# The Big Bang Theory – Part II

After reading a paper by Ashtekar on quantum gravity and thinking about it, I realized what my trouble with the Big Bang theory was. It is more on the fundamental assumptions than the details. I thought I would summarize my thoughts here, more for my own benefit than anybody else’s.

Classical theories (including SR and QM) treat space as continuous nothingness; hence the term space-time continuum. In this view, objects exist in continuous space and interact with each other in continuous time.

Although this notion of space time continuum is intuitively appealing, it is, at best, incomplete. Consider, for instance, a spinning body in empty space. It is expected to experience centrifugal force. Now imagine that the body is stationary and the whole space is rotating around it. Will it experience any centrifugal force?

Dit is moeilik om te sien waarom daar 'n sentrifugale krag sal wees as die ruimte niks is nie,,en,GR het 'n paradigmaverskuiwing ingestel deur swaartekrag in ruimtetyd in te skryf, waardeur dit dinamies van aard is,,en,eerder as leë niks,,en,massa word vasgevang in die ruimte,,en,en tyd,,en,ruimte word sinoniem met die heelal,,en,en die vraag oor die draaiende liggaam word maklik om te beantwoord,,en,dit sal sentrifugale krag ervaar as dit die heelal is wat om dit draai, want dit is gelykstaande aan die liggaam wat draai,,en,geen,,en,dit sal nie,,en,as dit net in 'n leë ruimte is,,en,leë ruimte,,en,bestaan ​​nie,,en,By gebrek aan massa,,en,daar is geen ruimtetydmeetkunde nie,,en,voor die oerknal,,en,as daar een was,,en,daar kon geen spasie wees nie,,en,daar kon ook nie een wees nie,,en,voorheen.,,en,Let wel,,en.

GR introduced a paradigm shift by encoding gravity into space-time thereby making it dynamic in nature, rather than empty nothingness. Thus, mass gets enmeshed in space (and time), space becomes synonymous with the universe, and the spinning body question becomes easy to answer. Yes, it will experience centrifugal force if it is the universe that is rotating around it because it is equivalent to the body spinning. And, no, it won’t, if it is in just empty space. But “empty space” doesn’t exist. In the absence of mass, there is no space-time geometry.

So, naturally, before the Big Bang (if there was one), there couldn’t be any space, nor indeed could there be any “before.” Note, however, dat die Ashtekar-papier nie duidelik verklaar waarom daar 'n oerknal moes wees nie,,en,Die naaste wat dit kom, is dat die noodsaaklikheid van BB voortspruit uit die kodering van swaartekrag in ruimtetyd in GR,,en,Ondanks hierdie kodering van swaartekrag en sodoende ruimte-tyd dinamies te maak,,en,GR behandel steeds ruimte-tyd as 'n gladde kontinuum,,en,'n fout,,en,volgens Ashtekar,,hi,dat QG sal regstel,,en,as ons aanvaar dat die heelal met 'n groot knal begin het,,en,en uit 'n klein streek,,en,ons moet rekening hou met kwantumeffekte,,en,Ruimtetyd moet gekwantifiseer word en die enigste regte manier om dit te doen, is deur kwantumgravitasie,,en,Deur middel van QG,,en,ons verwag om die oerknal singulariteit van GR te vermy,,en,op dieselfde manier het QM die onbegrensde grondtoestand-energieprobleem in die waterstofatoom opgelos,,en. The closest it gets is that the necessity of BB arises from the encoding of gravity in space-time in GR. Despite this encoding of gravity and thereby rendering space-time dynamic, GR still treats space-time as a smooth continuum — a flaw, according to Ashtekar, that QG will rectify.

Now, if we accept that the universe started out with a big bang (and from a small region), we have to account for quantum effects. Space-time has to be quantized and the only right way to do it would be through quantum gravity. Through QG, we expect to avoid the Big Bang singularity of GR, the same way QM solved the unbounded ground state energy problem in the hydrogen atom.

Wat ek hierbo beskryf het, is volgens my die fisiese argumente agter moderne kosmologie,,en,Die res is 'n wiskundige gebou wat bo-op hierdie fisieke gebou is,,en,of inderdaad filosofies,,en,fondament,,en,As u geen sterk siening het oor die filosofiese grondslag nie,,en,of as u siening daarmee ooreenstem,,en,u kan BB sonder probleme aanvaar,,en,Ek het wel verskillende menings,,en,My sienings draai rondom die volgende vrae,,en,Waarom is die snelheid van die lig daarin belangrik?,,en,Waar kom die,,en,Onsekerheidsbeginsel van Heisenberg,,en,kom van,,en,Hierdie berigte klink miskien na nuttelose filosofiese gedagtes,,en,maar ek het wel konkreet,,en,en myns insiens,,en,belangrik,,en,resultate,,en,hieronder gelys,,en,Is GRB's en radiobronne Luminal Booms,,en,'N Artikel gepubliseer in IJMP-D,,en,wat een van die,,en,Top-toegang tot artikels,,en,van die joernaal,,en,Probeer hierdie een gepubliseer kry.,,en. The rest is a mathematical edifice built on top of this physical (or indeed philosophical) foundation. If you have no strong views on the philosophical foundation (or if your views are consistent with it), you can accept BB with no difficulty. Unfortunately, I do have differing views.

My views revolve around the following questions.

These posts may sound like useless philosophical musings, but I do have some concrete (and in my opinion, important) results, listed below.

Daar is baie meer werk aan hierdie front,,en,Maar vir die volgende paar jaar,,en,met my nuwe boekekontrak en die druk uit my loopbaan,,en,Ek sal nie genoeg tyd hê om GR en kosmologie te studeer met die erns wat hulle verdien nie,,en,Ek hoop om weer by hulle uit te kom sodra die huidige fase van verspreiding van myself te dun verby is,,en,Ashtekar Argiewe,,kn. But for the next couple of years, with my new book contract and pressures from my quant career, I will not have enough time to study GR and cosmology with the seriousness they deserve. I hope to get back to them once the current phase of spreading myself too thin passes.