All posts by admin

A digital tunnel formed by cascading blue binary code creating a futuristic data flow effect.

Traversable Wormholes – Time Travel to the Past May Be Possible!

Categories, Time Travel, , , , ,

Traversable wormholes may enable time travel to the past. This post is based on material from my new book, How to Time Travel.

Let us begin our discussion by understanding the scientific meaning of a “wormhole.” There are valid solutions to Einstein’s equations of general relativity that suggest it is possible to have a “shortcut” through spacetime. To picture this, consider a piece of paper with a dot at opposite corners. In Euclidean geometry, normally taught in high school, we learn that the shortest distance between the two points is a straight line. However, valid solutions to Einstein’s general relativity equations suggest that the two points on the paper are connectable by an even shorter path, a wormhole. To visualize this, simply fold the opposite corners of the paper with the dots, such that the dots touch. You have created a representation of a wormhole. You have manipulated the space between the dots by folding the paper to allow them to touch.

Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence that wormholes exist in reality. However, the strong theoretical foundation suggesting wormholes (i.e., valid solutions to Einstein’s equations of general relativity) makes their potential existence impossible to ignore.

The first type of wormhole solution to Einstein’s equations of general relativity was the Schwarzschild wormhole, developed by German physicist Karl Schwarzschild (1873–1916). Unfortunately, although the Schwarzschild mathematical solution was valid, it resulted in an unstable black hole. The unstable nature of the Schwarzschild wormhole suggested it would collapse on itself. It also suggested that the wormhole would only allow passage in one direction. This brought to light an important new concept. Faced with the unstable nature of Schwarzschild wormholes, American theoretical physicist Kip Thorne and his graduate student Mike Morris demonstrated a general relativity “traversable wormhole” in a 1988 paper. In this mathematical context, a traversable wormhole would be both stable and allow information, objects, and even humans to pass through in either direction and remain stable (i.e., would not collapse on itself). As is often the case in science, one discovery leads to another. Numerous other wormhole solutions to the equations of general relativity began to surface, including one in 1989 by mathematician Matt Visser that did not require negative energy to stabilize it.

As discussed above, traversable wormholes may require negative energy to sustain them. Several prominent physicists, including Kip Thorne and British theoretical physicist/cosmologist Stephen Hawking, believe the Casimir effect proves negative energy densities are possible in nature. Currently, physicists are using the Casimir effect in an effort to create negative energy. Obviously, if successful, the amounts of negative energy will likely be small. Because of the amount of negative energy that may result, I suspect the first wormholes developed will be at the quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles).

We have merely scratched the surface regarding the science of wormholes, but we did accomplish one important objective. We have described how a traversable wormhole would allow spacetime travel via shortcuts in spacetime. This means we could connect two points in time or two points in space via a traversable wormhole. However, there is a hitch regarding time travel to the past. According to the theory of relativity, we cannot go back to a time before the wormhole existed. This means that if we discover how to make a traversable wormhole today, a year from now we can go back to today.

You may wonder why a wormhole constructed today would not allow us to go back to yesterday. To understand this conundrum, we need to understand just how a wormhole works as a time machine. Here is one scenario. Imagine you are able to accelerate one end of a wormhole to a significant fraction of the speed of light. Perhaps you could use a high-energy ring laser (i.e., a laser than rotates in a circle). As you twist the space, you create the “mouth” of the wormhole, something like a tunnel. After you enter the mouth of the wormhole, you are now somewhere in the wormhole’s “throat.” A “tunnel” is a good analogy to what is occurring. Now imagine you are able to take the other entrance of the tunnel, which is at rest and called the “fixed end,” and bring it back close to the origin. Time dilation causes the mouth to age less than the fixed end. A clock at the mouth of the wormhole, where spacetime accelerates near the speed of light, will move slower than a clock at the fixed end.

Given the above understanding of how a wormhole acts as a time machine, let us address why it is only possible to go back to the time of the wormhole’s construction. Imagine you have two synchronized clocks. If you place one clock at the mouth, and you place the other clock at the fixed end, they will initially read exactly the same time, for example, the year 2013. However, the clock at the mouth, influenced by the twisted space, is going to experience time dilation, and therefore move slower than the clock at the fixed end. Let us consider the case where the clock at mouth of the wormhole moves, based on the rate of twisting spacetime, one thousand times slower than the clock at the fixed end. In one hundred years, the clock at the fixed end, which experiences no time dilation, will read 2113. The clock at the mouth will still read 2013; only one tenth of one year will have passed due to time dilation at the mouth of the wormhole. From the fixed end, where no time dilation is occurring (i.e., the clock reads 2113), you can walk back to the mouth of the wormhole, where the clock still reads 2013. You will have walked one hundred years into the past. Notice, though, you cannot go back beyond the time of the traversable wormhole’s construction.

