Low energy inflation models like new inflation, hybrid inflation are almost ruled out beacuse of large value of r. Now models like chaotic inflation where we can reach large r values, can be favored. As in chaotic inflation, the inflaton field can take values even larger than reduced planck scale, large r values can be reached.

The observed value is r = 0.2, according to what I've read (and the various videos available), and as you say, Saha, this tends to rule out the "small-field" versions of inflation --in favor of the "large-field" versions. However, there still seems to be some skepticism on whether these BICEP results will stand up, and this appears not totally unrelated to skepticism on the roles of string theory --as a "theory of everything" -- in the background of this work. Kudos have been directed to inflation theorist A. Linde at Stanford, and there is important work on string theory also going on at Stanford. I'm sure I do not understand the details of all this.

I wonder, Saha, if you could say a bit more about the various alternative versions of inflation which you briefly mention --and the ways in which the BICEP results tend to distinguish between them. I'm sure you could help others, with some interest in these matters, to better understand what is going on and the theoretical prospects.

I wonder, too, if we could get any comments on the relation of the BICEP observations to work in Quantum Loop Gravity, and its notion of the "quantum bounce." The quantum bounce seems also to be a version of inflation, based on the idea that the quanta of space-time have some minimal compression or size. What might the observed value of r = 0.2 tell us about this? Does the LQG quantum bounce look more like large-field inflation or more like small-field inflation?

H.G. Callaway

Inflation predicts the existing of initial scalar field named 'inflanton'. Any scalar field can not produce the vector and tensor modes in the pattern of relict radiation. But relict gravity waves can produce scalar, vector and tensor modes together. BICEP has detected the vector mode in the pattern of cosmic relict radiation. So one can conclude that in the early Universe must been present also the vector (relict magnetic field?) and/or tensor fields (gravity waves?). Maybe this is gravity waves (tensor field) or maybe someone propose at soon the new model of the young Universe with a some initial vector field.

I am not a cosmologist, but I am astonished by the fact that the temperature, or energy, of the inflation was found to be 2 10**16 GeV, which is equal to the grand unification scale of all the forces but gravity. It cannot be by chance

Readers of this thread may find of interest the on-line conference "KIPAC Special Colloquium: Swirls from the Big Bang” KIPAC = Kavli Institute for Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEYaZPEfN_A

I found the presentation by A. Linde particularly interesting, and there is also discussion of the energy scale of inflation, due to Leonardo Senatore and others. This is a long and technical conference, but will be worth the time to those interested in the head question here. According to the discussion, on the supposition that the BICEPs results hold up, it appears that many of the most popular models of inflation are ruled out, since they cannot reasonably approximate to prediction of the high value of r = 0.2. This includes "old inflation" (which in its specifics is the original version due to Guth), "new inflation" which originated with Linde, I believe., "Starobinsky inflation," "Higgs inflation" (in its original version) and many models in string theory. In any case, as one speaker put it, "the long search for tensor B-modes is over" (Senatore). No doubt new models and variations will be appearing, and I noticed positive mention of "axion monodromy" among others. Most of the models disfavored were off by many orders of magnitude.

The interpretation of the BICEPs data turns heavily on the point that only gravitational waves (or gravitons) can generate the B-modes of polarization observed in the cosmic background radiation. Gravitational waves, as we have it from the contributions and discussions, have two modes of polarization called "plus' and "cross." Distinctive patterns in the small fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation can be identified as fitting the B-mode pattern. However the raw observational data is dominated by E-mode polarization which could have its source in density fluctuations and a scalar field. So, there is much fancy technique involved in reading out the B-mode polarization patterns (available widely in the form of a colored graphic picture on line) from the E-mode polarization, which, as I understand it is much brighter.

I recommend in particular the presentation of Renate Kallosh --very clear and concise. She provides a clear account of what the B-modes are, how they arise from gravitational waves, and also the meaning of "r" --the ratio of tensor perturbations to scalar perturbations, as I understood her.

