Before the Big Bang

topic posted Wed, December 17, 2008 - 7:31 AM by  Curry
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
December 16th, 2008
More Thoughts (and now math!) On What Came Before the Big Bang
Written by Nancy Atkinson


CMB Timeline. Credit: NASA

Physicist Sean Carroll gave a wonderful talk at the June 2008 American Astronomical Society meeting about his "speculative research" on what possibly could have existed before The Big Bang. (Here's an article about Carroll's talk.) But now Carroll and some colleagues have done a bit more than just speculate about what might have come before the beginning of our Universe. Carroll, along with Caltech professor Marc Kamionkowski and graduate student Adrienne Erickcek have created a mathematical model to explain an anomaly in the early universe, and it also may shed light on what existed before the Big Bang. "It's no longer completely crazy to ask what happened before the Big Bang," said Kamionkowski.

Inflation theory, first proposed in 1980, states that space expanded exponentially in the instant following the Big Bang. "Inflation starts the universe with a blank slate," Erickcek describes. The problem with inflation, however, is that it predicts the universe began uniformly.

But measurements from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) show that the fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) –the electromagnetic radiation that permeated the universe 400,000 years after the Big Bang — are about 10% stronger on one side of the sky than on the other.


WMAP map of the CMB. Credit: WMAP team

"It's a certified anomaly," Kamionkowski remarks. "But since inflation seems to do so well with everything else, it seems premature to discard the theory." Instead, the team worked with the theory in their math addressing the asymmetry, since one explanation for this "heavy-on-one-side universe" would be if these fluctuations represented a structure left over from something that produced our universe.

They started by testing whether the value of a single energy field thought to have driven inflation, called the inflaton, was different on one side of the universe than the other. It didn't work–they found that if they changed the mean value of the inflaton, then the mean temperature and amplitude of energy variations in space also changed. So they explored a second energy field, called the curvaton, which had been previously proposed to give rise to the fluctuations observed in the CMB. They introduced a perturbation to the curvaton field that turns out to affect only how temperature varies from point to point through space, while preserving its average value.

The new model predicts more cold than hot spots in the CMB, Kamionkowski says. Erickcek adds that this prediction will be tested by the Planck satellite, an international mission led by the European Space Agency with significant contributions from NASA, scheduled to launch in April 2009.

For Erickcek, the team's findings hold the key to understanding more about inflation. "Inflation is a description of how the universe expanded," she adds. "Its predictions have been verified, but what drove it and how long did it last? This is a way to look at what happened during inflation, which has a lot of blanks waiting to be filled in."

But the perturbation that the researchers introduced may also offer the first glimpse at what came before the Big Bang, because it could be an imprint inherited from the time before inflation. "All of that stuff is hidden by a veil, observationally," Kamionkowski says. "If our model holds up, we may have a chance to see beyond this veil."

Source: Caltech
posted by:
Curry
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Before the Big Bang

    Wed, December 17, 2008 - 1:32 PM
    Investigations into what could have been before the putative Big Bang may shed some light on another anomaly. The best estimate for the age of at least one structure in our own Milky Way Galaxy is on the order of 16 billion years. Yet the concensus view is that the universe is only 13.7 bilion years old. How to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory figures?

    Analogy. When paleontologists estimate the age of an Australian fossil at 500 million years, what does it mean that the atoms comprising the fossil suddenly sprang into existence 500 million years ago? No, it simply means that if one had stepped into a tardis, and gone back in time just a tad more than 500 million years to make the actual observation, one would see that the configuration of those particular atoms was appreciably different. Similarly, when we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we mean that it was significantly different than it is today.
    • Re: Before the Big Bang

      Wed, December 17, 2008 - 2:37 PM
      No, when one says that the universe is 13.7 billion years old they mean it is 13.7 billion years old. It is exactly the same as when we say someone is 15 years old. That 13.7 billion years old is an estimate.
      • Re: Before the Big Bang

        Wed, December 17, 2008 - 3:12 PM
        Not so fast! I think that you're investing too much power in the word "is". Let's consider the statement: This kangaroo is 6 years old. (It's a better example than the age of a human.) It could mean at least 4 different things.
        1. the post-birth time.
        2. the post-conception time.
        3. As you probably know, adult female kangaroos are perpetually pregnant. While one joey is nursing, there's another embryo waiting in the wings. The 6 years could be the elapsed time since a dormant embryo went into growth mode.
        4. If you believe in reincarnation, it could be your estimate of the age of the soul inhabiting that particular kangaroo body.

        Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're skeptical about the existence of a 'pre-universe'. Yes? If so, I'd be interested in knowing why. Cosmologists and astrophysicists are fond of building elaborate theoretical sand castles that are light years--if you'll pardon the bad pun--ahead of the data. Is this qualitatively different?
        • Re: Before the Big Bang

          Wed, December 17, 2008 - 5:44 PM
          "it sounds like you're skeptical about the existence of a 'pre-universe'."

          Irrelevant. Even if one believes in a "pre-universe" or not, there is a time from which this universe can be said to begin, usually at the point where expansion begins, and it is that measure to which the age of the universe is applied. And you know that, anything else is arguing for the sake of arguing - no thanks.
          • Re: Before the Big Bang

            Wed, December 17, 2008 - 6:02 PM
            Troy wrote:
            "Even if one believes in a "pre-universe" or not, there is a time from which this universe can be said to begin, usually at the point where expansion begins, and it is that measure to which the age of the universe is applied. And you know that, anything else is arguing for the sake of arguing - no thanks."

            Sorry about that. You may be overestimating my knowledge in this area. However sometimes I feel that anything worth doing is worth beating to death.
      • Re: Before the Big Bang

        Sun, December 21, 2008 - 12:31 AM
        It's been proposed that the universe is much older than a possible 15 billion years. The 15 billion years, where the fringe of the universe speeds away from us at the speed of light may only be that part of the universe we're able to observe, that mankind will ever be able to observe. Information outside of the edge of that sphere is simply not available to us because none of the light will ever make its way to us. So it's possible, even likely that the universe is infinitely older than a fleeting 15 billion years. From our perspective those beings coming up on the 15 billion light year mark with respect to us (if, of course, there are any) are appearing to become pure energy. Yet from their perspective they're just moseying along, no big deal really, and once they get to that line of demarcation - well, we will (from their perspective) disappear for them as well.
        • Re: Before the Big Bang

          Sun, December 21, 2008 - 9:01 AM
          Charles,

          Although you are correct, there could be a part of the universe that we can never see that is older then what we see as the age of the universe, and what I'm about to say about "before the big bang" scenarios. From a scientific point of view, a difference has to make a difference to be a difference. In other words, if no information gets to us from the "older universe" then it might as well not exist (this also applies to parallel universes). Please don't take this as saying I don't think it is interesting to consider the possibility of an "older universe."
          • Re: Before the Big Bang

            Tue, December 23, 2008 - 3:30 AM
            Possibly the matter waves of an older universe came all the way up to the singularity of the big bang at one point. Possibly the space we now attribute as our universe was propagated by the matter of the big daddy, and the force of that colossal explosion just swept it away just as a storm clears the air.

            I get the sense sometimes that what we think of as our universe is nothing but what we've proposed as a type of black hole. Here we are right in the middle of one. I read a similar thought recently in a book by Leonard Susskin.

            "In every direction that we look, galaxies are passiing the point of no return at which they are moving away from us faster than light can travel. Each of us is surrounded by a cosmic horizon... at about 15 billion light years, our cosmic horizon is swallowing galaxies, stars, and probably even life. It is as if we all live in our own private inside-out black hole."

            Possibly our vantage point from the inside is a little messed up, and maybe at the horizon of our universe light and matter are working their way in. Who knows what goes on exactly at that curtain that surrounds us?
            • Re: Before the Big Bang

              Tue, December 23, 2008 - 9:10 AM
              Charles, As we look out, we see the past, not the future. We can see all the way back to almost the beginning. The background radiation that we see started about 400,000 years after the big bang. Before that everything was to thick for light to propagate. There is no horizon we see that is swallowing anything. The galaxies receding at close to light speed are not actually moving at that speed through space. They would see us as receding close to light speed yet we are not moving through space at close to light speed. All this receding is only coming from more space expanding between us. A good thing to remember is that where it all started is right here in our past, the same as everyplace else. Also we are the edge that is expanding, the same as everyplace else. We are not being swallowed up.
              In a way you could say (I'll get in trouble for saying this) we are moving into our future.
              • Re: Before the Big Bang

                Tue, December 23, 2008 - 6:19 PM
                Yes, Curry, we look out and see the past, but it is a past of somewhere else, and the many pasts coming to us from all directions form our present.

