First String

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: Courtesy of John M. Pierre

STRINGS live in a 10-dimensional spacetime, which requires that every point in our four-dimensional universe is associated with a tiny ball of six-dimensional space. These tiny dimensions can come in the form of spheres or donuts, as illustrated above

"Science progresses by having a debate between alternatives," says cosmologist Abraham Loeb of Harvard University. "The problem in cosmology recently was all alternatives to inflation were out." String theory may be helping to change that, if the ekpyrotic model is any indicator. In fact, well before Steinhardt and Turok's work, it had already spawned one attempt to tame the big bang singularity.

In the early 1990s, Gabriele Veneziano of CERN in Geneva and Maurizio Gasperini, then of the University of Turin, began exploring a cosmology based on the idea that the tiny but finite size of strings set a limit on how tight the universe could have squeezed during the big bang singularity. This limit would have kept temperature and density from skyrocketing to infinity.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Running the tape of the cosmos back past such a stringy singularity revealed a universe growing increasingly flat and cold--reminiscent of what preceded the ekpyrotic model's bouncing branes. The pre-big bang state would have been inherently inflationary, not to mention neatly symmetric with the thinned out universe we have to look forward to thanks to dark energy.

Some physicists--including Steinhardt--were critical of the need for special initial conditions, but Veneziano says his enthusiasm was only cooled after more detailed microwave background data came in a few years ago, as the nature of the variations conflicted with what the model predicted. Recent work has revived his hope that this tension can be resolved, however. He adds, "I think that the theoretical objections to it were mostly stemming from people's difficulty in accepting such a radically different starting point." Steinhardt and Turok's work may be helping to change all that, he remarks.

Back to A Recycled Universe

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American