Banner
    Quantum Graphity And Early Universe Formation: Big Bang Or Big Chill?
    By News Staff | August 20th 2012 10:36 AM | 18 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    The start of the Universe may have been more like water freezing into ice than the popular conception of a Big Bang, say theoretical physicists from the University of Melbourne and RMIT University. They have a new hypothesis (conjecture?) which suggests that the secret to understanding the early universe is in the cracks and crevices common to all crystals, including ice.

    Lead researcher on the project James Quach said their current ideas are the latest in a long quest by humans to understand the origins and nature of the Universe.

    "Ancient Greek philosophers wondered what matter was made of: was it made of a continuous substance or was it made of individual atoms?" Quach said. "With very powerful microscopes, we now know that matter is made of atoms. Thousands of years later, Albert Einstein assumed that space and time were continuous and flowed smoothly, but we now believe that this assumption may not be valid at very small scales.

    "A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms.  These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly."

    Let's not jump to that 'theory' word just yet, Dr. Quach. 

    They believe they may have figured out a way to see these 'building blocks' indirectly. "Think of the early universe as being like a liquid. Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises' into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorised this way, as the Universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice."

    RMIT University research team member Associate Professor Andrew Greentree said some of these defects might be visible. "Light and other particles would bend or reflect off such defects, and therefore in theory we should be able to detect these effects."

    The team has calculated some of these effects and if their predictions are experimentally verified, the question as to whether space is smooth or constructed out of tiny indivisible parts will be solved once and for all.


    Published in Physical Review D.

    Comments

    So, is this evidence that the universe is a computer simulation as per Nick Bostrom?

    This is no evidence of anything except that Australians have also learnt to do science by press release. They haven't published any model of the big bang and they haven't observed any of the alleged cracks in space.

    Gerhard Adam
    Actually I think that Nick Bostrom is a simulation of a philosopher.
    LoL! Pithy!

    " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." Sounds familiar to me!

    Exactly what I've been thinking since I first read about this. Of course I've been saying the same thing about discovering the Higgs field.

    If in fact there is a Higgs field that is responsible for all mass in the Universe isn't it conceivable that this field can be manipulated with the aid of technology? Well if that's the case, then what does that say about the possibility of ancient gods who were able to create something out of nothing?

    I realize that is terribly un-scientific to imagine something with no real way of proving it through observation or experimentation, but sometimes the truth is terribly inconvenient is it not?

    Pardon me but there is no way to edit a comment here and I wanted to be clear that the phrase "with the aid of technology" was meant to be "without the aid of technology".

    Halliday
    Robert:

    Unless you log into this site, there is simply no way for the system to know that you are not trying to edit the comments of another poster.

    Once you have an account and log in, you will be able to edit your comments (at least until someone replies to it).  Additionally, you will get a WYSIWYG editor, to boot.

    David

    Hang on, what's this "Quantum GraPHity" name? Isn't it meant to be "Quantum GraVity"? And the idea of discrete space units is well known, think of Plank length & Plank time.

    Hank
    It's graphity because they liken things to blocks like on graph paper.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    So, next theories to be expected would be "quantum cavity" and "quantum graffiti"?

    Hank
    You're making fun of my degree in quantum paleontology, aren't you?
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    The "graph" in the name is a reference to random graph theory which is about networks of nodes joined by random links. It is not a theory of a fixed lattice made of blocks as in graph paper, although it could take that form dynamically after freezing if you believe what they are saying.

    Halliday
    Dean:

    While there have been many "discrete" spacetime-like ideas bantered about, I have yet to see a viable theory.

    Yes, Plank units are suggestive, so is the uncertainty principle.  I have even seen reports of "hints" of "discrete" spacetime from both the Loop Quantum Gravity and the Superstring "camps" (though both are staunchly rooted in the continuum).

    Yet, as I said, I have yet to see a viable theoretical formulation.

    David

    P.S.  I do have my own ideas, that I have been mulling over for about a quarter century, but I have a "gap" that I haven't been able to close.

    So just a couple of thoughts/questions here that come to mind.

    1) What exactly would bring about cooling of an amorphous liquid devoid of space/time? Does our current concept of "temperature" even make sense without the context of space/time?

    2) If one area cools to the point of being say the first quantum building block of space/time might not this happen in other areas (I realize the term "area" is problematic here) such that there could be multiple seeded areas of space/time crystallization growing outwards that may intersect?

    3) Wouldn't the crystallization rate be constant? (Just asking here--I'm not a physicist) What might the apparent increase in the expansion of the Universe then say about this?

    Anyway, it's a very interesting theory. That's just what comes to mind.

    Halliday
    Chris:

    I'll address 2), first.

    While I cannot be certain, without reading the work of these researchers, it seems to me that this multiple "grain" issue—thus leading to "grain" boundaries"—is what is being referred to as the "cracks".

    As for 1)...

    One must be careful about one's concept of "temperature" even with Special Relativity, let alone the potential for curved spacetime.

    As some generality...

    Since these researchers seem to be trying to have spacetime, as we know it, "crystalize" out of some "liquid" like state that isn't spacetime, even close to how we "know it"; it seems to me that they are also trying to realize Wheeler's "pre-geometry" ideas (geometry emerging from something that is not geometry).

    So, yes, what does "temperature" or even spacetime mean when one doesn't even have "geometry"?

    As for 3)...

    I don't think they are trying to get this idea to "explain" the accelerated expansion of the universe, though they may well see a connection with the "inflationary" stage of the "Big Bang".  (Other physicists already talk about "phase transitions" and "freezing out" when talking about "inflation".)

    David

    Quantum Graphity. Sounds like a Pink Floyd album.

    Isn't this the same as the emergent gravity but with the crystal effects?