Accepted scientific model of the Universe is still the Big Bang model. Attempts to prove its inadequacy to explain the origin of existence with a much more simple point of view, of course. One of the last, for example, you can highlight the work of James Hartl and Stephen Hawking, who proposed the model of “infinite” Universe. Or, say, the work of Alexander Vilenkin of “tunneling nature of the Universe.” However, a new study conducted jointly by the German Institute for gravitational physics max Planck Institute and the canadian Perimeter, shows that no convincing alternatives to the Big Bang model no. Yet.
If you rely on the data of the space Observatory Planck, we know that the universe began from a hot, dense “soup” of particles around 13.8 billion years ago. From that moment it began to expand and continues to expand to this day. This theory of emergence is only in academic circles the name of the Big Bang model. Despite the fact that we are able to broadly suggest what could be the universe when it first came out, cosmologists are still unable to describe what was the first stage of this so-called Big Bang.
According to the General theory of relativity, energy density and curvature of space-time explosion like this was endless. Them in fact would be impossible to measure. So “help” came the alternative proposal in the form of “limitless” and “the tunnel of the Universe.” According to them, in his original state the universe was finite and was the result of a quantum tunnel transition through nothing (by “nothing” in this case refers to a kind of starting point of space-time “our” Universe). However, new research conducted by the team of Jean-Luc Lehners from the Institute for gravitational physics max Planck, was aimed at the calculation of the further consequences and developments, according to two of the above suggestions. And the results of this study show that none of them can be a real alternative to the Big Bang theory.
As a mathematical model for calculation and verification of “limitless” and “tunnelirovaniya” ideas of the Universe Lennarson and his colleagues used the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Calculations according to these models, has shown that both uniform and nonuniform universe (there are Universes where matter would be evenly distributed and unevenly distributed over space) could theoretically be tunneled from “nothing”, but they would not have been what is now our universe. Computer models showed that the more uneven and crumpled on the output universe, the higher would be the probability of its occurrence as a result of quantum tunneling. The emergence of ordered model would not have allowed her to grow into the Universe that we see now.
“Model “infinity” does not fit with what the Universe we see around us. This model is more suitable for the emergence of curved universes that would instantly born and also instantly collapsed,” says Lehner.
As for the uneven distribution of matter in our current Universe, even this fact does not allow so easily to abandon the Big Bang theory. Therefore, Lehnert and his team plan to continue their research to understand why this irregularity occurs. Now scientists want to find out the mechanisms that could be responsible not only for the start-up of quantum fluctuations on the assumptions that triggered the explosion, but also to find out how these mechanisms have been able for some time to keep all the original state of the space-time norm in these supposedly extreme conditions which could have the universe before the explosion. Extreme they were or not, but these conditions allowed the Universe to decompose it into what we see around us today.
Now one thing is clear: as we go deeper into the story of the birth of our Universe, the more difficult it becomes this mystery. Despite the technological advances that we have now. Meantime, the Big Bang theory is still with us and nobody plans to give way to the basic cosmological model.