We have come so far in the last 100 years, and so has our picture of the Universe. From an island galaxy ruled by Newton's gravity and classical electromagnetism, we've come through the discovery of general relativity, the expanding Universe, the need for dark matter, the big bang, the synthesis of all the elements in the Universe, and, for good measure, we walked on the Moon. By the 1970s, we had a fabulous picture of the History of the Universe.

There's just one (huge) problem: What caused the Big Bang? We know the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics, and we know that the Universe is finite in age, expanding, cooling, and bathed in the afterglow of the Big Bang. As far as we could tell, galaxies and clusters of galaxies looked exactly as they should, and the only cosmological problem left was the one of the dark matter holding clusters and galaxies together.

But a closer look revealed a number of problems. First off, this "leftover glow" from the Big Bang was the same exact temperature everywhere. Why? Why would this be the case? After all, if you look in one direction, you find a temperature of 2.725 Kelvin, and it comes from a distance of around 46 billion light-years away. But in the opposite direction, 46 billion light-years the other way, the temperature is also 2.725 Kelvin. How could this be, if these two things never touched each other? It takes time for temperatures to even out; this is why the people in the back seat of your car always complain about a lack of air conditioning in the summer! Even today, we know that the temperature difference in any two parts of the sky is only a few hundred thousandths of a degree:

So, that's the first problem. Why is the Universe the same temperature everywhere?
But that's not the only problem. If you take a look outside, the Earth looks pretty flat to you, doesn't it. We know it's a sphere, but the reason it looks flat to us is because we can only see a tiny area of it. What about the Universe? Well, we can imagine three possible "shapes" for the Universe: flat, sphere-like, or saddle-like:

What we observe is not only that the Universe is flat, but it's so flat that, back in the early stages of the big bang, it had to be flat to 1 part in 10^51! This is so unlikely, it would be like throwing a dart at the entire Earth and hitting the correct atom.
Furthermore, there were other problems as well, such as:
- What provided the tiny, gravitational imperfections that allowed stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies to form?
- Why, if the Universe was so hot early on, are there no stable relics (like magnetic monopoles, for example) left over? And finally,
- How did we wind up with a Universe that was hot, dense, and expanding in the first place?

The theory of Cosmological Inflation was put forth by Alan Guth in late 1979, and by time the paper was published in early 1980, practically every cosmologist on the planet was working on it.
Here's what Guth's inflation says. Start with a completely random Universe. Maybe some parts are expanding, maybe some parts are contracting, maybe some parts are hot, maybe some parts are cold. But in one (perhaps miniscule) location, you get the right conditions for inflation. What inflation does is it takes this one tiny region of space, and inflates it, like a high pressure hose inflating an infinitely stretchable balloon. Regardless of what the Universe looked like before inflation, after only a tiny fraction of a second of inflation, the Universe will be stretched flat, will be empty, expanding exponentially fast, and will be unstable.

The exponential expansion solves most of the above problems. Things can be the same temperature everywhere because the tiny region where inflation started -- that gives rise to our Universe -- could easily have been uniform enough to give us the same temperature everywhere in the Universe. The Universe is flat, because inflation stretched it so that it appears flat. (Take a look at this balloon from the ant's perspective if you don't believe it.)
And, the tiny little imperfections that give rise to stars, galaxies, and clusters can be created in a very clever way. Empty space, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, isn't so empty. Tiny little pairs of particles and antiparticles, waves and anti-waves, are popping in and out of existence all the time. But in an exponentially expanding Universe, the space between them gets stretched so far that they can't find each other again to annihilate, and this creates slight differences in densities that persist to this day.
But perhaps the most remarkable thing about inflation is that it's unstable! This exponentially expanding space is full of this mysterious energy, but since E=mc^2, we can use this energy to make matter! And that's precisely what happens. This unstable energy converts into photons, quarks, electrons, neutrinos, and all the types of matter and antimatter that are physically possible. At the end of Inflation, this gives us a Universe that is:
- roughly the same temperature everywhere,
- necessarily flat (or indiscernible from flat),
- devoid of any crazy stuff that may have existed before inflation,
- seeded with tiny differences in densities on all scales, and
- hot, dense, full of matter, and expanding!
Inflation is a rich area, and Alan Guth wasn't the only one working on it, but he was the first and only one to articulate how inflation solves all of these problems. I've had the privilege to meet Alan Guth, and he's very congenial and humble, if just slightly socially awkward. I've also had a chance to meet other important people who've worked on inflation, such as Andrei Linde, Alexei Starobinski, and Paul Steinhardt. They're not humble, and make overt glory-grabs when it comes to taking the credit for inflation. Make no mistake about it: this is Guth's idea and Guth's alone. Watson didn't invent the telephone, Hilbert didn't invent General Relativity, and for this idea, Guth will surely win a Nobel Prize. It makes me feel dirty to realize that he's going to wind up sharing it with some of the more political (and less scientifically deserving) people above.
But from me, Alan Guth gets the accolade he deserves: the inventor of inflation, the most important scientist of his decade, and the glory of figuring out what must have caused the Big Bang!




