Выбрать главу

Atoms can form, and hold together, somewhere between half a million and a million years after the Big Bang. Before that time, matter and radiation interacted continuously, and the Universe was almost opaque to radiation. After it, matter and radiation “decoupled,” became near-independent, and went their separate ways. The temperature of the Universe when this happened was about 3,000 degrees. Ever since then, the expansion of the Universe has lengthened the wavelength of the background radiation, and thus lowered its temperature. The cosmic background radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson is nothing more than the radiation at the time when it decoupled from matter, now grown old.

Continuing backwards, even before atoms could form, helium and hydrogen nuclei and free electrons could combine to form atoms; but they could not remain in combination, because radiation broke them apart. The content of the Universe was, in effect, controlled by radiation energetic enough to prevent the formation of atoms. This situation held from about three minutes to one million years A.C. (After Creation).

If we go back to a period less than three minutes A.C., radiation was even more dominant. It prevented the build-up even of helium nuclei. As noted earlier, the fusion of hydrogen to helium requires hot temperatures, such as we find in the center of stars. But fusion cannot take place if it is too hot, as it was before three minutes after the Big Bang. Before helium could form, the Universe had to “cool” to about a billion degrees. All that existed before then were electrons (and their positively charged forms, positrons), neutrons, protons, neutrinos (a chargeless particle, until recently assumed to be massless but now thought to possess a tiny mass), and radiation.

Until three minutes A.C., it might seem as though radiation controlled events. But this is not the case. As we proceed farther backwards and the temperature of the primordial fireball continues to increase, we reach a point where the temperature is so high (above ten billion degrees) that large numbers of electron-positron pairs can be created from pure radiation. That happened from one second up to fourteen seconds A.C. After that, the number of electron-positron pairs decreased rapidly. Less were being generated than were annihilating themselves and returning to pure radiation. After the Universe cooled to ten billion degrees, neutrinos also decoupled from other forms of matter.

Still we have a long way to go, physically speaking, to the moment of creation. As we continue backwards, temperatures rise and rise. At a tenth of a second A.C., the temperature of the Universe is thirty billion degrees. The Universe is a soup of electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, and radiation. As the kinetic energy of particle motion becomes greater and greater, effects caused by differences of particle mass are less important. At thirty billion degrees, an electron easily carries enough energy to convert a proton into the slightly heavier neutron. Thus in this period, free neutrons are constantly trying to decay to form protons and electrons; but energetic proton-electron collisions go on remaking neutrons.

We keep the clock running. Now the important time intervals become shorter and shorter. At one ten -thousandth of a second A.C., the temperature is one thousand billion degrees. The Universe is so small that the density of matter, everywhere, is as great as that in the nucleus of an atom today (about 100 million tons per cubic centimeter; a fair-sized asteroid, at this density, would squeeze down to fit in a match box). Modern theory says that the nucleus is best regarded not as protons and neutrons, but as quarks, elementary particles from which the neutrons and protons themselves are made. Thus at this early time, 0.0001 seconds A.C. the Universe was a sea of quarks, electrons, neutrinos, and energetic radiation. We move on, to the time, 10-36 seconds A.C., when the Universe went through a super-rapid “inflationary” phase, growing from the size of a proton to the size of a basketball in about 5 x 10-32 seconds. We are almost back as far as we can go. Finally we reach a time 10-43 seconds A.C, (called the Plank time), when according to a class of theories known as supersymmetry theories, the force of gravity decoupled from everything else, and remains decoupled to this day.

This may already sound like pure science fiction. It is not. It is today’s science — though it certainly may be wrong. But at last we have reached the time when McAndrew’s “hidden matter” was created. And today’s Universe seems to require that something very like it exist.

The argument for hidden matter goes as follows: The Universe is expanding. Every cosmologist today agrees on that. Will it go on expanding forever, or will it one day slow to a halt, reverse direction, and fall back in on itself to end in a Big Crunch? Or is the Universe poised on the infinitely narrow dividing line between expansion and ultimate contraction, so that it will increase more and more slowly, and finally (but after infinite time) stop its growth?

The thing that decides which of these three possibilities will occur is the total amount of mass in the Universe, or rather, since we do not care what form mass takes and mass and energy are totally equivalent, the future of the Universe is decided by the total mass-energy content per unit volume.

If the mass-energy is too big, the Universe will end in the Big Crunch. If it is too small, the Universe will fly apart forever. And only in the Goldilocks situation, where the mass-energy is “just right,” will the Universe ultimately reach a “flat” condition. The amount of matter needed to stop the expansion is not large, by terrestrial standards. It calls for only three hydrogen atoms per cubic meter.

Is there that much available?

If we estimate the mass and energy from visible material in stars and galaxies, we find a value nowhere near the “critical density” needed to make the Universe finally flat. If we say that the critical mass-energy density has to be equal to unity just to slow the expansion, we observe in visible matter only a value of about 0.01.

There is evidence, though, from the rotation of galaxies, that there is a lot more “dark matter” present there than we see as stars. It is not clear what this dark matter is — black holes, very dim stars, clouds of neutrinos — but when we are examining the future of the Universe, we don’t care. All we worry about is the amount. And that amount, from galactic dynamics, could be at least ten times as much as the visible matter. Enough to bring the density to 0.1, or possible even 0.2. But no more than that.

One might say, all right, that’s it. There is not enough matter in the Universe to stop the expansion, by a factor of about ten, so we have confirmed that we live in a forever-expanding Universe. Recent (1999) observations seem to confirm that result.

Unfortunately, that is not the answer that most cosmologists would really like to hear. The problem comes because the most acceptable cosmological models tell us that if the density is as much as 0.1 today, then in the past it must have been much closer to unity. For example, at one second A.C., the density would have had to be within one part in a million billion of unity, in order for it to be 0.1 today. It would be an amazing coincidence if, by accident, the actual density were so close to the critical density.

Most cosmologists therefore say that, today’s observations notwithstanding, the density of the Universe is really exactly equal to the critical value. In this case, the Universe will expand forever, but more and more slowly.

The problem, of course, is then to account for the matter that we don’t observe. Where could the “missing matter” be, that makes up the other nine-tenths of the universe?

There are several candidates. One suggestion is that the Universe is filled with energetic (“hot”) neutrinos, each with a small but non-zero mass. However, there are problems with the Hot Neutrino theory. If they are the source of the mass that stops the expansion of the Universe, the galaxies, according to today’s models, should not have developed as early as they did in the history of the Universe.