Re-Evaluating Our Cosmological Models: Why Now?

In my 1964 Science Fair project, entitled 'The Structure of the Universe'  (which was given a feature look in the Miami Herald) I got many things wrong. The reason wasn't to do with errors, but in using the existing base of cosmological data and information to construct my model. Chief among these was the theory of continual creation which had been proposed by Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi.. It proposed that a hydrogen atom was ‘created’ in the universe on the basis of the perfect cosmological principle. A quantitative rate for the input-creation advanced by Jayant Narlikar ('The Structure of the Universe', Oxford Univ. Press, 1977) was:

4.5 x 10^-45  kg m^-3 s^-1

This was taken to be the rate of new matter created per second within a cube - which is expanding at the rate H, where H is Hubble's constant. Then, one second later the side dimension of the cube will have increased by (1 + H)  and its volume will have increased to (1 + H)³ .  In this way, new matter is created within the 1 s interval with new mass: M = 3H r.

 And so,  though the universe was indeed expanding, it didn’t change its appearance. So its density must remain the same.  (The additional space created by the expansion must therefore have the same density of matter, r )   In addition, because of the principle of “continual creation”, the universe had no beginning and no end.  Thereby I was able to construct a model based on a matter and anti-matter universe (one with positive curvature the other, negative)  in a state of "equilibrium" with matter destroyed via annihilation equal to the new matter created via continuous creation.

It was a beautiful model which garnered top awards, but alas only months away from becoming passé.  This transpired when the first  evidence for the Big Bang emerged. This was thanks to Nobel-winning work by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The experience showed me (as it did Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi) that our perspective on the universe and especially models, can change with just one major new discovery.

I based a lot of my model on the validity of the perfect cosmological principle which maintained that the universe was the same in space as well as time, and the same physical laws that apply on Earth applied everywhere else. In other words, our solar system and planet are nowhere special. Two sub-assumptions of the principle are that: 1)  the universe is homogeneous, i.e. looks the same for all locations, and 2) the universe is isotropic, appearing the same in all directions.

But back in the 1960s we still didn't know of the existence of cosmic voids. Those had to wait five decades for their discovery. Voids have roughly 1/10 the matter density of galaxy clusters (like our Local Group) but account for nearly 60 percent of the volume of the visible universe, thereby introducing inhomogeneity.

Even before the void discovery, there was the discovery of relic structures of the Big Bang by George Smoot and his collaborators at the University of California at Berkeley, in 1992. The investigation made use of data obtained from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite. The data exposed very small temperature differentials (dT), from which density variations could be deduced. (In principle the temperature variations of the form dT/T are taken as a proxy for density fluctuations (dr / r)  in the early universe). These variations were also  found consistent with the postulated characteristics of an inflationary cosmos, as opposed to an always uniformly expanding cosmos. Indeed, an inflationary phase would feature an exponential rate of expansion by way of doublings over very small time periods.

What is the problem? It has remained trying to model a homogeneous universe despite data and findings that show the universe is inhomogeneous.  To quote astrophysicist Thomas Buchert (New Scientist, June, p. 33):

"To model such a complex structure with a homogeneous solution is a bold idealization."

Of course, cosmologists haven't been deterred. They merely resort to what's called modeling via  "statistical homogeneity" which means upping the scale for examining the cosmos to one wherein the inhomogeneities are radically reduced or vanish.  For example, on the scale of 400 million light years, voids and galaxy clusters average out into uniformity. But is this 'kosher'? Probably not because we have no real visualization of the cosmos on such scales.

Not yet mentioned are dark matter and dark energy, especially how the latter overturns our conceptions of cosmic order, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2008/10/dark-energy-evidence-for-new-law-of.html

Dark energy has also been found to be linked to the accelerated expansion of the cosmos, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/three-share-physics-nobel-for.html

Even more interesting, the cosmos' inhomogeneity contributes separately to the acceleration. Thus as more mass has clumped into galaxy clusters, the cosmic voids have grown causing the universe to expand more rapidly in those regions. The result is an accelerating effect similar to that attributed to dark energy but without any remote hint of it. (See e.g. The Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Vol. 10, p. 043).

What does all this mean for our cosmic perspective and cosmological models? Headaches! It means we may have to ditch the simplistic idealizations that pander to order, uniformity and aesthetics and instead come up with some ugly alternatives that violate our temperaments. For example, the whole Einsteinian notion of space-time is predicated on a continuum in which the entities are conjoined. But....if space expands at much faster rates in certain places then one must accept that clocks will tick at different speeds too.

