arxiv Find: A Realistic Cosmological Model…

By Sean Carroll | November 17, 2008 11:37 am

The title is a bit misleading; what is being referred to is not a realistic cosmological model at all. But it’s interesting to see that not every professional astronomer believes in the Big Bang model; there are still some out there who are sticking with the Steady State theory. Seriously.

A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years
Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge

Abstract: This meeting is entitled “A Century of Cosmology.” But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to “hot big bang cosmology” with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.

The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.

For those with any lingering doubts, the Big Bang model — the idea that the universe has evolved from a hot, dense, smooth initial state — is correct, and the Steady State model should have been put to bed a long time ago. Evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. It’s a model that keeps making predictions, which keep turning out to be correct, while the Steady State theory made many predictions that turned out to be wrong.

But it’s an interesting case study in how science works. Reading Burbidge’s paper, the parallels with anti-evolutionists are striking. In both cases, one is repeatedly told that the establishment’s supporter’s can’t prove that their theory is correct. Which is undeniably true, as science never proves anything; it just accumulates evidence, and in the case of the Big Bang and natural selection, the evidence puts the case beyond reasonable doubt. Which doesn’t imply that there are no interesting questions remaining to be addressed. For both the Big Bang and natural selection, many of the details concerning the way in which the broad framework is specifically implemented in the real world remain to be answered. And in both cases, the skeptics like to pretend that open questions about the details are the same as open questions about the framework. But they’re not.

Nevertheless, one of the virtues of the tenure system is that a Big Bang skeptic can keep their position as a professor of physics, writing heterodox articles and submitting them to the arxiv. And this really is a virtue, not a flaw. Geoffrey Burbidge has done lots of respectable work in observational astronomy. Long ago, he and his wife Margaret collaborated with Fred Hoyle and Willy Fowler on an important paper that helped established the theory of nucleosynthesis in stars. Part of the motivation for the paper was the realization that conditions in the Big Bang were not right for synthesizing elements much heavier than lithium — you could explain the universe’s helium abundance, but not the existence of carbon and iron and so forth. Hoyle, of course, was one of the originators of the Steady State theory, and that was certainly part of his motivation at the time. As it turns out, in the real world, some elements are synthesized in the early universe, and some in stars, and some in supernovae; the real world can be a messy place.

Would a young cosmologist who didn’t believe in the Big Bang be offered a faculty job, or receive tenure, today? Probably not. Faculty jobs are scarce commodities, and a university is going to want to hire people who will do interesting and productive work that is of some use to the wider community. Believers in the Steady State model aren’t going to produce such work, any more than creationists or astrologers or experts in the plum-pudding model of the atom. And eventually support for the model will fade away entirely, opening the door for the next generation of heterodoxies.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: arxiv, Science
  • http://vacua.blogspot.com Jim Harrison

    This seems like a good time to ask a general question: so far as I can see, there is no credible alternative to the Big Bang; but it also seems that the Big Bang is not what it used to be. Where it once was mostly thought of as an absolute beginning of a singular universe from something like a mathematical singularity, it is now simply “the idea that the universe has evolved from a hot, dense, smooth initial state” without the implication that it was any way unique or inexplicable.

    I’m not talking about formal models of the Big Bang, which, from my layman’s perspective, appear to be all over the place, but imaginative pictures that put the various equations in a context. What used to be physics’ answer to Let There Be Light is now spoken about more often as a stage in the on-going and perhaps interminable history of things, important to us for parochial reasons, but just another bubble in the cosmic champagne. The pictures matter, even though they are neither evidence or arguments in themselves, because they make some theories appear natural and plausible, others artificial and far fetched. What do you guys thinks about that.

  • joe

    If Fred Hoyle was an advocate of the Steady-State theory, why would he work on nucleosynthesis in stars? Doesn’t the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis support the Big Bang theory by explaining how heavy elements could be created after the Big Bang?

    I’m not arguing against anything you wrote; I’m just confused because you make it sound like Hoyle developed the idea of stellar nucleosynthesis *because* of his connection to the Steady-State theory.

