Inflationary cosmology adopted its primary (free lunch) concept from Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), the latter being an evolved version of the steady-state model. However, its supporting evidence appears lacking. The theory leans heavily on two graphical representations: one illustrating the distinction between false and true vacuum, and the second utilizing a piston and cylinder diagram merely to emphasize that false vacuum behaves differently from true vacuum, as traditionally taught in textbooks.
Given the malleability of storytelling, numerous inflationary ideas have proliferated since the initial acceptance by the scientific community[1]. This raises the question: Who is accountable for this type of science, its proliferation and ensuing confusion?
For details please see Appendix A in Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 2 -The Issue of Existence
[1] J. Martin, C. Ringeval, V. Vennin; [1303.3787] Encyclopaedia Inflationaris (arxiv.org)
Inflation was proposed to explain how objects traveling away from us at less than the speed of light could have reached distances greater than possible even AT the speed of light in the time since the origin of the Universe (about 13.6 billion years ago) and the time that the light by which we see them left them. The idea is that for a time comparable to the Planck time (a fraction of a second with about 38 zeroes before you get to any non-zero numbers) the Universe expanded at a nearly infinite speed. So it was a proposed solution, but with no basis for supposing that it could have actually happened that way.
The reason there are so many versions of Inflationary Theory is that although the first more or less mathematically consistent version seems "OK", there is nothing in any of the physics we understand that would allow things to work the way that the original theory proposed. Still, in the absence of any other idea of how the Universe somehow grew much faster than anyone would have expected, for at least some tiny amount of time, additional versions of the theory have multiplied almost as fast as the supposed Inflation occurred.
In my opinion, something vaguely similar to the original proposal must be correct, but I feel certain that none of the current theories will ever be proven correct; and it is quite possible that this is a part of our knowledge of the Universe that we will never understand, because nothing in the current state of the Universe (which is the only state we can actually study) even remotely resembles anything like Inflation.
So yes, I agree that it is a theory that has no provable basis. All we know is for some reason, at some unknown but very short period of time at the start of the Universe, it got bigger at a nearly infinitely faster rate than any laws applicable to the current start of the Universe allow. And as already stated, I doubt that we will ever be able to explain that part of the Origin in a truly satisfactory way. All we know is that SOMETHING strange happened, and whatever it was must have been similar to Inflation in terms of how the Universe grew so rapidly; but HOW and WHY it happened (which is the basis of the theories you are questioning) may never be known.
Dear Courtney Seligman
Thank you for your feedback. The introduction of inflation cosmology aimed to tackle the horizon and flatness problems, as explicitly detailed by Alan Guth in both his book and papers. Nevertheless, I have reservations regarding the initial justifications, reasoning, and narrative structure of this purported scientific solution. Notably, it is surprising to discover that the theory incorporated unsubstantiated ideas from the steady-state theory (please see Appendix A in the link).
My concern extends to the potential misallocation of scientific efforts, directed towards addressing what I perceive as a fabricated narrative. It is disheartening to observe numerous scientists dedicating their time to rectify what I believe to be a contrived storyline, seemingly oblivious to the underlying controversy.
Dear Preston Guynn
Thank you very much for your valuable comment and for sharing the links. I concur with your assessment that there is no evidence for inflation cosmology. Please refer to the attachment to the question where I have thoroughly analysed the arguments for inflation. However, given that inflation is now integrated into big bang cosmology, and two pieces of evidence are presented for the big bang, I felt it necessary to also consider those in relation to inflation. Alan Guth has also asserted that his theory predicted a confirmed instance. I don't have access to his book at the moment, but if you'd like, I can locate the specific page. Andrei Linde also expressed gratitude to experimentalists for confirming inflation cosmology.
If you still disagree, I will contemplate removing the word "meagre" from the title after reviewing Guth and Linde's claims once more.
Dear Preston Guynn
Here is Linde's assertion (around 39 minutes) which aligns with Guth's claim to the best of my recollection.
Multiverse: One Universe or Many - World Science Festival 2013 (youtube.com)
“Does inflationary cosmology epitomize the concept of a 'just-so story' with meagre evidence?”
- that isn’t completely correct. The inflationary cosmology appeared aimed at to explain rationally the observed Matter, first of all – the really observed “cosmological principle”, i.e. globally uniform distribution in Space of cosmological objects provided again rather convincingly observed evidences of that Matter was created as some “Big Bang”.
As to
“…The theory leans heavily on two graphical representations: one illustrating the distinction between false and true vacuum, and the second utilizing a piston and cylinder diagram merely to emphasize that false vacuum behaves differently from true vacuum, as traditionally taught in textbooks.….”
- that is indeed essentially correct; the standard in cosmology hypothesis of “physical vacuum”, “true vacuum”, and “false vacuum” is some tooo fantastic one, more see reDzennn comment in https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.htmlto a Nature Physics (2024) paper; 9/8 [because the moderator’s removing] passages.
As to
“…And as already stated, I doubt that we will ever be able to explain that part of the Origin in a truly satisfactory way. All we know is that SOMETHING strange happened, and whatever it was must have been similar to Inflation in terms of how the Universe grew so rapidly; but HOW and WHY it happened (which is the basis of the theories you are questioning) may never be known.…..”
- that really isn’t completely correct. Now there exist well scientifically satisfactory model of the inflation epoch, and of Matter’s Beginning and Creation at all - in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, more see the Planck scale initial cosmological model in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics , section “Cosmology”.
Cheers
Dear Preston Guynn
The clip is from World Science Festival. Both Alan Guth and Linde are in the panel and are challenged for their evidence. They provide the same reason given in their papers and books.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology