Sabine Hossenfelder: Did the early universe really inflate rapidly?

I found this gem in the transcript:

This argument sadly shows that social reinforcement is a real problem in physics. Some of the biggest names in the community signed up to what is basically an argument from popularity, clearly a logical fallacy. It’s because of arguments like this that people don’t trust scientists.

Earlier Sabine says that inflation is such a "flexible" theory that it can't predict anything. That sounds familiar, right? Darwinists can explain anything. Everything is a surprise, yet, everything can be explained--------ex post facto. Now, what about "junk DNA"? Darwinists considered it junk; some still do, like Larry Moran. Yet, ID required that it NOT be "junk" since that would make "junk DNA" a kind of vestigial organ and NOT the basis for bauplans (=Phyla). Who turned out to be correct? Is that chirps I hear from the Darwinists? PaV

Is there a term for a proposed entity which seems to be tailor-made to resolve the problems with a model, but whose relationship to the rest of the model is not specified in any consistent way? This "field that permeates space" which caused the early inflation, but to which no succeeding observation is attributed, sounds like such an entity. If there is not already a serviceable term, I propose the term gremlin. EvilSnack

Inflation is an ad hoc reductive materialistic model that was imagined out of thin air by theoretical physicists in order to 'explain away' the specific macroscopic properties of the flatness of the universe and the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).

Critics Respond to Stephen Meyer’s New Book (Without Mentioning Him by Name) - Brian Miller - October 16, 2021 Excerpt: Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The flatness represents the lack in curvature of space that the theory of general relativity would normally predict. According to the standard Big Bang model, the lack of curvature required the mass density of the early universe to have been fine-tuned to greater than 1 part in 1060 (a 1 with 60 zeros behind it). Inflationary theory attempts to explain the flatness of space and the uniformity of the CMBR without the need for such extreme fine-tuning. It postulates a field permeating space that causes the universe to expand at a phenomenal rate. The earliest versions assumed that the expansion occurred a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang and only lasted for an exceedingly short period. This expansion purportedly flattened space and generated a CMBR with the observed uniformity. - per Evolution News

Yet, as Hossenfelder herself pointed out in her article, inflation "doesn’t predict the curvature at all"

"Problem is, this is patently untrue. If you look at the old literature, before we had the data, it’s easy enough to find inflationary models that predicted a spectral index larger than one. And inflation doesn’t predict the curvature at all. Inflation merely decreases the initial value that you picked for the curvature. But for any value that we observe today, there is *some initial value." - Hossenfelder

And as Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, (who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it), stated, "it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace",,,

Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. "So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing," he says. "I think it's telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it's going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn't." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00

And in 2017 Steinhardt and company further explained, “the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”

Pop Goes The Universe – Scientific American – January 2017 – Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb Excerpt: The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.” “We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation, whether it consists of an infinite multitude of patches with randomly distributed properties or a quantum mess. From our perspective, it makes no difference which description is correct. Either way, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.” https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

The failure of the reductive materialistic inflation theory, (via ‘quantum fluctuations’ generating an infinitude of universes with differing macroscopic properties), to predict the specific macroscopic properties, (i.e. flatness and initial homogeneity), of our own observable universe is a shining example that brings home Wolf and company’s extension of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics, Specifically, as Wolf and company explained, via extension of Gödel's incompleteness theorem into quantum physics, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."

Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html

In short, and via the extension of Gödel's incompleteness theorem into quantum physics, it is now mathematically proven that there will NEVER be a reductive materialistic model, (i.e. such as the inflationary model), that successfully 'predicts' the specific macroscopic properties of this universe. Moreover, the primary reason why ALL reductive materialistic models will fail to explain the specific macroscopic properties of this universe is NOT that hard to understand and it certainly does not take an advanced degree in mathematics in order to understand why these reductive materialistic models will all fail to explain the macroscopic properties of our universe.

“There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes - UD blogger

And whereas it is now proven to be mathematically impossible for inflation theory to ever explain exactly why our universe has the specific macroscopic properties that it does, (namely, why the universe is as flat as it is and why the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has almost at the same temperature in all directions),,, on the other hand Christian Theism ‘predicted those exact macroscopic properties for our universe thousands of years before those macroscopic properties of our universe were even discovered by modern science.

Job 38:4-5 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,?? Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

I would call those some pretty amazing fulfilled scientific predictions for modern science coming from a book that many atheists nonchalantly dismiss, and disparage, as being nothing but a book of 'Bronze Age myths'. Another finding that the ‘random quantum fluctuations’ of the reductive materialistic inflation model did not predict is that the earth and solar system should be found to have ‘privileged’ position in the universe. Specifically, there are now found to be 'anomalies’ in the CMBR, (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system. Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, via ‘averaging out’, in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMBR) Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with these anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now also reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

And these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data and quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe combine with each other in such a way as to reveal that the earth does indeed have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe. As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

“Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.” For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms: “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.” – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Welcome%20to%20Catholic%20Star%20Wars.pdf Illustration of x,y, and z axis https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, (i.e. reductive materialists), far from the small temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as they presuppose in their inflation model), the small temperature variations in the CMBR combine with the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ to reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe itself.,,, The earth and solar system, (from what our best science can now tell us), is not just the result of some random quantum fluctuation as atheists had erroneously presupposed in their inflation model.

Genesis 1: 1-3 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Of supplemental note:

Another thing that inflation did not predict, or even pretend to predict, is the recent finding that life itself is found to exist at the ‘geometric mean’, and/or ‘the middle’, of all possible sizes in the universe. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/astrophysicist-ethan-siegel-tells-us-why-a-multiverse-must-exist/#comment-725107

Verse:

Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

bornagain77

Isn't it interesting that the Standard model - Big Bang - what almost everyone takes as fact is, when it comes down to it, sitting on a number of unconfirmed hypotheses? And the dark matter thing has perplexed and confounded scientists for decades. No matter how hard or where they search, they are unable to confirm the rescue device they need to save their pet theory. Inflation is another similar vexing problem that does not get enough attention. it's nice to see some actual questioning of this hypothesis. The science isn't nearly as settled as we have been taught to believe. tjguy

The jury is out. Not sure how it matters in an individual's life. --Ram ram