Preston Guynn

Preston, thank you for your thoughtful response. You raise important points about the rigorous nature of scientific theory and the necessity of measurement, testability, and repeatability in the scientific method. I agree that these elements are crucial for developing robust scientific theories.

However, I believe there is value in discussing theoretical frameworks and ideas, even those that are currently beyond our empirical reach. The theory of cosmic inflation, despite its current limitations and the challenges in obtaining direct evidence, provides a framework that aligns well with certain observations, such as the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background and the large-scale structure of the universe.

While it's true that many aspects of inflation are still speculative and may verge on the philosophical, this does not diminish the potential of these discussions to spark new ideas and avenues for research. The history of science is replete with theories that began as speculative ideas before technological advances allowed for empirical testing. For instance, the concept of atoms was philosophical for centuries before experimental techniques could confirm their existence.

Moreover, exploring multiple theoretical models, including those with different initial conditions or alternative mechanisms like the ekpyrotic model, can help us refine our understanding of the early universe and guide future empirical investigations. Engaging in these discussions within a community of scientists can be valuable for identifying new hypotheses and experimental approaches.

In summary, while maintaining scientific rigor is essential, fostering open discussions about theoretical possibilities can be a productive way to advance our understanding and develop testable hypotheses. I appreciate your input and look forward to further constructive dialogue on this complex and fascinating topic.

There is the idea of cosmic inflation-and there are the theories that realize the idea-there are many theories of cosmic inflation, not one. The problem is in performing the measurements that can distinguish between the different theories. All theories of cosmic inflation describe scalar fields, that can't be identified with usual matter fields, because they have negative pressure, by definition. The major issue-in classical gravity-to be understood is a mechanism of how inflation ends and ``reheating" begins. How inflation starts can only be understood within a quantum theory of gravity.

There is a lot of evidence for the idea of cosmic inflation-that's why it's possible to propose many theories about how it can be realized. What's missing is the idea about what the measurements should be done that can distinguish the different theories and eliminate most of them.

Stam Nicolis

Thank you, Stam, for your insightful response. You’ve touched on some crucial points about the challenges in distinguishing between different inflationary models and the need for specific measurements that could help in this endeavour.

I agree that the multiplicity of theories complicates our understanding and that the primary issue lies in identifying distinctive predictions that can be tested. To build on your points and keep the discussion moving forward, I’d like to propose a few areas we could focus on:

Let’s dive into these topics and see if we can identify some specific, actionable steps that might help advance our understanding of cosmic inflation. I’m looking forward to hearing thoughts from you and others in the community!

Sandeep

When inflation becomes relevant, gravity is classical, not quantum. Quantum gravity will explain how inflation arises.

The ``multiplicity of theories'' doesn't ``complicate understanding''-it is the expression that the theoretical description of inflation is still work in progress.

Ekpyrosis is just another way for ``repackaging" inflation, it isn't an alternative to inflation, because it, also, leads to an exponential increase of the scale factor-which makes sense only within classical gravity.

Inflation, more generally, is the property that the scale factor grows exponentially-for a finite interval of time.

The theory of "zero-active-mass" cosmology is a well-developed alternative to inflation. The textbook on the subject is: Fulvio Melia, "The Cosmic Spacetime", Oxford, Taylor & Francis, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003081029

The measurement of "redshift-drift" equal to zero, could hit 5-sigma in a few years, and that is required for zero-active-mass cosmology to survive. So, the theory is falsifiable.

The thread question “Is there a solution to the unsolved theory of cosmic inflation?” fundamentally cannot be answered in mainstream physics – that quite evidently logically inevitably follows from that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., ” is/ are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational;

- and other fundamental ones, first of all “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational as well, while really for humans all these [including “Matter”] phenomena/notions can be scientifically refined only together.

Correspondingly so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then the result completely inevitably is transcendent/mystic something, including that are yeah, numerous, really transcendent/fantastic “theories”. of Matter’s creation, including “theories of cosmic inflation”.

Something in this case is in typical mainstream posts in the thread, say

“…Moreover, our understanding of physics at the high energy scales of inflation, near the Planck scale, is incomplete without a developed theory of quantum gravity. Inflation also does not address the initial singularity problem, merely describing events after the singularity…..”