Many thanks to Kulinich and Bettini for their thoughtful comments. I am not exactly clear on the question of how close these results may be to the energy of grand unification, though the results are many orders of magnitude above the energy levels at CERN --10 orders of magnitude beyond the LHC and beyond the so-called "particle desert." But I believe this is far from grand unification energy which is marked by the energy needed to probe the Planck length? Right?

H.G. Callaway

The Gand Unification (GUT) energy Scale and the Planck scale are both very large (much larger than the LHC energy) but are different still by almost 3 orders

We have quantum field theories for three of the fundamental forces, Electromagnetism, Weak, and strong (QCD). In the theories, the coupling constants depend on energy, "run" with the energy at which they are measured. The running is confirmed experimentally up to a few hundred GeV. Weak and EM couplings become equal around 100 GeV. This we have measured. The equations that give the variation with energy of the couplings depends on how many different particles have a mass smaller than the energy considered. If only the known particles exist, quarks and leptons, the three coupling constants approach each other with increasing energy becoming almost equal around 10^16 GeV. If supersymmetry exists the unification, around that energy, is even better.

ICEP2 showed that inflation happens when the universe temperature was just at that energy scale

Planck energy is even higher, 10^19 GeV. Planck length, in natural units, is just the reciprocal of this number. They give presumably the scale at which gravitation shows quantum effects. BICEP2 showed for the first time that we might be able to observe this regime. Doing that will be important, considering that for gravitation we have only a macroscopic approximation of the quantum theory

Dear Bettini, Thanks for these valuable details. My impression was that much interest in unification of the 4 known "forces" included gravity and that this would come in at the Planck scale. BICEP2 seemed to run short of that level. Still, the observation of the B-modes can be interpreted as evidence of gravitons as well as being evidence of gravitational waves--given wave-particle duality. Gravitons, I take it, are quanta of gravity. So, does gravity show quantum effects only at the Planck scale or also below at the GUT scale?

H.G. Callaway

Dear Kulinich, I wonder if you could say a bit more about the prospect of a new model of the early universe "with some initial vector field." Most of the emphasis in what I have seen so far in the reports on the BICEP results has emphasized evidence of inflation and gravitational waves. The hypothesized "inflanton" field is supposed to be scalar, and thus could not produce the observed B-modes, as you mention. How do you see an initial vector field entering into the interpretation of the observed E-modes and B-modes of polarization in the Cosmic background radiation? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Dear Callaway, BICEP has measured B-mode on the level of 0.2 with respect to E-mode in the small area of sky. PLANK experiment, which has measured the scalar mode in all directions in the sky, found that contribution to the scalar mode from the gravity waves should be small, so that the amplitude of B mode should not exceed the fraction 0.11 from the amplitude of E mode. This is big problem for inflation theory at all, but according to http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014arXiv1403.6768B it can be solved by the introducing of the primordial magnetic field.

The alternatives to the inflation theory: BBC: Horizon. What Happened Before the Big Bang?

Dear Kulinich, many thanks for continuing with your earlier point. I was aware of the tension between the BICEP results and the results from the Planck project's observations--which were mentioned in various sources. But this abstract is a great help with the related details. By the way, I found the full article, too, by simply doing an on-line search for the title. It can be printed out from arXiv. I see that the relevancy of a primordial magnetic field is highlighted here.

My prior take on this issue was simply that the discrepancy in the measurements might be put down to limits in their accuracy, and that this might be remedied by up-coming/expected observations and results. It was not that people have not expressed related doubts, though. You have helped amplify some of these doubts by bringing in this paper. I look forward to reading it.

