
Thanks for the article.

OK.. so... what happened before that and before that and before that.. and... you get my picture. Do we really know ANYTHING? We are pathetic in the grand scheme. Lets all keep that in mind. We have no clue.

Everyone who says "the universe had to start from somewhere"... why aren't they wondering where god came from?

Something was eternal... whether it be god or the universe.

Some people say the universe is too complex and magnificent to have not been created. But they ignore that God would have been even more complex and magnificent, had he been real and created the universe.

And thus the question of whether god or the universe is eternal is nothing more than philosophy, not science.

That's because we will likely never be able to prove the existence of god. And i doubt we'll be able to prove that the universe is eternal.

BTC

Why confuse the issue with two branes colliding 13.7 billion years ago when the simplest explanation would be two aggregates of matter/energy, each half the size of our universe, collided, fused, and then exploded? Often the simplest explanation is correct.

Why musts people argue so much? Science tells us mass-energy can be neither created nor destroyed. We know so little. Scientific theories of creation are true, just as the many theories the various religions. We live in a relative world. Why not let all the theories live together? The Vedas teach practices that lead to the experience of what they call "Brahman"/ "God" / That". The experience is difficult to achieve, so we worship the unknowable in Jesus, in light, in numerous Gods/Goddesess & the Self. If that worship leads people to a higher, finer expression of themselves as human beings, terrifc. If it lead people toward hatred, violence, exclusion, injustice... well, it's not really religion then, is it? I am deeply engaged in spiritual practices, and yet am fascinated with what science has uncovered. I see both as true for their own purposes.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

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