- though yeah, most of “theories of cosmic inflation” indeed describe what existed and happened in Matter “ after the singularity – the “singularity problem” is “solved” in other also numerous cosmological “theories”, while these “theories” are also inevitably nothing else than some fantastic/ irrational mental constructions, and so that in the inflation theories looks as some rational point, nonetheless claim that a scientifically rational theory can be developed after a developed theory of quantum gravity really is fundamentally incorrect – really Gravity is nothing else than some fundamental Nature force, which, as all other Forces, so has no any relation to the “inflation”.

Another example, say, is in

“…All theories of cosmic inflation describe scalar fields, that can't be identified with usual matter fields, because they have negative pressure, by definition. The major issue-in classical gravity-to be understood is a mechanism of how inflation ends and ``reheating" begins. How inflation starts can only be understood within a quantum theory of gravity.….”

- what is, again about mystic "quantum gravity", and, and this case quite correctly, in the quote it is written that all theories of cosmic inflation describe scalar fields, that can't be identified with usual matter fields. I.e. these basic scalar fields are really again only some irrational/mystic things, and so the theories quite logically inevitably are nothing besides some irrational/mystic things as well.

Now there exist only one really scientifically rational cosmological model, which includes in this case rather rationally based on experimental data the” inflation idea” – the initial Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale model, more see section “Cosmology” in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics,

which is developed in framework of whole SS&VT Planck scale physical model, which, in turn, is based on the SS&VT really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where the fundamental phenomena/notions above are rigorously scientifically defined.,

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

George Soli

Dear George,

Thank you for highlighting "zero-active-mass" cosmology and referencing Fulvio Melia's "The Cosmic Spacetime." Your insights on the potential of redshift-drift measurements reaching 5-sigma in support of this theory are intriguing.

To further the discussion:

Looking forward to your insights and further contributions from the community.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

George Soli

Dear George,

Thank you for highlighting "zero-active-mass" cosmology and referencing Fulvio Melia's "The Cosmic Spacetime." Your insights on the potential of redshift-drift measurements reaching 5-sigma in support of this theory are intriguing.

To further the discussion:

Looking forward to your insights and further contributions from the community.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Sergey Shevchenko

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for your detailed response and for sharing your perspective on the fundamental issues within mainstream physics, as well as the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky Planck scale model. Your insights on the philosophical and scientific underpinnings of these models are quite thought-provoking.

To address your points and bring the discussion back to our original question, "Is there a solution to the unsolved theory of cosmic inflation?":

Philosophical Foundations: I appreciate your emphasis on the philosophical aspects of fundamental phenomena like Matter, Consciousness, Space, Time, Energy, and Information. It's clear that mainstream physics often grapples with these concepts, leading to various interpretations and models, some of which might appear transcendent or mystical.

Quantum Gravity and Scalar Fields: Your critique of the reliance on a developed theory of quantum gravity and the use of scalar fields in inflationary theories is noted. It highlights the challenges in reconciling these models with a rational scientific framework. Your point that these elements can seem irrational or mystical is an important consideration in evaluating their scientific validity.

Alternative Models: The Shevchenko-Tokarevsky Planck scale model and the "Information as Absolute" conception offer an intriguing alternative that aims to address these philosophical and scientific challenges. For those interested, I encourage them to review your work in more detail at:

Preprint The Informational Physical Model and Fundamental Problems in Physics

Preprint "The Information as Absolute" - 2022 ed

Resolution and Path Forward: To bring the discussion back to the original question, while mainstream physics continues to explore and refine the theory of cosmic inflation, it is clear that alternative models like yours provide valuable insights and potential solutions. The ongoing dialogue between different models and approaches is crucial for advancing our understanding.

In conclusion, your contributions significantly enrich this discussion by presenting a scientifically and philosophically grounded alternative. I hope this exchange encourages further exploration and collaboration within the scientific community to address these fundamental questions.

Thank you again for sharing your work and insights.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Dear Sandeep

“…Dear Sergey, Thank you for your detailed response and for sharing your perspective on the fundamental issues within mainstream physics, as well as the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky Planck scale model. …..”, etc.

- well, thanks.

For other readers – the thread question is briefly commented in the SS post on page 1, though for more complete understanding of what could be at rather probably really happened “inflation epoch” at Matter’s creation it is necessary to read the linked in the post papers . Though it looks as worthwhile to make some comments in this case also.

