There simply isn't a bigger question: wrapping up "Why are we here?", "Why is everything the way it is?" and "What if I don't believe a gigantic invisible skybeard did it?" -it's a Holy Grail of science. The theoreticians want to explain it, the experimenters want to detect it and - unlike 99% of all research - the public will actually care about the answer for a few minutes. We report on five ways scientists have have studied the beginning of everything and, in mockery of all you might think possible, made the question even cooler.
1. There's a hole in the sky
A piece of the universe is broken - or at least defective. That's the
current thinking of scientists from the Institute of Physics of
Cantabria (IFCA) and the University of Cambridge after observing data
from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( WMAP). The idea is
that as the universe condensed into the state we recognise from the
quite insanely high temperatures and densities of the big bang, defects
can be created in the same way flaws and opaque spots form as water
freezes into ice. While that analogy might give any astrophysicist an
aneurysm, and is honestly enough to give you a nosebleed if you try to
picture both situations at the same time, it's as good as any you can
get without a graduate course in cosmology.
This discovery could revolutionise our understanding of the universe,
as well as making people feel better about crashing our computers
(after all, if empty vacuum itself can break what chance do we have
with the complicated things?) And after fourteen billion years (or so)
we might have the answer within our lifetime. Professor Turok took a
break from examining the Big Bang (and possibly hunting dinosaurs) to
announce that these results are extremely testable, they are even now
extremely testing them, and we should know within ten years.
2. Watch it on TV
All that hard science makes you want to settle down and switch your
brain off for a while. There's no better way to do that than TV, and
while you're there, you can watch the creation of the cosmos, LIVE,
24/7. But no matter how advanced your cable or HDTV this is an
exclusive offer for old-school rabbit-eared television sets, which many
younger readers with their YouTubes and their hip-hops might not even
have heard of. The idea (demonstrated in a video linked at the end of
this article) is that 1% of the white noise seen on an untuned
television is actually microwave radiation released when, not to sound
to grandiose about it, Things Started.
(The science in the video is fine, but they do make one mistake when
they refer to their rabbit-eared set as "an ordinary television"
instead of "a stone-age relic of an earlier time before we had
satellite, the internet, and probably hadn't quite gotten rid of The
Plague").
3. Stringing up a theory
A team from the University of Illinois claim that string theory can
explain the birth of the universe. They say it wasn't so much a Big
Bang as a Big Brane, an object which decomposed into a vast number of
strings which went on to make up our current reality. If you want to
know how much traction this theory is getting do a google search for
the phrase "Brane" - you'll find every result includes the words
"theoretical construct", "mathematical object", and while the words
'zero proof' aren't actually mentioned they exist between the lines.
Part of the problem is the reasonsthe theory is appealing - proponents
argue that the brane methodology avoids the mass and energy
singularities (stupidly large values which cause our theories to break
down) which occur in the classic Big Bang/Big Crunch theory (summary:
everything explodes out, expands, contracts, crunches to a point,
repeat until bored/end of time). Detractors respond that "it makes the
math prettier" doesn't actually constitute proof of a theory - which
pretty much sums up most of the opposition to string theory, in fact,
and forms an argument that has yet to be adequately refuted. And some
might say that a theory that can't even prove its own validity is
getting a little ahead of itself when it claims to know the secrets of
the universe and everything in it.
4. Answering the big questions while you're there
Which is what makes results from the University of Wisconsin-Madison so
interesting. A fundamental aspect of string theory is the existence of
at least six dimensions beyond those we can verify, but those
dimensions are so small that they can't be directly observed under any
conditions that exist. That might sound like claiming your homework
was eaten by the biggest yet most invisible dog in the world, but
Professor and graduate student Bret Underwood had an idea: how about
looking at a time when the necessary conditions did exist?
By examining a map of the cosmic wave background recorded by the WMAP,
a record of the conditions of the early universe, they hoped to discern
the influence of the otherwise undetectable dimensions from a time when
they could have shaped the the tiny but incredibly energetic universe -
conditions ideal for their influence to be felt. Their results prove
their method is valid, but are not yet accurate enough to provide proof
of string theory. It's incredibly interesting work, and as string
theorists out to prove things one way or the other rather than
repeating "But it would be so awesome if it was true!", they are to be
applauded.
5. What about before that?
It sounds like a philosophy question, but the great thing about science
is that no matter how 'ultimate' or 'absolute' the question, there are
minds that will go further. They're frequently wrong, but it's still
cool, and when somebody can work for years on the question of "What
happened before the beginning of everything?' - not as navel-gazing
pot-inspired conversation but as a serious scientific proposition - you
don't want to make fun because they're either a) geniuses or b)
dangerously insane.
Amazingly, theoretical physicist Martin Bojowald at Pennsylvania State
University believes it may be possible to see present-day evidence of
existence before the Big Bang. After running simulations on quantum
loop gravity, a phrase that sounds like it comes from Commander Data,
he claims that if his theories are correct it should be possible to
extrapolate information about an earlier age. The key point is the
idea that the Big Bang wasn't so much a beginning as a cosmic reset,
where incredibly high but finite levels of energy rewrote the universe
but didn't erase every trace of what went before.
It's epic stuff, and even if it doesn't end up proving anything about
the universe it demonstrates a key point of science: for G.I. Joe
knowing may be half the battle, but for a scientist knowing gives you
twenty more interesting questions to ask.
Vacuum flaws sound impossible but aren't
The birth of the universe, live on free-per-view!
String-brane model
String theory evidence (no, that's not an oxymoron)
Looking before the Big Bang