{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreieca7v5zhipdacf4weqdlrrpg33gacqsbd5j7mzmym7ktubxbeaiq",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:5tifsg4pg5v4lpfach3kedsm/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmjpk36eh2k2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreigotkh47qqcdvcmxkwzjryr3q7ipp6lb22q55jfe3kl5k5qmserb4"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1421724
  },
  "path": "/2026/05/refuting-creationism-what-was-before.html",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-23T14:26:57.337Z",
  "site": "http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com",
  "tags": [
    "Wormholes may not exist – we’ve found they reveal something deeper about time and the universe",
    "published open access in January 2026 in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity",
    "cosmological natural selection",
    "an article in The Conversation",
    "remotevfx.com/Shutterstock",
    "Enrique Gaztanaga",
    "University of Portsmouth",
    "introduced what they called a “bridge”",
    "maintain consistency",
    "new research",
    "most notably in the late-1980s research",
    "exotic forms of matter",
    "modifications of general relativity",
    "showed",
    "shows a small but persistent asymmetry",
    "Triff/Shutterstock",
    "might be the interior of a black hole",
    "The Conversation",
    "original article",
    "(CC BY 4.0)",
    "Enrique Gaztañaga et al 2026 A new understanding of Einstein–Rosen bridges Class. Quantum Grav. 43 015023 DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/ae3044",
    "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)",
    "Click for My Books",
    "Tweet Link",
    "Oxfam"
  ],
  "textContent": "\n\n\nAI-generated image (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking)\n\n\n\n\nForget sci-fi wormholes — physicists now think Einstein’s mysterious “bridge” may connect two directions of time itself.\n\n\n\nCredit: AI/ScienceDaily.com\n\nWormholes may not exist – we’ve found they reveal something deeper about time and the universe\n\nA paper published open access in January 2026 in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity should, if creationists could understand it, shoot one of their favourite foxes: the supposed killer question, \"What came before the Big Bang?\"\n\nOnly a creationist could believe the absurd notion that once literally nothing existed as a state of being, and that a god — presumably also made of nothing, because there was nothing to make it from — simultaneously existed and created everything out of that nothing by casting a magic spell, spoken in a language there was no-one else to communicate with in. The first intuitive mistake in that convoluted nonsense is the assumption that the default state of existence is non-existence.\n\nCreationists, however, hypocritically try to hold science to a much higher standard than they apply to their own nonsensical superstitions. While demanding answers to what they imagine are \"Gotcha!\" questions of science, they routinely dismiss any answer with a wave of the hand. One favourite \"Gotcha!\" is: what was there before the Big Bang? The usual response is that, in the simplest version of standard cosmology, the question may be meaningless, because time and space themselves are part of the universe being described. If time does not extend through t = 0, then there is no \"before\" in the ordinary sense. But to a teleologically minded creationist, the answer that there **was** no \"before\" at the Big Bang sounds like a cop-out — a way of avoiding the question.\n\nBut what if there **was** a \"before\", not in the naive sense of empty time waiting around for a universe to be inserted into it, but in the deeper sense that what we call the Big Bang may have been a transition between two time-related phases of a larger physical system?\n\nThat this is at least a theoretical possibility comes from the work of three theoretical physicists, Enrique Gaztañaga and K. Sravan Kumar of the Institute of Cosmology & Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, UK, and João Marto of the Departamento de Física, Centro de Matemática e Aplicações (CMA-UBI), Universidade da Beira Interior, Portugal. They have revisited the work of Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen, whose 1935 paper led to the idea of Einstein–Rosen bridges. These were later popularly interpreted as \"wormholes\" connecting different regions of spacetime, although that was not the original purpose of the idea.\n\nUsing a quantum-field-theoretic approach, Gaztañaga, Kumar and Marto argue that Einstein–Rosen bridges may not be space-travel tunnels at all, but mathematical bridges connecting two complementary components of a quantum state — two microscopic arrows of time. In one component, time flows in the direction we experience; in the other, it is mirrored in the opposite direction. Near black holes, or in expanding and collapsing universes, both components may be needed for a complete quantum description.