H.G. Callaway

There is only one predictive model of the formation and of the inflation of the Universe. This model is not affected by the surmised detection of gravitational waves. Any effects at the beginning of the Universe have in the past sixteen billion years spread out to the present state of the Universe. The inflation of the Universe follows the same mechanism as the expansion of the solar system and the Galaxy. The reason is the conversion of (gravity focused) matter by radiative conversion to (unfocused gravity) photons. The model of mass to photon conversion process leads directly to the Hubble constant, and accelerated expansion. Considering the mass loss of the Universe, the concepts of dark mass and dark energy are untenable. I presented the mass and gravity-loss model at a great number of national and international conferences and submitted the manuscripts to a wider variety of astrophysical journals. Anyone who is interested in the detail should contact me. Sincerely, Ingo H. Leubner

Dear Leubner, I wonder if you could fill us in a bit on your paper,--which might encourage people to want to take a look. (I am afraid I will be somewhat slower to respond for a time, since I will be busy with other things for the time being.)

A few questions: The usual figure I read, for the age of the universe is somewhat less that 14 billion years. So, I wonder why you have it at 16 billion years. The idea that expansion has to do with loss of mass and the conversion of mass to energy is a fascinating idea. I wonder what the referees on you paper may have said about it. How does the quantification of your proposals look? A great initial expansion (or inflation) would, on this approach have to do with the mutual annihilation of matter and anti-matter (I take it). Is that right? Would acceleration, then have to do with an observed increase in the conversion of mass to energy (photons)? Can you explain something of your model of mass to photon conversion?

I can see why you would have doubts about dark energy on this view, since this is evoked to explain acceleration, but how does dark matter fit into it? As I understand the thesis, dark matter is postulated to explain the observed rotational rates of the galaxies in relation to their observable mass --which falls short (whatever the elaborations). So, why is dark matter untenable on your view?

Lastly, theories of inflation seem to concern themselves with the initial creation of mass. How does the creation (pre-existence?) of mass --the early universe must have been very massive on your view--enter into your account of expansion/ inflation? If expansion, generally, is due to loss of mass, there must have been much mass at the initial stages.

I must reiterate, that I am not a physicist, and I count on the physicists to do physics. (So, I am most interested in broadly debated views or theories.) "Philosophy," as Wittgenstein put it, "leaves everything as it was" --though we do hope to clarify matters and sometimes leave people with something they may want to think about.

H.G. Callaway

To all:

Actually there is no inflation at all. An illusion of inflation arises when Lobachevskian (hyperbolic) 3 dim. geometry is interpreted in terms of Euclidean geometry. Note that in Lobachevskian geometry parallel geodesics ( light rays) diverge at an exponential rate and the volume of a ball growth as an exponential function of a radius, not as a power function like in Euclidean space. So there is "more space " in Lobachevskian space than in Euclidaen. If you want to interpret it in terms of Euclidean geometry you see "exponential space inflation" . Initial Hubble observations were misinterpreted which gave bust to the Big Bang scenario.

If you want to see the mathematics which gives the redshift and CMB in a static Lobachevskian space, and other electromagnetic phenomena, go to our published papers on this site or elsewhere. Big Bang and space Inflation have the same value for science as Flat Earth, and Geocentric Universe. Have a nice day. Georg.

.

As mentioned by Kulinich, there are criticisms of the BICEP2 results.

Note that BICEP2 is an earth based observatory which naturally has

a limited view of the sky whereas, PLANCK being a satellite based

facility can scan the sky better. But that is not the main point of

criticism. The point is that BICEP2 could not fully take into account

the effects of interstellar dust. The effects of interstellar dust on the

photons of microwave background can mimic the effects of

primordial B modes.

All of the BICEP2 inflation models are ruled out:

BICEP2 fallacies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC_KkLvG22A

Dear Crothers, Thanks for your note and the video.

I think we have been aware of the problems and questions regarding the BICEP results for some time. See the notes from Brahmachari and Kulinich above. There has also been criticism of the confident announcement of the results in Science. We will have to wait and see how this all works out. It is clear that results from the Planck satellite also need to be brought into consideration.

Before this thread can proceed, I think we need to hear definitively from the physicists. We started from the supposition of correct observational results. But the dust got in our eyes, apparently. As long as the BICEP results remain in doubt, we can hold off from asking what models they would have ruled out. Right?

That's the way it goes in science.

