Adapted from P. Coles, 1999, The Routledge Critical
Dictionary of the New Cosmology, Routledge Inc., New York. Reprinted
with the author's permission. To order this book click here:
http://www.routledge-ny.com/books.cfm?isbn=0415923549
The standard Big Bang theory is based on the
assumption that the Universe is, on sufficiently large scales,
homogeneous and isotropic. This assumption goes under the
grand-sounding name of the cosmological principle. The name, however,
belies the rather pragmatic motivations that led the early
relativistic cosmologists to introduce it. Having virtually no data to
go on, Albert Einstein, Alexander Friedmann, Georges
Lemaître and the
rest simply chose to explore the simplest cosmological models they
could find. Somewhat fortuitously, it seems that the Universe is
reasonably compatible with these simple models.
More recently, cosmologists started to ask whether homogeneity could
be explained within the Big Bang theory rather than simply being
assumed at the start. The prospects appear fairly promising: there are
many physical processes that we can imagine having smoothed out any
fluctuations in the early Universe, in much the same way that
inhomogeneous media reach a homogeneous state, for example by
diffusion. But there is a fundamental problem that arises when we
appeal to these processes in cosmology: diffusion or other physical
homogenisation mechanisms take time. And in the early stages of the
rapid expansion of the Universe there does not seem to have been
enough time for these mechanisms to come into play.
This shortage of time is indicated by the presence of cosmological
(particle) horizons. Even the most
rapid process for smoothing out fluctuations cannot occur more quickly
over a scale L than the time it takes light to traverse that scale.
Therefore, assuming that the initial state of the Universe was not
homogeneous, we should expect it to remain inhomogeneous on a scale L
unless the horizon is large enough to encompass L. Roughly speaking,
this means that L > ct for homogenisation to occur at some
time t. But
the cosmological particle horizon grows in proportion to time t in the
standard Friedmann models, while the proper distance between two
points moving with the expansion scales with t more slowly than this.
(For example, in the Friedmann model describing a flat universe - the
Einstein-de Sitter solution - the proper distance between points
scales as t2/3.)
The existence of a cosmological horizon makes it difficult to accept
that the cosmological principle results from a physical process. This
principle requires that there should be a very strong correlation
between the physical conditions in regions which are outside each
other's particle horizons and which, therefore, have never been able
to communicate by causal processes. For example, the observed isotropy
of the cosmic microwave background radiation implies that this
radiation was homogeneous and isotropic in regions on the last
scattering surface (i.e. the spherical surface centred upon us, here
on Earth, which is at a distance corresponding to the lookback time to
the era at which this radiation was last scattered by matter). The
last scattering probably took place at a cosmic epoch characterised by
some time tls corresponding to a redshift of
zls
Various avenues have been explored in attempts to find a resolution
of this problem. Some homogeneous but anisotropic cosmological models
do not have a particle horizon at all. One famous example is the
mixmaster universe model proposed by Charles Misner. Other
possibilities are to invoke some kind of modification of Einstein's
equations to remove the horizon, or some process connected with the
creation of particles at the Planck epoch of quantum gravity that
might lead to a suppression of fluctuations. Indeed, we might wonder
whether it makes sense to talk about a horizon at all during the era
governed by quantum cosmology. It is generally accepted that the
distinct causal structure of spacetime that is responsible for the
behaviour of light signals (described by the signature of the metric)
might break down entirely, so the idea of a horizon becomes entirely
meaningless (see e.g. imaginary time).
The most favoured way of ironing out any fluctuations in the early
Universe, however, is generally accepted to be the inflationary
Universe scenario. The horizon problem in the standard models stems
from the fact that the expansion is invariably decelerating in the
usual Friedmann models. This means that when we look at the early
Universe the horizon is always smaller, compared with the distance
between two points moving with the expansion, than it is now. Points
simply do not get closer together quickly enough, as we turn the clock
back, to be forced into a situation where they can
communicate. Inflation causes the expansion of the Universe to
accelerate. Regions of a given size now come from much smaller initial
regions in these models than they do in the standard, decelerating
models. This difference is illustrated in the Figure by the convex
curves showing expansion in the inflationary model, and the concave
curves with no inflation.
Horizon problem. Our observable patch of
the Universe grows from a much smaller
initial patch in the inflationary Universe (right) than it does in the
standard Friedmann models (left.).
With the aid of inflation, we can make models in which the
present-day Universe comes from a patch of the initial Universe that
is sufficiently small to have been smoothed out by physics rather than
by cosmological decree. Interestingly, though, having smoothed away
any fluctuations in this way, inflation puts some other fluctuations
in their place. These are the so-called primordial density
fluctuations which might be responsible for cosmological structure
formation. The difference with these fluctuations, however, is that
they are small - only one part in a hundred thousand or so - whereas
we might have expected the initial pre-inflation state of the Universe
to be arbitrarily large.
FURTHER READING:
Guth, A.H., `Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon
and flatness problems', Physical Review D, 1981, 23, 347.
Narlikar, J.V. and Padmanabhan, T., `Inflation for astronomers',
Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1991, 29, 325.
HORIZON PROBLEM
1000. The distance
of the last scattering surface is now roughly ct0,
since the time of
last scattering was very soon after the Big Bang singularity. Picture
a sphere delimited by this surface. The size of the sphere at the
epoch when the last scattering occurred was actually smaller than its
present size because it has been participating since then in the
expansion of the Universe. At the epoch of last scattering the sphere
had a radius given roughly by ct0 / (1 +
zls). This is about one-tenth
the size of the particle horizon at the same epoch. But our last
scattering sphere seems smooth and uniform. How did this happen, when
different parts of it have never been able to exchange signals with
each other in order to cause homogenisation?