A Great Time for Reason and Science

Here I am at an extremely stimulating meeting on gravity and quantum spacetime in Santa Barbara, but I skipped yesterday’s afternoon session to talk on the PBS News Hour about the new inflation results:

There’s a great parallel (if the BICEP2 result holds up!) between Monday’s evidence for inflation and the Higgs discovery back in 2012. When talking about the Higgs, I like to point out the extraordinary nature of the accomplishment of those physicists (Anderson, Englert, Brout, Higgs, Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble) who came up with the idea back in the early 1960’s. They were thinking about a fairly general question: how can you make forces of nature (like the nuclear forces) that don’t obey an inverse square law, but instead only stretch over a short distance? They weren’t lucky enough to have specific, detailed experimental guidance; just some basic principles and an ambitious goal. And they (independently!) proposed a radical idea: empty space is suffused with an invisible energy field that affects the behavior of other fields in space in a profound way. A crazy-sounding idea, and one that was largely ignored for quite a while. Gradually physicists realized that it was actually quite promising, and we spent billions of dollars and many thousands of scientist-years of effort to test the idea. Finally, almost half a century later, a tiny bump on a couple of plots showed they were right.

The inflation story is similar. Alan Guth was thinking about some very general features of the universe: the absence of monopoles, the overall smoothness and flatness. And he proposed an audacious idea: in its very earliest moments, the universe was driven by the potential energy of some quantum field to expand at an accelerated rate, smoothing things out and diluting unwanted relics like monopoles. Unlike the Higgs idea, inflation caught on quite quickly, and people soon realized that it helped explain the origin of density perturbations and (potentially) gravitational-wave fluctuations. Inflation became the dominant idea in early-universe cosmology, but it was always a wild extrapolation away from known physics. If BICEP2 is right, the energy scale of inflation is 0.01 times the Planck scale. The Large Hadron Collider, our highest-energy accelerator here on Earth, reaches energies of 0.00000000000001 times the Planck scale. We really have (had) no right to think that our cute little speculations about what the universe was doing at such scales were anywhere near the right track.

But apparently they were. Over thirty years later, thanks to the dedication of very talented experimenters and millions of dollars of (public) funding, another bump on a plot seems to be confirming that original audacious idea.

It’s the power of reason and science. We tell stories about how the universe works, but we don’t simply tell any old stories that come to mind; we are dramatically constrained by experimental data and by consistency with the basic principles we think we do understand. Those constraints are enormously powerful — enough that we can sit at our desks, thinking hard, extending our ideas way beyond anything we’ve directly experienced, and come up with good ideas about how things really work. Most such ideas don’t turn out to be right — that’s science for you — but some of them do.

Science is a dialogue between the free play of ideas — theorizing — and the harsh constraints of empiricism — experimental data. Theories are a lever, data are a fulcrum, and between them we can move the world.

This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to A Great Time for Reason and Science

  1. Ben Goren says:

    Indeed, those who find the power of prophesy persuasive should be absolutely bowled over by the success of both the CERN team and, we hope, BICEP2.

    I feel so lucky to live to see these discoveries made, and I can’t wait to see what comes of them.

    b&

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1

  2. Pingback: Sean Carroll explica la importancia del modelo de la inflación cósmica | Por Amor a la Ciencia

  3. Kieran Garland says:

    Ben Goren: “I feel so lucky to live to see these discoveries made, and I can’t wait to see what comes of them.”

    I couldn’t agree more; in terms of our understanding of the universe, it’s an almost unbelievably magical time to be alive.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  4. Don Goldsmith says:

    If we consider the amazing efforts that led to these discoveries, and to how carefully scientists must analyze their data to exclude systematic and other errors, we can appreciate the enormous difference between science’s take on the cosmos and the quick-and-dirty approach that evolution has given us. Richard Feynman spoke of this eloquently in the PBS interview “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out,” and it is worth taking a look at his essay “Cargo Cult Science,” easily available on line, to admire the joy and energy he put into searching for real answers in the real world.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  5. Kieran Garland says:

    Indeed, though perhaps we could stretch the conceit by saying that evolution gave us science, too (you know, eventually).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  6. Björn says:

    During the discussion about the multiverse theory on World Science Festival 2013 Alan Guth says that the expansion doesn’t really accelerate but inflation keeps it from slowing down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qt-eGKa34M&t=32m30s). In your post you say the expansion accelerated, and it seems as whenever you read about inflation the acceleration seem to me to be central. Am I confusing the terms? How should a layman think about inflation and acceleration?

