Notes on Relativity and Cosmology - Physics Department, UCSB

Notes on Relativity and Cosmology - Physics Department, UCSB Notes on Relativity and Cosmology - Physics Department, UCSB

web.physics.ucsb.edu
from web.physics.ucsb.edu More from this publisher
27.09.2014 Views

306 CHAPTER 10. COSMOLOGY these experiments will either confirm or deny the predictions of inflation in more detail. By the way, it is a rather strange picture of the universe with which we are left. There are several confusing issues. One of them is “where does this vacuum energy come from?” It turns out that there are some reasonable ideas on this subject coming from quantum field theory... However, while they are all reasonable ideas for creating a vacuum energy, they all predict a value that is 10 120 times too large. I will take a moment to state the obvious: 10 120 is an incredibly huge number. A billion is ten to the ninth power, so 10 120 is one billion raised to the thirteenth power. As a result, physicists are always asking, “Why is the cosmological constant so small?” Another issue is that, as we mentioned, Ω Λ and Ω matter do not stay constant in time. They change, and in fact they change in different ways. There is a nice diagram (also from Sean Carroll) showing how they change with time. I’ll hand this out too. What you can see is that, more or less independently of where you start, the universe naturally evolves toward Ω Λ = 1. On the other hand, back at the big bang Ω Λ was almost certainly near zero. So, an interesting question is: “why is Ω Λ only now in the middle ground (Ω Λ = .6), making it’s move between zero and one?” For example, does this argue that the cosmological constant is not really constant, and that there is some new physical principle that keeps it in this middle ground? Otherwise, why should the value of the cosmological constant be such that Ω Λ is just now making it’s debut? It is not clear why Λ should not have a value such that it would have taken over long ago, or such that it would still be way too tiny to notice. 10.5 The Beginning and The End Well, we are nearly finished with our story but we are not yet at the end. We traced the universe back to a time when it was so hot and dense that the nuclei of atoms were just forming. We have seen that there is experimental evidence (in the abundances of Hydrogen and Helium) that the universe actually was this hot and dense in its distant past. Well, if our understanding of physics is right, it must have been even hotter and more dense before. So, what was this like? How hot and dense was it? From the perspective of general relativity, the most natural idea is that the farther back we go, the hotter and denser it was. Looking back in time, we expect that there was a time when it was so hot that protons and neutrons themselves fell apart, and that the universe was full of things called quarks. Farther back still, the universe so hot that our current knowledge of physics is not sufficient to describe it. All kinds of weird things might have happened, like maybe the universe had more than four dimensions back then. Maybe the universe was filled with truly exotic particles. Maybe the universe underwent various periods of inflation followed by relative quiet. Anyway, looking very far back we expect that one would find conditions very similar to those near the singularity of a black hole. This is called the ‘big bang

10.5. THE BEGINNING AND THE END 307 singularity.’ Just as at a black hole, general relativity would break down there and would not accurately describe what was happening. Roughly speaking, we would be in a domain of quantum gravity where, as with a Schwarzschild black hole, our now familiar notions of space and time may completely fall apart. It may or may not make sense to even ask what came ‘before.’ Isn’t that a good place to end our story?

306 CHAPTER 10. COSMOLOGY<br />

these experiments will either c<strong>on</strong>firm or deny the predicti<strong>on</strong>s of inflati<strong>on</strong> in more<br />

detail.<br />

By the way, it is a rather strange picture of the universe with which we are left.<br />

There are several c<strong>on</strong>fusing issues. One of them is “where does this vacuum<br />

energy come from?” It turns out that there are some reas<strong>on</strong>able ideas <strong>on</strong> this<br />

subject coming from quantum field theory... However, while they are all reas<strong>on</strong>able<br />

ideas for creating a vacuum energy, they all predict a value that is 10 120<br />

times too large. I will take a moment to state the obvious: 10 120 is an incredibly<br />

huge number. A billi<strong>on</strong> is ten to the ninth power, so 10 120 is <strong>on</strong>e billi<strong>on</strong> raised<br />

to the thirteenth power. As a result, physicists are always asking, “Why is the<br />

cosmological c<strong>on</strong>stant so small?”<br />

Another issue is that, as we menti<strong>on</strong>ed, Ω Λ <strong>and</strong> Ω matter do not stay c<strong>on</strong>stant in<br />

time. They change, <strong>and</strong> in fact they change in different ways. There is a nice<br />

diagram (also from Sean Carroll) showing how they change with time. I’ll h<strong>and</strong><br />

this out too. What you can see is that, more or less independently of where you<br />

start, the universe naturally evolves toward Ω Λ = 1. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, back at<br />

the big bang Ω Λ was almost certainly near zero. So, an interesting questi<strong>on</strong> is:<br />

“why is Ω Λ <strong>on</strong>ly now in the middle ground (Ω Λ = .6), making it’s move between<br />

zero <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e?” For example, does this argue that the cosmological c<strong>on</strong>stant is<br />

not really c<strong>on</strong>stant, <strong>and</strong> that there is some new physical principle that keeps<br />

it in this middle ground? Otherwise, why should the value of the cosmological<br />

c<strong>on</strong>stant be such that Ω Λ is just now making it’s debut? It is not clear why Λ<br />

should not have a value such that it would have taken over l<strong>on</strong>g ago, or such<br />

that it would still be way too tiny to notice.<br />

10.5 The Beginning <strong>and</strong> The End<br />

Well, we are nearly finished with our story but we are not yet at the end. We<br />

traced the universe back to a time when it was so hot <strong>and</strong> dense that the nuclei<br />

of atoms were just forming. We have seen that there is experimental evidence<br />

(in the abundances of Hydrogen <strong>and</strong> Helium) that the universe actually was<br />

this hot <strong>and</strong> dense in its distant past. Well, if our underst<strong>and</strong>ing of physics is<br />

right, it must have been even hotter <strong>and</strong> more dense before. So, what was this<br />

like? How hot <strong>and</strong> dense was it? From the perspective of general relativity,<br />

the most natural idea is that the farther back we go, the hotter <strong>and</strong> denser it<br />

was. Looking back in time, we expect that there was a time when it was so hot<br />

that prot<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> neutr<strong>on</strong>s themselves fell apart, <strong>and</strong> that the universe was full<br />

of things called quarks. Farther back still, the universe so hot that our current<br />

knowledge of physics is not sufficient to describe it. All kinds of weird things<br />

might have happened, like maybe the universe had more than four dimensi<strong>on</strong>s<br />

back then. Maybe the universe was filled with truly exotic particles. Maybe the<br />

universe underwent various periods of inflati<strong>on</strong> followed by relative quiet.<br />

Anyway, looking very far back we expect that <strong>on</strong>e would find c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s very<br />

similar to those near the singularity of a black hole. This is called the ‘big bang

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!