Inflation and big bang theory

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Xelasnave.1947, Nov 6, 2016.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I posted here because I recognise that to raise concerns about any mainstream theory is best kept out of the cosmology section.

    For a layman trying to grasp a complex subject such as cosmology is difficult and I expect that even for professionals the complexity and accumulated knowledge in any one area must mean it would be difficult ( and inappropriate) to comment upon matters outside ones specific area of study and research.

    So as a layman I firstly suffer from a general lack of education in science although I did have a high aptitude evidenced by topping my year in high school and being a nerdy kid obsessed with chemistry I recognise that I am not qualified possibly to even try to comment upon that which I now seek to comment upon.

    And above all I hope the matter I raise does not lead to tantrums and name calling although I recognise I will probably sound like what I understand is called s crank.

    Firstly I admit I don't like certain aspects of the big bang and probably those dislikes are not justified but I am human and respond with perhaps limited understanding influenced by emotion and not necessarily by reason.

    Firstly my concerns.
    The big bang theory seems to leave open the aspect of creation as it deals with the evolution of the universe and makes no determination as to pre conditions or the moment when according to the theory time and space "started".

    There is nevertheless a strong hint at a point of creation.

    And there is speculation upon something from nothing or quantum fluctuations neither of which I understand.

    The involvement of a priest in the hypothesis for this theory is for me a great concern if one dwells upon the avoidance of the creation event but hinting at it nevertheless.
    And I think some Christians point to the big bang as explain god and science.

    I understand the observation of an expanding universe was used to suggest that working backwards we must find that the expansion originated at one point.

    I find that curious that such an observation must extrapolate to a point as opposed to something much much larger.

    A problem arose to explain how the universe seemed to be the same all over and right here I do not grasp why this problem need be or why it could not be fixed other than by the introduction of the notion of inflation.

    However inflation was seen by all to fix the perceived problem.

    Now here is where I have been seeking to arrive.

    And I may have it all wrong but it seems the theory tells us that soon after " the creation event " a matter of seconds I believe but I am not sure, the universe grew at an inconceivable rate such that it went from the size of a piece of fruit to at least ,if not more, than the size of the observable universe, in under a split second...or as Degrasse said in a TV show..."under a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second".
    Now TV is a poor authority but I think the theory of inflation at least suggests that the inflationary event occurred in a very short time period.

    Firstly may I ask is my limited understanding of the theory of inflation reasonably close to how a scientist would consider it?

    Is there a distortion of time that I miss so what is in effect spoke about as a split second in "reality" a period of perhaps billions of years...time slows in high gravity approach.

    We are told that we deal with matters that are somewhat counter intuitive but I ask in entertaining such a proposition does one not have to abandon all reason and conclude that such an event hints at a super natural force.

    I find it impossible to imagine the universe appeared in a flash..well faster than a flash given it was as close to "instant" this human can grasp.

    Please help me out here.Is inflation just a place card while we wait for a better idea?

    Alex
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Bingo!
    Probably why the Catholic church has embraced it. But as far as cosmologists are concerned...we don't know.

    https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

    I don't agree with that, although perhaps that is also the reason why Freddy Hoyle clung to Steady State until his death.
    George LaMaitre may have been a Jesuit priest, but he was also a scientist and the parameters of the BB are simply what they are and he actually arrived at it through Einstein's field equations.
    http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html
    "In 1927, he discovered a family of solutions to Einstein's field equations of Alexander Friedmann in 1922). The report which would eventually bring him international fame, entitled “A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae” in translation, was published later in 1927 in the little known journal “Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles”. In this report, he presented his new idea of an expanding universe, and also derived the first statement of what would later become known as Hubble’s Law (that the outward speed of distant objects in the universe is proportional to their distance from us), and provided the first observational estimation of the Hubble constant".
    And we are reasonably able to extrpolate from t+10-43 seconds to the present day, describing how the first fundamentals arose, the first atomic nucleii, and first atoms, then stars, planets, galaxies etc.
    The Flatness problem, homegeonity and isotropy in actual fact.

