| Thread Closed |
Inflation |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Dec12-05, 11:33 AM | #1 |
|
|
Inflation
Hey, I'm doing a discussion/essay for uni on the Inflation proscess during the big bang. I'm not looking for facts/figures, thats what the uni wants me to do
but I'd like to hear a little chat about other peoples views other than reading books. So who thinks its true/false or any better ideas? Personally it seems to solve alot of problems with the big bang model when its used but I've never been sure how this extra energy suddenly comes about? "Quantum Vacumn"? Or a change in the breaking of the 4 forces. Where does the engery come from in these? |
| Dec12-05, 12:48 PM | #2 |
|
|
Hi JohnnyTheFox!
Inflation has certainly been accepted now as an incontrovertible part of mainstream cosmology. It does as you say resolve several problems of GR cosmology: 1. The smoothness problem - why is the universe, a product of the big bang, so homogeneous yet not completely homogeneous so that large scale structures, galaxies, stars, planets and eventually us, could form within it? 2. The density problem - why is the observed density of the universe close to the critical value that separates the open and closed Friedmann models of GR cosmology? It is so close to call that even after 70 years of research no one is sure whether it is open or closed. Yet the deceleration of the universe's expansion should have driven the actual density away from the critical density by around 60 orders of magnitude! 3. The horizon problem - Why is the universe so isotropic that observations of one part of the sky look very similar to the opposite part? The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is isotropic to one part in 105, yet in the earliest stages of the BB these separated regions were too far away from each other for light, and therefore any information, to get from one to the other! Inflation not only resolves these problems by saying that on top of the normal expansion there was a phase change in the "Higgs field" at 10-33sec. after BB causing the universe to expand explosively and exponentially by a factor of about 1060. This smeared out any inhomogeneities, forced the density down onto the critical value to a very high precision and threw apart causally connected regions to opposite ends of our present sky! Inflation also produced most of the mass of the universe 'out of a hat' - not quite a free lunch, but certainly a very cheap one! A further benefit if the hypothesis is that it also separates out primordial magnetic monopoles that are predicted by GUT's, thus explaining their non-observance. Inflation predicts the present density of the universe should be very close to the critical value and that space should be 'flat'. The COBE/WMAP data seems to verify this prediction, although as I have constantly said the data actually only verify that the universe is spatially conformally flat. However what are the problems with Inflation? First there is debate as to whether it actually does solve the initial conditions problem completely. It certainly alleviates the problem but still rather special initial conditions are required to produce the homogeneous and isotropic universe we see today. Successful Supersymmetric Inflation Furthermore, mainstream Big Bang cosmology having resolved its smoothness/density/horizon/ problems with Inflation then required the further speculative additions of non-baryonic Dark Matter and then Dark Energy. Together this heady mix does produce a theory, the LambdaCDM model, which is concordant with observations but at the price of introducing new physics that has not been verified in the laboratory. Given these caveats are there any other alternatives? The major alternative to Inflation is the “Freely Coasting” Cosmology model. (FCM) The smoothness/density/horizon/ problems of the decelerating Friedmann models do not exist in the first place in a strictly linearly expanding model, which does not require exotic Dark Matter or Dark Energy either! If the FCM should pan out then Inflation/exotic DM and DE will be remembered as examples of a modern day set of epicycles invoked to 'save the appearances' of the Mainstream model! Garth |
| Dec12-05, 12:58 PM | #3 |
|
|
Inflation does another, very important thing: it generates density perturbations that are frozen at superhorizon scales and reenter the horizon afterwards, generating coherent oscillations in the matter-radiation fluid before recombination. This leads to a series of peaks in the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background, which are actually observed. Within standard physics I am not aware of any other mechanism than inflation that is able to generate coherent oscillations.
|
| Dec12-05, 02:20 PM | #4 |
|
|
InflationI hope this helps. Garth |
| Dec12-05, 05:24 PM | #5 |
|
|
Thats some reply! Very helpful thanks. Sums up all the mains points nicley. I'm understanding its uses and how works with all our observations. It's what exactly happens at this phase change I don't quite get just yet.