Comments
1. Where can I get a copy of that terrific poster "History of the Universe"?
2.
But this says that there was some form of Universe prior to the inflation (which defines the Big Bang). The inflation would wipe out any evidence of what was there before inflation, wouldn't it? Did time exist before inflation? etc.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
| July 6, 2009 3:51 PM
Bob, you have discovered one of the most frustrating problems with inflation. It, by necessity, wipes out any pre-existing information about the Universe before inflation.
(Paul Steinhardt and others may tell you otherwise, and if they do, they're wrong.)
This is why we don't say the Universe goes back to a singularity, we say it goes back to when it's 10^-38 seconds old (or so), because we know we don't have any information to go back further beyond that.
Posted by: Ethan Siegel | July 6, 2009 3:54 PM
So, does inflation "violate" general relativity, or does general relativity not come into play until later in the universe's history? From the poster, at 10^-34 sec into the age of the universe, the whole thing should be smaller than an electron, with pretty fantastic energy densities. Do we have any idea what form of matter existed at that time?
Posted by: Mu | July 6, 2009 4:00 PM
What are the right conditions for inflation? Was the previous universe destroyed by this inflation or is it just somewhere we can't get to? Could inflation happen again?
Mu, general relativity applies to objects, not to space itself as I understand it. The objects in the universe weren't moving, they were just being streched out.
Posted by: Drekab | July 6, 2009 4:22 PM
@Mu: When the universe is that tiny, quantum effects tend to dominate, stuff like string winding energy, vacuum fluctuations, and the like. I don't claim to understand it myself.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 6, 2009 4:30 PM
@Drekab: I think I misunderstood what Mu was asking. Your answer is better than mine.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 6, 2009 4:31 PM
I'm curious as to what the hell the mechanism for Inflation is? Some kind of particle or field?
Posted by: Brando | July 6, 2009 5:44 PM
I'm a bit confused: the universe is about 14 billion years old so how can we look out to distances of 46 billion light years?
Posted by: jdhuey
| July 6, 2009 10:16 PM
What do you mean by the Universe being "flat"? I guess your meaning, obviously, wasn't a 2D pool-table Universe.
Posted by: auto focus | July 6, 2009 11:37 PM
We *know* the universe is finite in age? Wrong! We don't know anything.
It's a bit silly to ask if time existed before or after anything. You see... without time there is no before or after. Likewise, there is nothing "before" or "after" the Big Bang. It just is. Not now, not here... it *is*!
And no, the universe will never go *back* to a singularity, because it *is* a singularity. Space-time only exists within that singularity. That's why it's called a universe, right?
Posted by: WeAreGeek | July 7, 2009 3:40 AM
A question about the poster: what are the little pac-mans (pac-men?) supposed to represent? And what is "The Desert"?
Posted by: Ketil Tveiten | July 7, 2009 4:01 AM
Thanks Ethan for answering my #2 question.
But you didn't answer #1 - Where can I obtain (buy) that poster?
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
| July 7, 2009 4:48 AM
So the universe is like a giant balloon? A shell of matter streaking away from a point in space and with swirling bits like a soap bubble? A balloon so large that it appears flat and we can't see anything when we try to peek to the other side of the balloon?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 7, 2009 5:35 AM
Bunny, that's the problem with this stuff, there are more people claiming to have spoken to God than there are people who really understand all this. At the end, it comes down who you trust more, and from some of the theoretical physicists I've met, mental health, or better, conforming to what is considered "normal", is NOT a decisive difference between the two groups.
I need "astrophysics for dummies who get lost at 3rd order tensors".
Posted by: Mu | July 7, 2009 8:10 AM
@MadScientist
If the universe is like a balloon, there is no point it is streaking away from. It's difficult to grasp, but when you render the universe in two dimensions (such as a balloon), then the "center" of the balloon isn't part of the universe, so it's not there to be streaked away from. If the universe is the balloon, you can't look "up" off of the balloon. You can only look in places there's balloon material.
Call it the latex limit. Or the mylar myopia. Depending upon your balloon flavor.
Basically, you have to remember that if you use the analogy, you can't address artifacts of the need for the analogy itself (the complication of visualizing simply in three dimensions). Which means to peek "through" the other side of the balloon, we'd have to enter a dimension we can't see and only exists for us in mathematics.