    Brucep was well up on the Inflation scenario as was scheibster, but they have left us apparently. From what I understand, there are a couple of different types even in that, including eternal inflation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
    Not much to say Alex, other than it does solve a few nagging problems.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    1] The phrase "abandon all reason" is based on the assumption that we have something by which we can call reasonable. There is no precedent for the creation of the universe to which we can compare, and decide what is reasonable.


    2] How does invoking the word 'supernatural' help to reconcile the issue in any way?

    It still inflated faster than our intuition tells us - giving it the name doesn't change that.

    The answer is that, just like today, inflation was not limited by the speed of light. It is a product of the energy that was present. And the energy that was present was ... all of it. The entire universe.


    Perhaps what you're feeling is that this event is so energetic and so outrageous that it clearly exceeds all physics we've ever studied, and therefore can only be reconciled by "some thing" that seems, in some way, bigger, more fundamental than physics. So you're looking for, literally, a "super natural" cause that is (by some) considered "beyond" the physics we know.

    But it isn't. It's simply beyond any physics that followed it, which was, obviously, less energetic than that first event.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I'm sure Alex will see your post for the wisdom which imo it certainly presents.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02114v1.pdf

    Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation:


    ABSTRACT

    We present the implications for cosmic inflation of the Planck measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies in both temperature and polarization based on the full Planck survey, which includes more than twice the integration time of the nominal survey used for the 2013 Release papers. The Planck full mission temperature data and a first release of polarization data on large angular scales measure the spectral index of curvature perturbations to be ns = 0.968 ± 0.006 and tightly constrain its scale dependence to dns/d ln k = −0.003 ± 0.007 when combined with the Planck lensing likelihood. When the Planck high-` polarization data is included, the results are consistent and uncertainties are further reduced. The upper bound on the tensor-to-scalar ratio is r0.002 < 0.11 (95 % CL). This upper limit is consistent with the B-mode polarization constraint r < 0.12 (95 % CL) obtained from a joint analysis of the BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck data. These results imply that V(φ) ∝ φ 2 and natural inflation are now disfavoured compared to models predicting a smaller tensor-to-scalar ratio, such as R 2 inflation. We search for several physically motivated deviations from a simple power-law spectrum of curvature perturbations, including those motivated by a reconstruction of the inflaton potential not relying on the slow-roll approximation. We find that such models are not preferred, either according to a Bayesian model comparison or according to a frequentist simulation-based analysis. Three independent methods reconstructing the primordial power spectrum consistently recover a featureless and smooth PR(k) over the range of scales 0.008 Mpc−1 . k . 0.1 Mpc−1 . At large scales, each method finds deviations from a power law, connected to a deficit at multipoles ` ≈ 20–40 in the temperature power spectrum, but at an uncompelling statistical significance owing to the large cosmic variance present at these multipoles. By combining power spectrum and non-Gaussianity bounds, we constrain models with generalized Lagrangians, including Galileon models and axion monodromy models. The Planck data are consistent with adiabatic primordial perturbations, and the estimated values for the parameters of the base ΛCDM model are not significantly altered when more general initial conditions are admitted. In correlated mixed adiabatic and isocurvature models, the 95 % CL upper bound for the non-adiabatic contribution to the observed CMB temperature variance is |αnon-adi| < 1.9 %, 4.0 %, and 2.9 % for cold dark matter (CDM), neutrino density, and neutrino velocity isocurvature modes, respectively. We have tested inflationary models producing an anisotropic modulation of the primordial curvature power spectrum finding that the dipolar modulation in the CMB temperature field induced by a CDM isocurvature perturbation is not preferred at a statistically significant level. We also establish tight constraints on a possible quadrupolar modulation of the curvature perturbation. These results are consistent with the Planck 2013 analysis based on the nominal mission data and further constrain slow-roll single-field inflationary models, as expected from the increased precision of Planck data using the full set of observations.