  • http://guidetoreality.blogspot.com Steve Esser

    I was going to to write a longer comment — but now I’ll just second Jim Harrison, as I had the same thoughts while reading the post. The fact that it now seems unlikely that the big bang started from a singularity hasn’t penetrated very far into public consciousness. — “another bubble in the cosmic champagne…” – I liked that.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    joe– If you don’t believe in the Big Bang, how do you account for the existence of heavy elements? (Early BB proponents thought they could make all the elements in the early universe, but that turns out not to work.)

    Jim– The Big Bang theory was always “the idea that the universe has evolved from a hot, dense, smooth initial state.” It’s to be distinguished from the “Big Bang” event itself, the singularity at the beginning of the universe — which was always speculative and mysterious, and remains so. The BB theory is in better shape than ever, as new observations help us understand how the universe evolved.

  • Elliot

    From a pure layman’s perspective, comparing models like Steady State, which you seem to equate with creationism to things like eternal inflation, which seems to have some street cred in the scientific community, it is difficult to see why one is clearly more credible than the other from a strictly observational point of view.

    Perhaps you can help clarify why I should semi-believe in eternal inflation but tell my local school board that they should no longer teach the Steady State model except in a history of science class.

    I am not trying to be a wiseguy here. I just would like a brief case made based on observational evidence for Eternal Inflation and against the Steady State model. I realize they are not apples to apples. But in some ways to me Eternal Inflation somewhat echoes the Steady State model in a meta-conceptual** way.

    e.

    ** meta-conceptual – word just made up for this post but is now being trademarked for future use
    (tm) elliot tarabour 2008 all rights reserved. ;)

  • Jason

    I think the big bang theory is right on. God spoke, there was a BIG BANG, and there it all was.

  • Lily Putin

    Why must there have been only ONE big bang in the current universe (as opposed to others 13 billion light years or more distant)? Why not a few small bangs, creating different accelerations from various points?

  • Pingback: Ze bestaan nog: Steady State-aanhangers en Astroblogs

  • changcho

    It’s a real puzzle to me how it is that someone like Burbidge (clearly a smart man) can still take the steady-state model seriously. Perhaps he is unconsciously strongly attached to it because it is his ‘baby’? If so he lacks the ability to be objective. If I recall, one of Sagan’s sayings in his ‘Baloney Detectino Kit’ is the idea that one should make every effort to *not* get too attached to an idea just because it is your own…

    “And eventually support for the model will fade away entirely, opening the door for the next generation of heterodoxies.”

    Right, since, well, Burbidge is quite old…

  • http://popast.nu Robert Cumming

    Is there a reasonable difference between (1) ‘does not believe in the big bang’ and (2) ‘goes to great lengths to argue against the big bang in the interests of good science’?

    What Burbidge believes is not really interesting, it’s whether his arguments hold up that’s the important thing.

    Actually the whole question of ‘believing’ in a scientific context is quite subtle, I think.

  • http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/ Lab Lemming

    Of course, with arxiv, the dirty laundry of the living fossils is mixed in with real papers for all to see. Even if the paper is unpublishable, this will shamble around the internet as long as it can find a willing host.

    I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing, but how to deal with crackpotism is something to think about.

  • Ryan Scranton

    I’m over-whelmed. Or over-whelming. Some kind of whelmishness, for certain.

  • tacitus

    There are also parallels between cosmology and the evolution debate over the question “how did it all begin?”

    As Sean says, the Big Bang theory does not address the first cause or even that it might not be a unique event. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis — how life began — or whether or not it was a unique event.

    The evidence for both the Big Bang and evolution *is* overwhelming (despite what the naysayers claim) but the evidence for how it all started (in both cases) is, at best, extremely sketchy bordering on the non-existent.