\n\nThis offers a possible route through the black hole information paradox: the puzzle of how information can be preserved when matter crosses an event horizon and a black hole eventually evaporates. In the authors’ interpretation, information is not destroyed; it continues to evolve through the time-reversed, mirror component of the quantum state. That would preserve the quantum requirement that information is not simply lost, without requiring science-fiction wormholes, time machines or supernatural intervention.\n\nThe idea also opens the possibility that what we call the Big Bang was not an absolute beginning, but a bounce — a quantum transition from a preceding phase of cosmic evolution. In that scenario, our universe could even be the interior of a black hole formed in an earlier, parent cosmos, where collapse on one side becomes expansion on the other. The Big Bang, in other words, would not be a magical creation event, but a natural physical gateway.\n\nThat possibility also recalls an earlier speculative but serious scientific idea proposed by Lee Smolin in 1992, known as cosmological natural selection. Smolin suggested that black holes might give rise to new universes, with the physical constants of each descendant universe varying slightly from those of its parent. Universes whose laws favour the formation of many black holes would therefore tend to leave more descendant universes, rather as organisms that leave more offspring become over-represented in a biological population.\n\nThis is not evolution by genes, of course, and it is not established fact. It is a speculative cosmological hypothesis. But it is scientific speculation of the proper kind: naturalistic, mathematically framed, open to criticism and, in principle, vulnerable to observational evidence. It stands in stark contrast to creationism, which answers the same question with nothing more substantial than magic, asserted certainty and Bronze Age mythology.\n\nOne of the authors of the paper, Enrique Gaztanaga, also wrote an article in The Conversation, explaining their idea for a lay readership. His article is reprinted here under a Creative Commons licence, reformatted for stylistic consistency:\n\n\n\nPublished: January 15, 2026 1.09pm GMT\n\n\nWormholes may not exist – we’ve found they reveal something deeper about time and the universe\n\nremotevfx.com/Shutterstock\n\n\nEnrique Gaztanaga, _University of Portsmouth_\n\nWormholes are often imagined as tunnels through space or time — shortcuts across the universe. But this image rests on a misunderstanding of work by physicists Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen.\n\nIn 1935, while studying the behaviour of particles in regions of extreme gravity, Einstein and Rosen introduced what they called a “bridge”: a mathematical link between two perfectly symmetrical copies of spacetime. It was not intended as a passage for travel, but as a way to maintain consistency between gravity and quantum physics. Only later did Einstein–Rosen bridges become associated with wormholes, despite having little to do with the original idea.\n\nBut in new research, my colleagues and I show that the original Einstein–Rosen bridge points to something far stranger — and more fundamental — than a wormhole.\n\nThe puzzle Einstein and Rosen were addressing was never about space travel, but about how quantum fields behave in curved spacetime. Interpreted this way, the Einstein–Rosen bridge acts as a mirror in spacetime: a connection between two microscopic arrows of time.\n\nQuantum mechanics governs nature at the smallest scales such as particles, while Einstein’s theory of general relativity applies to gravity and spacetime. Reconciling the two remains one of physics’ deepest challenges. And excitingly, our reinterpretation may offer a path to doing this.\n\nA misunderstood legacy\n\nThe “wormhole” interpretation emerged decades after Einstein and Rosen’s work, when physicists speculated about crossing from one side of spacetime to the other, most notably in the late-1980s research.\n\nBut those same analyses also made clear how speculative the idea was: within general relativity, such a journey is forbidden. The bridge pinches off faster than light could traverse it, rendering it non-traversable. Einstein–Rosen bridges are therefore unstable and unobservable — mathematical structures, not portals.\n\nNevertheless, the wormhole metaphor flourished in popular culture and speculative theoretical physics. The idea that black holes might connect distant regions of the cosmos — or even act as time machines — inspired countless papers, books and films.\n\nYet there is no observational evidence for macroscopic wormholes, nor any compelling theoretical reason to expect them within Einstein’s theory. While speculative extensions of physics — such as exotic forms of matter or modifications of general relativity — have been proposed to support such structures, they remain untested and highly conjectural.\n\nTwo arrows of time\n\nOur recent work revisits the Einstein–Rosen bridge puzzle using a modern quantum interpretation of time, building on ideas developed by Sravan Kumar and João Marto.\n\nMost fundamental laws of physics do not distinguish between past and future, or between left and right. If time or space is reversed in their equations, the laws remain valid. Taking these symmetries seriously leads to a different interpretation of the Einstein–Rosen bridge.