This is really cool stuff, so let me get to the meat of it: We don’t really know for certain what gravity is. We have some very good ideas, that we feel, by all indications will play out in the laboratory and prove pretty much correct. But, this is why we need really, really BIG laboratories, like the LHC in Switzerland. We are, as many have put it, recreating conditions as they were during the Big Bang. Most people don’t understand what happened in that first minute, and those who read Stephen Hawking’s book on the first three minutes, may well have forgotten just how damned much happened in that brief instant!
In the lab, when we say we are “creating conditions like the Big Bang”, what we mean is we are accelerating particles in a ring to very high speeds near the speed of light. An object, like a particle or a chair, has rest energy and kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the famous, 1/2 mv2 (one-half emm vee squared). Where “v” is the velocity, or speed of the particle (in one-dimension, we can just call it the speed.) Why do we speak of energy? Well, when the universe got going, it was very dense and hot. Heat is a representations of how much atoms are bouncing about, the hotter it gets, the more they bang about into one another. They do this at incredible speeds. As their kinetic energy goes up, we say the temperature goes up.
Think of something with very little energy, very close to zero. The atoms would barely move at all, and this thing would be very close to the lowest temperature there is, absolute zero. As you add energy, the molecules move more (let’s assume this is happening in free space to make it simple). If you add enough, they go from being very ordered (say in a crystal lattice) to being less ordered, and they undergo a phase transition and we call that state of matter a liquid. Hotter gas breaks up into its constituent atoms. At thousands of degrees, electrons are stripped off a gas and it is called a plasma. So, we can go from solid to liquid to gas, and all the way up to a fully ionized plasma at millions of degrees, like at the center of the Sun or in its corona. Along the way, the atoms move about faster and faster.
In nuclear physics, we learn that when hydrogen atoms are moving very fast at the core of a proto-star (at temperatures above 10 million degrees) there is a strong likelihood of a nuclear reaction taking place to convert four hydrogen atoms (single protons, because it is too hot here for electrons to be bound) into a helium nucleus, with energy left over. This is called nuclear fusion, and the reaction space is accessible for temperatures over 10 million K, but nuclear fusion is extremely unlikely for a less energetic scenario. The point is, when temperatures are millions, billions or even trillions of degrees or MORE… as we believe the conditions were like during the first second of the Big Bang, there are many more things likely to occur that we would not expect to observe in our less energetic, less dense world. In accelerators, we have gotten the energy up to a TeV (trillion electron-volts), and we have been able to reproduce how fast particles were going between earlier than a billionth of the first second. Larger accelerators, like the LHC, get the energies even higher, which means we probe even earlier into that first second.

The History of the Universe
Why do we care? Well, scientists are fairly confident that in the first second the fundamental physics of the universe changed to become what it is today, in our much cooler universe. At the earliest tick on the cosmic clock, between t=0 and 10-43 seconds, it is believed that all the fundamental forces behaved the same. Why do we say this? We extrapolate back from what we do know… it was demonstrated in the 1980s that the electromagnetic and weak forces appear the same (their exchange particles appear to have the same properties, like mass and so on), when you get the temperature high enough, above a million billion degrees. This force appeared as one “electroweak” force, which is what the electroweak theory predicted. If we go back further, we have weak, strong and EM forces behaving the same – this was the GUT (grand unified theory) era. And, before that, the earliest and hottest era, with temperatures above 10-32 K, all four forces, including gravity behaved the same way. The reason for this is the behavior of the Higgs field at extremely high temperatures.
Let me back up now, and explain what the Higgs field is. (This is where I begin to call upon Brian Greene’s book, so I present it in a simple manner we can all understand!) Fields are all around us. All the time we are submerged in a sea of electromagnetic fields. From radio signals, cell phones, satellite communications, radar… there’s just about no escaping them! Electromagnetic fields are made up of photons, because they are the EM force carriers. The carriers of the weak force, the W and Z bosons, were discovered (as predicted) in the 1980s, as I mentioned above. The carrier particles of the strong force, that holds the nucleus of an atom together, is the gluon. And, even though we have yet to discover it, probably due to gravity being so much weaker than the other three forces, the graviton is believed to be the mediator of the gravitational force. And, we are quite familiar with living in a gravitational field!
Physicists suggest that there was another field, the Higgs field, mediated by the Higgs boson. During the first second, the temperatures started out so high (during the Planck era) that the Higgs field was wildly fluctuating. As things cooled below a trillion degrees, the Higgs field settled, but it settled to a nonzero value. (See page 258 of The Fabric of the Cosmos where it explains this is like sliding down the sides of a bowl, seeking the lowest point, but not being able to reach zero, because there is a small plateau in the center of the bowl.) This means the Higgs force is all around us. In fact, all of space is permeated with a “Higgs Ocean”. Scientists hope to prove this is the case by uncovering the Higgs particle with next-generation accelerators, like the LHC.
The Higgs field is where objects get their mass, or how we feel inertia. If the Higgs field is there, it explains why the zoo of subatomic particles have the masses they do. Particles that feel more resistance in the Higgs field, are measured to have a larger mass. The photon moves with no resistance, thus has zero mass. In fact, we can see this is why the speed of a photon in the vacuum is the fastest any object can go. Particles with mass MUST feel a greater resistance, and thus a slowing effect as they move through the Higgs Ocean. So, when the Big Bang happened, at first the concept of mass was meaningless. As the universe expanded and cooled, it underwent phase changes, or symmetry breaking, where the different forces “froze out” and their exchange particles “gained mass” (or, at least experienced the effects of it).
Brian Greene answers the question that may be on your mind now, “Isn’t the Higgs Ocean just another way of saying the cosmos is permeated with aether?” He says that yes, “it smacks of aether”. However, the fundamental difference is that aether was introduced as an analogy to how sound waves move through air. At the time, it was needed to explain how light moved through space, but we now know that light does not need a medium to propagate.
Greene goes on to discuss inflationary cosmology, and how it relates to where all the mass/energy making up the cosmos came from. He starts by explaining the work of Guth and Tye in the late 1970s. They believed that the Higgs field was basically fluctuating and ended on a “plateau” temporarily, providing a positive energy and a repulsive force that drove space to expand. Imagine that this field is like a spring. If you stretch it out, it wants to shrink, but if you compress it and confine it to a small volume, it wants to expand. (This is not related the how the Higgs field gives mass to particles, so we refer to it as the “Inflaton field”.) This period of inflation may have lasted only 10-35 seconds, but it drove the universe’s volume to increase by 90 orders of magnitude or more! Thus, the Big Bang theory states that at 10-38 seconds, the universe underwent a violent inflationary period, “the equivalent of blowing a single strand of DNA up to the size of the Milky Way Galaxy in a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a blink of an eye!”
Which brings me to another amazing distinction. We often try to explain to people how The Universe had to be smaller than an atom, yet contain all the mass and energy we see today in all the galaxies and stars and planets (and we know this makes up less than 5% of the universe, when you consider dark matter and dark energy). Greene explains that when the universe was tiny, about 10-26 cm across, before it underwent the rapid inflationary period, it could have been filled with the inflaton field — and weigh a mere twenty pounds! That would have infused enough energy, through the rapid expansion, to account for the vast universe we see today!
Jamming 20 pounds into a volume that tiny is still way, way beyond our present technological capabilities, so the likelihood anyone will be cooking up new universes in the lab are might slim, but it makes the creation of the universe a lot more fathomable. These are the kinds of issues we are trying to resolve with experiments like the LHC. This is what gets scientists excited! Combine that with the possibility that the Planck mission, or other missions to study the patterns of the microwave background in space (left over from the big bang), might tell us about what lies beyond the confines of our “observable universe”. This should blow your mind! Not only are we learning more about the universe, but we may learn things that we said a decade ago we “could” never know.
All of this IS fantastic, and it DOES get scientists excited, but we approach these tasks methodically and with humility. The fact that we can learn some things about the cosmos, does not delude us into thinking we are gods or that we can ever know it all. We accept that the universe is too vast and varied for us to ever fully experience, but we have bitten off a piece, and it tastes good! We no longer need to make up tales to explain our origins. We probe beneath the atom and beyond the galaxies, and we understand that it is all tied together in ways that go beyond our human intuition. We have so many scientific results that fill so much of our natural model of the cosmos, that no dogmatic human can stop our progress and return us to the day when we could put everything in human terms, anthropomorphizing even the stars themselves. We are in the realm where we must rely on science. Not because science has surpassed superstition, and become a religion unto itself, but because it works. Science takes our observations and subjects them to a methodology that removes as much human bias as possible, and lets us understand nature without creating hobgoblins. If we someday found the universe was capricious and the scientific method failed, we would have to seek something better. We do not “believe” in science with a blind and enduring faith, instead we “trust” in science, because it works. We trust that gravity will work the same tomorrow. We do not claim to know this irrefutably, and that is the point of science, as someone recently said to me, “Trust, but verify”. I think that sums up what science is. It is not a religion or a dogma, it is simply a way of thinking and approaching problems. It promises to take us on an amazing journey. After all, look how far we’ve come in 400 years since Galileo had the idea to turn a spyglass to the stars!
———–
[Let me credit Brian Greene for doing such a good job of explaining the concept of the Higgs and inflaton fields in his book, The Fabric of the Cosmos. I highly recommend it. Much of what I am saying here, I am either relating from the astronomy courses I teach, or trying to distill out of his chapters 9-11.]




























Posts

15 responses so far ↓
1
RtPt
// May 31, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Nothing much to add but to say excellent post. I enjoy reading about this subject. You are spot on about The Fabric of the Cosmos…great, great book.
2
xchngcoef
// Jun 1, 2009 at 8:52 am
Well written article. You have distilled into a few paragraphs ideas that took me years just to begin to understand. I agree that Brian Greene is a very good expositor of the interesting new physics and both of his books are well written.
3
Peter Hahn
// Jun 1, 2009 at 10:38 am
Yes; Higgs field, zero point energy, cosmological constant, dark energy and quintessence. Why not just stick with the aether. Excellent post!
4
ken mac
// Jun 1, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Excellent article. I also agree that Brian Greene can communicate these principles very effectively. I am reading a book currently called ATOM and it is also very well written and full of exciting concepts in this field, which never ceases to boggle the mind.
I love when my mind boggles
ken
ottawa lake, mi
5
Null Session
// Jun 1, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Thanks everyone for the feedback! Much appreciated!
I think this period of inflation is a critical time to understand, and it’s just cool to think that bubble universes might happen this way. It can be very hard to accept that the whole mass/energy of the universe was compressed down to such a tiny volume, but 20 pounds is a number we can all get our heads around. Even though the volume is really tiny!
Just having 1 or 2 discoveries come out of the LHC could add a tremendous amount to our knowledge of this time, and our fundamental understanding of why the universe is the way it is.
6
johny joint
// Jun 27, 2009 at 12:03 pm
There is no big bang. It is logic that there was a beginning. But there was always something. If you kill mass, it becomes energy. It was that all the time. Also far before the (theoretical) big bang
7
Null Session
// Jun 27, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Johny, you are welcome to your opinion, but I prefer to put stock in scientists with a track record of explaining really complex things. By this theory, not only did the Universe have an incredibly small amount of energy+mass at the point where the strong force “froze out”, but it is possible to develop quantum mechanical theories that do not require a leap of faith to see how it might have happened.
It is very difficult for any of us to contemplate what time is, and how before and after make any sense before t=0. I think we get too hung up trying to understand things like that, and we should stop trying to make up stories to satisfy our limited brains.
It is very likely that “our” universe did have a t=0, and will someday in the far future that time will stop. I have no idea how to “feel” about that, no do I feel I should lose sleep over it.
