Looking for the quantum properties of the Big Bang

Jun 13, 2008 By Miranda Marquit feature

“General relativity doesn’t recognize quantum physics,” Martin Bojowald tells PhysOrg.com. And that, he insists, causes problems when it comes to understanding the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang: “You get to a point where you derive all these infinite values and classical physics stop making sense.”

The key Bojowald, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University, believes, is integrating quantum equations with general relativity to get a picture of what might have happened at the earliest moments in the cosmic development of our universe. He discusses this subject, and presents his equations, in Physical Review Letters: “How Quantum is the Big Bang?”

In order to build a picture of what happened at the Big Bang (or even before), Bojowald has been slowly adding different terms to his equations that address different quantum properties. “Sometimes these are written as ‘additional forces,’” he explains, “and one that we looked at was a consequence of the ability of quantities to fluctuate in time.”

“Fluctuating behaviors cause quantities to change rapidly in time. We would measure something twice in a row, and get different quantities,” Bojowald says. The complex equations used to get this information, though, “remain sensible and can tell us what happens. But we don’t know the complete theory, and the equations are still difficult to analyze.”

But one thing these fluctuating behaviors do offer is confirmation: “We confirmed some of the indications that we received early regarding the upper bound energy densities can have,” Bojowald explains. “In classical physics, you have this infinite number. With quantum effects, we see that there must be an upper limit to energy densities and temperatures.”

What happens when these upper bounds are reached? Bojowald continues: “One possibility is that the universe bounces. Initially, a collapsing universe became denser and denser. When the upper energy bounds were reached, it turned into the expanding universe we see now.”

The next question, though, is how long these quantum fluctuations affected the universe. “We often think of it as a very short amount of time,” Bojowald says, “and maybe it was. But with quantum fluctuations, it could be a longer time. Either there was a really short bounce, or the universe spent a long time in a quantum state, and once the right value was reached, it started to expand.” It all depends on what quantum state the universe was in at the time. Whether the universe contracts, expands or oscillates depends upon the quantum state.

Understanding how our universe came to be could answer other questions. “While models of the early universe seem complex,” Bojowald insists, “they are really some of the mathematically simplest models that have something to do with reality. In a sense, this can help us understand fundamental physics.”

But in terms of cosmic evolution, this work has potential that could be even more exciting. “This can affect what sorts of observations we can make,” Bojowald says. “That is motivation to look at these equations and see what they imply. We might be able to observe what happened right after the Big Bang – and even before.”

Copyright 2007 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: New microscope collects dynamic images of the molecules that animate life

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Quantum steps towards the Big Bang

Sep 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —Present-day physics cannot describe what happened in the Big Bang. Quantum theory and the theory of relativity fail in this almost infinitely dense and hot primal state of the universe. Only ...

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

Apr 09, 2008

Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn’t go there – at T=0, it spews out zeros, ...

What Happened Before the Big Bang?

Jul 01, 2007

New discoveries about another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today will be announced in the early on-line edition of the journal Nature Physics on 1 July 2007 and wi ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2008
I don't understand why people continue to talk about a "bounce" when all the evidence seems to suggest that the universe will continue to expand forever. According to our best data and measurements there never was or never will be a "bounce".
dfwrunner
4.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2008
Not much substance. Nothing new here...move along.
defunctdiety
1.8 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2008
@ Modernmystic

Hmmm, maybe because all the evidence we have is incomplete and it's a strictly theoretical realm so it's still open to "theories".
deatopmg
2 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2008
I don't understand why people continue to talk about a "bounce" when all the evidence seems to suggest that the universe will continue to expand forever. According to our best data and measurements there never was or never will be a "bounce".

AND there never was a big bang. Astrophysics headed down the wrong path with that one but they keep on inventing things to get more grant money to study the inventions.
superhuman
3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2008
Its really sad that many intelligent scientists waste their time on such completely unproductive and useless research.
You cant build a scientific theory on pure speculations, it has to be based on experimental evidence and/or other already established (by experimentation) theories otherwise its a modern metaphysics.
McQ
2 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2008
You cant build a scientific theory on pure speculations, it has to be based on experimental evidence and/or other already established (by experimentation) theories otherwise its a modern metaphysics.


But that was the initial problem. No existing theory could explain what happened at the big bang, so he had to attack it from another angle. Besides, nothing truly new has ever been deducted from an old "established" theory.
Roj
2 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2008
I don't understand why people continue to talk about a "bounce" when all the evidence seems to suggest that the universe will continue to expand forever.


If probability is eventually found for "Bounce", it may be favored by Intelligent Design advocates, hoping for seeding by an ancient race or being, who escaped the prior universe's gravitational contraction.

they keep on inventing things to get more grant money to study the inventions.


Since the early 1980's in print media, I recall Product news releases uses as news content. Its news written by an advertisers public relations or media department to evangelize a new product or service, and used by the publications as a feature article.

Publications generate more revenue by using their sponsors Product Releases for news content; its the academic community that has been slow to catch on..