You meantioned a change in the Higgs Field? At the moment I see it as a liquid supercooling so leaving an unstable state with enegry to spare. I've also read that the expansion is from a "false vacum", a field of constant anti particle and particle collisions giving it a net 0 energy. Is this the same as the Higgs Field? How does this result in an expansion force? I've got some books on loan but they go from a nice little intro in some rather heavy maths I can't follow yet with little description of whats acctuly going on. |
| Dec12-05, 05:58 PM | #6 |
|
|
First one aspect of GR cosmology that is conter-intuitive: adding pressure to the universe makes its expansion slow down! This is because pressure is a form of energy (actually stress-energy) that has a mass equivalent and produces even more gravitational force than without it, as a consequence a universe dominated by radiation decelerates faster than dominated by dust.
The radiation dominated universe expands according to [tex]R(t) = t^\frac{1}{2}[/tex] whereas the dust dominated (no pressure) universe expands according to [tex]R(t) = t^\frac{2}{3}[/tex]. The Higgs field is measured by the Higgs potential, which has a valley-like slope. The universe begins with the Higgs potential high up on one side of the valley and a short time after BB the potential rolls down to the bottom of the valley releasing potential energy. However this is a negative pressure vacuum energy density, and the field deposits a large, temporary negative pressure, a tension into cosmological space-time. This negative pressure causes the universe to expand exponentially and explosively for a very short time, (between 10-35 and 10-33 second after BB,) during which the universe expands by a factor ~ 1060. Note: the way the Higgs field 'rolls down the valley' and exits from the inflationary period has to be fine tuned to reproduce the observed features of the universe. I hope this helps! Garth |
| Dec12-05, 07:49 PM | #7 |
|
|
|
| Dec12-05, 08:09 PM | #8 |
|
Recognitions:
|
I think Space Tiger is correct. Generally, single field inflation models require what is thought to be unrealistic fine tuning of the inflaton parameters but who knows. I know some hybrid models are very popular amongst the supersymmetry people and in these models a coupling between the inflaton and the Higgs can arise naturally. The supersymmetry provides for the flat false vacuum which is important for slow roll inflation. Also, these models contain various mechanisms for giving the Higgs a vacuum expectation value at the end of inflation. It's a nice picture, now if only we can find some supersymmetric particles ...
|
| Dec13-05, 01:22 AM | #9 |
|
|
You have to think of a potential field that can 'hold' the energy, Higgs was Guth's original suggestion, which leads to the fine tuning and the 'graceful exit' problems as I said above; but although we have not discovered the Higgs Boson at least we know about inertial mass!
You can replace the Higgs potential field with anything you care to suggest - try hard enough and you can multiply the entities to explain anything - and the generalised name for the particle required is the inflaton, but until something is discovered in laboratory physics you are just guessing! The prediction by Inflation of the Higgs Boson also includes any other 'Inflaton' - they all continue to be undiscovered by laboratory science. Garth |
| Dec13-05, 01:59 AM | #10 |
|
|
BTW ST - congratulations on your Guru award, you deserve it!
Garth |
| Dec13-05, 04:03 AM | #11 |
|
|
Unfortunately, it is possible (though somewhat ad hoc) to create a theory of inflation that produces an undetectable gravity wave signature. It's an extremely hard theory to kill, but then it's also hard to come up with a viable alternative (please don't link to your theory again). |
| Dec13-05, 05:29 AM | #12 |
|
|
Other competing models to inflation are the ekpyrotic cosmology and variable speed of light (VSL) cosmologies.There are however problems with the ekpyrotic theory such as those discussed in Inflationary Theory versus Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Scenario. And once the speed of light is allowed to vary there are problems in defining the process of cosmological measurement, clocks and rulers have to be carefully redefined. The question becomes: "What is it exactly that we are measuring?" Garth |
| Dec13-05, 05:51 AM | #13 |
|
|
Anyway, here's one of Dr. Steinhardt's most recent articles on the theory: The Cyclic Model Simplified Also, we've been discussing some of the properties of the cyclic universe in this thread: big bang, big crunch??? |
| Dec13-05, 09:13 AM | #14 |
|
|
|
| Dec13-05, 09:23 AM | #15 |
|
|
Garth |
| Dec13-05, 11:39 AM | #16 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Dec13-05, 04:54 PM | #17 |
|
Recognitions:
|
|
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Inflation
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| inflationary framework of the universe | Cosmology | 1 | ||
| universe expanded faster than the speed of light? | Cosmology | 1 | ||
| Condition for inflation presented by Liddle | Cosmology | 3 | ||
| Re: The end of inflation | General Physics | 12 | ||
| inflation | General Astronomy | 17 | ||