                "The galaxies receding at close to light speed are not actually moving at that speed through space. They would see us as receding close to light speed yet we are not moving through space at close to light speed. All this receding is only coming from more space expanding between us. ..."

                I tend to view this a little differently. I agree that they would see us receding at the speed of light, and I think it's possible, even likely, that a person living on what we would take to be the edge of our visible universe would think that their local frame was near the center of what they thought to be the center of the universe.

                One possibility of our thinking that our universe was expanding might be that this perception is erroneous. Lets say there was another universe adjacent to ours, sort of like two crystal balls butted up against one another side by side, and that we both, Charles and Curry, resided at the outer edge of each of our respective universes with relation to each other. From my thinking - from each of our local perspectives we would see our own universes expanding. Now say where these two universes come together with one another that there's a large sphere of matter going from my universe toward yours. One of us would see the object moving away and finally disappearing, yet it would instantly appear in the other universe - but of course that observation wouldn't be made until some 15 billion years into the future. Yet even though it would appear in the other universe, for that person the object would appear as though it was receding from them at, or near the speed of light.

                Now if you're still following, you'll see that something is the matter. What I'm proposing is that there's some distortion in our perception, and that from wherever we reside in the form we've evolved into that we'll observe that what we perceive of the universe at the boundaries of our perception will appear to be receding from us at speeds approaching the speed of light. Yet, it's likely that it goes on forever.
                • Re: Before the Big Bang

                  Tue, December 23, 2008 - 8:09 PM
                  Charles you wrote: "we look out and see the past, but it is a past of somewhere else, and the many pasts coming to us from all directions form our present." A very interesting view. I like that.

                  Note that if any other place in our observable universe was an actual center of expansion, then it would be easy for us to see that from the motions of the galaxies. We do not see anything like that.

                  I think our best guess is what we see and can measure. If you want to think that our perception is erroneous, then anything you want to make up is possible. I am going to stick with what we see and can measure as our best guess.
                  We just do not see us or anything else moving into another universe or any evidence of another universe.

                  You wrote: "What I'm proposing is that there's some distortion in our perception, " and " it's likely that it goes on forever." Well anything could be likely if our perception is distorted. Again I am going to stick with what we see and can measure as our best guess. Charles, you can believe anything you want. : ))))
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Before the Big Bang

                    Tue, December 23, 2008 - 10:39 PM
                    A useful analogy, though flawed by its lack of dimension:

                    Consider a balloon, yes I mean the piece of rubber not the air within it.
                    Put a few marks on the balloon with a felt tipped pen to represent galaxies.
                    Blow up the balloon while observing how the points move away from each other.

                    Each point on the balloon appears to be the center of expansion (as measured along the surface of the balloon).

                    The universe that we live in behaves in a similar way, but it has more dimensions then the two of the balloon.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Before the Big Bang

                    Wed, December 24, 2008 - 12:24 PM
                    Troy:
                    "a type of blackhole"

                    Maybe you could expound upon this a bit.

                    Curry:

                    "if any other place in our observable universe was an actual center of expansion"

                    Well, one of the problems is that our observations are tied to the near-local field. For instance, we don't know how fast c is moving out there near the edge of what we characterize as the fringe of our observable universe, and this doesn't even take into account the measurement problem - which I personally consider a most exciting issue, and from what I can see, one that's still poorly understood. Currently there's not a legitimate mathematical formulation that takes into account the effects of all the forces, so something is missing. It may be something simple or what may be required is a radical shift in our approach to what makes things tick. I don't know for sure and I don't necessarily believe in anything science has some up with currently as being the final answer, not to exclude my own sophomoric theoretical treatments. I have a respect for science and I've gained some familiarity with the more commonly accepted perspectives related to cosmology and the quantum. Yet, there are a lot of competing theories out there, and from what I can see there are quite a few renowned and respected physicists that have proposed new ways of looking at things, or at least avenues which ought to be explored. Even Einstein went to his deathbed with an abundance of lingering doubts as to the then current reasoning with respect to the very small and very large.

