RECENT ARTICLES

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

FQXI ARTICLE

December 12, 2017

When Universes Collide

Are we in danger of a fatal crash with another universe? Calculating the odds of cosmic collisions in the multiverses—and discovering that the universe has a far longer memory than thought, along the way.

August 1, 2008

Many Worlds, Many Minds

Alex Vilenkin (left) and Alan Guth (right).

Credit: Inna Vilenkin

An ABC News reporter researching a story on "global threats to humanity" emailed cosmologist Alan Guth at MIT with an unusual interview request. She had heard of a theory in which our universe is just one of many "bubble universes." What would happen, she wondered, if two of these alleged bubble universes were to collide? Would they both be destroyed? Would it be the end of the world? And could Guth chat about it in time for her to make her deadline?

That was in 2006. The interview, as it happens, never aired. But her question inspired Guth and his colleague Alexander Vilenkin, director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University, Massachusetts, to take a serious look at the physics of bubble universe collisions. With help from physicist Jaume Garriga, of the University of Barcelona, Spain they have begun to calculate the chances of such a collision—and the results have surprised them all.

The notion that our universe might really be part of a "multiverse" containing many bubble universes springs from the theory of inflation, first proposed by Guth in the 1980s. Inflation describes an early burst of cosmic expansion that stretched space in the moments after the Big Bang, and has now been embraced as a familiar milestone in our universe’s history.

Cosmic Cacophony

For decades, physicists have theorized that this process could take place in different regions, at different times. Multiple bubble universes could exist, possibly endowed with different physical constants. Each would be born from its own Big Bang—just one of many in a cosmological cacophony. Although inflation ends locally within each bubble, it continues in the ever-expanding domain outside the bubbles. So, as these new bubbles snap to life, they are hurled apart. They are sufficiently distant from each other that—short of a collision—they have never been able to communicate. And because the space between them is stretching at breakneck speed, they never will.

As the bubble universe

expands, it hits other bubbles.

expands, it hits other bubbles.

- Alex Vilenkin

"As this bubble expands, it hits other bubbles. Eventually, it hits infinitely many," says Vilenkin. If such a collision sends destruction screaming through the walls of both bubbles—as Vilenkin and Guth suspect—it’s a wonder that our universe is still around.

To probe this paradox, they sought to calculate how often bubbles should collide. At first glance, one might assume that a collision results in immediate destruction. But, in fact, a bubble-on-bubble collision doesn’t instantaneously pop both bubbles. A person living inside a bubble, but far removed from the impact site, might never know that cosmic havoc lurked beyond their vision. The team realized that they had to consider the likelihood that an observer living inside the bubble would actually register the collision.

Guth and Vilenkin’s styles complement each other: "Alan is very systematic," says Vilenkin, but "I like shortcuts." So when they began digging into the problem of bubble collision, Vilenkin jumped right in and tried to get at the solution as fast as he could. To simplify the analysis, he started out with a classic simplification: He imagined what would happen to an observer situated smack in the center of the bubble.

That simplifying move may seem presumptuous. After all, intuition might suggest that exactly where an observer is located within the bubble would have a big influence on how likely they are to be aware of a collision. Gut-logic suggests that observers living on the edge of the bubble should be most at risk.

Nothing Special?

But to cosmologists, the decision to focus on a centrally-situated observer seems reasonable because they believe that the universe is

The Bubble Nebula expands within our universe

What would an expanding universe look like in the multiverse?

Credit: NASA & Donald Walter

But as the trio proceeded with the analysis, they "discovered contradictions," says Guth. Something was amiss, and Guth suspected it was the innocent-seeming assumption that put the observer at the center of the bubble. There still remained a niggling doubt over the dissonance between the mathematical model they had created and the gut-feeling that location was important. Vilenkin began to despair: "I thought this was a waste of time!"

Location, location, location

Despite their doubts, they followed the trail and outlined a calculation on the blackboard that would address whether location matters, once and for all. But the calculation was so onerous that neither Guth nor Vilenkin—no slouches when it comes to besting the beastliest equations—wanted to take it on.

