data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3ed66/3ed66c215b07c11ceadfd0bc0ef84fa7b10a34ad" alt="Expert Voices"
How 'quantum foam' may have inflated the early universe
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4d058/4d058781fc804eb49f2091b3f0501e2107ae18e2" alt="a bright pinpoint of light on the left side of the image eventually grows into galaxies and stars on the right"
The early universe experienced a phase of rapid expansion, known as inflation. For decades, cosmologists assumed that this expansion was powered by a new entity in the universe, known as the inflaton. But new research suggests that it may have been possible to inflate the universe without anything new powering that inflation.
In the 1970s, physicist Alan Guth concocted a radical picture of the extremely early universe. Originally intending to solve some troublesome properties exhibited by the high-energy physics in the young, dense, hot universe, he conceived of a model where a new quantum field, dubbed the inflaton, powered a short-but-intense period of stupendously accelerated expansion, inflating the universe many orders of magnitude in size in less than a second.
Inflation has persisted as a strong hypothesis of the early universe because it solves many problems at once. For one, it explains why the cosmos appears geometrically flat: It's so big that, despite its overall curvature, any patch of the universe will appear flat. It also explains why regions of the universe separated by vast distances are roughly the same: They got to know each other before inflation ripped them apart.
Most crucially, inflation explains how we got our large-scale structures. The act of inflation took the quantum foam of space-time and expanded it to larger scales, laying down the gravitational seeds that would someday grow up to be stars, galaxies and the cosmic web.
But mysteries remain. We do not know the identity of the inflaton, what powered it, or why it turned off when it did. And we have no conclusive evidence that inflation actually happened.
In light of these challenges, perhaps there's a way to reproduce the observed features of the universe without needing an inflaton. In a recent paper, astrophysicists describe a model where inflation happens, leading to the large-scale structure of the universe, without anything new powering it.
The model starts with a description of space that is expanding due to a cosmological constant, much like the dark energy we observe in the modern-day cosmos. Within that backdrop, the quantum foam is doing its usual thing, which is to shake up space-time at submicroscopic scales.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Those fluctuations create gravitational waves, which are ripples that spread outward through space. Gravitational waves on their own can't form the seeds of latter-day structures, because they have the wrong kind of influence on space-time.
Related: How did inflation happen — and why do we care?
But the researchers found that under the right conditions, the gravitational waves triggered by the quantum foam can sometimes generate exactly the right kind of deformations in space. Specifically, they were looking for deformations that were roughly the same at many different length scales. We know that the seeds of structure had to have this kind of pattern, because that's exactly what we observe in the cosmic microwave background, the leftover light pattern from when the universe was only 380,000 years old. That afterglow retains an imprint of those early structures, and we can use that to study models of inflation.
There are slight differences between the kinds of structures generated in this inflation-without-inflaton scenario and traditional inflation. In this paper, the researchers did not calculate how strong those differences are, but an important next step is to explore the observational consequences of this model.
The model isn't perfect. It still assumes something about the early universe — namely, that the cosmological constant is strong enough to lead to a rapidly expanding cosmos. And it doesn't explain the flatness problem or why distant patches of the universe are roughly the same. But it is an intriguing line of study, because it can open up some potentially useful alternative windows that don't rely on an inflaton to power the changes in the early universe.
The young cosmos remains a massive mystery in modern cosmology. And while we think we're on the right track — it really does appear that the universe underwent a period of rapid expansion — we still have much to learn.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Paul M. Sutter is an astrophysicist at SUNY Stony Brook and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. Paul received his PhD in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2011, and spent three years at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics, followed by a research fellowship in Trieste, Italy, His research focuses on many diverse topics, from the emptiest regions of the universe to the earliest moments of the Big Bang to the hunt for the first stars. As an "Agent to the Stars," Paul has passionately engaged the public in science outreach for several years. He is the host of the popular "Ask a Spaceman!" podcast, author of "Your Place in the Universe" and "How to Die in Space" and he frequently appears on TV — including on The Weather Channel, for which he serves as Official Space Specialist.