    On another note I would just like to thank you for speaking clearly about this things and making a medical student interested in physics.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  7. Björn says:

    Double post, sorry!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Mark Caragio says:

    Sorry for the laymen question here, but what is the difference in the type of “space,” whereas prior to the big bang it was “empty space,” like you mention above, but now while our universe is expanding, new “space” is being created as it does so*. Is the empty space in our universe (that devoid of any matter/energy) different from the empty space that existed prior to the Big Bang?

    *per a comment I heard on Radiolab from Brian Greene

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  9. Ben Goren says:

    Mark, this is a perfect example of where our human-scale intuitions quickly fail us.

    Naïvely, one might think of the Big Bang and the subsequent expansion of the Universe as akin to a bubble in your beer that keeps getting bigger and bigger…but it’s still expanding within the beer itself. Unfortunately, that analogy breaks down the instant you start thinking of the bubble being within the beer.

    Rather, space isn’t expanding into something; it’s simply expanding, period. There isn’t any outside, no medium that holds space, or anything like that.

    Your intuition will rebel against that…but it’ll do so in much the same way that Aristotle’s intuition would have rebelled against the idea that the planets move without being moved upon by a Prime Mover. In everyday experience, once you stop pushing on something, it stops moving, and thus our intuitions are tuned to that type of motion; Newtonian mechanics is, indeed, rather counter-intuitive. (What? You mean that, when I push on this wall, it’s pushing back? How is it that the wall can push? It has no muscles!)

    The expansion of the Universe (and of spacetime itself) is another example of that same basic idea. Just as, yes, nothing moves the planets and, yes, the wall is pushing back, yes, space itself is expanding even though it’s not expanding “into” anything.

    Cheers,

    b&

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1

  10. Mark Caragio says:

    Thanks for the reply Ben. To be clear, I recognize the intuition problem, and of course suffer from it.

    But since I don’t have the theoretical background to answer the question I had, I was hoping to get a better understanding of the empty space that the Big Bang sprung from, and if/how it differs from empty space inside our universe. Since the Higgs particle was found inside our universe, is it conceivable then that the space in which the Big Bang occurred is similar/identical to empty space in our universe?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  11. Sean Carroll says:

    Björn– It’s a little counterintuitive. There are two different ways to characterize the expansion rate of the universe: the Hubble parameter H, and the apparent velocity between two galaxies (or points) at distance d, given by Hubble’s law v = Hd. When we speak of “accelerated expansion,” we usually mean that the velocity v is increasing. But we usually don’t mean that H is increasing; all you need is that H is decreasing sufficiently slowly that the increase in d is most important. So when Alan says “the expansion doesn’t really accelerate” he just means that H is not increasing — but v would be, so it’s actually still okay to say the universe is accelerating.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  12. Tom Anderson says:

    I couldn’t agree more or phrased it better. Tom A

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Charles Murray says:

    I keep hearing it said that the universe inflated a trillion, trillion, trillion times in the first 10^-34 seconds or numbers of that order. To me, this seems like it would far exceed the speed of light. How is this possible?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  14. Ben Goren says:

    Charles, not only are you correct that the early Universe expanded faster than the speed of light, it’s still to this very day expanding faster than the speed of light.

    The reason this is possible is because it’s space itself that’s expanding. The speed of light only applies to “stuff” within the Universe itself, and space isn’t “stuff.” A bit more precisely, the speed of light applies to the propagation of waves in the various fields, but not to the fields themselves.

    See my response to Mark above about how it is that space is expanding without actually expanding into anything.

