Universe for Breakfast : Rival Theories Vie for Big Bang

Dipen Bhattacharya
June, 2001

A favourite author of mine died recently. His name was Douglas Adams. He wrote irreverent, but hilarious science fiction stories satirizing mankind's self-importance. The collection of his stories came to be known as "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Douglas Adams died young, he was only 49, but this article is not about him. I mentioned Adams because of a quote that appears in the prologue of his book titled, "Restaurant at the End of the Universe," where citizens of the Universe gather to celebrate the end of time and then return to their respective time zones! Adams wrote, "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another which states that this has already happened."

Notwithstanding Adam's sarcasm, the quote succinctly summarizes the modern quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe: its possible fiery origin, its current expanding state and its doomed cold future. In this process scientists have stumbled on natural phenomena that went against the common sense and intuition. One can count quantum physics and relativity among these, but today's story is about the scale of the Universe and how it can also 'boggle' the mind.

Much of the unraveling of the Universe happened within the past one hundred years when we gradually came to accept that the scale of the Universe is simply too big. Even during the early 1900's, we were unaware of its extent, we thought the Universe was comprised of only one stellar association that was known as the Milky Way galaxy. Astronomers had seen quite a few fuzzy nebulous objects in the sky, which, they thought, belonged to the Milky Way.

But much before that, in 1755, German philosopher Immanuel Kant published a book called "Universal Natural History and the Theory of Heavens," where he suggested the possibility that the fuzzy nebulous object seen through the telescopes could be conglomerations of stars outside our galaxy. Kant called them "Island Universes." One hundred and sixty five years later, in 1920, in a famous debate organized by the US National Academy of Sciences, astronomer Herbert Curtis used the Kantian term "Island Universe" to assert that the fuzzy spiral nebulae, that astronomers had been observing for decades, actually reside outside our stellar system. Soon thereafter, in a series of observations carried out by Edwin Hubble, it was conclusively proved that those were indeed separate galaxies than our own. In that decade of 1920, the size of the Universe increased by a factor of more than hundred.

There was another surprising element to Hubble's observations. It seemed the other galaxies were hurtling through space, they were running away from the Milky Way at high speeds. Hubble observed that the further the galaxy was from us, the faster it was moving away from us. This was the first evidence of the Big Bang, an initial explosion that caused the spacetime to expand.

Since Hubble's time astronomers have continuously strived to see the farthest reaches of our universe. They have discovered gigantic radio-galaxies, violent quasars, ripples in the distribution of the matter that were created a few hundred thousand years after the big bang. With these observations the scale size of the visible Universe increased to billions of light years.

Compare this with the Ptolemaic conception of the Universe that prevailed for almost one and a half millenia. Ptolemy's Universe barely covered the distance to the Sun.

But just when people started getting comfortable with the notion of the Big Bang and the huge size of the Universe, scientists recognized that the conditions prevailing right after the Big Bang had to be very special to match the cosmological observations of the modern day Universe. To mitigate these inconsistencies in the early 1980's, Alan Guth and other theoretical physicists developed a model of "Inflationary Universe." In simple words the model states that when the Universe was very very young, when it was less than one second old, it went through a catastrophic inflationary phase. This inflation lasted only a minute fraction of a second, but within that time the Universe was enlarged more than a million trillon trillion trillion times. The consequence of this inflation is that our observable Universe occupies only a tiny fraction of the "total" Universe. The value of this fraction is model dependent, but for all practical purposes inflationary theory renders the bigger Universe to be unknowable.

Since 1980s, astronomers have carried out a series of observations to verify the inflationary model. Recently, results obtained by a number of microwave telescopes, flown on balloon platforms in the sky above Antarctica, seemed to indicate that some sort of inflation did play a role in the early Universe.

But true to Douglas Adam's saying, scientists have a penchant for using bizarre notions that often go against everyday common sense. Paul Steinhard of Princeton University and his colleagues have recently published papers on an alternative to inflation where Big Bang is defined as the collision of two Universes. The model is called Ekpyrotic Universe, the term was borrowed from Greek, ekpyrosis in Greek stands for "conflagaration" or "cataclysmic fire."

The core of this model lies in an extension of "String Theory" known as the M-theory. String theory defines the fundamental building blocks of nature as tiny vibrating strings. In M-theory the Universe has eleven dimensions. In our Universe, seven of these dimensions are rolled up into tiny microscopic filament that cannot be perceived with our modern day observational techniques. In the Ekpyrotic model, two pre-existing universes, each with four dimensional space-time properties collide within a five dimensional space-time. The result is the Big Bang and corresponding fluctuations in the matter density observed in the early Universe.

But several critics including Andrei Linde, one of the major proponents of the Inflation Theory, point out that such collision would produce too much density fluctuation to match our observations of the Universe. It possibly will take decades to conclusively prove or disprove these theories, but it is simply astounding to contemplate how far we have come even within the last hundred years in our pursuit for the scale size of the Universe. Inflationary or the Ekpyrotic model, negative pressure or string theory, all point to something beyond our visible Universe, which might be closed to our exploration for eternity.

Scientists produce extraordinary notions, such as extra dimensions or creation out of nothing, to explain the Universe. But in the end, just like the concept of the slowing down of time in Einstein's relativity, we may find such ideas persuasive. We will then wait for something more bizarre to catapult us to the next shift in our knowledge paradigm.