The big bang theory has solid observational confirmation, and I’d be happy to read about an alternative theory that is better supported by evidence.
8
RustyIconoclast
// Aug 21, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Well done. I’m certainly not knowledgeable enough to comment on content. I will say the opening sentence of paragraph 4 needs attention.
Thanks
9
Null Session
// Aug 22, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I tried to reengineer that sentence.
10
makarios
// Sep 4, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I’m profoundly ignorant about this stuff but I need to ask, at the singularity, where exactly was this twenty pound speck?
11
Null Session
// Sep 4, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I have to approve the first time. I think the idea was that space itself was tiny, like on the Planck scale, and if you could jam even 20# into that volume, it would have the energy equivalent to translate into the universe we have now. It gets complicated, and I have to reference Brian Greene’s book here.
12
makarios
// Sep 5, 2009 at 11:36 am
You think that’s the idea? Do you? My mistake. I assumed you were talking about Big Bang cosmology which states that space, time and matter did not exist – period. This that you’re speaking of is something entirely different whereby there was just a little bit of matter and a little bit of space and I assume a little bit of time as well?
13
Null Session
// Sep 6, 2009 at 12:55 pm
My comments involved that first tiny fraction of a second after, the Planck time, after t=0. I was trying to indicate that the Universe could have come about with much less matter than all that makes up the stars and galaxies we see today. It could indicate a larger multiverse, whereby a fluctuation on the quantum scale could have begun our bubble of a universe, which then split off and grew into what we observe today. There are many theories about what could have led to the Big Bang, and I’m not trying to get into that, nor am I qualified.
I’m not sure if there is an equivalent of what we perceive as time when you talk about branes or the multiverse, but many feel a meta-universe without beginning or end is the most elegant. I would think that such a thing would also need to operate under some meta-framework of natural laws.
14
makarios
// Sep 7, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Again, my mistake. I thought by your profile that perhaps you’d had some actual experience regarding the things you write about. Just for future reference:
Oscillating universe
Baby universes
Multi verses
The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario
The Chaotic Inflationary universe
Brane-cosmology
Inflationary multi-verse
Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum
The many worlds hypothesis
The black hole hypothesis
Quantum gravity models
Vacuum fluctuation models
Imaginary time and imaginary space
Space aliens brought life to earth
None of these scenarios – I repeat – NONE of these scenarios including your bubble universe or multio-verse are workable as each and every one of them requires a definitive space / time boundary, a beginning from NOTHING, a singularity and Big Bang Creation Event.
Of course I’m just the goof from down the street. If you’d like confirmation of what I’ve just said, google “Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem”
15
Null Session
// Sep 8, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Well, I don’t think anyone “knows” – there are many theories as you point out. You will not find a real scientist who will claim to know the truth here; they all have theories that cannot be proven with today’s technology, and probably will never be proven. Of course, you already mentioned baby universes and multiverse, brane-cosmology, bubble universes above, which is what I was referring to. I am saying that what we refer to as time in our universe may not translate the same into what existed “prior” to the Big Bang. Obviously, there would need to be some chronology or time, in order for events to occur in a particular order. For our universe, t=0 represents when time started for us and the Big Bang began. I’ll take a look at that link. Thanks.
As far as your definitive statement, I know that there is no way that we could know if something that exists beyond our observable universe (a multiverse) had definite beginning. If you read more, you will find that cosmologists speculate that time may be meaningless, and the term beginning may not mean anything in such a meta-universe. The problem you get with beginnings, is the need to then postulate on origins, and you easily get into an infinite regression of larger and larger metaverses. It is quite ok for us to say “I don’t know” at this point. In fact, we may never figure these questions out. We are limited by physics to only see a speck of what might be beyond our space-time horizon.
I’d suggest reading Greene’s book if you want to know more. I am trying to convey what was covered as best I can, not being a cosmologist or string theorist. I teach basic astronomy and my background is in nuclear physics. We never really got into this when I was in grad school.
Leave a Comment