    Cheers,

    b&

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  15. Charles Murray says:

    Ben, thank you. It is fantastic that space is expanding faster than the speed of light. I love that!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  16. Agron says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18

  17. Ori Vandewalle says:

    Does anybody know if this result lends support to any particular model of inflation? It’s always been my understanding that we’re a little hazy on the mechanism of inflation, that we know what inflation has to do but not how it does it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Andrew Fredriksen says:

    Sean,

    Great response to Gwen Ifill’s theology dig.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  19. Neo says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10

  20. M DJ says:

    A little-known fact, perhaps, is that Demosthenes Kazanas was the first to publish this sort of “thing”; see
    http://bit.ly/1gI5AA8 “Dynamics of the Universe and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking” (see also: http://bit.ly/1nEOcl9 “Cosmological Inflation: A Personal Perspective”)

    It is shown that the presence of a phase transition early in the history of the universe, associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking (believed to take place at very high temperatures at which the various fundamental interactions unify), significantly modifies its dynamics and evolution. This is due to the energy ‘pumping’ during the phase transition from the vacuum to the substance, rather than the gravitating effects of the vacuum. The expansion law of the universe then differs substantially from the relation considered so far for the very early time expansion. In particular it is shown that under certain conditions this expansion law is exponential. It is further argued that under reasonable assumptions for the mass of the associated Higgs boson this expansion stage could last long enough to potentially account for the observed isotropy of the universe.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  21. Fantastic job on the News Hour, Sean!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  22. Sid says:

    Sean, great post. A minor quibble though (and I know that you know this):

    When you point to the Higgs and the BICEP results and say that the theory is vindicated by tiny bumps in the graph, I think you underplay the importance of how many theory and experiment modules needed to be imported into building the theories and experiments behind the Higgs or inflation, and how well-tested these modules needed be before you could say that if you build this giant particle accelerator or this giant telescope, then you’ll see the tiny bumps in a graph.

    In other words, the tiny bumps in the graphs mean so much because we know that the referents of the quantities being plotted have a very stable ontic status. For the inflation results, we needed to have a very clear picture of how the universe evolved and what the CMB is and what the different patterns in the CMB mean and many, many other pieces of knowledge, even going all the way back to GR and electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. Thus the vindication of inflation rests not just on the tiny bumps in the plot, but on the strength of the connected web of knowledge that has been built before the BICEP experiment even conceived.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  23. Zetopan says:

    Sean:
    You passed up a golden opportunity to explain what a scientific theory actually means when you were asked “How do you go about proving a theory not to be a theory …?”
    Gwen Ifill appears to be using “theory” in a non-scientific context (i.e. as in a speculation, such that valid scientific theories somehow become facts). At that point you could have pointed out that scientific theories are not idle speculations, they are actually one level above facts since they explain facts. Since there are multiple inflationary theories explaining the same set of facts, scientists test the predictions of each of these theories against new data to determine which, if any, of these theories is the more accurate.
    In the end, the winning inflationary theory will still remain a scientific theory and not anything like a fact. A fact is what the non-scientific public imagines to be the end goal of a valid scientific “theory”. Hence the misguided notion that evolution is “only a theory” and not a “fact”, and similarly for inflationary theory.
    If Gwen had asked “How do you go about invalidating [or validating] a theory?” I would not have brought this matter to your attention. But the manner in which the question was asked very much fits into the general public’s misunderstanding of “theory”, which has very little to do with the actual scientific usage of that term.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  24. Glenn says:

    Sean, you nailed the News Hour interview. You hit the key points in a limited time format.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  25. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

  26. randal sexton says:

    So, as someone endowed with an overactive curiosity, and a pretty limited math and physics background, I find myself awed, excited, confused, amused, baffled and boggled by this sort of thing- but if I can ask a few questions and get any kind of response I would be very grateful – Question 1- The inflation – I have been thinking of this inflation as the idea that space itself was expanding, not that the ‘things’ ( things being matter, and radiation I suppose) were expanding. If I was standing next to Fred, who was 1 foot away from me, and some inflation happened, would we suddenly be 2 feet apart? Without Fred or I experiencing any acceleration? Is that the idea, that more space was injected between us ? What about the space between the molecules of my body ? Would that space have expanded as well? Would the tape measure in my pocket give me a different answer after this expansion ?

    Question 2 – The hot/cold/dark energy condensation part – So when this HUGE expansion was happening, Fred and I might not have really been able to check distances with our tape measures, because there was no matter yet? I have read that only at some point of expansion, the dark energy which was driving it, condensed or converted into matter/radiation, a huge phase change like event ? That slowed down the expansion somewhat, but not entirely. Did all the Dark Energy do this ? Are Fred and I condensed Dark Energy ? ( Is Dark Matter also condensed Dark Energy ? ) Is there still some Dark Energy running around still pushing stuff apart ? Question 3- The gravity waves – I can think of the ‘waves on a string’ notion of a wave causing me to move up and down orthogonally to the direction of the wave, or a compression style wave, that makes me move towards and away from the direction of the wave, is this a useful way to think of a gravity wave ? In any case, it seems like anytime there is a wave like this it really is transmitting energy – are gravity waves transmitting energy ? ( I would really like to have some nice anti-gravity boots please. ) . Well, many more no doubt moronic questions I have but this is probably long enough post anyways.- Thanks in advance for your indulgence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  27. Kyle says:

