[tsieling]

Can anyone explain the definition of big bang that they're using here? My understanding has always been that inflation happened a very short time after the big bang, arguably as part of the process itself, but pre-big bang is hard to conceive (like going north of north). Is it meant as an antecedent or precondition of the big bang, or as something outside the big bang itself?

[jerf]

The idea that it is meaningless to speak of "before the Big Bang" is not a universal, mathematically-proved truth, but a contingent result of particular theories of the Big Bang that include it being a singularity at a particular time 0.000000..., at which point there is no meaningful "before" or any spatial directions either. Just as physicists discuss how the singularities in black holes may be removed via a theory of quantum gravity, further theories about the Big Bang may or may not remove the singularity and may or may not result in a meaningful "before" to speak about.

In fact there are a number of such theories, it's just that AFAIK none of them have predicted something better than the standard model well enough for the singularity model to be definitively replaced, though I think if you polled physicists and asked them about whether they think there was "really" a singularity there or if it's just an artifact of our current poor theories, the vast bulk would say it's the latter. But in the absence of quantum gravity, General Relativity is the best established tool we have for investigating this sort of thing, and that tool says it was a singularity. We have lots of other tools that say other things, but none of them are established like GR is.

[contravariant]

> 0.000000..

This is neither here nor there, but that number would be 0.

It's possible that 'time' has no minimum, but as far as I am aware the solution can be continuously extended to include 0. If not then you might as well say that the universe has existed for all time, the clocks were just running a bit slow at the start.

[jerf]

That is a number with significant digits. 0.00000... emphasizes the fact that it's not just close to zero, but exactly zero. 0 in a physics context can be read as "0 to one significant digit", which can be non-zero. For a real example, see discussions about the total cosmic curvature, which is 0 to some finite number of significant digits, but that doesn't let us quite be sure it's totally zero.

[tsieling]

Thank you this is helpful.

[qubex]

Penrose’s very counterintuitive “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology” is such a theory that predicted “Hawking Rings”, which have been observed.

[pdonis]

> Can anyone explain the definition of big bang that they're using here?

They're using "Big Bang" to mean the hot, dense, rapidly expanding state that is the earliest state of the universe for which we have good evidence. In models with inflation, this state occurs at the end of inflation, when "reheating" transfers all the energy stored in the inflaton field to the Standard Model fields (quarks, leptons, and radiation).

This is actually the standard definition of "Big Bang" used in cosmology, but unfortunately pop science books and articles still use "Big Bang" to mean "the initial singularity". We don't even know if there was an initial singularity (in eternal inflation models, for example, there isn't one).

[_0w8t]

From the equations and models of modern physics there is no time. The universe is just a curved 4D surface with one of the dimensions having different properties than the three others. This surface has at least one strange point with singularity where meaningful physical quantities go to infinities. Intuitively this seems wrong, so the suspicion is that those points are just artifacts of our models.

As for why we perceive the time with notions of before and after, nobody has an clue. There are philosophical speculations, but nothing that can tested experimentally.

[networkimprov]

> nobody has a clue

The "arrow of time" is commonly explained as an effect of thermodynamics, i.e. increasing entropy.

I always felt this to be a deeply unsatisfying explanation that implied "nobody has a clue" (a hot, expanding ball of quarks is a "highly ordered state", orly?) but I'm not a physicist.

[_0w8t]

Arrow of time explained via thermodynamics is a circular explanation. Thermodynamics follows from equation of motions or field equations. In those the time is different from space in that from conditions across 3 space coordinates at particular moment in time one can deduce conditions across the whole time (except black hole and other singularities). But from boundary conditions across two space coordinates and across the whole time one cannot fill the conditions along remaining space coordinate. But those equations just reflects experimental observations. So arrow of time exists because we observe arrow of time...

[brianberns]

> From the equations and models of modern physics there is no time. The universe is just a curved 4D surface with one of the dimensions having different properties than the three others.

That dimension is called "time" and it does show up in the equations and models of modern physics.

[Koshkin]

> why we perceive the time with notions of before and after

Perhaps, it is because of

> having different properties than the three others

[pravus]

As I understand it the current model of the beginning of the universe starts with inflation and "the big bang" is the period that immediately follows. The two are distinct because the inflationary period is described as happening at a rate faster than the speed of light and the big bang is expansion constrained by this limit. The transition happened in a fraction of a second and very little is known about the structure of the universe during the inflationary period.

[pdonis]

> The two are distinct because the inflationary period is described as happening at a rate faster than the speed of light and the big bang is expansion constrained by this limit.

This is not correct. "Expanding faster than the speed of light" isn't really a good description of the expansion of the universe at any phase, but if you're going to use it, it can happen during all phases--in fact it's happening now relative to us for parts of the universe beyond the Hubble horizon.

The key difference in the inflation period was that all of the energy was in a single field, the inflaton field, whose properties caused exponential expansion of the universe with a very short time constant, so the universe "inflated" by a huge factor in a very small interval of time. At the end of inflation, all that energy got transferred to the Standard Model fields (quarks, leptons, and radiation), which don't have that property (although now the expansion is dominated by dark energy, which does have the "exponential expansion" property but with a much, much longer time constant so the expansion only accelerates very slowly).

