Banner
    The Boring Universe: Is Inflation Incredibly Fast Or Painfully Slow?
    By Sascha Vongehr | August 16th 2010 11:53 PM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile
    Welcome to my first blog entry ever! That the Big Bang is the start of the universe, the mysterious “point of creation”, is stated often still today, even by prominent physicists. It is also not true.

    The Big Bang is what you get when you back-extrapolate the today visible expansion of the universe into the past. One gets to the point where there is the so called “reheating” after inflation. The result of reheating is the Big Bang, a hot and dense state for sure, but it is not thought to be the beginning anymore.

    The Big Bang is a set of conditions of an extremely hot, dense, expanding Universe that exists after the end of inflation.

    big bang
    As you see, before the yellow Big Bang, now inflation is the mysterious event. And wow does it get “blown up”: It is an incredibly fast expansion, from the size smaller than an atom to the size of gazillions of universes in a tiny fraction of a second, exponential, faster than light, or at the speed of light, anyways mind bogglingly rapid, overwhelmingly fantastic. Not just media hype inflates inflation like this. Prominent physicists sell their field in this manner.

    Actually, inflation is painfully slow and boring. How so? The smoothness of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) implies an expansion of the length of the universe by a factor of more than 1026. This is a large number, but 1026 roughly equals 287. Thus, the length of the universe has to only double 87 times. Twice the length results in eight times the volume. Hence, volume doubled only 260 times. If we were to imagine fundamental volumes (microscopic boxes of space) multiplying like bacteria, they would have to only go through 260 generations! Not such large numbers anymore, are they?

    Straw-man: “But you forgot the incredibly small time of inflation.”

    Yes, Δt, the time interval during which the expansion occurs, just a blink of the eye. Let me get back to this in the next post, because I want to consider the most incredibly fast inflation ever. You will see that it is still at least 100 million times slower than light.
    ----------------------------------

    For those who like equations: Exponential inflation means that length grows proportional to exp(HΔt). H is the Hubble constant. A factor of about 1026 implies that (HΔt) is about 60. The rate r at which the universe doubles its volume is simply r = 3 H/ln2. The factor 3 comes from space being 3 dimensional. The doubling yields the factor ln2 = 0.693… . The volume doubles N = r Δt = 3 HΔt /ln2 = 3 * 60/0.693 = 260 times.

    Comments

    Hank
     Not just media hype inflates inflation like this. Prominent physicists sell their field in this manner.
    Now you tell us.  I have been watching the 'painfully slow and boring' Webb telescope, designed to get us some 550 million years 'closer' to the big yellow explosion than Hubble because I expect spectacular stuff.
    This is the “Elegant Universe”, the one that you should leave to us physicists because it is too sophisticated for you to grasp - dummy. It leads to pure awesomeness and amazing questions:
    And awesome turns of phrase!  Nicely done (and welcome to Science 2.0).
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    vongehr
    Thank you for your warm welcome and the compliment Hank, and thanks for editing it further (at least it seems there was some more editing done - looks better now). As you saw, I still have difficulties with the platform, but surely will figure it out (some maybe due to my pop-up blocker, some to being behind China's great fire wall, some because I am dim). And after my first ever blog entry, now I send my first reply to a comment - how exciting.
    hi, only a reader, but happy to see a new science blogger. Welcome!

    Johannes Koelman
    Welcome Sascha, good to have some more cosmology here!

    There is a lot to be said about the issues you highlight in your post (as I'm sure you will do in the near future). A few thoughts:

    - what is *the* moment of the big bang? I'd argue it is the moment (as observed from a comoving frame) at which the entropy reaches a minimum. (So I'd argue the extrapolating back in time needs to include any inflation present in your cosmological model.)

    - the universe is indeed suspiciously inelegant. Should we be bothered about this? Probably not. But with the inelegance comes a clear degree of coincidence, and that is worrying.

    On a lighter note: isn't it obvious that inflation must have been very boring? It is the process of ironing out all wrinkles in the universe. Picture an ironing job of this size, and then imagine witnessing this job. You first need to extrapolate back to your early youth, when a day lasted ages, and then extrapolate further and further until the moment of the big ironing job. Boring indeed.
    vongehr
    Thank you for your welcome.

    About what is the BB. I would argue that it is back calculated from the vanilla flavor expansion. I talk about reheating instead, you talk about a state of minimum entropy. These are both interesting enough. They do not need an importance boost from any term like BB.

    You have a strong point writing "with the inelegance comes a clear degree of coincidence". You probably mean by this, for example, that the Hubble constant H pops up in too many suspicious places. That cannot be coincidence. There may well be something we do not understand about metric expansion that is more elegant than just the right amount of dark stuff (matter, energy) selected by observer selection in a multiverse.
    Nice post.

    Bacteria >> Inflation