As incredible as that sounds, it doesn't come near the ultimate conclusion: that if this is so it means the very age of the universe (which we now give as 13.8 billion years) is not a constant and instead will depend upon where the measurement is made. If you measure within a void you will get one answer, and in a galaxy cluster another. (According to one recent theory, it implies the age of the universe would be measured to be up to 18.6b years old where the low density of matter "means the clock has ticked particularly fast", New Scientist, op. cit. )

But which is better? To live with our idealistic fantasies of order and uniformity of space-time, or to live in reality and know the actual truth of how the universe operates?   Bear in mind the entire history of our science has been overturning sundry pet concepts of the universe, and especially our place within it.

Now may be the time for cosmologists to put on their big boy pants and devise theories which, although they may try the orderly temperament, are much closer to reality!

Now We Know Cosmic Inflation Occurred – Thanks to Newly Released Results

According to the Big Bang “sub-theory” of cosmic inflation, the universe rapidly “stretched” in size during its initial expansion phase, and by that we mean the expansion was “faster than light”. We therefore say  the inflation mode is entirely in the realm of 'false vacuum' in which a large and negative valued cosmological constant is assumed. In the context of Einstein's theory of general relativity, the 'false vacuum' may be thought of alternatively as contributing a cosmological constant about 10-100 times larger than it can possibly be today. It is this peculiarity which generates a corresponding 'repulsive' force, causing the universe to inflate on an exponential scale.

Note that this sort of thing (implying velocities of expansion > c) isn't particularly novel. In fact, a number of cosmological models posit that proper distances, i.e. between clusters of galaxies, may increase faster than the speed of light.  To fix ideas here, if the initial size of the universe was 1 fm (Fermi = 10 -¹⁵ m or about the size of a proton) then the inflating cosmos would have attained a scale of about eight times the Earth-Sun distance (8 astronomical units) after 90 doubling times, with periods ranging from 10 -⁴³ secs to 10 -³⁶ secs.

 This phenomenon  also explains why the universe is basically uniform.  The problem is that before the BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization) results were announced March 17 it was all speculation. The paper on which the results were based has since been submitted to the Journal Nature and should be available soon.

To grasp how significant this is consider this:  No telescope exists – even the Hubble – that can see anything older than the oldest light which comes from 380,000 years after the Bjg Bang or long after inflation ended.

The BICEP2 team discovered that this light, called the CMB or “cosmic microwave background”  has a major defect or “scar” from the cosmos’ early violent expansion. This is by way of polarization or a particular orientation of the light waves emanating from the CMB.  Astrophysicists had predicted that inflation generated gravitational waves that warped space time through which any photons traveled. If in fact this was so, then the CMB ought to have a characteristic “swirling” polarization known as a B-mode. Light is polarized when its electromagnetic waves are preferentially oriented in a particular direction.

Other forms of polarization include:

Linearly or horizontally polarized: I.e. the E- vector is confined to one  (horizontal) plane

---------à E

Vertically polarized: I.e. the E- vector is confined to one  (vertical) plane

^ E

!
!
!

Circular: The E-vector rotates through 360 deg

Elliptic: any polarization not circular or plane.

B-mode polarization is much more complex and illustrated below.



Here, the E-vector (seen in line of sight) can curl either clockwise or counter-clockwise into spiral patterns. It was precisely this type of pattern that the BICEP 2 detected suggesting that both cosmic inflation and primordial gravitational waves are real (since the latter are the only things known that can give rise to the B-mode polarization)

 The graphic shown above, meanwhile, captures the swirling directions of light within the cosmic microwave background.

Of course, it goes without saying that other independent workers – researchers will now have to confirm these findings if they are to be fully accepted. But to this observer, it should only be a matter of time!

New Look At Cosmos Shows It Older and Lumpier Than Thought

It appears that the universe, like graying humans, gets lumpier as it gets older. At least this appears to be the primary finding from the European Space Agency's Planck Satellite (actually Space Telescope). Thus, the images  released last Thursday, showing a heat map of the ‘baby’ universe (as it appeared only 380,000 years after the Big Bang) were startling to say the least. The details of the image show the universe to be 80 to 100 million years older than previously thought and with more light and dark matter. According to the current assay, the universe consists by mass of:

-4.9 % atoms

- 27% dark matter
- 71% dark energy

The last, again, is a form which cannot be assessed for any order. It is most likely a vacuum form of energy.The cosmological "equation of state" (think of something like the equation of state for an ideal gas, e.g. P = nkT) for this vacuum energy is:


w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1

This is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'.  In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts.  Specifically the term (r + 3p) acts as a source of gravity in general relativity, (where r = energy density, p is gas pressure).  