H.G. Callaway

Dear H.G.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions and suggestions. As far as the age of the Universe is concerned, the present, considered the best, value (by the authors) is -13.8 Gyr. I have seen data as high as about 18Gyr, and others well below the 13.8Gyr. For my modeling, I used ~-16Gyr for convenience to include most of the recent determinations.

My model does not use the age of the Universe. The reaction-kinetic model for the expansion of the Universe predicts the rate constant and the acceleration of the expansion, and the time dependence of the size of the Universe. I am sure that you will have no problem understanding the model, since it is based on confirmed basic (high-school) science. 

Please, download the publication: ‘Reaction-Kinetic Expansion of the Universe and the Hubble Constant, 5-7-08’ from my ResearchGate Site:  Ingo H Leubner

The following publications are based on the same fundamental model and can be downloaded from the same site: ‘Why and When an early Wet Mars’. -3.6Gyr; ‘Instability of Stellar-Planetary Systems’; the application of the latter model to the solar system will be published shortly, ‘Instability of the Solar System’, about the past and future of the solar system. 

Cheers, Ingo

Dear Callaway,

The real problems with BICEP2 have not been addressed by the dust factor critics. They still argue from a false premise.

Robitaille P.-M. WMAP: A Radiological Analysis

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M. COBE: A Radiological Analysis

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF 

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille, ‘On the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw

Inflation is a work of charlatans and those people who are ignorant of Lobachevskian (hyperbolic) geometry. Inflation. They represent  naive believe that physics in negatively curved  ,non compact spaces  is "the same "as in Euclidean space.  Inflation is the greatest pseudo science scam in the whole history of humanity.

Dear Crothers, I've just watched your you tube video commenting on the BICEP results and related themes and positions. I think that what you say is interesting, from the perspective of philosophy of science, though I want to also say that I have never encountered quite the degree of systematic skepticism you show, regarding GR, the cosmic background radiation, the big bang, and etc. I have read scores of books on related topics, over a decade or more, and though I have encountered skepticism, say, skepticism regarding string theory, your thorough-going skepticism seems to me quite singular and unique. As I understand you, you believe that GR is self-contradictory, that there is no sufficient evidence for the cosmic background radiation, that the big bang theory is simply a mistake, and that BICEP and related observational studies couldn't possibly find evidence of gravitational waves. While it is generally stipulated that there is no direct evidence, as of yet, of gravitational waves (though predicted by GR), you seem to think that the theoretical prediction is defective.

I much appreciate your providing links to more detailed papers and arguments, but I think you might do better, for present purposes, to sketch your related arguments and positions for the possible benefit of readers of this thread. You certainly have devoted much time and effort to the related topics, but it is not clear to me that you have convinced many physicists of the errors of their ways.

I agree with you, as you said at the end of your video, that a false theory cannot be proven true. However, that also made me doubtful on what you had to say in the video generally, since the general question is: which theories are true? In consequence, that false theories cannot be proven true, cannot be used as an argument for any specific proposal --without begging the question. This struck me as completely out of place at the end of your video, since you had managed to assemble such a mass of heterodoxy. Skeptical examinations can be a great plus, however, excessive skepticism tends to break any significant linkage to what it claims to evaluate. Even if you are entirely right in all your skeptical criticisms, I believe that a step-by-step procedure would benefit your case.

H.G. Callaway

Hello, Dear Fellow Scientists: Callaway, Crothers, and Brzeski,

I have been following your discussions with amazement. Your arguments are, in my opinion, based on pushing the GR theory into speculation. Sadly, this approach has thus far only led to fierce discussions, but not to experimentally measurable or measured correlations. Coming from a different approach (without attacking RG), the Reaction-Kinetic model has predicted the Hubble—constant and given it realistic meaning. The same model proved and predicted many other observations of planetary systems, especially for the solar system, where all used data are experimentally available. NO FUDGEFACTORS!