\n\nRather than a tunnel through space, it can be understood as two complementary components of a quantum state. In one, time flows forward; in the other, it flows backward from its mirror-reflected position.\n\nThis symmetry is not a philosophical preference. Once infinities are excluded, quantum evolution must remain complete and reversible at the microscopic level — even in the presence of gravity.\n\nThe “bridge” expresses the fact that both time components are needed to describe a complete physical system. In ordinary situations, physicists ignore the time-reversed component by choosing a single arrow of time.\n\nBut near black holes, or in expanding and collapsing universes, both directions must be included for a consistent quantum description. It is here that Einstein–Rosen bridges naturally arise.\n\nSolving the information paradox\n\nAt the microscopic level, the bridge allows information to pass across what appears to us as an event horizon – a point of no return. Information does not vanish; it continues evolving, but along the opposite, mirror temporal direction.\n\nThis framework offers a natural resolution to the famous black hole information paradox. In 1974, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes radiate heat and can eventually evaporate, apparently erasing all information about what fell into them — contradicting the quantum principle that evolution must preserve information.\n\nThe paradox arises only if we insist on describing horizons using a single, one-sided arrow of time extrapolated to infinity — an assumption quantum mechanics itself does not require.\n\nIf the full quantum description includes both time directions, nothing is truly lost. Information leaves our time direction and re-emerges along the reversed one. Completeness and causality are preserved, without invoking exotic new physics.\n\nThese ideas are difficult to grasp because we are macroscopic beings who experience only one direction of time. On everyday scales, disorder — or entropy — tends to increase. A highly ordered state naturally evolves into a disordered one, never the reverse. This gives us an arrow of time.\n\nBut quantum mechanics allows more subtle behaviour. Intriguingly, evidence for this hidden structure may already exist. The cosmic microwave background — the afterglow of the Big Bang — shows a small but persistent asymmetry: a preference for one spatial orientation over its mirror image.\n\nThis anomaly has puzzled cosmologists for two decades. Standard models assign it extremely low probability — unless mirror quantum components are included.\n\nEchoes of a prior universe?\n\nThis picture connects naturally to a deeper possibility. What we call the “Big Bang” may not have been the absolute beginning, but a bounce — a quantum transition between two time-reversed phases of cosmic evolution.\n\n\n\nWas the big bang really the beginning?\n\nTriff/Shutterstock\n\nIn such a scenario, black holes could act as bridges not just between time directions, but between different cosmological epochs. Our universe might be the interior of a black hole formed in another, parent cosmos. This could have formed as a closed region of spacetime collapsed, bounced back and began expanding as the universe we observe today.\n\nIf this picture is correct, it also offers a way for observations to decide. Relics from the pre-bounce phase — such as smaller black holes — could survive the transition and reappear in our expanding universe. Some of the unseen matter we attribute to dark matter could, in fact, be made of such relics.\n\nIn this view, the Big Bang evolved from conditions in a preceding contraction. Wormholes aren’t necessary: the bridge is temporal, not spatial — and the Big Bang becomes a gateway, not a beginning.\n\nThis reinterpretation of Einstein–Rosen bridges offers no shortcuts across galaxies, no time travel and no science-fiction wormholes or hyperspace. What it offers is far deeper. It offers a consistent quantum picture of gravity in which spacetime embodies a balance between opposite directions of time — and where our universe may have had a history before the Big Bang.\n\nIt does not overthrow Einstein’s relativity or quantum physics — it completes them. The next revolution in physics may not take us faster than light — but it could reveal that time, deep down in the microscopic world and in a bouncing universe, flows both ways.\nEnrique Gaztanaga, Professor of Astrophysics at Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, _University of Portsmouth_\n\nThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.\n\n\n\nPublished by _The Conversation_.