    Creationists like to conflate the two issues in an attempt to muddy the water for the whole field in the eyes of the general public. While it’s true that you can’t have the evolution of the Universe in general or life in particular without a beginning of some kind, the fact that we don’t know what that beginning looks like (and may never do so) doesn’t in any way invalidate or water down the mountains of evidence in support of both theories.

  • John Merryman

    It’s still the ultimate irony that Lemaitre originally proposed BBT, the primordial atom, as a way to provide scientific validity to creationism. An eternal universe just didn’t fit the narrative structure of monotheism.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    Elliot– I’m not sure what “semi-believe” means. Eternal inflation is a speculative idea about the early universe, which has some attractive features, but is far from established. It deals with an epoch about which we have very little evidence to decide things one way or another. The Steady State model concerned the current universe, made predictions, and they came out wrong. There is not much relationship between them. Remember, the primary feature of the Steady State theory is not “the universe is eternal,” it’s “the universe is unchanging” — in particular, it has always had the same temperature. That’s been ruled out a million different ways, and the remaining SS proponents have been forced to abandon nearly all of the original model.

    Lily– There’s no reason why there couldn’t have been many bangs. Many of us are quite interested in the possibility, and have been investigating it.

    John– I don’t think that’s right; Lemaitre always resisted drawing theological conclusions from the Big Bang. He proposed the idea because it was a consequence of general relativity.

  • Ben

    In the first few pages of this article, there is some useful history if you set aside Burbidge’s occasional polemical eruptions. For example, on page 5 he does answer the question posed above of what led Hoyle and B^2FH to found the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. Most of this history can be found in books, of course, but that does not make it uninteresting. But in the present paper, around page 7 we come to yet another Burbidgean idea for the origin of the CMB and for active galaxies, and the wheels come off.

    Incidentally, as Burbidge points out one piece of evidence for stellar nucleosynthesis was Merrill’s detection of Tc-43. When I was a fresh-faced young postdoc at Santa Barbara Street, on the second or third day the great George Preston burst into my office and by way of introduction (his office was across the hall) announced “Did you know that this is the office in which TECHNETIUM was discovered in STARS??!”

  • John Merryman

    Sean,

    You are right on the record. I still find it doubtful the age old question of ex nihilo creation, which he, as a Catholic priest, must have been very familiar, had nothing to do with his formulation. Not that I doubt his sincerity, but it’s difficult to be objective about the foundation of one’s knowledge.

    What gets me is that Einstein added the Cosmological Constant to balance his conclusion that gravity was causing space to collapse. So while the CC was an arbitrary function, its purpose was to provide expansion to balance gravity, yet when Hubble found evidence of expansion, Einstein rejected the Cosmological Constant as a blunder, but now Dark Energy is said to reflect a predicted Cosmological Constant and cosmologists are saying Einstein was right all along. Wouldn’t that mean it does balance out gravity? Which would mean gravity balances it out. What am I missing here?

  • John Merryman

    “but now Dark Energy is said to reflect the features of a Cosmological Constant”

  • TimG

    John, I’m no expert on general relativity but if I understand right only a particular value of the cosmological constant would balance out the effects of gravity. So the fact that the universal expansion is accelerating must mean you have a greater CC than you’d need to just balance out gravity. (Gravity of course wants to slow the expansion down by pulling everything back towards each other.)

    That is, assuming it really is the cosmological constant that is responsible for dark energy. So far as I know no one knows for sure yet, but the CC is a likely candidate.

  • spaceman

    Another line often pitched by Big Bang skeptics is that the standard model of cosmology is too complex to the point of stretching not space but credibility. According to these self-righteous skeptics, the BB model is cumbersome and lacks elegence and simplicity.

    I strongly disagree with this characterization of the Big Bang model. The central tenet of the Big Bang idea is that the Universe evolved from a hot dense state into a cool rarified state via the expansion of space. To me this seems intuitive rather than incredible–expansion stretched everything and everything cooled off as a result. Another important, and extremely well-supported part of the Big Bang theory is that initial inhomogeneities led to gravitational instability and graviational collapse in some areas. Hence, the appearance of voids and superclusters of galaxies. The Big Bang is a simple and coherent theory; humans should be commended for how much progress we’ve made in terms of understanding our cosmic habitat without losing sight of all that remains to be uncovered.