This post is based on material from my new book, How to Time Travel. Click How to Time Travel to browse the book free on Amazon.

A digital blue background with glowing horizontal lines and light flares creating a futuristic effect.

Faster-Than-Light Time Travel to the Past May be Possible

Categories, Time Travel, , ,

Based on Einstein’s special theory of relativity, if we are able to move information or matter from one point to another faster than the speed of light, there would be some inertial frame of reference (i.e., a frame of reference moving at a constant velocity) in which the signal or object is moving backward in time. Let us understand why this is the case.

Consider sending a signal from one location to another. The first event is sending the signal. The second event is receiving the signal. As long as the signal travels at or below the speed of light, according to the “relativity of simultaneity,” the first event will always precede the second event in all inertial frames of reference. Although this squares with our everyday observation of reality, that cause precedes effect, you may have a question. What is the relativity of simultaneity?

The relativity of simultaneity is a concept introduced by Einstein in the special theory of relativity. The simultaneity of an event is not an absolute to all observers, but depends on the observer’s frame of reference. For example, if one observer is midway on a train car, and a second observer is at rest on the platform at the train station, they will see the simultaneity of an event differently. As the two observers pass, assume the observer in the train takes a picture using a flashbulb. From the viewpoint of the observer within the train, the light reaches both the front and rear of the train car at the same time. However, the observer on the platform sees a different situation. From the observer on the platform’s viewpoint, first the flashbulb goes off, and then the light reaches the back of the train car, since it was moving toward the fixed observer on the platform. Lastly, the observer sees the light reach the front of the train car, since it was moving away from the observer. The effect is more pronounced as the speed of the train approaches the speed of light.

Based on the relativity of simultaneity, if a signal propagates faster than the speed of light, there would always be some frames of reference where the signal arrives before it was sent. To illustrate this, let us go back to the above example and assume the train is traveling close to the speed of light. The observer is now closer to the end of the train car when the flashbulb flashes. Let us also assume the light exceeds the speed of light in a vacuum. For example, we could assume the interior of the train car contains a negative energy vacuum, which some in the scientific community believe would allow light to travel faster than it would in a normal positive vacuum. Given these two inertial frames of reference, the train moving close to the speed of light, and the observer situated closer to the rear of the train car when the flashbulb goes off, it would appear that the light reached the end of the train car prior to the light from the flashbulb reaching the observer on the platform. Why is this? (You might want to draw this out on a piece of paper to visualize the light paths.) The light inside the train instantaneously reaches the back of the train car, and then travels a short distance in the inertial frame of the observer, who records the event. This is witnessed ahead of the light reaching the observer from the source, since now the observer is farther away from the source. Therefore, the observer first witnesses the light reach the back of the train, and then observes the light from the source (i.e., flashbulb goes off). From the viewpoint of the observer at the station, the effect preceded the cause. If the light within the train did not travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, the effect of reverse causality would be lost.

From inside the train car, nothing changes for the observer seated midway in the car. The faster-than-light signals reach the front and back at the same time. In summary, the observer on the platform witnesses reverse causality. The light signal reaches the back of the train car before the light from the flashbulb reaches the observer on the platform. This thought experiment, illustrating reverse causality, suggests the observer on the platform witnesses an event taking place in the past (i.e., light reaching the end of the train car), since the flashbulb light at the source will reach the observer on the platform later (i.e., the future).

Does anything travel faster than the speed of light in the real world? Maybe! Some quantum physicists believe the phenomena of quantum entanglement (i.e., two particles that have interacted to the point that the physical state of one particle is dependent on the other) exhibits effects that travel faster than the speed of light. However, this is controversial, and more data is required to make an irrefutable case that this is true.

This post was based on material taken from my new book, How to Time Travel. It is available from Amazon in a paperback or Kindle editions. Click How to Time Travel to browse the book free.

dark matter

Dark Matter Explained – Most of the Universe Is Missing!

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. However, its effects are detectable, as I will explain below. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle).

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that reenergized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, dark matter is still a mystery. For years, scientists have been working to find the WIMP particle to confirm dark matter’s existence. All efforts have been either unsuccessful or inconclusive.