    14. Conclusions
    The Planck full mission temperature and polarization data are consistent with the spatially flat base ΛCDM model, whose perturbations are Gaussian and adiabatic with a spectrum described by a simple power law, as predicted by the simplest inflationary models. For this release, the basic Planck results do not rely on external data.
    continued at link:
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Quite a complicated paper Alex, and no, I do not profess to understand it all.
    The point is, that when our usual crowd come beating their chests, re a new theory invalidating GR or the BB, or the GP-B results, or the aLIGO confirmations, they do not have the access to the myriads of ground based and orbital and beyond, state of the art probes, that are collecting data every minute of the day, every day of the year, for years and years.
    And of course these results are examined, again, and again. eg: It wasn't anyone on Sciforums that discovered that BICEP2 experiment was faulty, although some will certainly claim that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    But in reality, when you poo poo all scientific results, no matter what, then you are bound to come up trumps eventually.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, science and scientific theories will change and be discarded even, but it will be by our professionals with their heads down and their arse up.
    Inflation was certainly an adhoc item to the BB....
    DM was also an adhoc solution.....but both not only work, but we have reasonable evidence for.
     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I am trying to talk about something where the words I reach for poorly convey what I am trying to identify as my thoughts.

    Supernatural in reflection invokes a vision I reject.

    However I find your words helpful and I thank you.

    Alex
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    That is probably why I have what I can only call a mistrust.
    Well they say even a broken clock is correct twice a day but if they accept it I have an almost knee jerk responce to reject it.

    And I seem to recall that was Hoyles stand.

    I am still going over all that has been posted and will probably have more to say but I take this opportunity to thank you for taking such a great deal of time with your input.
    I am sure you know how much I appreciate the trouble you go to and no doubt many readers may have similar thoughts to mine and so you and Dave will be helping them also.

    I think something that should be mentioned here that all those knockers of msinstream should note is this.
    You can discuss ideas with respect and get useful answers by not jumping in and saying everything is crap. Many complain about mainstream not addressing their concerns but often it is about the way the matter is approached and being calm and respectful will mean you get a calm and respectful reply.

    Alex
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Yes a valid observation but in line with the old saying... You can take the boy out of the country but you cant take the country out of the boy... One could be forgiven for making a quick jugdement that his belief would guide his work or in some way influence where the idea came from.
    However one could think a steady state universe would suit a thesist as well.
    And I think, no authority for this, some folk reject the big bang because it conflicts with their religious view.
    I expect his fellow priests did not like his view.

    Alex
     
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    See the apparent bias, 'those knockers of mainstream should note this'. You could have simply written 'both sides should note this..

    Now coming to the actual argument. You raised your views that you are not comfortable with inflation. This could be either because of your ignorance on the topic or there may be a genuine objection. If it was due to your ignorance then was Paddoboy / DaveC response sufficient to remove your doubt? And if it was some genuine issue, did their response acknowledge the problem?

    You appear satisfied with their response, you should not if you are looking for a truth. There are problems with inflation, even one of the founders of inflation theory has almost rubbished it.

    Insist respectfully with your objection and see who starts the disrespect game.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I expect likewise.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The point is though, even by accepting the BB and how it evolved from a hotter, denser state, science has pushed the need for a deity at least back that far...Not bad when you think of it and the bible, and Adam and Eve story etc.
    Perhaps a future QGT will eliminate the need altogether...perhaps not.
    And couldn't that also be looked on as a strength of science? ie, Being able to accept the BB, despite the obvious "beginning" aspect, on which the church could put its hat.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I had a certain reluctance to even mention this because I dont see myself in the nutter camp and because they are running around it would be easy for someone to see me as just another fool.
    But I am not just another fool... I am a special fool and definetly seperate from the other ones.
    I will spend a lot of time going thru everything today.
    Alex
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    The "truth" as you put it, is not the actual goal of science....perhaps it is unobtainable, perhaps not.
    Science constructs models to match what we observe and the results of our experiments and being able to successfully predict: If that happens to be the truth, all well and good.
    And of course whether Alex accepts the explanation or not, is neither here nor there. This is a science forum for discussion my friend: You should no that by now.
    In saying that, I'm sure Alex will be wise and whatever his decisions, realise the shortcomings of you, me and himself, and all on this forum, without the access to the many many state of the art probes scouting for all the required data.