    I have a hard time visualizing what is meant when someone describes the universe as having a definite “size”. My (layman’s) impression was that the shape and geometry of the universe is unknown other than it having very low local curvature. Is the current thinking that the topology of the universe is “closed”, like the surface of a sphere? Was it different during the inflation period?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. John Barrett says:

    The first time I read about Planck Length and Planck Time, I just knew that it would end up having something to do with the moment of The Big Bang. It is nice to see that new evidence is always pointing more and more closer to this idea.

    The idea that this could be proof of gravitational waves is very troubling though. We would just have more indirect evidence of it’s existence while still having no way to know how to find it in the laboratory. I couldn’t help but wonder if the left and right handed signals they picked up could have just come from particles traveling in two different directions once The Big Bang occurred.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Pat Ridley says:

    Great post. I love the poetic last paragraph!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  30. “Björn– It’s a little counterintuitive. There are two different ways to characterize the expansion rate of the universe: the Hubble parameter H, and the apparent velocity between two galaxies (or points) at distance d, given by Hubble’s law v = Hd. When we speak of “accelerated expansion,” we usually mean that the velocity v is increasing. But we usually don’t mean that H is increasing; all you need is that H is decreasing sufficiently slowly that the increase in d is most important. So when Alan says “the expansion doesn’t really accelerate” he just means that H is not increasing — but v would be, so it’s actually still okay to say the universe is accelerating.”

    Right. The Hubble constant is the change of the scale factor with time divided by the scale factor itself. So, if H is constant, one has acceleration. This is the de Sitter model and the model which our universe will asymptotically approach. It is also roughly the law of expansion during inflation itself.

    Note that there is no proven connection between inflation and the cosmological constant, even though both are connected with exponential expansion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  31. John says:

    I love hearing Guth lecture, although his jokes often times fall flat as can be.

    Say quantum fluctuations caused the inflaton field to expand initially, what caused it to level out and then start to pick up again about 5 billion years ago? It can’t be quantum fluctuations again, right?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. “Say quantum fluctuations caused the inflaton field to expand initially, what caused it to level out and then start to pick up again about 5 billion years ago? It can’t be quantum fluctuations again, right?”

    Again, there is no proven connection between inflation and the cosmological constant, even though both are connected with exponential expansion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. “there is no proven connection between inflation and the cosmological constant, even though both are connected with exponential expansion.”

    Also, nothing picked up 5 billion years ago. You are probably referring to the time when acceleration set in and/or the energy densities of Omega and lambda (matter and the cosmological constant) were the same. Nothing fundamental happened then. They have a different dependence on the scale factor, so with time the relative strength varies, but there was no event associated with it.

    There is something similar with matter and radiation, but when the density of radiation dropped enough, it did cause other events, like the universe becoming transparent. But this drop itself was not caused by anything other than the different dependencies on the scale factor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  34. “I have a hard time visualizing what is meant when someone describes the universe as having a definite “size”. My (layman’s) impression was that the shape and geometry of the universe is unknown other than it having very low local curvature. “

    You are right. However, the observable universe (that within the particle horizon) does have a finite size. Sometimes people aren’t as correct with terminology as they should be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. J Duffield says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12

  36. “So why do we need inflation to make it indistinguishable from flat today? “

    First, how do you know what the universe was like that long ago. Second, your statement reflects a serious misunderstanding. In this context, “flat” means “radius of curvature large compared to the Hubble radius”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. Sean– So these reverse gravity waves which drove inflation are not the origin of the dark energy which now pushes the galaxies apart? –or rather, has no connection between the two been established?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  38. Ray says:

    isn’t it grossly misleading to refer to inflation as being 10^-34 or whatever seconds after the big bang. It was my impression that we have no clue how long inflation lasted or what (if anything) preceded it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  39. Alvin says:

    Possible dummy question that’s been eating at me for a while:

    If the “bekenstein bound” / holographic principle set a limit on the information density of space, how could the universe have been compacted into a smaller volume and still contain any entropy? Shouldn’t it have contained basically zero entropy when it was compressed to the scale of a planck length?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  40. As you said in the post, the idea of inflation was proposed by Alan Guth. But other scientists have made contributions as well, such as Andrei Linde. So what exactly was the role of Guth and Linde (and others) on the theoretical prediction that, it seems, have been confirmed by BICEP2?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  41. Alvin says:

    Related question that also bugs me: As I understand it quantum information is always conserved, and the laws of QM are symmetric in time. So the “arrow of time” only seems to show up at the macro scale. Fair enough.