This material is from Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte.

A silhouette of a person with a clock face behind them, symbolizing the concept of time and human existence.

“How to Time Travel” – Explore What’s New In Time Travel Science

Categories, Time Travel, , , , , , , ,

How to Time Travel (Published September 2013, Amazon) delineates the latest scientific theories and experiments regarding the science of time travel, proposed time machines, time travel paradoxes and time travel evidence. It also provide several new contributions to this perennially popular topic. These include the Existence Equation Conjecture, the Grandchild Paradox, the Preserve the World Line Rule, and the Time Uncertainty Interval.

Numerous books, experiments, and highly regarded scientific papers, like Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity, have established time travel as not only theoretically possible, but as a science fact. For example, high-energy particle accelerators routinely prove that time travel to the future is a science fact for subatomic particles accelerated close to the speed of light. Although, current scientific capability  does not enable significant human time travel to the future, or even time travel to the past for  subatomic particles, many in the scientific community estimate that human time travel to the future and past will be accomplished by the end of the 21st century.

In this post, I discuss the new additions that How to Time Travel makes to the field of time travel science.

Existence Equation Conjecture

In How to Time Travel I delineate my own theoretical research, the existence equation conjecture, which explains the role energy plays in time travel. Using the equation, I am able to explain time dilation experiments (i.e., time travel to the future) within 2% accuracy. As I asserted in the book, I derived the existence equation conjecture from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It lays bare the fundamental basis for time travel. I consider it an important addition to the science of time travel, since it formulates time travel directly in terms of energy, and not secondary phenomena such as particle acceleration. Please keep in mind that in science, a conjecture is a scientific opinion.

Grandchild Paradox

A host of new experiments and even a classical experiment (i.e., the double slit experiment) prove that events in the future can influence the past. This may come across as counter intuitive, but the data from the experiments make it an inescapable conclusion. I discuss the experiments in chapter 1, “Twisting the arrow of time,” and in chapter 6, “Time travel paradoxes.” Here is a statement of the “grandchild paradox”: The grandchild paradox refers to any situation involving reverse causality (i.e., effect occurs before cause). Any situation, real or imagined, that reverses the arrow of time and allows the future to influence the past, may be considered a grandchild paradox. The arrow of time refers to the direction of time, typically proceeding from the present to the future. Twisting the arrow of time refers to reversing the flow of time. Until recently, most of the scientific community would have agreed that the arrow of time pointed in only one direction, from the present to the future. These new findings argue the arrow of time can also point from the future to the past.

Preserve the World Line Rule

According to the general theory of relativity, all reality travels in four-dimensional space, termed a world line. Numerous solutions to Einstein’s equations of general relativity delineate “close timelike curves” (the world line of an entity returns its starting point). If the world line of any entity returns to its starting point, the entity is said to have returned to its past, suggesting backward time travel is theoretically possible. However, to date, we have not been able to experimentally verify that this aspect of Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true. Some in the scientific community believe that in time, we will find a way to send subatomic particles, information and eventually humans back in time. When and if this becomes a reality, nations possessing this capability can literally rewrite history. Faced with this possibility, I think there is one commonsense rule regarding time travel that would assure greater safety for all involved. I term the rule “preserve the world line.” Why this one simple rule? Altering the world line (i.e., the path that all reality takes in four-dimensional spacetime) may lead to chaos. History would become meaningless. We have no idea what changes might result if the world line is disrupted, and the consequences could be serious, even disastrous.

Time Uncertainty Interval

Planck time is the smallest interval of time that science is able to define. The theoretical formulation of Planck time comes from dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement, physical constants, and the relationship between units of measurement and physical constants. In simpler terms, one Planck interval is approximately equal to 10-44 seconds (i.e., 1 divided by 1 with 44 zeros after it). It is widely believed in the scientific community that we would not be able to measure a change smaller than a Planck interval. From this standpoint, we can assert that time is only reducible to an interval, not a dimensionless sliver, and that interval is the Planck interval. Since the smallest unit of time is only definable as the Planck interval, this suggests there is a fundamental limit to our ability to measure an event in absolute terms. This fundamental limit to measure an event in absolute terms is independent of the measurement technology. The error in measuring the start or end of any event will always be at least one Planck interval. This means the amount of uncertainty regarding the start or completion of an event is only knowable to one Planck interval. I term this uncertainty of measurement the “Time Uncertainty Interval.”