-
Unclear Engineer Interesting conceptualizing.Reply
Now that we have discovered gravitational waves for real, I wonder what sorts of concepts can be developed for ideas besides everything once being at a single point in the past. For instance, could extremely large (the size we now think is the whole "universe") gravitational waves create an oscillating density "visible universe" that appears to us to be something that expanded from a single point?
We keep finding that there is "more out there" than current theories considered. So, if we are looking for something to explain what we currently cannot explain, limiting ourselves to self-contained effects instead of considering outside influences seems like an illogical limitation when searching for knowledge. -
Starstruck Light speed may be more than just a constant.Reply
Light speed could be what binds space and time together. Exceeding the speed of light breaks this bond and allows travel to the past.
When Dark Energy exceeds this limit, at that very instant it starts moving backwards in time. It will continue to do so until it runs out time. AKA, the big bang. The farther back it travels, the more the Universe itself focuses it on one point. Not in space, but in time. Just like focusing the suns rays with a magnifying glass. Only you have the entire Universe focusing DE on one point. That point is the Big Bang.
When the DE arrives in the past, there is no space, and the instant it arrives, "time" starts moving forwards. You can not have quantum foam without any room for it to exist. That room is created when DE impacts the fabric of reality causing the moment of creation. Like a Supernova, this causes a rebound effect sending the DE outbound through time. The ripple from this impact is what "stirred up" that quantum foam. This moment is where the DE is converted to matter. E=MC2. You now have all of the kinetic outbound energy of the entire universe being focused on one point in time, transforming into matter. At this point in time there is no universe to expand into, and yet now at the same time, there is. Just like the cat, it both is, and isn't.
DE is the observer, and the simple act if it arriving is enough to collapse the wave function. By being present, it tips the quantum scales from nothing to something, with space being created as it is needed to contain that something.
Basically. the Universe on the grandest of scales is a perpetual motion machine. -
Mr. Universe So here is a Big Bang-related question, for now hypothetical. But do not say impossible. When it comes to the Big Bang almost nothing is impossible because the physics were radically different.Reply
Take a supermassive black hole, say 1 billion SMs. We now know pretty definitively (from Roy Kerr) that black holes have an ultra-dense physical core. Probably some kind of gluon-quark plasma. Who knows? From one picosecond to the next, gravity disappears. What will happen? Take us through the steps we would witness when all that compressed matter instantly decompresses. What kind of matter likely emerges? If subatomic particles, will they transform? Into what? How long will it take for all the matter in the black hole to decompress? How large will be area containing that matter get. How quickly will it get to that size (period of inflation). What happens when all the compressed matter has decompressed? Will the expansion of the area continue at the same speed or will it stop abruptly like when a corn pops into a popcorn? -
Unclear Engineer Good questions with no real answers, but lots of guesses.Reply
What is in the center of a black hole is not really known. We see neutron stars that are not quite massive enough to become black holes. And we postulate that in the center of neutron stars, the neutrons have broken down into a soup of quarks and gluons instead of being bound into discrete neutrons. But, that is as dense as (we think) we know about.
When the material is compressed further inside a black hole, speculation ranges from it getting crushed down into an even more dense but finite form, or getting crushed into a "singularity" with no dimension at all, or maybe a Plank-sized volume in which we claim there is not further knowledge of the state of whatever is in it.
So, the interesting part of your question to me is what happens to gravity when the matter is crushed? Can gravitational force disappear if the matter all becomes energy? Or, is the energy still as massive as needed to continue the blackness of the black hole?
If gravity disappeared all of a sudden, in some sort of final collapse of matter into pure energy, then would a black hole suddenly explode (i.e., "inflate")? Would that inflation stop suddenly if the energy form "cooled" enough for matter to recondense and recreate gravity?
That is one way that a "bouncing universe" could occur, and it would probably reset entropy in the process.
However, we do see supermassive black holes that are already billions of times the mass of the Sun. So, is that not enough matter to trigger those effects?
Or, do we not understand "space" well enough to know what it would look like from the outside if something like that happened on the inside? Could it already be happening inside black holes we can see, but we just can't tell from "out here".
If it is already happening in some supermassive black holes we have already detected, we know that there is still matter from "our universe" that is going into those black holes, so what would that mean for "their universe" on the inside?