I am saddened that it looks that you are not interested in other, models, than RG. This is inbreeding at its worst. I am following your contributions, which are outside my research. For fairness, please look at my publications at ResearchGate also. I would be grateful, if you would give me your thoughts. Thank you,

Ingo

Dear Callaway,

I agree to your proposal. However, I must first remark that my arguments are not merely matters of philosophy of science, rather of strict scientific method besides. My position is not one just of scepticism but of refutation by means of scientific proofs. No scientist is required to provide an alternative theory simply because he has proved some current theory false. My systematic dismantling of the claims made by the BICEP2 Collaboration is scientific; I rely upon experimental facts and logical arguments. There are two ways in which a theory, no matter how revered, can be proven false: (a) inconsistency with experiment, or (b) logical inconsistency. I have adduced both concerning BICEP2.

In accordance with your proposal I shall begin by elaboration on the issue of Einstein’s alleged gravitational waves from the perspective of logical consistency.

(1) As I remarked in my BICEP2 critique the speed of propagation of the alleged Einstein gravitational waves is coordinate dependent. Einstein simply claimed that his gravitational waves travel with speed c and then deliberately chose a particular set of coordinates to satisfy his desire. However, with a change of coordinates the speed of propagation is wholly different to c. One can make as many coordinate changes as one pleases. Thus, there is no unique speed of propagation of Einstein’s alleged gravitational waves, and none is valid above another.

(2) The energy associated with the alleged Einstein gravitational waves involves Einstein's pseudotensor, or instead pseudotensors of similar form, such as that of Landau and Lifshitz, which the theoreticians say “act like tensors” strictly under only linear transformations of coordinates. All these pseudotensor constructions, besides being ad hoc and non-tensorial, imply a 1st-order intrinsic differential invariant, as one can affirm by contraction thereof. However, in 1900, the pure mathematicians proved that such invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, these 'pseudotensors', Einstein’s necessarily included, are actually nothing but meaningless concoctions of mathematical symbols, and so they can't be used to represent any entity, to model any phenomenon, or to even make any calculations. Nonetheless, Einstein and his followers mistakenly do all three.

Thus, Einstein’s alleged gravitational waves have no valid theoretical basis at all, notwithstanding the great detail the theoreticians have developed. A castle built on sand is doomed to topple from the outset. The dust critics of BICEP2 still argue from a false premise; that Einstein gravitational waves exist (and there are others, as I mentioned in my BICEP2 video critique).

Stephen J. Crothers

Hello Stephen (Crothers),

Thank you for your contribution to the logical and theoretical challenges of the RG model. One of the problems of Einstein's gravity waves is that he was not able to connect gravity to the other energies (and masses) in the Universe. Thus, he used his best judgment to make sense of its presence by the proposal that gravity is the bending of space by mass. The predictions about gravity waves are thus tainted (good or bad) by his judgment. I am supporting him in his effort to attack the problem.

I am still in the process reviewing the model of the formation of the Universe which predicts the origin, and the connection of gravity with the other energies. The model started without gravity in its theorems (unlike Einstein’s approach). Thus, gravity appeared in the model as anti-energy, and as a huge surprise for me. It has fundamental consequences. For instance, it logically leads to re-definition of Photons (energy-'particles'). Since the discovery negates the model of ‘bending of space', their interaction with gravitational fields leads to the conclusion (derived from RG) that photons have twice the gravity than that of an equal-energy 'real' particle. It also leads to the conclusion, that photons (with the speed of light) move gravity. Thus, photons act like gravitons. Photons are created all the time (look at the Sun, stars, and galaxies).I'll stop here.

Presently, I am kept from reviewing since I need to help a client with his crystallization problems (earning some money).

Think about the alternative above as a thought - process what 'gravity = anti-energy' and 'energy = anti-gravity' implies.

Cheers, Ingo

Dear all, 

I've just come across a report of the new Planck results which apparently cast some considerable doubt on the early claims for the BICEP2 readings.  

See: 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5738

H.G. Callaway

The study, now available in the archives, in part damps down enthusiasm. “Unfortunately, according to our analysis, the effect of contaminants and, in particular, of gases present in our galaxy cannot be ruled out,”

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/09/data-from-planck-measure-contaminants-in-the-bicep2-observation