cavediver writes:
And we see the evidence of inflation in the CMBR. Are you refuting that evidence?
I didn't see you present that evidence.
How can anyone refute what is not presented.
But Robert H. Brandenberger, says there are some problems with inflation.
Here
5 Problems of Inflationary Cosmology
5.1 Fluctuation Problem
A generic problem for all realizations of potential-driven inflation studied up to now concerns the amplitude
of the density perturbations which are induced by quantum fluctuations during the period of
exponential expansion [26, 27]. From the amplitude of CMB anisotropies measured by COBE, and from
the present amplitude of density inhomogeneities on scales of clusters of galaxies, it follows that the
amplitude of the mass fluctuations M/M on a length scale given by the comoving wavenumber k at the
time tf (k) when that scale crosses the Hubble radius in the FRW period is of the order 10
’5.
However, as was discussed in detail in the previous section, the present realizations of inflation based
on scalar quantum field matter generically [71] predict a much larger value of these fluctuations, unless
a parameter in the scalar field potential takes on a very small value. For example, as discussed at the
end of the previous section, in a single field chaotic inflationary model with quartic potential the mass
fluctuations generated are of the order 10
21/2. Thus, in order not to conflict with observations, a value
of smaller than 10
’12 is required. There have been many attempts to justify such small parameters
based on specific particle physics models, but no single convincing model has emerged.
With the recent discovery [40, 41] that long wavelength gravitational fluctuations may be amplified
exponentially during reheating, a new aspect of the fluctuation problem has emerged. All models in which
such amplification occurs (see e.g. [48] for a discussion of the required criteria) are ruled out because the
amplitude of the fluctuations after back-reaction has set in is too large, independent of the value of the
coupling constant [49].qs
He also says in his conclusions:
Conclusions
Inflationary cosmology is an attractive scenario. It solves some problems of standard cosmology and leads
to the possibility of a causal theory of structure formation. The specific predictions of an inflationary
model of structure formation, however, depend on the specific realization of inflation, which makes the
idea of inflation hard to verify or falsify. Many models of inflation have been suggested, but at the present
time none are sufficiently distinguished to form a "" inflationary theory.
He says inflation is a nice idea. But there is no theory of inflation yet.
So the crutch that is supposed to fix BBT's problems is crawling around on the ground.
Andrew R. Liddle had this to say:
HereAt present, inflation is the most promising candidate theory for the origin of perturbations in the Universe. Different inflation models lead to discernibly different predictions for these perturbations, and hence high-accuracy measurements are able to distinguish between models, excluding either all or the vast majority of them. Since its inception,
Inflation seems like a good idea because without it BBT is in a lot of trouble.
Inflation was added on to the BBT because it was necessary or the BBT had to be discarded. Now some 27 years after inflation was proposed the solution is no closer.
I think you said it best several months ago when you said we need a new theory. I am still satisfied with mine.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
™ Version 4.2