  • Elliot

    Sean just to clarify “semi-believe” goes along with “meta-conceptual” They are both words incorporating one additional order of abstraction to the point of rendering them virtually meaningless.

    e

  • http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com Cormac O’ Raifeartaigh

    Great post Sean – it’s useful to have a reference for BB skeptic.
    I’ve referrefd to your discussion on my blog…regards Cormac

  • John Merryman

    Tim,

    The issue first arose for me in reading Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. He made the point that “Omega =1,” or nearly so, for the universe to be as stable as it is. Subsequent experiments by COBE and WMAP, of the CMBR, would seem to show the expansion and contraction are generally equal in the observable universe, resulting in a flat space, to the degree it can be measured.

    Spaceman,

    That is based on the nearly even temperature of the CMBR. The complexity and inelegance would seem to be due to Inflation Theory having to be added to explain this. The issue I keep trying to get an answer to, with regards to Inflation Theory, is how can we say it is an expansion of space, as opposed to an expansion in space, if we still have a stable speed of light to measure it against? Say two points are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size. Would they then be 2x lightyears apart? If so, that is an expansion IN space, not OF space. If they are still x lightyears apart, as the measure expanded with the measured, how can we say it expanded?

    A true Cosmological Constant isn’t a simple expansion of space, but the opposite effect of gravity, which is a positive curvature of spacetime. Since it includes time, it is fluid, so that what is curved in one area can be balanced by what is curved the opposite direction in another area. “Curved” might be something of a misnomer, since there is no gravitational centerpoint around which the space is bent, so it would just show up as an expansion between two points. An analogy might be running up the down escalator. There could be other reasons for the 2.7k temperature of the CMBR, such as a phase transition level, above which this radiation is not stable. I could go on, but Sean has not been overly appreciative of my questions in the past.

  • Bjoern

    @John:
    The fact that Omega is near 1 has little to do with the universe being “stable”; this also does not in any way say that “expansion and contraction are generally equal”. There *is* no cosmological contraction, after all, so how could it be equal to the expansion? Omega = 1 simply means that its density is the so-called “critical density”.

    A universe without a cosmological constant which has at most the critical density would expand forever, whereas a universe without a cosmological constant which has more than the critical density would re-collapse – thence the term “critical” density. Additionally, Omega = 1 means that space is flat, Omega 1 means that it has something vaguely analogues to a shaddle shape.

    However, since in our universe, the cosmological constant is *not* zero, the term “critical density” essentially lost its meaning – the universe will expand forever regardless of its density (if the cosmological constant remains really constant…). On the other hand, the value of Omega still tells us the shape of the universe.

    “Say two points are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size. Would they then be 2x lightyears apart? If so, that is an expansion IN space, not OF space.”

    Sorry, I don’t see why that should follow. What, exactly, is there expanding “in” space here?

    There is a crucial argument against an expansion “in” space, BTW: the change in distance between two objects per time can be greater than light speed. How could that be if we talked about an expansion “in” space? That would violate Special Relativity!

    “If they are still x lightyears apart, as the measure expanded with the measured, how can we say it expanded?”

    What do you mean by saying the “the measure expanded”? Distances are measured in many ways in cosmology – but none of the methods used in any way “expands” with the universe!

    “A true Cosmological Constant isn’t a simple expansion of space…”

    Huh? Nobody ever said it is! Actually, a (positive) cosmological constant is the *cause* of an *acceleration* of the expansion!

    “…but the opposite effect of gravity, which is a positive curvature of spacetime.”

    Err, what are you talking about? Is this meant to say that gravity is “a positive curvature of spacetime”? If yes, where did you get that idea from? (especially the “positive” part)

    “Since it includes time, it is fluid, …

    Since *what* includes time? Gravity? The cosmological constant? Spacetime? Or what? And why does it follow then that “it” is fluid?

