New theory claims that Einstein was wrong and that Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe

A group of scientists is questioning Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, and challenging the idea that the universe is constantly expanding and this would have implied a “beginning” of everything, or the Big Bang.

Currently, the Big Bang idea is accepted by the scientific community, but another theory wants to replace it with a new understanding of space, time and the very beginning of the universe. Or rather, the absence of a beginning.

two radiogal

06 Apr


05 Dec

Many consider the theory of Incomplete General Relativity, and although it is effective in explaining the universe on a large scale, the idea put forward by Einstein is incompatible with quantum mechanics and black holes.

In other words, Einstein’s work cannot explain how the tiny infinitesimal point called singularity, theoretically smaller than any known particle, manages to have such an extreme gravitational field.

This brings us to the Big Bang, as its most classic theory of the universe arose from a singularity. Therefore, some physicists created some theories such as the Strings and Causal Sets, this one more recent.

It is noteworthy that both theories, the Strings when that of Causal Sets are just hypotheses, since it is not possible to test and observe their predictions through the scientific method.

Chance Set Theory

Slightly older theory proposes that space and time have a fundamental unit, or quantum. According to the idea, space-time is formed by its own “packages”, as if it were quantized “energy packages”.

If spacetime is quantum, a series of implications must be considered. There would be fundamental particles, or discrete units of spacetime, and some limits would be imposed on events that can occur in the universe.

If the Chance Set Theory is correct, there is a limit to how close two points can be to each other, and this limit is restricted to the size of the “spacetime particle” itself.

In this way, not only does time become a physical manifestation, singularity becomes impossible. With no singularities in the universe, there are no more conflicts with gravity to resolve.

However, if there are no singularities in the universe, there was no Big Bang either. So how did the universe come about?

the new theory

A new article, made by Bruno Bento and Stav Zalel, from the University of Liverpool and Imperial College London, respectively, are trying to point out a new path. Basically, they claim that the universe has always existed based on everything we know.

According to scientists, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite for the past, so there is always something before.

Almost a Big Bang: Scientists confirm collisions

15 Jan

Older than the Big Bang?  Matusal

19 Sep

Many scientists even accept some hypotheses about events that occurred before the Big Bang, including scientist Roger Penrose, who won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating, alongside Stephen Hawking, the properties of black holes.

Researchers Penrose and Hawking have already warmly defended the idea that there was another universe before ours, specifically another cosmos that expanded and then retracted, until it returned to the singularity.

The difference between this hypothesis and the Causal Set Theory is that, in the latter, there is no singularity. Bento and Zalel’s work is in pre-print on arXiv and is awaiting peer review.

So, do you think the two scientists are on the right path? Tell us in the comments below!