If we set:  0 = (r + 3p) then:

p =  -r /3   (or  r  = - 3p)

and if: p < (r /3) we have gravity that repels


The new image and data peg the age of the Universe at 13.82 billion years — slightly older than the 13.7b years previously estimated. The results strongly support the idea that in the 10⁻³² seconds or so after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded at a staggering rate — a process dubbed inflation.  This would explain why the Universe is so large (actually 66b Ly in spatial diameter), and why we cannot detect any curvature in the fabric of space (other than the tiny indentations caused by massive objects such as black holes).


Launched in 2009, Planck is more than three times more sensitive than the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. Its high-frequency microwave detector is cooled to just 0.1 degrees above absolute zero, which enables it to detect temperature variations as small as a millionth of a degree. These precise measurements show that the Universe is expanding slightly slower than estimated from WMAP's data. The rate of expansion, known as the Hubble constant, is 67.15 kilometers per second per million parsecs, which suggests that the Universe is about 80 million years older than calculated from earlier WMAP images. (The earlier value for H was 70 kilometers per second per million parsecs.

Interestingly, the new data shows the universe is slightly lumpier than previously thought with larger and more heat spots on one side than the other. Cosmologists had previously believed these to be more an observational anomaly (e.g. derived from ‘contamination’ from the Milky Way) than a real effect but now they will have to be taken more seriously.

Bear in mind again, that the Big Bang is not an explosion, but more an expansion in time. Basically, the Big Bang is totally dissimilar to a terrestrial explosion, including all the geometry, kinematics, dynamics. A good article ('Cosmology's 5 Big Things You Need to Know') can be found in the May, 2007 issue of ASTRONOMY magazine(p. 28). As noted therein (p. 31):

"The universe's beginning wasn't an explosion. It was closer to an unfolding or creation of matter, energy, time...and space itself."


The last is especially important! Thus, the unfolding saw the expansion of space with time. Citing an astronomer (Charles Bennett, lead researcher on the Wilkinson Microwave Array Project) also quoted in the piece:


"The Big Bang is not an accurate name for the theory. What this theory describes is the expansion and cooling of the universe. It doesn't describe an explosion at all."


Why was it named the “Big Bang”? Blame it on George Gamow, the Russian cosmologist who conferred the tag when he helped develop the theory.

Is It Possible to Detect a Parallel Universe?

Diagram of the multiverse with two localization angles which may be used to pinpoint parallel universes within it. Might it be possible to conduct an experiment to demonstrate the influence of one such parallel universe?


Perhaps, in these tempestuous days, it is comforting to speculate that somewhere in the multiverse a parallel universe exists with another Earth in which there is no threat of global warming, alternative fuels provide most of the energy, the population is below carrying capacity and has all its needs met, and oh yes....politicians can conduct civil debates and the government always works on behalf of all citizens.

Perhaps such a place exists, but before such ruminations can be taken seriously, it would behoove us to first at least demonstrate that a parallel universe can be even remotely detected from within the confines of our own. Before considering such experiments - a bit of background.

Note that the "parallel universes" being considered here I regard as actual, separable PHYSICAL cosmi - and likely incepted from the selfsame primordial vacuum state (via cosmic inflation) as our own universe. Thus, an actual primordial vacuum - not a human observer or consciousness "making observational choices" (as in the case of the Hugh Everett 'Many worlds' interpretation of quantum theory)  is the source of the real parallel universes. Thus, all putative parallel universes plausibly emerged from the primordial vacuum the way ours did, e.g. from the Big Bang.

Regarding inflation, most current standard theories propose inflation starting at about  10^-35 s  and doubling over a period of anywhere from 10^-43 to 10^-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominates. The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or 10^-15 m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 10¹²  m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun. In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. Other parallel universes emerging around the same time might have been larger or smaller depending upon their specific values for their fundamental physical constants (e.g. alpha, the "fine structure constant", h - the Planck constant, G, and eta the permittivity of free space).