First of all from all what till now is really observed at really reliable experiments in Matter it very convincingly looks – and so is postulated as main primary assumptions in the SS&VT Planck scale physical model [besides the link in SS post on page 1 see two other main papers are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force , where so the puzzle of more really clarified 30 fundamental physical problems turns out to be quite rationally scientifically composed]

- Matter is rather simple informational system that is based on rather simple binary reversible logics, and so the Matter’s ultimate base is the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],

- which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct). FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP,

- whereas everything what exists and happens in Matter is/are nothing else than some disturbances in the lattice that happen/proceed as sequential “FLE-by- FLE flipping”, close loop flipping – i.e. really so cyclically running basing on “FLE hardware” algorithms, are particles, etc. [more see the 1-rst link above]

That + a few [at least four known now] logical marks and constants that “are written” in FLE logical structures determine whole practically infinite diversity of what exists and happens in Matter, so it looks as would be quite rational to assume that rather possibly the very smart and bountiful logical construction “Matter” was designed and made by some smart - and extremely mighty, since understood what is mystic till now for humans, including in the SS&VT conception, phenomenon “Energy”, informational system(s) in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set “Matter’s Creator(s)”

”

From the above it looks as quite rational to assume that on first step of Creation firstly one FLE was made – and, at that – see the conception – absolutely for sure simultaneously the infinite by definitions Matter’s space with the metrics above appeared – more correctly the space absolutely for sure existed before Creation as a part of the Set’s space, and that was actualized at/for first FLE creation – where so the FLE was “automatically” placed;

- while time dimension existed/exists absolutely always as unique universal for all the Set’s elements, including the Set's element “Matter”.

Fighter the primary FLE programmably [at least] “divided on two FKEs” – as that, say, bacteria do if there is a food enough, so in quite short time exponentially first version of the lattice was created, that was just the “inflation”.

At that, of course, as that follows from rigorous definition of “Space/space” in the conception above, there was no any mystic “space expansion”, the Matter’s space is infinite, and in it, in principle, can exist on infinite distances any number of other “Matters” which are based on the same FLE design.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

Dear Sergey,

Thank you for sharing your detailed insights and perspective on the origins of Matter and the concept of inflation. Your exploration of the fundamental nature of Matter and its underlying binary reversible logics offers a thought-provoking perspective on the complexities of the universe.

While I find your theories intriguing, I also believe that the exploration of multiple hypotheses is crucial for advancing our understanding of cosmic inflation and the origins of the universe. The Shevchenko-Tokarevsky Planck scale model presents an interesting framework, and I appreciate the opportunity to delve deeper into its implications.

In considering the concept of inflation, it's essential to explore a diverse range of theories and observations to gain a comprehensive understanding of the universe's evolution. I look forward to further discussions and collaborations within the ResearchGate community as we continue to unravel the mysteries of cosmology.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal The answer to redshift drift measurements and quoting paper [1] "The unambiguous prediction of Rh = ct, with the zero active mass condition, is zero drift at all redshifts, contrasting sharply with all other cosmologies, such as ΛCDM, in which the expansion rate is variable. These campaigns are expected to differentiate between zero and non-zero redshift drift at ∼ 3σ after 5 years of observation, improving this to ∼ 5σ over a baseline of 20 years." [1] Fulvio Melia, "The Friedmann-Lemaˆıtre-Robertson-Walker Metric" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358412382

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal The answer to number 2 is again a quote from [2] "Given an age for the Universe today of ∼ 13.5 Gyr, we estimate that k numen|min ∼ 3 × 10−4 Mpc−1 , which corresponds almost exactly to the measured value kmin = 3.14 × 10−4 Mpc−1 . This is an elegant, ‘natural’ explanation for the emergence of a cutoff kmin that simply does not exist in the inflationary paradigm." [2] Fulvio Melia, "Validation of the Numen Field by the Energy Conditions in the Early Universe" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372824079

Dear Sandeep Jaiswal The answer to the rest of your question is: I choose the zero-active-mass cosmology to define inertia that is required to predict the data, claimed to be coming from several laboratories, that follows the following principle-of-equivalence equation,

(number of electrons on a capacitor plate waiting to tunnel across a heterojunction at a rate of less than one electron at a time) x (the Larmor power radiated by one electron) = (the heterojunction electron tunneling current) x (the electron rest-mass-energy, that is re-interpreted here as the gravitational binding energy of one electron, as defined in "zero-active-mass" cosmology).

ResearchGate is the only platform that facilitate these efforts? All other platforms reject these efforts. These efforts discover a new fundamental particle dubbed the Lorentz boson. Please see, George Soli, "Using The Principle of Equivalence in Thrust Capacitor Technology"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377220187