    Alex isn't you. He appears to be a Gentleman and will I'm sure do what he feels best, without any baggage.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Why you think so?
    But leave it, it will derail the thread.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I have suggested to Alex, to insist with his doubt till it is clarified or till it is acknowledged as problem. In this process the true behavior of both the sides will come in open. Who blinks first.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    You are correct.
    And I hope you did not take it personally.
    I find sometimes my words come over a little different to what I am thinking.
    Distilling my thoughts I could simply say it exactly the way you have said it should be said.
    I am happy with the responces that I received and will take time to think about all that has been presented to me.
    I have stated my difficulties with accepting the theory and it would not be wise simply to dismiss all that has been offerred because it does not fit my initial thoughts.
    I take time to try and understand what others are seeing.
    Similar to chess in the respect that the othrr party is doing things they see as rational it is folly to dismiss their next move without trying to see the board as they see it.

    There are many people who see something which I presume I am missing. I am trying to understand the mainstream position before I think of accepting or rejecting anything.

    I certainly would be interested in your views and like everything I come across will think through what you say and try to understand what you are seeing.

    I am probably a little different to many folk because I can hold many approaches to something in my mind and not feel compelled to chose one over the other.
    It become just a list of what is out there..
    I know it does not appear so when I rant about religion or ufos but I am very much a sit on the fence type.
    If I dont have to judge I dont if you can understand such a mentality.
    Alex
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Well the outcome is predictable.
    If I took the time to explain the position as I understood it only to find my student simply rejected it I am sure at that point things would go down hill.

    I dont need to say anything to learn I need to listen.
    And finally whatever I form into my reality and belief I probably will keep to myself... And I know that I have not been doing that lately I seem to have gone off my path.
    Alex
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    They would not get a hat in my universe let alone a peg to hang it on....
    No trying to be funny and that has not been working lately.

    The church does a wonderful job and thank goodness they guide so many people thru life.
    They do many good things charity educate healing so its wrong for me to bag them.
    Alex
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Agreed, it's the self rightous hypocrites among the preachers and crusaders that annoy me.
    Take Kittamaru for example...A believer, but will never go out of his way to denigrate science with the object of installing the god of the gaps, as others do.
    My wife of course is another....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Although, yes I'm slightly biased.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    She is a true Christian and yet still tolerates me, and vice versa.
    She has her choir group over once a month, and I adjourn to the back room for either reading or watching a good movie. But really, a good Christian is hard to find these days.
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    We have multitude of science experts who have faith in God. I am a theist, but like many such people I do not discard science in favor of God. I have never claimed, nor do I believe, that God must be brought in place of science. It is paddoboy' dishonesty that he accuses me of god of gaps and whatever nonsense.

    Everyone understands except probably Paddoboy that critical view on mainstream cannot be termed as anti science, unless some moron objects science for the sake of religion.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Yes we do, and nothing wrong with that.....But those same science experts do not obstruct and deride just about every facet of 21st cosmology that is ever discussed on this forum, and those same science experts do not refuse to ever link to citations and/or links supporting whatever it is they have a beef with, when requested, and those same science experts when confronted with reputable citations and peer reviewed papers, supporting the mainstream, do not cynically write them off as "pop science" and those same science experts do not stupidly claim that GP-B was a fraud, and they certainly do not say that the aLIGO confirmations were fraud, and they do not imply that the 'H/T binary pulsar system evidence for GW's was incomplete and not properly researched......

    Yes my friend, I have every reason to believe you certainly do have an agenda and it is certainly a "god of the gaps" agenda, since throughout most of your dismissals of the standard accepted mainstream cosmology, you are never able to offer an alternative, rather imply simply mistique, mystery and we don't know.
    Your's is not any critical view for any fault in the system, rather it is a cynical push to deride without any alternative for the obvious reasons already stated.
     

Share This Page