Jaume Garriga

University of Barcelona

Vilenkin and Guth met Garriga’s "quite simple" calculation with amazement: "To the surprise of both of us, he did it!" recalls Guth. Not only had Garriga done the calculation, he had discovered a result in direct contradiction to the dictate of isotropy: It did matter where the observer was. Observers on the edge of the bubble were more likely to be smacked by a collision than were observers living in the bubble’s protected center.

It may stun physicists, but it was "just like what a first grader would have expected," says Vilenkin. It would have been unsurprising "except for the mathematical fact" of isotropy, he adds. In fact, the result wasn’t just a challenge to isotropy—it was a challenge to the idea that inflation causes a universe to "forget" the precise circumstances of its birth.

Guth and Vilenkin explain the result this way" Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, pointed out that two events that occur simultaneously when viewed by one person will not appear simultaneous to another person speeding past the first. In the case of bubble collisions, we can imagine that one particular group of observers perceives inflation as starting everywhere in the universe at once. "Once inflation begins, bubbles start popping out, and since inflation started everywhere at once, the expanding bubbles will be hitting the observer at the same rate from all directions," explains Vilenkin.

It may stun physicists

but it’s what a first-grader

would have expected.

but it’s what a first-grader

would have expected.

- Alex Vilenkin

Shocking discovery

Cosmologists have always believed that any indication or memory of these uneven initial universe conditions would have long been diluted away by inflation. "The expectation was that this memory will rapidly fade as inflation progresses, and our shocking discovery was that it persists," says Vilenkin.

Is our bubble about to burst?

Credit: Ken Crawford

"The way that Garriga, Guth and Vilenkin worked it out logically and in detail brings the issue into clear view," agrees Anthony Aguirre, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "It lays a foundation for further work exploring the fascinating set of questions that arise from this new perspective on the inflationary multiverse."

About to pop?

So, back to the reporter’s question: If bubble collisions are happening all the time, and if they are indeed destructive, why are we still here?

Garriga, Guth, and Vilenkin still don’t have a precise answer to the question of whether a bubble collision is a likely instrument of the apocalypse. But they present cause for optimism. Parts of the universe that haven’t been struck by a bubble yet are probably very distant from collision sites, and therefore are unlikely to meet another bubble in the future. Over time, collisions may have carved wedges out of our bubble, but Earth and its neighborhood are most likely in a cosmic safe zone.

If we’ve survived until now, their analysis goes, the future looks bright. So far, so good…

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!

function ValidatePostText_main () {
form = document.addPostForm_main;
if (form.postText_main.value == '') {
alert ("The post contains no text");
return false;
}
else {
return true;
}
}

**Your name:**
(optional)

Recent Comments

read all article comments

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!

Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

You may use superscript (10

^{100}) and subscript (A_{2}) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.You may use bold (

**important**) and italics (*emphasize*) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation
[hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation

clear equation

insert equation into post at cursor

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation

clear equation

insert equation into post at cursor

Attachments
[hide]

You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit New Post" button to add your post.

You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit New Post" button to add your post.

ANONYMOUS wrote on November 9, 2013

Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks veritable diarrhea via proliferation of uncritical “pop-sci” science-writers where all is spectacle...

Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks veritable diarrhea via proliferation of uncritical “pop-sci” science-writers where all is spectacle...

STEVE DUFOURNY wrote on January 7, 2011

Hi John and Amrit,

Dear Amrit, happy to see you again.

I see like you,indeed an unique Universe is essential.

These collisions do not exist simply.

Regards and happy new year to both of you.

Steve

Hi John and Amrit,

Dear Amrit, happy to see you again.

I see like you,indeed an unique Universe is essential.

These collisions do not exist simply.

Regards and happy new year to both of you.

Steve

JOHN MERRYMAN wrote on January 3, 2011

amrit,

I think they have been drinking some very strong coffee.

Trying to fit isotropy into the geometry of a bubble is putting a square peg in a round hole. There is only one way to do it and it doesn't requires lots of extra dimensions. The "bubble" is the horizon.

In this case, how far light travels before it fades to black.

amrit,

I think they have been drinking some very strong coffee.

Trying to fit isotropy into the geometry of a bubble is putting a square peg in a round hole. There is only one way to do it and it doesn't requires lots of extra dimensions. The "bubble" is the horizon.

In this case, how far light travels before it fades to black.

read all article comments