    “…so that what is curved in one area can be balanced by what is curved the opposite direction in another area. ”

    Huh? Why? How?

    ““Curved” might be something of a misnomer, since there is no gravitational centerpoint around which the space is bent,…”

    No centerpoint is needed for talking about curved space.

    “…so it would just show up as an expansion between two points.”

    *What* would show up as an expansion? The curvature? Or what?

    “There could be other reasons for the 2.7k temperature of the CMBR, such as a phase transition level, above which this radiation is not stable.”

    If there were such a phase transition, why haven’t we observed it in the lab? Experiments where the temperature of 2.7K is crossed from above as well as from below are done all the time, and in many of those, electromagnetic radiation is involved. No “phase transition” was ever seen. (are you sure you even know what this means?)

    “I could go on, but Sean has not been overly appreciative of my questions in the past.”

    I have a vague suspicion what his reasons were…

  • http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com Neil B

    I despise “per se” discrimination against those unorthodox who really are talented. It may also have happened to Halton Arp (red shift controversies) who says he was even denied telescope time. Another off-beat, claimed astronomical observation was the “quantization” of red-shifts. In that context it meant, observed red shifts came in clumps around IIRC 72 km/s apart instead of a random continuous distribution (relative to overall concentration.) Did that hold up, and if so who has an idea why it’s so? If the universe had early on been a tiny hypersphere, I can perhaps imagine standing matter waves around circumferences somehow leading to such a thing (could it?) I can’t anymore now that we think the universe was either so huge so soon or infinite in extent.

  • ObsessiveMathsFreak

    In both cases, one is repeatedly told that the establishment’s supporter’s can’t prove that their theory is correct. Which is undeniably true, as science never proves anything; it just accumulates evidence,….

    Never, Never, Never, Never, Never!

    I’m going to take you to task on this. Science most certainly does prove things. We accumulate so much and such a high quality of solid evidence, and test our models to such high standards, that no reasonable person can deny the truth of scientific claims. Science proves its theories.

    People need to stop pandering to this “falsification” nonsense, as if every statement in science should have a qualifier tacked on. If people want to waste time nitpicking and trotting out tired trivialities, then they can shove off back to their Wiki-trips and leave real scientists to get back to their jobs. And those jobs are; Discovering the Truth.

  • John R Ramsden

    ObsessiveMathsFreak, without wanting to sound glib, I’d say that in your language scientific truth probabilities are an open set and never attain the value 1.

  • http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com Neil B

    Well folks, it certainly is possible to prove that such and such does exist or can happen. We “know” that positrons exist because we have made some and measured their traits (and, we don’ t need to be sure that their positive charge is exactly +e versus (1.000000017) e, etc.) However, we can’t really prove general laws. We don’t really know that the inverse square law is universally true. The generalizations of cases from meters to billions of km wouldn’t prove that the rule f = Gm1m2/r^2 holds at all distances, and it’s hard to prove from theory since what if theory is wrong. It took recent experiments to rule out mm-scale deviations (which could have indicated curled up dimensions at that scale), and we still don’t know if Newton’s rule holds at the micron scale etc. At larger scales, some toy with MOND deviation from Newton, but perhaps dark matter & dark energy have solved cosmic motion issues and even the Pioneer anomaly. Furthermore, we already know that at very close range electrons don’t follow E = q/r^2 due to polarization of the vacuum.

    Hence “certainty” depends on what sort of knowledge you are looking for, and the positive/negative knowledge distinction is still very important.

    (PS I am still waiting for someone to show me a graph of the E from an electron at attometer etc. distances so I can see what percentage of classical it is. I just can’t find, e.g. at one am the field is say 76% of the classical etc. Is that so hard to calculate and put forth, or am I not looking well enough? Also, what then is the integral of the equivalent classical field energy? I suspect that if not infinite it is still more than m_e, which remains problematical.)