                    The belief that our universe is the only universe to me is a most human-centric perspective, and personally one that could change radically in what's left of my lifetime, at least I sure hope so. But, don't worry, I'm not currently betting any money on it.

                    Best Holiday Wishes to you both et al
                    • Re: Before the Big Bang

                      Thu, December 25, 2008 - 9:04 AM
                      Charles,
                      We can observe the brightest parts in all of the universe almost all the way back to the beginning. What we can not see is the way those distant galaxies are now. In enough time we should see close galaxies the way they are now since they are not racing away, . More distant galaxies should be moving away due to expansion faster than light speed by now , so we may never be able to see the way they are now. Over time they will just dim and then fade away. Someday we may not be able to see all the way back to the beginning.

                      Yes science has a lot to learn and can change it's view with new evidence. Like finding solid evidence that the expansion rate is speeding up. That changed out view of the universe and left us wondering about dark energy.

                      Your statement: "there are a lot of competing theories out there" is not really accurate. There are no competing theory to the basic "big bang" theory. The "big bang" theory has lots and lots of evidence to support it and is generally accepted by most of the science community. Yes there are other theories, but not supported by significant evidence or accepted by the general science community. This is not what I would call "competing" theories like they held the same level of evidence or acceptance. There really is no competition to the big bang theory at this time. There are just other ideas, some interesting.

                      Yes there will always be things to explore. Glade you are not betting money. You must be smarter than Hawkin. He tends to loose his bets. : )))
                      Holiday Greetings to all.
                      • Re: Before the Big Bang

                        Thu, December 25, 2008 - 11:25 AM
                        "there are a lot of competing theories out there"

                        More to the point, they all (those created by professional physicists in the field) contain a version of the big bang and the reduce to the rules we know (general relativity and cosmology) as one gets further away from the "big bang."
                      • Re: Before the Big Bang

                        Fri, December 26, 2008 - 2:45 PM
                        Curry, not that I want to ring dissonant bells during these Holiday moments, but when you make a statement like -

                        "More distant galaxies should be moving away due to expansion faster than light speed by now , so we may never be able to see the way they are now."

                        - you are opening a can of worms and raising some very good questions. A few might be:

                        You seem to be indicating that there may be motion faster than the speed of light with respect to an initially local frame of reference.

                        We can push this a step further and question if something (whether matter or energy) is actually able to move faster than c with respect to an initial frame then (assuming we will lose access to it) where will it go? Will it possibly become part of a compacted dimension? Or will it become part of a future, a future that will never be accessible at any point in time to the original local frame even when the initial frame is adjusted for time? To propose that something will be positioned on a world-line that is inaccessible to something else on another world-line echos the ring of a Many World type of scenario. But even if you don't want to go that far, it certainly at least opens a conversation for the possibility of another universe, or that our universe could be but a tiny budding in a far greater megaverse.

                        The above reflections deal with the very large. And similarly, competing theories or highly speculative treatments have been proposed for the very small. And such ideas related to the big and small have been and continue to be proposed by very sharp people, some well respected in the physics community - at least so it appears from my novice perspective.

                        I take no issue with the concept of the Big Bang. Definitely something happened back then, and a lot of people have done a great deal of work characterized the event and its aftermath - an aftermath in which we appear to be more or less suspended in. Yet our observations from within this suspension are influenced by the medium in which we're immersed, and it remains unclear (at least to me) from where this singularity originally derived from - though I sent a subspace message to Spock, and I'll let you know what he has to say when he gets back.
                        • Re: Before the Big Bang

                          Fri, December 26, 2008 - 8:41 PM
                          Charles,
                          The galaxies are not moving through space faster than light. The expansion of space would make it look like they are receeding faster than light, so we actually can not see them. We would appear the same way to them yet we are not moving through space at any kind of light speed or faster. It is only an increase in distance from expansion.

