It's been a relatively long while folks.ðŸ¤
To be honest I missed this place and I believe this place did miss me too. Apologies for not being there when you may have needed me, I'm back now but I can't promise you that I wouldn't be disappearing again - apparently life is mutable and so I must be.
So, I came across something interesting that I'd like to share with you and it's about the origin of our universe. We are familiar with the popular big bang theory, if you find it not satisfactory, then you aren't alone, not all physicists/cosmologists finds it satisfactory also. Technically, it has some issues, the most popular issue being the existence of a singularity. If you traced our universe - using the current model/standard model of cosmology, down to it's beginning, you would discover that everything that exists currently somehow emerged from an entity with zero volume, at such point, space and time had no meaning or were nonexistent. A zero volume would imply that densities at such point would be infinite and hence the entity is considered a "singularity". Try dividing any number by zero with your calculator and you would see why theoretically such entity seems absurd, how can matter/energy be trapped in zero volume?
Another perspective which is more layman is, how can something come from nothing?
Some physicists see this singularity not as something physical but a mathematical artifact that suggests that the model has gotten to it's limits and a much better theory/model is needed. This is also supported by the fact that the model is mostly made up of classical theories, as the volume of the universe gets smaller, quantum physics should have had the upper hand and this is part of why there's a quest for a quantum theory of gravity. A quantum theory of gravity is just one way of getting rid of the singularity, other alternatives exist. The big bounce model, cyclic universe model and black hole universe model are the three major alternatives to dealing with the big bang singularity but this is not without their own problems, most especially testable predictions.
A paper however was published recently in the Journal "Physical Review D" by Professor Enrique Gaztañaga and his collaborators, an interesting paper by the way, as it comes with an interesting twist. Black holes are formed when matter collapses under it's own gravity, the constituents of the said matter is trapped in zero volume thus forming the same problematic singularity and relativistic effects causes this singularity to be surrounded by what is called an "event horizon" - a boundary beyond which matter/radiation cannot escape with respect to an outside observer. This new theory suggests that our universe exists inside of a black hole (it falls under the black hole universe model). According to this theory, this black hole we reside in exists in another universe (parent universe), there was a gravitational collapse that formed a black hole in the parent universe, instead of a singularity forming, all the matter/energy was trapped in a very tiny volume that it allowed for the laws of quantum physics to intervene (through the "Pauli exclusion principle") and thus resulting in a bounce. This bounce is what we refer to as the big bang during the beginning of our universe. What this means is that the matter/energy we find in our universe didn't actually come from nothing but from this parent universe whose existence is itself another mystery, it could be an eternal cycle.
What set this theory apart from other alternatives?
The big bang theory is actually a part of an extended model called ΛCDM model or popularly referred to as the standard model of cosmology. So this model incorporates exotic forms of matter to explain certain anomalies, cosmic inflation to explain why the universe expanded much faster than it does today at the early stages of our universe, dark energy to explain the current expansion rate and dark matter to explain why galaxies haven't collapsed. In the other alternatives, you would still need to make use of these exotic forms of matter of which till today haven't been detected. This new theory explains those anomalies without needing those exotic forms of matter, in other words, those exotic forms of matter may not exist or aren't necessary.
Secondly, it gives testable predictions, in fact, it suggests that the topology of our universe is slightly curved whereas the standard model predicts it to be flat.
Conclusion
What's so interesting about this new theory is that it makes black holes now look less mysterious, black holes could in fact be portals to other universes but I must remind us not to get too excited as it's currently still an "hypothesis". If it can stand the test of time, then we may have just opened doors to what we thought were impossible and indeed, the universe works in mysterious ways. 😉
For Further Reading
Thank you all once again for stopping by to read my jargons and also thank you @stemng, @lemouth and the @Steemstem team for your valuable supports.
Source
Lastly, please don't forget to do the needful
Upvote
Comment
Reblog
If you enjoyed my jargons.
