Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Suggests | Space.com

21

On Monday (March 17), scientists announced new findings that mark the first-ever direct evidence of primordial gravitational waves — ripples in space-time created just after the universe began. If the results are confirmed, they would provide smoking-gun evidence that space-time expanded at many times the speed of light just after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. current_location = window.location.href; image_description = "The bottom part of this illustration shows the scale of the universe versus time. Specific events are shown such as the formation of neutral Hydrogen at 380 000 years after the big bang. Prior to this time, the constant interaction between matter (electrons) and light (photons) made the universe opaque. After this time, the photons we now call the CMB started streaming freely.
 

The bottom part of this illustration shows the scale of the universe versus time. Specific events are shown such as the formation of neutral Hydrogen at 380 000 years after the big bang. Prior to this time, the constant interaction between matter (electrons) and light (photons) made the universe opaque. After this time, the photons we now call the CMB started streaming freely.Credit: BICEP2 CollaborationView full size image The new research also lends credence to the idea of a multiverse. This theory posits that, when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes. The known universe has its own laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept. "Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second. See how cosmic inflation theory for the Big Bang and universe's expansion works in this Space.com infographic.

Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second. "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously." Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse. "In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real." When Guth and his colleagues thought up cosmic inflation more than 30 years ago, scientists thought it was untestable. Today, however, researchers are able to study light left over from the Big Bang called cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). In the new study, a team led by John Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found telltale signs of inflation in the microwave background. The researchers discovered a distinct curl in the polarization pattern of the CMB, a sign of gravitational waves created by the rapid expansion of space-time just after the Big Bang."If multiple universes exist, they may collide with each other and leave behind signs in the cosmic microwave background radiation, researchers say.

If multiple universes exist, they may collide with each other and leave behind signs in the cosmic microwave background radiation, researchers say.Credit: Stephen Feeney/UCLView full size image Linde, one of the main contributers to inflation theory, says that if the known universe is just one bubble, there must be many other bubbles in the cosmic fabric. "Think about some unstable state," Linde explained. "You are standing on a hill, and you can fall in this direction, you can fall in that direction, and if you're drunk, eventually you must fall. Inflation is instability of our space with respect to its expansion. "You have something growing exponentially," he added. "If you just let it go … it will continue exponentially growing, so this [the known universe] is one possibility of something going wrong with this instability, which is very, very right for us because it has created all of our space. Now, we know that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong once and a second time and a third time and into infinity as long as it can go." 

 

Written By: Miriam Kramer
continue to source article at space.com

21 COMMENTS

    • that space-time expanded at many times the speed of light just after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.
      **current_location = window.location.href; image_description ** = “The bottom part of this illustration

      It’s seems a part of an alternate universe is emerging through this article :-)

    • Er… Imagination, uh ?

      In reply to #2 by A.Porto:

      Multiverse is just imagination of scientists.

      I wonder by what extra-ordinary chance did you land on a site where people around are supposed to already know what a hypothesis is, in matters of scientific research…

      Scientists observe the materialistic world, try to figure out coherent conclusions from data they collected, and draw a general scheme that best fits the facts observed. In this precise case, that led “us” ( = we humans) to the so-called ‘Big Bang’ theory, which is the best scheme at hand, so far, to explain the very beginning of our universe as we observe it.

      But what do you do, when — as observation tools get more and more precise and sophisticated — you notice some… er… discrepancies in this beautiful mechanics ? Well… You start thinking : What does that imply ? How far does it ‘deconstruct’ the previous scheme ? How can we insert these new discoveries, while keeping the whole batch from falling apart ?? etc… etc…

      Of course the new hypothesis has to be tested, disproved if necessary, and, eventually, validated ! That how it goes.

      Then… writing “Multiverse is just imagination of scientists”, in this framework, seems to me a bit supercilious —if not straight-faced scornful…. Don’t you think ?

    • In reply to #2 by A.Porto:

      The description of the early universe gives the impression
      someone was there, noting the seconds and minutes.
      Multiverse is just imagination of scientists.
      Infinity is the greatest evidence of Infinite Multiverses

      • In reply to #19 by niranjankulkarni:

        Infinity is the greatest evidence of Infinite Multiverses

        Niranjankulkarni… How can you predicate the existence of multiverses… by just taking ‘infinity’ for granted ? The present, visible Universe is already regarded as being “infinite”, and it’s perfectly coherent !

        Scientists came to consider multiverses once again… only after very complex mathematical modelling drew them back towards that possibility !