  • Jason Dick

    It’s still not proven in a rigorous mathematical sense. The “proof” in science always depends upon a couple of major caveats:
    1. We haven’t made significant mistakes in our experiments that would change the results.
    2. We aren’t missing potential alternative explanations that could provide the same answers.

    For caveat (1) we can usually gain confidence that it isn’t the case through independent verification. We still can’t be certain that all of the experimental teams didn’t make the exact same mistakes, but we can at least gain some confidence. This alone means we can never prove it.

    For caveat (2) there’s not a whole lot we can do, as there is always the possibility that there’s something entirely different that we haven’t thought of that goes on.

    In both situations, however, we do gain significant confidence that we are correct when we have a theory that makes very definite predictions for future experiments, predictions that come out to be true. We expect that the vast majority of the time, if our assumptions are incorrect, then the most likely result upon the development of a new regime of experimentation is that the result will not accord with the theory, because there is only one way for something to be correct, but many many ways for it to be incorrect. This doesn’t mean that anything is ever proven, however, even with your positron example. Positrons are still theoretical models used to explain a set of voltages in detectors. They still aren’t proven in a rigorous mathematical sense.

  • TimG

    John Merryman,

    Keep in mind that “A Brief History of Time” was written well before the discovery of dark energy. (Although I believe it was revised at some point . . . I’ve only read the original version.) So when Hawking talks about the universe being close to balanced between collapsing or expanding forever, he’s assuming there is no cosmological constant (which so far as I know is what everyone thought at the time).

    Without dark energy, all you have is gravity pulling in opposition to the universal expansion. Now if the slowing due to gravity were constant, eventually the universal expansion would slow to a stop and everything would recollapse. But in fact the slowing isn’t constant: gravity depends on mass, but it also depends on how far apart things are. So as things get further apart, the slowing effect weakens. If gravity is weak enough to begin with (i.e., if the universe doesn’t have enough mass), eventually the slowing loses out and things expand forever. On the other hand, if the universe does have enough mass, things eventually slow to a halt and recollapse. Or we could be on the boundary between these two conditions, where as I understand it the expansion would asymptotically slow to zero but never actually reach the point of halting and reversing course. As it happens the mass of the universe is quite close to that point.

    Now, with dark energy making things speed up, the trichotomy given in the previous paragraph no longer applies. Gravity still wants to reduce the rate of expansion, but dark energy is winning out over gravity and making the expansion speed up instead. However, I’ve been told we’re close to a different sort of balance — perhaps the effect of dark energy is truly constant (if I understand right this would have to be the case if the dark energy is due to Einstein’s cosmological constant), or perhaps the effect is diminishing or growing as the universe expands. I think that as far as we know it’s pretty close to constant, but maybe not exactly.

    Again, I’m not an expert on general relativity or cosmology, but I’m sure someone will correct me if I’ve gotten any of this wrong.

  • Jason Dick

    Right now the best we can say about dark energy is that it doesn’t become a dominant portion of the energy density of the universe until late times. We can’t yet say much of anything about how much it varies with time, if at all. All that we can say is that it doesn’t vary much with space, as that is a basic requirement of the fact that it causes this acceleration, if it’s dark energy at all and not merely a misunderstanding of gravity.

  • Jay

    Sean,

    What are your opinions on the idea of a cyclic universe as proposed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok?

    As a layperson some of the arguments they put forward regarding some of the “cludges” in inflationary theory seem compelling.

  • Bjoern

    @NeilB:
    Your question about the quantization of redshift is addressed in section 3f of the page Sean linked to above (“Evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming”).

    WRT your other question, a graph of the electric field strength of an electron, I can’t help much. I haven’t seen such a graph anywhere so far, IIRC. But you can find e. g. formulas for how the electrostatic potential depends on distance in essentially all books on Quantum Field Theory…

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/sean/ Sean

    Jay, I think that inflation has serious holes that need to be filled, but I don’t think the cyclic cosmology does a good job of it. Even more fine-tuning is involved, and various miracles need to occur at the bouncing part of the evolution.