\nOpen access. (CC BY 4.0)\n\nShow publication details\n\n\n> Abstract\n>\n>  The formulation of quantum field theory in Minkowski spacetime, which emerges from the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics, is based on treating time as a parameter, assuming a fixed arrow of time, and requiring that field operators commute for spacelike distances. This procedure is questioned here in the context of quantum field theory in curved spacetime (QFTCS). In 1935, Einstein and Rosen (ER), in their seminal paper (Einstein and Rosen 1935 Phys. Rev. 48 73–77) proposed that ‘a particle in the physical Universe has to be described by mathematical bridges connecting two sheets of spacetime’ which involved two arrows of time. Recently proposed direct-sum quantum theory reconciles this ER’s vision by introducing geometric superselection sectors associated with the regions of spacetime related by discrete transformations. We further establish that the quantum effects at gravitational horizons involve the physics of quantum inverted harmonic oscillators that have phase space horizons. This new understanding of the ER bridges is not related to classical wormholes, it addresses the original ER puzzle and promises a unitary description of QFTCS, along with observer complementarity. Furthermore, we present compelling evidence for our new understanding of ER bridges in the form of large-scale parity asymmetric features in the cosmic microwave background, which is statistically 650 times stronger than the standard scale-invariant power spectrum from the typical understanding of inflationary quantum fluctuations when compared with the posterior probabilities associated with the model given the data. We finally discuss the implications of this new understanding in combining gravity and quantum mechanics.\n>\n>\n>\n>\n> Enrique Gaztañaga et al 2026 A new understanding of Einstein–Rosen bridges Class. Quantum Grav. 43 015023 DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/ae3044\n>\n>  Copyright: © 2026 The authors.\n>  Published by IOP Publishing. Open access.\n>  Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)\n\n\n\nThe important point here is not that this hypothesis has been proved, nor that cosmologists have now definitively answered what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. The point is that science can ask such questions without retreating into magic. It can frame possibilities in mathematics, test them for internal consistency, compare them with what is already known, and discard or modify them if they fail. That is how knowledge advances.\n\nCreationism, by contrast, has no such mechanism for self-correction. It begins with the answer it wants — a magic creator — then tries to force every gap in current knowledge into service as evidence for that conclusion. But a gap in scientific knowledge is not evidence for a god; it is merely an invitation to investigate further. Time and again, where creationists once parked their god, science has found natural processes.\n\nWhether Gaztañaga and colleagues are right or wrong in detail, their work illustrates the enormous difference between science and superstition. Here is a naturalistic proposal that treats the Big Bang not as an inexplicable supernatural conjuring trick, but as a possible physical transition in a wider cosmic structure. It may turn out to be correct, partly correct, or wrong — but it is the sort of wrong that can teach us something, because it is grounded in physics rather than faith.\n\nAnd that is the real problem for creationism. It offers no comparable research programme, no equations, no predictions, no observations that could prove it wrong, and no reason to prefer it over any other creation myth. Its answer to \"What came before the Big Bang?\" is simply, \"Our preferred god did it\", which explains nothing because it merely replaces one mystery with a bigger, unevidenced one.\n\nScience does not need to know everything to be superior to creationism. It only needs to keep doing what creationism cannot do: ask honest questions, follow the evidence, revise its models, and look for natural explanations. If the universe had a \"before\", science is the only method likely to discover it. If it did not, science is still the only method capable of explaining why that question may be meaningless. Either way, magic is redundant.\n\n\n\n* * *\n\n\n\n\n\n**Advertisement**\n\n\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$14.20 UK\n£11.20\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$14.15 UK\n£11.20\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$12.90 UK\n£10.00\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$16.00 UK\n£12.60\n\n\n\n\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$12.50UK\n£9.30\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$12.00UK\n£9.93\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$12.50UK\n£10.00\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$10.50UK\n£8.30\n\n\n\n\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$12.00UK\n£10.00\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$15.00UK\n£12.29\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$7.50UK\n£5.75\n\n**Amazon** USA\n$10.20UK\n£8.30\n\n\n**All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.**\n\n**Prices correct at time of publication. Click here for current prices.**\n\n\n\n**Advertisement**\n\nClick for My Books\n\n\n\n### Thank you for sharing!\n\n\n\n\nTweet Link\n\nBlue Sky\n\n  \n\nFlip to Flipboard\n\n\n\n\n\nIf you've enjoyed my blog please show your appreciation by giving to a great cause - Oxfam\nBe Humankind. Feed the world.",
  "title": "Refuting Creationism - What Was Before The Big Bang?  It Wasn't Nothing!",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-23T14:26:57.338Z"
}