        If you are to assert such a blunt statement, then you can’t pull it out of a hat from mere “self-evidence”. That’s what theists have being doin’ for thousands of years…

      • niranjankulkarni May 23, 2014 at 6:20 am

        In reply to #2 by A.Porto:

        A.Porto: -The description of the early universe gives the
        impression someone was there, noting the "seconds and
        minutes". Multiverse is just imagination of scientists.

        Infinity is the greatest evidence of Infinite Multiverses.

        Minutes and seconds are recent human inventions for calibrating measurements of time – based on the present-day rate of rotation of the Earth. They are evidence of nothing other than that.

        Multiverses are scientific speculation with some limited basis of credibility.

        “Infinity” is a hypothetical mathematical concept, which is detached from any connection to physical evidence. I can set a camera focus to “infinity”, but that does not make the view “infinite”!

  1. It kind of sounds like many big bangs (local universes) that have happened througout the cosmos. I’ve had this general idea since I was a teen, learned about the big bang, and then wrapped my mind around the possibility of an infinite cosmos. After truly understanding the possibility of the infinite universe, things became simple and more understandable.

    • In reply to #7 by bene.taylor:

      Speculation: what religions are made of.

      Religions don’t speculate, they dictate. The flurry of ideas scientists put forth upon receiving new data is part of the process of weeding out the impossible. What a pitiful outlook yours must be, where any bold, or “speculative” interpretations of new data are rejected instantly.

  2. Scientists theorize, then test and share results to verify if their results are consistent, in fact they are almost overjoyed if other’s results prove them wrong (usually due to information not available at that time). In contrast religions try whatever they can do to keep their belief system constant, even trying to make the “facts” fit into their ideology,

  3. When I was a teen I imagined I was sitting on an atom in my body what would I see .My universe would be my body as far as I could see I would be looking at a universe not dissimilar from what we see when we peer into space the only difference would be scale little would I know that I was part of a bigger picture.My theory has been since I was a teen the same principles apply through out the cosmos is just as our bodies grew out of a single cell with the help of outside energy the universe evolved with energy outside the universe and we are also part of a bigger picture which means to us that multi universes makes alot of sense
    Kish

    • In reply to #13 by Kishi:

      When I was a teen I imagined I was sitting on an atom in my body what would I see .My universe would be my body as far as I could see I would be looking at a universe not dissimilar from what we see when we peer into space the only difference would be scale little would I know that I was part of a b…

      That’s a common way to view the universe but I think it’s clearly wrong. When you get down to even the atomic level things are nothing like the material world we are familiar with. Forces like gravity are meaningless and forces that are mostly not important at the normal human level become dominant: the weak and strong nuclear forces. Also, the way particles and sub-atomic particles behave isn’t even an exact match to our common sense view of cause and effect. Behaviors become things like probability waves and how you might actually see such things if that were possible is anyone’s guess. I think it’s one of the things science shows us is that things don’t uniformly scale up from the very small to the very large.

      • These are platitudes that don’t admit of any physical explanations. They’re mathematical mysticisms, pure and simple. In science, we need proper interpretation as well as observation. If we devolve into using ‘probability waves’ as physical ‘explanations’, then we’re not doing science, but religion.

  4. In reply to #12 by x-bone:

    To RDFRS moderators… In my above post (2nd line, 3rd paragraph) : “mechanic” is to be edited, and be read “mechanics”, of course —even though for gay theists big-bang ( = ‘god’) might be seen as… “a beautiful mechanic” ! (lol…)

    If you get in quickly you can edit your own post. Click on More ( in italics at the bottom right hand corner) and then Edit.

    • In reply to #15 by Nitya:

      In reply to #12 by x-bone:

      If you get in quickly you can edit…

      Thanx Nitya ! But of course, one day after, it was too late to edit my post… (do you know how long does the ‘edit’ possibility last ?)

      Anyway… I deleted my first writing altogether, and posted it anew —with the right spelling. Then, in turn, you can delete your (precious) reply, as it became pointless. Thx again…

      • In reply to #17 by x-bone:

        In reply to #15 by Nitya:

        In reply to #12 by x-bone:

        If you get in quickly you can edit…

        Thanx Nitya ! But of course, one day after, it was too late to edit my post… (do you know how long does the ‘edit’ possibility last ?)

        Anyway… I deleted my first writing altogether, and posted it anew…

        I think we have an hour to edit our original effort. I always give it a try anyway….. just in case the window’s still open. I admit to a great deal of editing and re-editing as I often miss the typo or a mis-match in verb/subject.

Leave a Reply