In the graphic, I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying longitudinal geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ


Now, I repeat,  this is an idealized model which assumes that N-cosmi were incepted at equal intervals of time - as manifested by the equal spacing in Θ. In principle, we don't know a priori how "close" in complex time another parallel universe may be to our own. When one uses the assumption of "equal time intervals" between inceptions in our idealized multiverse, one isn't stating what those times are, and so they could be minuscule - and the smallest time unit imaginable is the unit tau, τ. (About 10^-43  s, and note Θ = f(τ).)

If we specify such an exact parallel universe time displacement we might be able to show how one parallel universe can be "mapped" topologically onto an adjacent one. As an example, let two parallel universes be distinguished by a 1-τ difference in fundamental time parameter, viz. [1 + 2τ] and [1 + 3τ], then we would require for connection, a mapping such that:

(Universe 'A'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 2φ)
(Universe 'B'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 3φ)


which means the absolute coordinate φ is mapped onto itself 2 times for [Universe A] and mapped onto itself 3 times for [Universe B]. Clearly, there’ll be coincidences for which: f(Θ,2φ) = f(Θ,3φ) wherein the two universes will 'interweave' a number of times.

For example, such interweaving will occur when φ = π/2 in [A] and φ = π/3 in [B]. The total set or system of multiple points obtained in this way is called a Synchronous temporal matrix. The distinguishing feature of this matrix is that once a single point is encountered, it is probable that others will as well. If one hyperspace transformation can occur linking parallel universes, A and B, then conceivably more such transformations can occur, linking A and C, D and E etc.

What if both absolute toroidal coordinates (Θ,φ) map into themselves the same number of times? Say, something like:


f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (2Θ, 2φ): Universe A


f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (3Θ, 3φ): Universe B


For example, given the previous conditions for coordinate φ, now let 2Θ = 3Θ for discrete values of Θ (e.g. 2π). For all multiples of 2π, the same toroidal cosmos will be experienced - if the absolute time coordinates are equal (e.g. π/2 = φ in A, and π/3 = φ in B) then we will have: Universe A = Universe B.

What does this equality mean? I conjecture that it implies a briefly inter-phased chaotic state prevails in both A and B where the fundamental physical constants are not fixed (in a future blog I will appeal to quantum chaos to describe this). For all intents and purposes it is as if a "portal" of sorts exists between them, though that doesn't mean it'd be accessible to humans. We say that there exists "an interpenetration of different parallel universes" but not necessarily entailing transfer of bodies from one to the other. Note that though the physical state spaces (e.g. with constants h, G, e/m, etc. )may be alike, they can still differ in dimensionality! And we cannot disregard fractal dimensionality.

IF one has this condition, THEN it is feasible that the (David) Deutsch experiment (See: The Fabric of Reality) to detect the interphasing of a parallel universe can be carried out, and the penetration of our universe by a parallel one validated.

In his book(pp. 38-47), Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes.  The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls  "shadow photons".

He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe.  He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):

"For it turns out that the shadow particles are partititoned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics, but differing in that the particles are in different positions in each universe."

In other words, using the graphic I've shown, we would need multiple ordered pair angles (Θ, φ)  to actually lead to an incomprehensible number, thereby denoting all the shadow photons in one of Deutsch's experiments. But the existence of this multiplicity is what Deutsch uses to justify the term "multiverse" with which I concur. A final challenge to be met, is - I think - reconciling the physical multiverse with the (Hugh Everett III)  'Many worlds' interpretation of QM. I believe this requires using separate wave functions for each inflation-based parallel universe but exactly how each of these would be described is left to future QM workers. (They'd also need to ponder how 'many worlds' can be revamped if each wave state also coincides with a genuine, inflation-generated parallel universe. Also: Is the wave function a wholly physical representation (analogous to David Bohm's real de Broglie waves) , a statistical artifact or a combination of each?)

In the meantime, we've lots to ponder, including whether unknown to us sporadic interpenetrations can occur, say between a 'Universe A' and 'Universe B' and what effects they might have in our real world - say if our universe is denoted B. What physical factors might lead to such interpenetration or interphasing? Can any anomalous terrestrial events - like deja vu- which physicist Michio Kaku has speculated might occur in specific or unusual cases and not be merely memory short circuits -  arise from "flipping between universes? Perhaps before we go there we need to nail down the properties of these "shadow particles" more rigorously first!