Why does inflation lead to a smaller universe at 380000 years?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of cosmic inflation on the size of the universe at 380,000 years after the Big Bang, particularly in comparison to predictions made by the standard Big Bang model. Participants explore the relationship between inflation and the universe's expansion, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects of this phenomenon.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that inflation leads to a slower initial expansion rate, which results in a smaller universe at 380,000 years compared to predictions from the Big Bang model alone.
  • Others argue that the early expansion during inflation is characterized by a rapid acceleration, which contrasts with the slowing expansion rate of a radiation-dominated universe.
  • A participant expresses confusion over a statement from Marcus Chown's book, questioning whether it implies that the universe would be smaller due to inflation or if it was a misinterpretation.
  • Some participants clarify that inflation occurred much earlier than 380,000 years after the Big Bang, specifically around E-36 seconds, and that the observable universe's size at that time may not align with Chown's claims.
  • One participant points out that the Hubble scale, which defines the observable universe, remains relatively unchanged during inflation, suggesting that Chown may be referring to the size of the observable universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the implications of inflation on the universe's size at 380,000 years, with no consensus reached on the accuracy of Chown's statement or the relationship between inflation and observable universe size.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of size in the context of inflation versus the Big Bang model, as well as the timing of inflation relative to the release of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

Thorslog
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Why does inflation mean that the universe was much smaller at 380000 years after the big bang than we would predict from the Big Bang model alone? What would we expect the two sizes to be?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Inflation simply means the universe is expanding as a function of time. Go backwards in time and it gets smaller.

Try a Google search to answer to the other question.
 
Thorslog said:
Why does inflation mean that the universe was much smaller at 380000 years after the big bang than we would predict from the Big Bang model alone? What would we expect the two sizes to be?
Well, I don't know about predicting a different size, but a universe that has an early period of inflation definitely takes longer to expand from the same seed size to the same late-time size. Not much longer, but some.

The reason is that with the classical big bang, where the only energy density that matters at very early times is radiation, the expansion rate is slowing down dramatically early-on. So the picture is one where at early times things are very hot, very dense, and with an incredibly fast expansion rate that is rapidly slowing.

With inflation, the opposite is happening. The dominant energy density is a form of dark energy that causes a very rapidly-accelerated expansion. So at very, very early times, the rate of expansion was actually quite slow, and was sped up to a high rate of expansion later. Because the early expansion was actually slower, it takes more time under an inflationary model for the same seed to expand the same amount.

However, the difference in expansion time is basically a tiny fraction of a second, so for all intents and purposes it does not matter. But it is an interesting conceptual statement.
 
Many thanks Chalnoth and mathman. Really what puzzled me was a sentence in one of Marcus Chown's books where he says that if inflation did occur then 380000 years after the Big Bang the universe would have been far smaller than if we assume expansion alone (with no inflation). I'm still not really sure what he means here.
 
Inflation occurred around E-36 seconds after the big event, not 380000 years.
 
380,000 years is when the CMb was released. I think Chown has it wrong. This is an image that's in my textbook and a in a lot of textbooks:
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/images/bigbang_inflation.jpg
youll see that the casual patch is much smaller at the onset of inflation , once inflaiton ends you have the same sizes as in standard big bang cosmology.
 
Thorslog said:
Really what puzzled me was a sentence in one of Marcus Chown's books where he says that if inflation did occur then 380000 years after the Big Bang the universe would have been far smaller than if we assume expansion alone (with no inflation). I'm still not really sure what he means here.

It sounds like a typo, if it said "if inflation had not occurred ..." that would make sense, the region would have been many orders of magnitude smaller. Or perhaps it's the other way round, because of inflation, the material from which we receive the CMBR was much smaller (pre-inflation) than it would have been without inflation.
 
mathman said:
Inflation simply means the universe is expanding as a function of time. Go backwards in time and it gets smaller.
That's not right. Inflation refers to a very specific kind of expansion, namely one that is exponential (accelerating), that occurred early on the history of the universe (prior to BBN and CMB.)
 
During inflation, the Hubble scale barely grows (during de Sitter expansion, i.e. a CC, it does not grow at all.) So the Hubble scale, which marks the boundary of the observable universe, is roughly the about same just after inflation as it was just before. Had the universe otherwise been expanding through a radiation dominated epoch instead of inflating, the Hubble scale would have been growing. So, I think the key point here is that Chown appears to be referring to size of the *observable* universe.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K