Physicists Simulate Critical 'Reheating' Period That Kickstarted the Big Bang (phys.org) 69
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: Just before the Big Bang launched the universe onto its ever-expanding course, physicists believe, there was another, more explosive phase of the early universe at play: cosmic inflation, which lasted less than a trillionth of a second. During this period, matter -- a cold, homogeneous goop -- inflated exponentially quickly before processes of the Big Bang took over to more slowly expand and diversify the infant universe. Recent observations have independently supported theories for both the Big Bang and cosmic inflation. But the two processes are so radically different from each other that scientists have struggled to conceive of how one followed the other.
Now physicists at MIT, Kenyon College, and elsewhere have simulated in detail an intermediary phase of the early universe that may have bridged cosmic inflation with the Big Bang. This phase, known as "reheating," occurred at the end of cosmic inflation and involved processes that wrestled inflation's cold, uniform matter into the ultrahot, complex soup that was in place at the start of the Big Bang. David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and professor of physics at MIT, and his colleagues simulated in detail how multiple forms of matter would have interacted during this chaotic period at the end of inflation. Their simulations show that the extreme energy that drove inflation could have been redistributed just as quickly, within an even smaller fraction of a second, and in a way that produced conditions that would have been required for the start of the Big Bang. The team found this extreme transformation would have been even faster and more efficient if quantum effects modified the way that matter responded to gravity at very high energies, deviating from the way Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts matter and gravity should interact. The findings have been published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Now physicists at MIT, Kenyon College, and elsewhere have simulated in detail an intermediary phase of the early universe that may have bridged cosmic inflation with the Big Bang. This phase, known as "reheating," occurred at the end of cosmic inflation and involved processes that wrestled inflation's cold, uniform matter into the ultrahot, complex soup that was in place at the start of the Big Bang. David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and professor of physics at MIT, and his colleagues simulated in detail how multiple forms of matter would have interacted during this chaotic period at the end of inflation. Their simulations show that the extreme energy that drove inflation could have been redistributed just as quickly, within an even smaller fraction of a second, and in a way that produced conditions that would have been required for the start of the Big Bang. The team found this extreme transformation would have been even faster and more efficient if quantum effects modified the way that matter responded to gravity at very high energies, deviating from the way Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts matter and gravity should interact. The findings have been published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Good grief (Score:5, Funny)
Not ANOTHER Kickstarter story!
Re: (Score:2)
At least they're using a small "u" (Score:2)
But I'd prefer "this region within the Universe" unless they state up front that they're talking about one cyclic Universe. "Universes" these days are as cheap as "AIs", it seems.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it feels more like the last vestiges of trying to probe the big bang as an other theory starts to take hold. You need, everything, everywhere, everywhen because you can not get something, somewhere, somewhen from nothing, nowhere, nowhen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stephen Hawking says that matter and energy have positive energy, while space and time have negative energy. The two exactly balance out, leaving our universe with net zero energy. It's just a big quantum fluctuation, the net energy embodied in the universe is zero.
But even if that theory is wrong, your logic is flawed. You are basing your theory on what you can observe inside the universe. Sure, inside the universe your postulates hold true on the macro scale. On the quantum scale, vacuum fluctuations viol
I ran this simulation in college (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
so that's where universes cum from. I'm now waiting for the Big Tit.
Re: (Score:2)
(Insert Milky Way joke here.)
an extremely small speck of matter (Score:1)
What matter? Where did it come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Vogon armpit.
Re: (Score:1)
(Maybe) Pluto started to spray its life into Uranus after it had got tied up with the Kupier belt.
Re: (Score:1)
The same place God came from.
Re: (Score:2)
What matter? Where did it come from?
It's turtle poop. After all, it's turtles all the way down.
Pretty Impressive (Score:2)
Especially seeing as the 80% +/- of the universe that's said to consist of dark matter/dark energy isn't at all understood.
Re: (Score:1)
Gonna leave a mark (Score:1)
"My hand's gone, but who cares, I just earned the fucking Nobel, baby!"
Can someboday please explain to me? (Score:2)
If I understand it correctly, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light in those first moments.
What happens when matter and energy accelerate at faster than the speed of light? What is produced? Or maybe, What's left in your wake after space-time accelerates past you faster than the speed of light?
--
She‘s our friend and she‘s crazy. – Dustin
Re:Can someboday please explain to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I would like to remind those of you eligible to metamoderate to do so: https://slashdot.org/firehose.... [slashdot.org]
There's an awful lot of troll modding going on these days, particularly in response to factual comments.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory is that spacetime itself expanded faster than the speed of light. This is fanciful math wankery based on nothing other than trying to wind back the clock and stuff the universe into the preconceived box that is the big bang.
You claiming that this is still happening outside of our light cone is beyond preposterous. You may as well claim you have a super model girlfriend, but she's from outside our light cone so we wouldn't know her.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory is that spacetime itself expanded faster than the speed of light. This is fanciful math wankery based on nothing other than trying to wind back the clock and stuff the universe into the preconceived box that is the big bang.
