B What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter relatively-uncertain
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem asserts that any universe that has been in a state of cosmic inflation cannot be extended infinitely into the past, indicating that it must have had a beginning. This theorem highlights that even in an inflationary model, there are limits to how far back one can trace the universe's history without encountering singularities. It suggests that initial conditions must be imposed on spacetime, as the universe's matter density would increase when running time backward, eventually leading to a point where inflation ceases to be possible. While the BGV theorem aligns with the idea of a finite age for the universe, it also implies the existence of a singularity phase, which some scientists find problematic. The theorem does not conflict with the Hawking-Hartle model, as it allows for a preinflationary phase that can address what occurred before inflation began.
relatively-uncertain
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
My question is, what is the BGV theorem? and what exactly does it say?
I was watching A debate on cosmology where William Lane Craig uses the Borde, Guth and Vilenkin theorem to say the universe had a beginning.

I was wondering if someone could possibly explain the case of the BGV theorem and what it says?

Does this theorem make other cosmologies such as the Hawking-Hartle less likely than one that had a beginning?

If this subject has already been answered, could someone refer me to a link?
Thanks so much if you are able to help out :) !

Mentor note: edited to remove debate video reference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
The BGV theorem states that even in an inflationary universe, timelike and null geodesics are not past-complete, i.e., you cannot extend those geodesics to negative infinity within the spacetime itself. In essence and layman terms, this means that at some point you have to impose initial conditions on your spacetime or have your assumptions break down, e.g., by having the inflationary universe created through some sort of nucleation event in a larger spacetime.

The original reference is https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and relatively-uncertain
A super-basic explanation of how it operates is that during inflation, any irregularities get smoothed out. Any matter that exists gets diluted so much that it effectively disappears.

If you take this fact and run the clock backward, it means that unless the inflating universe is perfectly empty, then the other matter exists during inflation will, looking into the past, get more dense. Eventually it will get dense enough that inflation is no longer possible. This indicates that inflation cannot be extended infinitely into the past. It had to have a beginning at some point.

There is some debate as to whether or not this theorem actually applies to our universe.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, relatively-uncertain and PeterDonis
To restate what has already been said, an inflating universe cannot be regressed indefinitely into the past, or, In other words, an inflating universe has a beginning at some finite time in the past. It is pleasing in the sense it affirms the universe is of a finite age, which is logically consistent with all we know of it, but, unpleasantly disturbing in that it insists it at least passed through a singularity phase - which scientists have been desperately trying rid from the model. It is otherwise known as the Kinematic Incompleteness Theorem. For the original paper, and further discussion, see; https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete. It does not confilict with the Hawking-Hartle model because HH attempts to address what preceded inflation. Adding a preinflationary phase to the history of the universe sidesteps this pitfall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, relatively-uncertain and PeterDonis
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...
Back
Top