Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Topic

cosmic inflation

Ethan Siegel: The multiverse (and another you) are “all but inevitable”

Essentially, Siegel, the person who has Big Problems with something as widely accepted as the Big Bang, is quite prepared to accept all this far out stuff. That is where the naturalist project is just now. Read More ›

From Ethan Siegel: What if the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe?

Make no mistake, the Big Bang is unpopular in many quarters and an exterminator has long been sought. Here’s the problem: The explanation for an event may be outside the event. In that case, one can’t derive an explanation from within the event. Read More ›

Paper: Inflation doesn’t solve fine-tuning puzzles

From Physical Review D: We investigate the initial conditions of inflation in a Bianchi I universe that is homogeneous but not isotropic. We use the Eisenhart lift to describe such a theory geometrically as geodesics on a field-space manifold. We construct the phase-space manifold of the theory by considering the tangent bundle of the field space and equipping it with a natural metric. We find that the total volume of this manifold is finite for a wide class of inflationary models. We therefore take the initial conditions to be uniformly distributed over it in accordance with Laplace’s principle of indifference. This results in a normalizable, reparametrization invariant measure on the set of initial conditions of inflation in a Bianchi I Read More ›

Rob Sheldon on why string theory’s inflationary cosmos is a degenerate research program

Sheldon: The inflationary proposal has always been ad hoc. That is, a huge, faster-than-light expansion of the universe was proposed as a solution to the "flatness" problem, where the universe expands at a rate just sufficient to counter the gravitational attraction, where "just sufficient" means one part in 10^60 power. The inflationary model was invented to solve this fine-tuning problem. Read More ›

Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights

For example, how can we “partition an infinite multiverse so to arrive at the finite probabilities we observe and require (e.g. for quantum mechanics) because in an infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times?” Read More ›

Are the best measurements to date deepening the “cosmological crisis”?

Two things many cosmologists would like to get rid of are the Big Bang and apparent fine-tuning of the universe. Telling a different story is difficult mainly due to lack of evidence for a different story but they can make do with discrepancies. But then maybe the years have made some of us cynical. Read More ›

Sabine Hossenfelder: Cosmic inflation is overblown

he author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, makes clear that cosmic inflation was intended to deal with evidence for fine-tuning, which she considers a “waste of time.” But, as she shows, the cosmology has gone nowhere. Read More ›

New findings: Discrepant values in universe’s expansion make everything murkier

Error alone does not apparently explain the discrepancy in these figures: For some methods, which rely on using the light from supernova and pulsing stars called Cepheid variables to determine their changing distance, it appears that objects move away from the Earth 73 kilometers per second faster for every 3.26 million additional light-years, also called a megaparsec. For other measuring methods, which rely on the electromagnetic radiation that reaches us from the early universe called the cosmic microwave background, the value is around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec. … Most recently, a new result from scientists running the Dark Energy Survey has muddied the waters. Using measurements from supernovae, they in fact measured a Hubble constant of 67.7 kilometers Read More ›

The early universe was flat to a “suspicious” one part in a million

An “expert voice” astrophysicist explains that the Big Bang is now the “vanilla Big Bang,” which is unpopular because it doesn’t explain all observations: The Big Bang model is our most successful explanation for the history of the universe that we live in, and it’s ridiculously easy to encapsulate its core framework in a single, T-shirtable sentence… But But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat. And not just a little bit flat. For us to measure no curvature to a precision of a few percent in Read More ›