Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

Please welcome our new moderators!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,543 answers , 19,337 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
407 active unimported users
More ...

Observable (in principle) signal of a bubble collision in eternal inflation

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
33 views

Assuming a scenario of eternal inflation with a lot of "bubble universes" expanding, Lenny Susskind explains here that a potential signal of a collision of our universe with another bubble could be a spot of warmer or colder temperature in the cosmic microwave background and the light coming from this direction would be linearly polarized and pointing in circles around the spot of higher or lower temperature (I hope you know what I mean, maybe I should draw a picture).

What are the physical reasons that such a bubble collision would lead to this particular characteristic, in principle observable signal? In particular concerning the polarization issue I have no clue why it would look like this.

asked Mar 3, 2013 in Experimental Physics by Dilaton (4,175 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Mar 24, 2014 by dimension10
I know that the idea of eternal inflation as a whole is quite speculative and far outlying and that there exists physical reasoning that speaks against it. By this questions I just want to hear about and understand the physics reasoning that explains the characteristic signal Lenny Susskind mentions in the lecture.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Hi Dilaton - I slightly edited your title to what I thought you meant. Hope this is correct. Will be interesting to hear the answer to the question!

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user twistor59
Thanks @twistor59 the title looks better now :-). Lenny Susskind said in addition that there is actually such a candidate cold spot observed, but I guess it can have many different causes ...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5128 for the gory (and they are very gory!) details.

Basically, it's unlikely that the inflaton field has the same value in the two bubbles. When the bubbles collide, the bubble with the lower energy inflaton field will see the collision as a hot spot, and the bubble with the higher energy inflaton field will see the collision as a cold spot.

The paper also calculates the geometry of the effects seen in the CMB. I couldn't follow much of this, though the general result is that the collision will have SO(2,1) symmetry and this creates a cone. We see see a cross section of this that is a circle.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user John Rennie
answered Mar 4, 2013 by John Rennie (470 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks John, for the explanations and the link +1. I will look into the paper.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
Good luck, I understood about 10% of it :-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user John Rennie
Yeah, I will see what I can take out of it, since it is a HEP-th paper after all ... :-D

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-12 15:23 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...