Roger Penrose Tries to Answer: Why did the Universe Begin?
I'm sure that most of us wonder why we are here in this universe. Why does it exist, and why did it start. Will humans ever get an answer to this question, or does it even make sense to ask?
I've always taken an avid fascination in astronomy and cosmology since childhood, although more lately I've focused much more on problems here on Earth. Nevertheless, I still wonder at these truths. It looks like now Nobel Prize winning physicist and mathematician Roger Penrose, offers an ingenious hypothesis.
He proposes a cyclical view of the universe. Previously he would have said that the question of what happened before the big bang makes no sense since there was no time or space before then, and all of our equations go haywire, in other words, there is no before.
Now he has a new idea, which depends on how the initial state of the universe is characterized.
The early universe did not have a good scale of time. A bunch of particles evenly distributed, had no good scale of mass since the energy of them was so high. If mass became irrelevant then the universe can't keep time. If that is the case you could go before it. In the future when the universe gets old, everything will start to completely decay into radiation, basically light in the form of photons, and Black holes which will also decay into light radiation after a very long time. The universe will also apparently keep stretching. However, photons do not experience time, it appears to stand still. Since there is no matter, which is the only way for the universe to keep time, and all mass is energy according to Einstein's equations, and all of it has a frequency which is related to time. If there's no sense or scale of time then spatial distance becomes irrelevant, in a sense the universe forgets how big it is, and big and small don't really have any meaning. Once that happens a new universe starts, since in the early universe you also had a state where there was no real sense of time. Apparently, it is possible to have observable evidence to support this hypothesis. There are a lot of scientists who state that this idea is very wrong, but I still thought it was interesting.
Dr. Penrose explains it much better than I could, so have a listen. This talk is kind of technical for those that don't have a knowledge of physics.
Comments
Post a Comment