[pdobsan]

See this article https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-brings-receipts-to-de... which is an excellent overview of Tenkanen's paper the subject of this thread. It also puts the competing ideas about cosmic inflation into perspective.

[me_me_me]

> but pre-big bang is hard to conceive It's like trying to imagine what is it like to be before you were alive. You simply can't. Its not really a valid question. There was no time before big bang. So we as humans cannot have a frame of reference to even begin thinking what was before.

That is not to say there wasn't anything (say we as 3D being are unable to experience/imagine 4D).

[bookofjoe]

Another way of putting it is that every person alive today was dead for 13 billion years before being conceived and born, and will (relatively) soon be dead for however long the universe exists.

[marcus_holmes]

can you prove that?

(sorry, not talking about religion or life-after-death, just about how you go about proving something that can only happen outside your experience, and you have to rely on secondary evidence to deduce it)

[raattgift]

> Can anyone explain

I'll try. The tl;dr is at the end before my own footnote. The author certainly doesn't make it easy, even for people familiar with the standard model of cosmology.

The very first sentence of the paper [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01214 ] reads, "Dark matter (DM) may have its origin in a pre-big-bang epoch. It may have been produced, for example, by decays or annihilations of particles during the Big Bang, i.e. by the so-called ’freeze-in’ [1–3] mechanism, or by e.g. the misalignment mechanism which generated a non-zero DM abundance during cosmic inflation (see e.g. Ref.[4])." which while not strictly speaking self-contradictory is certainly far from clear.

The term "Big Bang" only appears in that first sentence, and the abstract.

If one does a case-independent search for "bang" in the paper's reference [1], there are no matches at all.

There is hope, however.

Reference [2] of the paper carefully uses only "big bang nucleosynthesis" and its abbreviation BBN.

BBN occurs after the universe has cooled via expansion ("adiabatic cooling") so that some of the hot, dense matter filling the universe earlier than BBN can "freeze" into atomic nuclei. That probably happened in steps: first quarks and gluons (and perhaps other particles feeling nuclear forces) could freeze into individual protons and neutrons, then those could join into atomic nuclei. It was still too hot for electrons to bind for long with these nuclei, so they were completely ionized.

Reference [3] uses "big bang nucleosynthesis" and "BBN" too, but also introduces "hot big bang cosmology". With respect to that new term, it defers to a further reference, which describes the typical picture of an arrangement of matter fields that undergo a phase transition wherein the result is BBN preceded by a plausible technical description of pre-BBN matter.

Reference [4] discusses a particularly speculative particle, the axion, and its role in the lead-up to BBN, compared with "the usual hot big bang"; it also leaves many of the details of "hot big bang cosmology" to other papers (e.g. at footnote 45).

I think it is fair to say that the widely circulated paraphrasings of the paper's first sentence are at best begging the question of whether the big bang is that of the standard model, or one of the variations or extensions in the first four of the paper's references. I also think it is fair to say that the author should have anticipated these paraphrasings, and that most readers would have even more trouble distinguishing exactly what is meant by "pre-big-bang" than working physical cosmologists.

For "professionals", the sentences immediately following equation (1) explain the picture: a field with very little mass gains mass during cosmic inflation, with the result that after inflation stops the field contents have the characteristics of a form of cold dark matter that interacts only gravitationally (it is a "free field", which is more amenable to modelling than an "interacting field" or a "self-interacting field" or a field that is both[a]). The paper considers constraints imposed by other observations, how generic a solution remains after considering those constraints, and that the entire idea would be obliterated by evidence favouring any sort of non-gravitational dark matter interaction (including non-gravitational interactions between DM and itself, or different types of DM).

Given this, one would tend to read "pre-big-bang" as used by the author as a region between the end of inflation and the beginning of big-bang nucleosynthesis. The epoch wherein one runs into conflicts between General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory is well before the end of the inflationary epoch, so one should feel free to completely ignore any sort of explanation which invokes things like the beginning of time, or even the differences in the nature of time in these two sufficiently-fundamental-for-these-purposes theories.

- --

[a] Strictly speaking the field is "minimally coupled to gravity"; it is non-interacting in the sense that there is no associated (non-gravitational) force-carrier, whereas interacting fields generally involve things like gauge bosons. Here because the end of inflation is so far from the part of the early universe that's hot and dense enough that quantum uncertainties and classical curvature cause problems, we can safely use textbook quantum field theory on curved spacetime -- the new physics is in the "decay" from a very light field to a massive field through the inflationary period, as well as the presence of a free field at all (no known fields are "free"). The mass-gaining mechanism is not described, but in the paragraph after the one containing eqn (21), the author claims that a wide range of possible mechanisms is allowed without conflict with other observations, and without conflicting with the central claim that dark matter experiences no non-gravitational interactions (including no self-interactions) after inflation.