  • http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com Neil B

    Thanks Bjoern for the tips. Here is some scoop for TimG et al on the physical properties of DE/Lambda: “/. If / is truly intrinsic to space, then it has units of relative acceleration per distance, i.e. m*/m or s^-2. That provides an acceleration “intrinsic to space” that competes with gravity for the net result. Well, if you’re immersed in a substance of uniform density rho, then acceleration relative to a given center is g = (4/3)pi*G*rho*r, which has the same units. Hence a given value of / cancels out a given density of matter-energy, but I do note that things are even more complicated since DE itself adds an additional effective mass density to the universe (as per “field energy” – compare the electrostatic energy when repulsive charge is collected together.)

    So we have to be careful when talking about “effect of DE being constant” – if the value of / is constant, it’s effects per unit distance do indeed stay the same, but its effect on a give galaxy increase as that galaxy moves farther away.

    That is basically what Einstein had in mind when he first conceived /: he wanted a steady state universe where g and / were balanced. However, a constant / makes that unstable since if the universe gets a little bigger than for equilibrium, then / remains weaker as things recede, but if it ever gets smaller, then there’s an inevitable collapse. What I don’t get is, it seems that Einstein thought the universe in such an equilibrium would still be a “hypersphere” of finite volume due to gravity-induced space curvature – but, wouldn’t DE act like an effective reverse-gravity and therefore make the net result an effectively flat space? I wonder if all this has been properly worked out.

    For example, DE would provide an actual tension on a string if the mutual masses were the same, since relative force (“relative” due to inertial relativity) due to DE:
    f = /mr but the force between the bodies is f = Gm1m1/r^2. Hence / is only an effective blanket correction to gravity in a medium of uniform density. Also it seems DE has to affect net redshift somehow in addition to that from expansion and gravity, otherwise: I could let out a mass on a string and collect work (however small) from it’s / tug over the distance. Then if I could convert the mass into energy and send it back w/o redshift, I could keep letting out the same mass – it would be a PM machine. Was I the first to think of that – not likely, let me know what you know or think.

  • Count Iblis

    Neil, by taking into account one loop correction to the photon propagator, one can write the modified Coulomb potential for a charge q as:

    $latex V(r) = frac{q}{4pivarepsilon_{0}r}Q(r)$

    where

    $latex Q(r)=1+frac{2alpha}{3pi}int_{1}^{infty}du e^{-2mru}left(1+frac{1}{2u^{2}}right)frac{sqrt{u^{2}-1}}{u^{2}}$

    Here m is the electron mass and we use natural units in the integral, m is the same as the inverse Compton length mc/hbar.

    For r much larger than 1/m , Q(r) becomes:

    $latex Q(r) = 1 + frac{alpha}{4sqrt{pi (m r)^3}}e^{-2mr}$

    For r much smaller than 1/m, Q(r) becomes:

    $latex Q(r) = 1 – frac{alpha}{3pi}left[2log(mr)+2gamma+frac{5}{3}right] $

    where $latex gamma$ is Euler’s constant.

  • Wil

    Forgive my ignorance, but can somebody tell me if there is a Big Bang theory that fits with all current astronomical measurement data, that does NOT include a period of super-fast inflation?

    I find faster-than-light inflation a very big pill to swallow.

  • Jason Dick

    Wil,

    Inflation doesn’t occur faster than light. The units are wrong. That’s like saying that a car is traveling faster than 3000rpm. It makes no sense. Now, the car’s engine might be rotating faster than 3000rpm, but that doesn’t directly connect to the car’s speed.

    Inflation is similar: the speed of inflation is given in units of speed per distance, or equivalently inverse time. A number in 1/s simply cannot possibly be faster (or slower) than the speed of light. That claim makes no sense at all. Now, the expansion during inflation is incredibly fast, but there is no difference whatsoever in how the speed of light effects the expansion then as compared to the much slower expansion now. The main difference is that during inflation, in the simplest model, there is a type of matter that is acting very much like a cosmological constant, but at a very high energy density. This is pretty speculative, but there are no hints that it’s invalid.