The above concepts are both new and original, based on my own theoretical research. I suggest you greet them with open mindedness and skepticism. They are now part of the scientific literature landscape, included in my new book How to Time Travel, and await rigorous peer review.

Click How to Time Travel to browse the book free on Amazon.com.

end of the universe

What Made the Big Bang Go Bang?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, , , ,

This is a little play on words. The Big Bang theory holds that the evolution of the universe started with an infinitesimal packet of near infinite energy (termed a “singularity”) that suddenly expanded and continues to expand. If this is true, was it big? No, it was infinitesimally small. Did it go bang? No, it expanded. Space is a vacuum, and it is unable to transmit sound waves. Therefore, there were no sound waves to make a bang noise. Granted, I was not there since it took place 13.8 billion years ago, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I am only jesting, but the description above of the Big Bang theory is what the scientific community holds to be responsible for the evolution of the universe.

What initiated the Big Bang’s expansion?

Throughout the theories of science, there appears to be a common thread based on well-observed physical phenomena regarding the behavior of energy. That common thread states that differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential always seek equilibrium if they are in an isolated physical system. For example, with time, a hot cup of coffee will cool to room temperature. This means it reaches equilibrium (balance, stability and sameness) with the temperature of the room, which is the isolated physical system in this example. Readers familiar with thermodynamics will instantly attribute this behavior of energy as following the second law of thermodynamics. However, the same law, worded differently, exists in numerous scientific contexts. In the interest of clarity, I am going to restate this law, describing the behavior of energy, in a way that makes it independent of scientific contexts. In a sense, it abstracts the essence of the contextual statements, and views applications of the law in various scientific contexts as specific cases. I am not the first physicist to undertake generalizing the second law of thermodynamics to make it independent of scientific contexts. However, I believe my proposed restatement provides a simple and comprehensive description of the laws that energy follows. For the sake of reference, I have termed my restatement the Minimum Energy Principle.

Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible, and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.

Consider these two examples to illustrate the Minimum Energy Principle.

1)   Radioactive substances. Radioactive substances emit radiation until they are no longer radioactive (they become stable). However, by introducing other radioactive substances under the right conditions, they can transition to a new state. Indeed, if the proper radioactive elements combine under the right circumstances, the result can be an atomic explosion.

2)   A thermodynamic example. Consider a branding iron fresh from the fire. It emits thermal radiation until it reaches equilibrium with its surroundings. In other words, once a branding iron leaves the fire, it will start to cool by transferring energy to its surrounding. Eventually, it will be at the same temperature as its surroundings. (This illustrates the first part of the Minimum Energy Principle: Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible.) However, if we increase the temperature of the branding iron by placing it back in the fire, the branding iron will absorb energy until it again reaches equilibrium with the temperature of the fire. (This illustrates the second part of the Minimum Energy Principle: It transitions to this new state by being acted on by the fire. The fire acts as an energy source.)

The Minimum Energy Principle is consistent with the law of entropy. To understand this, we will need to discuss entropy. In classical thermodynamics, entropy is the energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic process. For example, no machine is one hundred percent efficient in converting energy to work. A portion of the energy is always lost in the form of waste heat. An example is the miles per gallon achievable via your car engine, ignoring other factors such as the weight of the vehicle, its aerodynamic design, and other similar factors. Several car manufacturers are able to build highly efficient engines. However, no car manufacturer can build an engine that is one hundred percent efficient. As a result, a fraction of total energy is always lost, typically in the form of waste heat.

Entropy proceeds in one direction, and is a measure of the system’s disorder. Any increase in entropy implies an increase in disorder and an increase in stability. For example, the heat lost in a car engine is lost to the atmosphere, and is no longer usable to do work. The heat lost is adding to the disorder of the universe, and is a measure of entropy. Oddly, though, the lost heat is completely stable.

In a given system, entropy is either constant or increasing, depending on the flow of energy. If the system is isolated, and has no energy flow, the entropy remains constant. If the system is undergoing an energy change, such as ice melting in a glass of water, the entropy is increasing. When the ice completely melts, and the system reaches equilibrium with its surrounding, it is stable. This has a significant implication. Entropy is constantly increasing in the universe since everything in the universe is undergoing energy change. In theory, the entropy of the universe will eventually maximize, and all reality will be lost to heat. The universe will be completely stable and static. I have termed this the “entropy apocalypse.” (Some physicists term this “heat death.”) I know I am being a little dramatic here, but most of the scientific community believes the entropy (disorder) of the universe is increasing. Eventually, all energy in the universe will be stable and unusable, all change will cease to occur, and the universe will have reached the entropy apocalypse.

