Applying the uncertinty principle to the big bang

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the application of the uncertainty principle to the Big Bang, questioning its relevance. While some participants express skepticism about the connection, others highlight the intuitive link between quantum uncertainty and the nature of the universe. John Archibald Wheeler's attempts to quantize the geometry of the Big Bang aimed to resolve its singularity but ultimately failed. Various theories, including the "big bounce" cosmology, propose that prior collapses could lead to new expansions, suggesting a cyclical nature of the universe. Ongoing research continues to explore these concepts, with significant work in loop quantum gravity and related models.
DavidFi
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I wonder how to apply the uncertinty principle to the big bang?
 
Space news on Phys.org
DavidFi said:
I wonder how to apply the uncertinty principle to the big bang?

I don't see that there is any relevance. Why do you think there is?
 
phinds said:
I don't see that there is any relevance...

It's an interesting question. There might be relevance at the intuitive level. You know how intuitively the principle of uncertainty in a way epitomizes the quantum nature of matter---that you ultimately cannot "pin nature down".

John Archibald Wheeler (Feynman's mentor at Princeton) had the idea that it you could quantize nature's geometry it would resolve the big bang singularity. (Also the black hole collapse singularity would be resolved, he had the idea of a "bounce" due to quantum effects.)

However Wheeler's attempt to quantize the equation of the big bang failed to resolve the singularity. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation. It was, I guess, mankind's first QG equation. (quantum geometry/gravity, same thing). It was hoped to resolve the bang and hole singularities but did not.

Lee Smolin did a postdoc at Princeton, where Wheeler was, and as I recall he said got the idea of a QG bounce from Wheeler. A black hole collapse might bounce and result in a new expanding region of spacetime. Our big bang might be the result of a prior collapse. Intuitively because nature resists final absolute definition.

Now of course Wheeler is gone but his program has been pursued along many lines. There are several climbing parties trying to get up the QG mountain. A "big bounce" resolution of the initial singularity has been derived in several different ways, including in a string context. And that is just one way that a theory of QG might resolve the classical singularities of GR.

Someone has written a review paper of all the different "big bounce" cosmologies people have worked on. I'll hunt it down if anyone is interested. The best-known is probably the Loop cosmology one, it has had the most work done on it and has been developed in considerable detail. Computer modeling, equation models, many cases considered including with positive cosmological constant.
A recent paper derives "deSitter space" (a nonsingular bouncing solution to Gen Rel), but that is just one case of many that have been studied.

If curious, google "bianchi cosmic constant spinfoam" and get http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4049
Cosmological constant in spinfoam cosmology
Eugenio Bianchi, Thomas Krajewski, Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto
(Submitted on 20 Jan 2011)
We consider a simple modification of the amplitude defining the dynamics of loop quantum gravity, corresponding to the introduction of the cosmological constant, and possibly related to the SL(2,C)q extension of the theory recently considered by Fairbairn-Meusburger and Han. We show that in the context of spinfoam cosmology, this modification yields the de Sitter cosmological solution.
4 pages

[:biggrin: Google is smart enough to search "cosmological" if you say "cosmic", so if you feel lazy and want to save typing extra letters you can tell it "cosmic constant" even though the officially correct term is cosmological constant.]
...
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
464
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top