Posted by: sean hogge | July 7, 2009 8:22 AM
@Ketil
The "desert" refers to the time somewhere between 10^-37 and 10^-11 where the the universe was at an energy level which has no known corresponding particles.
Posted by: sean hogge | July 7, 2009 8:32 AM
I thought the "leftover glow" was uniformly NOT the same in all directions in the sense that it shows that the earth/sun/galaxy are moving relative to a frame of reference in which the leftover glow IS uniform. So much for not being able to define a "preferred" frame of reference. The one that see the leftover glow as the same in all directions is unique ("preferred") when compared to all other non-accelerating frames of reference.
Posted by: BruceWMorlan | July 7, 2009 8:54 AM
Guth reminds me of the tall guy from Little Britain ...
Posted by: Sili
| July 7, 2009 9:15 AM
This is going to take a lot of explaining to answer all the questions here. I'll tell you what; let me finish out this series and then I'll start a new one on how distances work in Cosmology.
Posted by: Ethan Siegel | July 7, 2009 9:39 AM
@Ethan
Thanks, I will look forward to it. Trying to get a handle on the geometry of a dynamic spacetime has baffled me for sometime.
Posted by: jdhuey
| July 7, 2009 11:06 AM
So the big bang was an inflation? I think my minds being blown, it may take a while to recover...
Posted by: piratebrido | July 8, 2009 4:59 AM
Never mind, it occurred after the big bang. Mind is still blown though...
Posted by: piratebrido | July 8, 2009 5:02 AM
Ethan,
I really love your series. I was quite blown away by this:
"Start with a completely random Universe. Maybe some parts are expanding, maybe some parts are contracting, maybe some parts are hot, maybe some parts are cold."
Does this means that what we call Universe is just a bubble within a greater 'whatever'(random Universe) ? Or this 'whatever' was obliterated by inflation? Or we'll never know because it is impossible to observe it because of Inflation?
Posted by: Paulino | July 9, 2009 7:49 AM
Paulino,
It means that it doesn't matter what the Universe was like before inflation. All that matters is that one section of it, no matter how small it is and no matter how vast the rest of the Universe is, has the right conditions for inflation.
But wouldn't we all like to know what the rest of it looked like? At the moment, we haven't conceived of a way to figure that out.
Posted by: Ethan Siegel | July 9, 2009 8:21 AM
When I was in High School I work for a greenhouse/landscaper. This involved a lot of shoveling and lifting and carrying not a lot of brain power. One of the other kids I worked with was also interested in physics and cosmology and we would read as much as we could get and still understand on the big bang and the nature of the universe. The problem we always ran into was we could not do the math (really I still can’t do the math) and there is just no way, for me anyway, to satisfactorily conceptualize the big bang or the end of a finite universe. It sure made hot summer days of pulling weeds and digging rocks go faster though.
Posted by: the backpacker | July 10, 2009 11:55 AM
When we think of space the human mind has some paradoxical limitations: we can't seem to imagine it as finite (what's outside of this finite space?) and we can't seem to imagine it as infinite (it has to end someplace, right?).
Posted by: jdhuey | July 10, 2009 12:54 PM
For those wanting to get a better understanding of the geometry of space while waiting for Ethan's post, I recommend this.
It hits on the basics, like how we can talk of distances greater than 14bn light-years.
Posted by: Derek | July 17, 2009 8:16 PM
Hey, im 13. And what gets me is how it all began.
Its amazing.
Posted by: Mitch | August 25, 2009 5:38 AM
HI, I GO TO WLSS!!!
SPACE IS WICKED COZ WE R LEARNING ABOUT IT
Posted by: BRADSTA | August 25, 2009 5:43 AM
Hello, would you be able to give me a tip on what? or who? to research to give me a good head start on trying to understand the universe,big bang, and all the relative components thanks Mr toogood
Posted by: Dale Toogood | October 6, 2009 1:56 PM
Hi Ethan, I don't know if you answer comments on old blog posts but about the homogeneous temperature problem:
"Why would this be the case? After all, if you look in one direction, you find a temperature of 2.725 Kelvin, and it comes from a distance of around 46 billion light-years away. But in the opposite direction, 46 billion light-years the other way, the temperature is also 2.725 Kelvin."
Why is this surprising if electrons recombining with nuclei only happens at that specific temperature? Isn't it expected?
Posted by: filo | November 13, 2009 8:43 PM
i liKe it...
what abeautiful universe we have...
thank goD...
Posted by: pE@aCe_loL | December 17, 2009 3:32 AM