You claiming that this is still happening outside of our light cone is beyond preposterous. You may as well claim you have a super model girlfriend, but she's from outside our light cone so we wouldn't know her.
What do you think happens inside of an event horizon?
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe, What's left in your wake after space-time accelerates past you faster than the speed of light?
Spaghetti. Or strings, as physicists like to call them... :p
Re: (Score:2)
Touched by His Noodley Appendage.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you read that you need to understand that c is the speed of cause and affect. You can't have an affect on something in less than the time it takes light to reach the object*. In a way light isn't special in its speed it just moves at the speed of cause and affect. That doesn't mean that the distance between two points can't increase at faster than the speed of light. The distance can because this isn't violating the cause and affect.
Now back to inflation - t
Re: (Score:2)
Should be Cause and Effect. Although Affect might be correct, everyone says Effect.
When you start to talk special relativity, let alone quanum general relativity, all intuitions go out the window.
Incidentally, Einstein used a very dubious train analogy to try to explain special relativity, and like most explanations he made a giant leap in one sentence without explanation.
Re: Can someboday please explain to me? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when matter and energy MOVE faster than the speed of light? What is produced? Or maybe, What's left in your wake after space-time MOVES past you faster than the speed of light?
1. Fixed that for you.
2. Matter and energy cannot move faster than the speed of light (although energy in the form of light can move at the speed of light.)
3. If you multiply a very large distance by a realistic expansion frequency you might get a "speed" that is faster than light. But anything at that distance is (a) outside of your light cone, (b) not observable, and (c) cannot go past you.
4. Space cannot go past you faster than the speed of light. More to the point, you cannot go through space fast
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can someboday please explain to me? (Score:5, Informative)
As beachmike mentioned below before some trolls ate him, space expanded faster than the speed of light, not matter. Matter is in space and as such cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
How many times does this have to be repeated?
Re: (Score:3)
How many times does this have to be repeated?
That depends on how long the universe exists for, and if any of these alternate universes exist in some real sense. I'd just assume infinitely at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when matter and energy accelerate at faster than the speed of light?
paraphrasing Futurama: The ship doesn't move faster than light (that's impossible). It moves the universe around it.
Sources close to the proj3ct revealed (Score:1)
big bang Didn't Happen; (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what does the last Turtle stand upon?
Re: (Score:1)
Wow! In one stroke you've fixed the Universe Problem for the physicists. I urge you tell them this quickly so they don't waste anymore time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: big bang Didn't Happen; (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A theory isn't a fact it's just an idea that has support and ev
Re: (Score:2)
This whole universe could be a giant space babies poop for all we actually know but we didnt see any giant buttholes in any of our snap shots.
Because telescopes point up, not toward Washington, D.C.
LOL. (Score:1)
You worthless basement dwelling know-it-alls just kill me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what I believe is that the Big Bang THEORY, (emphasis mine,)
It's a shame that your understanding of sixth grade science is flawed so massively. Everything that came after that is just an interesting stroll into how misguided a world-view can be when one has such a massive deficit of basic scientific understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s frankly absurd. I’ve been challenged on this before; “so what,” people ask, “do you believe in the Genesis creation story?” No... what I believe is that the Big Bang THEORY, (emphasis mine,) is just a retelling of the Genesis story with the names and dates changed. Same essential story, though.
Some inscrutable and ineffable thing, for reasons of its own, a really super long time ago, for reasons we cannot fathom, of course, and of which we have no way of ever knowing, arbitrarily decided at some specific moment in nonhisotory, x amount of time ago, to MAKE the ... EVERYTHING WE SEE. Before that there was only nothingness, and then somethingness.
It's neither inscrutable nor ineffable. It's a retelling of the Genesis myth that persists for a reason. That reason is called the Laws of Thermodynamics, and specifically the Second Law.
In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.
The Universe is not at maximum entropy, which it should be if it were actually eternal, so therefore there must have been a beginning, so therefore... Big Bang.
Thermodynamics rests on extremely solid ground. Basically all of modern society is built upon it. Steam turbines are designed and built and produce megawatts of
Beware the "reheating" (Score:2)
It is a tradition... (Score:1)
Yes, we know. It is a tradition — every 13 billion years or so the physicists "simulate" the Big Bang...
You can stop dieting now...
What exactly caused this "reheating"? (Score:2)
So this theory says that this huge explosion happened, causing tremendous heat, and eventually, all of the universe.
What exploded, exactly? Wait, nothing exploded?
Oh yeah, some fluctuation in space time. Wait, where did that fluctuation come from? What exactly fluctuated, and where did that come from?
Keep tracing these explosions and fluctuations back further, and you eventually have to get back to absolute nothingness.
And you're going to tell me that this nothingness suddenly produced a huge explosion?
By c
Re: (Score:1)
> By comparison, GOD somehow seems less miraculous.
It's tempting to put a name on it and say now you know the answer, but you haven't really learned anything about the origin of our universe. You've just hung a name on it.