Based on the above discussion of entropy, we can argue that entropy seeks to maximize and, therefore, reduce energy to the lowest state possible. This is why I stated that the Minimum Energy Principle, which asserts that energy seeks the lowest state possible, is consistent with law of entropy.

How does this help us understand what made the Big Bang go bang? The Minimum Energy Principle, along with our understanding of the behavior of entropy, makes answering this question relatively easy. The scientific community agrees that the Big Bang started with a point of infinite energy, at the instant prior to the expansion. From the Minimum Energy Principle, we know “Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.” Since we know it went “bang,” we can make three deductions regarding the infinitely dense-energy point. First, it was not stable. Second, it was not in the lowest energy state possible. Third, the entropy of the infinitely dense-energy point was at its lowest state possible, which science terms the “ground-state entropy.” These three conditions set the stage for the Minimum Energy Principle and the laws of entropy to initiate the Big Bang.

By the very nature of “playing the tape” of the expanding universe back to discover its origin, namely the Big Bang, we can conclude a highly dense energy state. It will be a highly dense energy state because we are going to take all the energy that expanded from the Big Bang, and cause it to contract. As it contracts, the universe grows smaller and more energy-dense. At the end of this process, we have a highly dense energy state. I think of it as a point, potentially without dimensions, but with near-infinite energy. This view is widely held by the scientific community. If it is true, all logic causes us to conclude it was an infinitely excited energy state, and we would have every reason to question its stability—and to believe it was at the “ground-state” entropy (the lowest entropy state possible).

Our observations of unstable energy systems in the laboratory suggest that as soon as the point of infinite energy came to exist, it had to seek stability at a lower energy level. The Big Bang was a form of energy dilution. In the process of lowering the energy, it increased the entropy of the universe. Once again, we see the Minimum Energy Principle and the law of entropy acting in concert.

How long did the infinitely dense-energy point exist? No one really knows. However, we can approach an answer by understanding more about time.

Discussing the Big Bang in terms of time, as we typically understand time, is difficult. It will not do any good to look at your watch or think in small fractions of a second. Stop-motion photography will not work this time. Those times are infinitely large compared to Planck time (~ 10-43 seconds, which is a one divided by a one with forty-three zero after it). Theoretically, Planck time is the smallest time-frame we will ever be able to measure. So far, we have not even come close to measuring Planck time. The best measurement of time to date is of the order 10-18 seconds.

What is so significant about Planck time? The fundamental constants of the universe formulate Planck time, not arbitrary units. According to the laws of physics, we would be unable to measure “change” if the time interval were shorter that Planck time. In other words, Planck time is the shortest interval we humans are able to measure, or even comprehend change to occur. Scientifically, it can be argued that no time interval is shorter that Planck time. Thus, the most rapid change can only occur in concert with Planck time, and no faster. Therefore, when we discuss the initiation of the Big Bang, the smallest time interval we can consider is Planck time.

The whole notion of Planck time, and its relationship to the Big Bang, begs another question. Did time always exist? Most physicists say NO. Time requires energy changes, and that did not occur until the instant of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s most prominent physicists and cosmologists, is on record that he believes time started with the Big Bang. Dr. Hawking asserts that if there was a time before the Big Bang, we have no way to access the information. From this standpoint, it is reasonable to believe time for our universe started with the Big Bang. This is our reality. This is consistent with Occam’s razor, which states the simplest explanation is the most plausible one (until new data to the contrary is available). For our universe, the Big Bang started the clock ticking, with the smallest tick being Planck time.

We are finally in a position to answer the crucial question: What made the big bang go bang?

The Big Bang followed the Minimum Energy Principle, “Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible, and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.” The infinitely dense energy point, which science terms a “singularity,” sought stability at the lowest energy state possible. Being infinitely energy-dense, implies instability and minimum entropy (ground-state entropy). Thus, it required dilution to become stable, which caused entropy to increase. The dilution came in the form of the “Big Bang.” Since we were dealing with an unstable infinitely energy-dense point, it is reasonable to assert the Big Bang went bang at the instant of existence. The instant of existence would correlate to the smallest time interval science can conceive, the Planck time. This process is continuing today as space continues its accelerated expansion. 

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte, available on Amazon.com