                          I do not think that limits to what we can see in our universe make things in another universe. Just because we only see the sun the way it was eight minutes ago does not make the way the sun is now in another universe.

                          Yes it also remains unclear to me where all this came from. Let me know what Spock has to say. : ))
                          • Re: Before the Big Bang

                            Sat, December 27, 2008 - 3:43 PM
                            To my understanding the radius of our universe is approximately 15 billion light years. This edge, this inner spherical surface from our perspective, at this edge is reaching the speed of light. If you envisioned a ray from what was thought to be our universe's center and made the distinction that this would be our local frame then it would be like a stretched rubber band extending to the horizon. Though, it appears at roughly the location of this hypothetical edge that the expansion rate reaches c. And *some* consider this to be the boundary of our universe. Yet, it may be attributed to a boundary only because beyond that boundary there's movement exceeding c and consequently we would not be able to receive light if the expansion was in excess of c.

                            So, from our local frame if we were able to continually accelerate an object, at some point it would achieve the speed of light with respect to the local frame placed at its departure point. It would freeze and disappear to anyone at the departure point that had been keeping track of it. Yet, from it's own far frame (at the original departure point) we would also become a 2D flat surface and disappear. But, from the local frame of the object distant to us in the far field, if an observer was there inside that object, it would be business as usual for them and it would appear to them from their local frame that they could go on accelerating forever, and incoming light would be inward bound to them at c from all directions.

                            Consequently, with respect to an expanding universe - ours or anyone else's - the boundary assigned at a local frame to such a universe is that horizon at which the acceleration of an object reaches the speed of light with respect to that original local frame, and this pseudo-boundary is not real; it just means that it lies at the location where we're incapable of tracking it with our current technology, or possibly any technology we'll acquire in the future.

                            I'll add that there appears to be a major disagreement as to the way we are looking at these concepts, and I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm right or vice versa. Yet, there's clearly a gap. Just ideas.

                            The word is that Spock is working uncover in the Alpha Quadrant and maintaining radio silence.
                            • Re: Before the Big Bang

                              Sat, December 27, 2008 - 4:11 PM
                              "To my understanding the radius of our universe is approximately 15 billion light years."

                              A correction, the radius of our OBSERVABLE universe is approximately 13.6 billion light years. What that means is if one where to instantly transport ones elf to that "edge," one would still have an observable universe 13.6 billion light years in radius. The real question is: how many many of those hops does one have to make before returning to where they started (a real possibility in a flat manifold universe)?

                              Stop with the "universe's center" already - there isn't one. What you need to be saying is "our position in the universe."
                            • Re: Before the Big Bang

                              Sat, December 27, 2008 - 4:22 PM
                              Also, drop the constant acceleration to the speed of light, the mechanics don't work. Another issue arises with long term acceleration, even if it is only a small acceleration; namely one needs to use general relativity instead of special relative and include expansion in ones analysis. In short, one can't compare local frames for long the way you are Charles.
                              • Re: Before the Big Bang

                                Sun, December 28, 2008 - 12:59 AM
                                Troy, appreciate your corrections and your providing me with a couple hours of homework.

                                "one can't compare local frames for long the way you are"

                                I was assuming that an observer from their vantage point would always be in a local frame with respect to their own local observation. In other words a local observation of something in the far field would be local from their individual perspective. Is this an incorrect assumption?
                                • Re: Before the Big Bang

                                  Sun, December 28, 2008 - 9:52 AM
                                  "I was assuming that an observer from their vantage point would always be in a local frame with respect to their own local observation. In other words a local observation of something in the far field would be local from their individual perspective. Is this an incorrect assumption?"

                                  That part is correct, however acceleration and expansion at the distant point confound your analysis. Expansion redshifts (and that is the key you are missing - the objects don't disappear but are redshifted to ever longer wavelengths) as does acceleration, put together they will make your constantly accelerating object "disappear" long before it ever gets to the edge of the visible universe. BTW the radius of the visible universe does increase every year by one light year.

Recent topics in "Cosmology"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Cosmological Model Curry 0 November 6, 2009
My cosmos died William 1 September 29, 2009
WMAP top 10 Curry 1 August 12, 2009
Cosmic Distance Curry 0 June 9, 2009