    But if quantum info is conserved and time symmetric, then how could the universe have ever had a radius smaller than the Bekenstein bound radius implied by its current entropy?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  42. Pingback: Allgemeines Live-Blog vom 16. bis 20. März 2014 | Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null

  43. Daniel Tung says:

    Hi Sean,
    I wonder what’s the implication of this to the search of quantum gravity, both the theory and the experiment?
    Does it also increase the possibility of multiple universe?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. James George Neil says:

    The two biggest discoveries in Science in the past year are the confirmation of the Higgs mechanism/boson and inflation.

    Does the evidence for inflation theory also tell us anything about how the Higgs field is formed? How long after the Big Bang did the HIggs mechanism come into being? Or are the two completely unrelated?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  45. Simon says:

    When will the Planck team release their data von B-Mode polarization? Does anyone know?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. James Gallagher says:

    Simon,

    According to a quote from Planck team member Olivier Doré in New Scientist, results are due October 2014:

    Forthcoming data from Planck should help resolve the issue, and we may not have long to wait. Olivier Doré at the California Institute of Technology is a member of the Planck collaboration. He says that the BICEP2 results are strong and that his group should soon be adding their data to the inflation debate: “Planck in particular will have something to say about it as soon as we publish our polarisation result in October 2014.”

    This seems to have crept up from previous estimates of “early 2014″

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. J Duffield says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

  48. Bill Bunting says:

    I’ve just watched (in awe) the Andrew Lange talk and have a better idea of what is going on in this mind blowing research. I have one nagging question. Was the Higgs field created in the big bang, or is it a natural feature of empty space?

    In my mental model (which I happily revise with better information) is that there are 2 (or 3 or 4) types of energy which I am calling dynamic energy (matter) and static energy (the Higgs Field) . Then there is dark energy and dark matter. Dynamic energy acts against static energy and in that way takes the form that we experience. I’m not suggesting that this is the way things actually are, this is just the model that helps me make sense of this amazing transition of understanding the universe that is underway right now.

    So the question again, is the Higgs Field a natural property of space before the big bang or is it an outcome of the big bang?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  49. Robert cattle says:

    The vacuum of space is referred to, as well as time past, time present (phew that went fast!) and seriously time future.
    I really want to know if “Nothing” exists or more properly when that particle becomes smaller and smaller past the Planck ten to the minus 34, does that non entity ( which is NOT a particle) have any time.
    Forget particle, wave, field, force and imagine the new entity ” Nothing”
    Surprisingly it has properties. Can you guess what they are?
    My Nobel prize is just around the corner!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  50. Bill Bunting says:

    I got some clarification over at the Matt Strassler site. I have been merging mass with gravity, which is not correct. So I have a lot of reading to do. At least I am asking the right questions now. My mental model needs a major over haul. This universe has been put together in a confusing way. It is not the way I would have designed it, but its too late to change it now. Its all out there.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. “So these reverse gravity waves which drove inflation are not the origin of the dark energy which now pushes the galaxies apart?”

    First, they are gravitational waves, not gravity waves. Second, they did not drive inflation. Third, they are not the origin of dark energy. Fourth, what do you mean by “reverse”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. In an interview with Sean on Science Friday, either Sean or Ira Flato referred to them as reverse gravity (or gravitational) waves, meaning that instead of attracting mass they repelled it, as dark energy is doing now. So I thought maybe the force that drove inflation was the origin of dark energy (Einstein’s cosmological constant) and it was in some way an aspect of the positive gravity we experience locally–or a quantum aspect of the graviton we haven’t found yet. Seemed like a nice unification theory to me, but then Sean (I think) replied that inflation and dark energy were not the same.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. Pingback: SPARK YOUR SOUL / BRAIN #3! - Ms. In The Biz