    As for how strongly confirmed it is, I would say that the general features of inflation, namely a period of extremely fast accelerated expansion in the early universe whose energy later decays into standard model particles, are pretty strongly confirmed by now. Now, the theory of inflation is a bit more than that: it posits a rather specific model for what specifically causes this expansion. That part of it is still pretty speculative, but the expansion itself seems to be on pretty firm ground. There is a [i]possibility[/i] that there was a varying speed of light, instead of a faster expansion, but that idea brings up more problems than it solves, and seems unlikely.

  • Wil

    Jason,

    Thanks for your response. Perhaps I should be more specific. I have seen it theorized in a few articles that our universe (space, matter and energy) inflated from a pinpoint to a diameter of at least 20 billion light-years in a couple of seconds, then abruptly “slowed down” to roughly its current rate of expansion. They called this theory Inflation.

    This astonishing concept seemed to be the only way to address certain problems with the Big Bang Theory, and this is what I meant by faster-than-light expansion. I repeat my question: can anybody tell me if there is a Big Bang theory that fits with all current astronomical measurement data, that does NOT include a period of super-fast inflation?

  • Jason Dick

    Wil,

    If you want to judge whether or not the theory is reasonable, you have to pay attention to the physical processes at work. Here’s a basic, basic rundown of inflation.

    1. The universe is dominated by a field (dubbed the ‘inflaton’). In simple models, this inflaton field is just a scalar field (the simplest possible) that evolves with some effective potential energy. The shape of the potential, combined with the total energy in the field, makes it so that it acts very much like a cosmological constant with a very high energy density (note: we should be able to measure the level of this energy density within the next few years by measuring the polarization of the CMB more accurately). During this epoch, the universe expands at an extraordinary rate, and the zero-point fluctuations in the inflaton field get blown up to very large sizes. In fact, because the expansion rate is nearly constant with time, they quickly reach sizes that are large enough that the speed of light prevents them from oscillating: they become frozen.

    2. Though the expansion of the universe slows the field’s evolution down, so that it isn’t able to reach the minimum of its potential right away, it eventually gets there. Once it does reach the minimum, the field oscillates about the minimum, which causes it to decay into standard model particles. This decay of the inflaton field causes the energy density that was stored in the field to become radiation-like energy density. Radiation tends to act against the expansion of the universe, and so once this field decays, the acceleration of the universe turns off, and deceleration sets in.

    3. As the universe slows its expansion, the zero point fluctuations that were frozen earlier begin to oscillate again, as with a slower expansion rate now the speed of light has enough time to pass between the peak and the trough. Because all of these oscillations started off from a stationary position, they form an interference pattern. This interference pattern can be seen in the CMB, and is exactly as we would expect from inflation.

    Your objections are somewhat understandable if you just completely ignore the physics that is causing these effects. But they just don’t hold up when you actually delve into those causes. Now, inflation isn’t without its own problems. It’s just that the problems you mention simply are not issues with the theory at all. What you need to be aware of is that you just can’t use your physical intuition developed here on Earth to decide whether or not something that happens extremely far outside your experience is reasonable or not. And the early universe is very far outside everybody’s experience.

    Now, it seems to me that your objection has to do with this idea that something can expand to be many light years across after only a tiny fraction of a second has passed. The fact of the matter is that this does not violate any principle of relativity. Relativity places no restrictions at all upon how fast space can expand. The restriction is, instead, that no object with mass can ever outrun a photon. But this doesn’t happen in a rapidly expanding universe, because the photons are carried along with the expansion.

  • Pingback: Everything you know is wrong - or is it ? « The e-Astronomer

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Cosmic Variance

Random samplings from a universe of ideas.

About Sean Carroll

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. His most recent book is The Particle at the End of the Universe, about the Large Hadron Collider and the search for the Higgs boson. Here are some of his favorite blog posts, home page, and email: carroll [at] cosmicvariance.com .

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »