In the popular theory of the origin of the universe having problems
Universe had a beginning. But where it started? What was the first? We know that it all started with a fairly rapid expansion and resulted in the emergence of a large number of galaxies made of small particles. But that was before? What were the laws of physics when it all started? Famous physicist James Hartle and Stephen Hawking have suggested several answers to these questions a few decades ago. The new work of another group of physicists analyzed the popular interpretation of the geometry of the Big Bang, Hawking and Hartle and faced some troubles. These findings shed light on the origin of the universe. New obstacle that will have to overcome all the theories of the future.
"We have tried to carry out a more rigorous calculation and got another solution," says Jobe Feldbryugge, resident graduate student Perimeter Institute. "The theory that we use, sheds new light on existing theory and shows that she can not work the way we expected."
Typically, scientists are trying to understand the origin of the Universe, looking at Einstein's law of gravity, called general relativity, and playing them in reverse order. In the end, they want to reach the point when the universe was very small. But the most interesting questions arise on how the universe looked young, whether small enough to obey the laws of quantum mechanics, which governs the smallest particles, atoms and photons.
There are several ways to start a universe like ours. Maybe, they thought Hawking and Hartle, this condensed universe was only a single point in space with a special quantum state, the so-called wave function, which describes all the language of quantum mechanics. Then there was the time. Philosophy and religion, need a lot of talk on this subject, but mathematicians need a pen and paper. This point universe developed based on mathematics of general relativity with the original properties of quantum mechanics built into its structure. Thus, these tiny random fluctuation of energy in space have been in the process of rapid expansion - inflation - become a large-scale density differences that we see in the modern universe with galaxies and voids. The theory of Hawking and Hartle was one of the few ways to mark the beginning of the universe without a singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite mass, which would not make much sense. Other ideas, such as those offered Alexander Vilenkin, did not mean that original singularity. The new article that appeared recently on the arXiv preprint server, introduces the problem. In the calculations in mathematics Hawking and Vilenkin Hartlsa new team did not get the tiny quantum fluctuations needed to create the universe today. Instead, these fluctuations are huge and create the universe, quite unlike our own.
"The calculations we made, leading to a strong gravitational waves after the Big Bang," says Feldbryugge - huge variations in the shape of space-time. "It could not lead to the universe as it is today. Settlements are contrary to what we see. "
Hartle is not particularly concerned about Feldbryugge team results. "In cosmology, we still have too little data compared to what could have been," he says. "Therefore, we do our best, keeping part of the theory that best meets our observations." He finds a new job as another attempt to turn the game by offering more information and other mathematical path that may be followed by scientists. "Researchers have the right to choose, to pursue them for the idea or the other."
His team has also recently published another work, revising his own math, and demonstrate why his theory still works.
Yet mathematics Feldbryugge and his team seem to show that a smooth appearance of the universe without any singularity "is not an option." Their math straight contests Hartle and Hawking.
The binding of quantum mechanics and general relativity theory to explain the origin of the universe is neither something new nor a problem close to resolution. In fact, this is one of the main problems, which are trying to solve theoretical physicists, given its importance for understanding the origin of the universe, when both sets of laws apply to the same scale, and the importance of black holes where gravity is so strong that light He can not leave it. But the most important thing is that Feldbryugge does not believe that the universe, starting with the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity, could create small fluctuations, which lead to a universe like ours - he thinks it should be something else. "It's unclear what decision will be the final version," he says.
Opinions on the matter physicists variety. Paul Steinhardt, a physics professor at Princeton University, said that already there are alternative ways of avoiding problems in the new work, as well as other complaints the model Hawking - Hartle. This so-called infinite mathematical model requires some workarounds to create a universe like ours.
"What is the alternative? Bouncing without singularity, "he says, referring to the model which he developed together with theoretical cosmologist at Princeton Anna Iddzhas. According to this model, the universe collapses and then turns into our own universe, long before you can start to think about the effects of quantum mechanics.
Sabina Hossenfelder, a researcher at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, is not sure the new results. "The only thing I can conclude is that we do not know how the universe began, before the work was written. And we do not know that after this work was published. " Theorists are serious about mathematics and perform these calculations with time and space long before they confirm telescopes. The only way to know for sure what's going on, it experiments.
Today, most of these theories can be confirmed or refuted by the observations of the oldest light that reaches us, the cosmic microwave background. The researchers hope that the findings of their theories will help highlight the important signature of these data. Is it possible to test the Feldbryugge and his team? They're just getting started. Obviously, for review will take a long time. Scientists need to eventually create the universe that will be similar to ours. But the details of this process have not yet been determined.