Would it look to them like the Cosmic Microwave Background" looks to us? Would it seem to have an effect on continued expansion like we think "dark energy" is creating for us?
And, for that matter, are we actually already in a universe that is really just like one of those universes?
I can think of the questions, but I don't have the answers.
And the important thing to realize is: neither does anybody else. So, when somebody posts that, something is the answer, rather than to consider that something might be the answer, they are claiming that their own beliefs are fact, and that is not proper science. Which is one of my few per peeves. -
Mr. Universe
Thanks for that great answer. I likewise get irritated when people, even scientist, claim they have a definitive answer for one think to another.Unclear Engineer said:Good questions with no real answers, but lots of guesses.
What is in the center of a black hole is not really known. We see neutron stars that are not quite massive enough to become black holes. And we postulate that in the center of neutron stars, the neutrons have broken down into a soup of quarks and gluons instead of being bound into discrete neutrons. But, that is as dense as (we think) we know about.
When the material is compressed further inside a black hole, speculation ranges from it getting crushed down into an even more dense but finite form, or getting crushed into a "singularity" with no dimension at all, or maybe a Plank-sized volume in which we claim there is not further knowledge of the state of whatever is in it.
So, the interesting part of your question to me is what happens to gravity when the matter is crushed? Can gravitational force disappear if the matter all becomes energy? Or, is the energy still as massive as needed to continue the blackness of the black hole?
If gravity disappeared all of a sudden, in some sort of final collapse of matter into pure energy, then would a black hole suddenly explode (i.e., "inflate")? Would that inflation stop suddenly if the energy form "cooled" enough for matter to recondense and recreate gravity?
That is one way that a "bouncing universe" could occur, and it would probably reset entropy in the process.
However, we do see supermassive black holes that are already billions of times the mass of the Sun. So, is that not enough matter to trigger those effects?
Or, do we not understand "space" well enough to know what it would look like from the outside if something like that happened on the inside? Could it already be happening inside black holes we can see, but we just can't tell from "out here".
If it is already happening in some supermassive black holes we have already detected, we know that there is still matter from "our universe" that is going into those black holes, so what would that mean for "their universe" on the inside?
Would it look to them like the Cosmic Microwave Background" looks to us? Would it seem to have an effect on continued expansion like we think "dark energy" is creating for us?
And, for that matter, are we actually already in a universe that is really just like one of those universes?
I can think of the questions, but I don't have the answers.
And the important thing to realize is: neither does anybody else. So, when somebody posts that, something is the answer, rather than to consider that something might be the answer, they are claiming that their own beliefs are fact, and that is not proper science. Which is one of my few per peeves.
To me as a layman, it seems clear that at the heart of a black hole lies some kind of object that contains all the mass that the black hole has been measured to contain. I never believed the Singularity idea and was relieved that Kerr was able to disprove it in his December 2023 paper. He stated, among other things, that when a neutron star absorbs enough matter to gain the mass of a black hole, nothing changes except that an event horizon forms around the Neutron star. There is no massive collapse.
This seems supported in all the manifestations of the mass inside by what happens on the outside of the event horizon, most notably the measurable gravity it exerts.
So if gravity were to magically disappear, my idea is that it would create an event that would be very similar, if not identical to the events described in the mainstream Big Bang theories: the compressed mass would expand instantly at a rate many times the speed of light, the expansion would stop abrupt when the decompression stage (period of inflation) ends, and you would see the subatomic particles re-assemble into new particles.
So truth be told, I subscribe to the idea that our universe came into existence in a greater multiverse environment, when a black hole with the mass of our universe somehow lost the gravity that was holding it together.
Of course I don't want to claim that this is the true explanation, but it would be nice of the idea was given some thought by a qualified scientist. After all, in a multi-verse environment and with unlimited time at their disposal, black holes will always grow faster than they lose mass due to Hawking Radiation, which likely does not exist anyway (also according to Kerr).
What can cause gravity to go away, of course, is the $64.000 question that can't be answered because we cannot know or simulate the environment prior to the Big Bang. We can only speculate.
Thanks again for having this exchange of ideas.