If you want to judge whether or not the theory is reasonable, you have to pay attention to the physical processes at work. Here’s a basic, basic rundown of inflation.

1. The universe is dominated by a field (dubbed the ‘inflaton’). In simple models, this inflaton field is just a scalar field (the simplest possible) that evolves with some effective potential energy. The shape of the potential, combined with the total energy in the field, makes it so that it acts very much like a cosmological constant with a very high energy density (note: we should be able to measure the level of this energy density within the next few years by measuring the polarization of the CMB more accurately). During this epoch, the universe expands at an extraordinary rate, and the zero-point fluctuations in the inflaton field get blown up to very large sizes. In fact, because the expansion rate is nearly constant with time, they quickly reach sizes that are large enough that the speed of light prevents them from oscillating: they become frozen.

2. Though the expansion of the universe slows the field’s evolution down, so that it isn’t able to reach the minimum of its potential right away, it eventually gets there. Once it does reach the minimum, the field oscillates about the minimum, which causes it to decay into standard model particles. This decay of the inflaton field causes the energy density that was stored in the field to become radiation-like energy density. Radiation tends to act against the expansion of the universe, and so once this field decays, the acceleration of the universe turns off, and deceleration sets in.

3. As the universe slows its expansion, the zero point fluctuations that were frozen earlier begin to oscillate again, as with a slower expansion rate now the speed of light has enough time to pass between the peak and the trough. Because all of these oscillations started off from a stationary position, they form an interference pattern. This interference pattern can be seen in the CMB, and is exactly as we would expect from inflation.

Your objections are somewhat understandable if you just completely ignore the physics that is causing these effects. But they just don’t hold up when you actually delve into those causes. Now, inflation isn’t without its own problems. It’s just that the problems you mention simply are not issues with the theory at all. What you need to be aware of is that you just can’t use your physical intuition developed here on Earth to decide whether or not something that happens extremely far outside your experience is reasonable or not. And the early universe is very far outside everybody’s experience.

Now, it seems to me that your objection has to do with this idea that something can expand to be many light years across after only a tiny fraction of a second has passed. The fact of the matter is that this does not violate any principle of relativity. Relativity places no restrictions at all upon how fast space can expand. The restriction is, instead, that no object with mass can ever outrun a photon. But this doesn’t happen in a rapidly expanding universe, because the photons are carried along with the expansion.

Thanks for your response. Perhaps I should be more specific. I have seen it theorized in a few articles that our universe (space, matter and energy) inflated from a pinpoint to a diameter of at least 20 billion light-years in a couple of seconds, then abruptly “slowed down” to roughly its current rate of expansion. They called this theory Inflation.

This astonishing concept seemed to be the only way to address certain problems with the Big Bang Theory, and this is what I meant by faster-than-light expansion. I repeat my question: can anybody tell me if there is a Big Bang theory that fits with all current astronomical measurement data, that does NOT include a period of super-fast inflation?

Inflation doesn’t occur faster than light. The units are wrong. That’s like saying that a car is traveling faster than 3000rpm. It makes no sense. Now, the car’s engine might be rotating faster than 3000rpm, but that doesn’t directly connect to the car’s speed.

Inflation is similar: the speed of inflation is given in units of speed per distance, or equivalently inverse time. A number in 1/s simply cannot possibly be faster (or slower) than the speed of light. That claim makes no sense at all. Now, the expansion during inflation is incredibly fast, but there is no difference whatsoever in how the speed of light effects the expansion then as compared to the much slower expansion now. The main difference is that during inflation, in the simplest model, there is a type of matter that is acting very much like a cosmological constant, but at a very high energy density. This is pretty speculative, but there are no hints that it’s invalid.

As for how strongly confirmed it is, I would say that the general features of inflation, namely a period of extremely fast accelerated expansion in the early universe whose energy later decays into standard model particles, are pretty strongly confirmed by now. Now, the theory of inflation is a bit more than that: it posits a rather specific model for what specifically causes this expansion. That part of it is still pretty speculative, but the expansion itself seems to be on pretty firm ground. There is a [i]possibility[/i] that there was a varying speed of light, instead of a faster expansion, but that idea brings up more problems than it solves, and seems unlikely.

I find faster-than-light inflation a very big pill to swallow.

where

Here m is the electron mass and we use natural units in the integral, m is the same as the inverse Compton length mc/hbar.

For r much larger than 1/m , Q(r) becomes:

For r much smaller than 1/m, Q(r) becomes:

where is Euler’s constant.

So we have to be careful when talking about “effect of DE being constant” – if the value of /\ is constant, it’s effects per unit distance do indeed stay the same, but its effect on a give galaxy increase as that galaxy moves farther away.

That is basically what Einstein had in mind when he first conceived /\: he wanted a steady state universe where g and /\ were balanced. However, a constant /\ makes that unstable since if the universe gets a little bigger than for equilibrium, then /\ remains weaker as things recede, but if it ever gets smaller, then there’s an inevitable collapse. What I don’t get is, it seems that Einstein thought the universe in such an equilibrium would still be a “hypersphere” of finite volume due to gravity-induced space curvature – but, wouldn’t DE act like an effective reverse-gravity and therefore make the net result an effectively flat space? I wonder if all this has been properly worked out.

For example, DE would provide an actual tension on a string if the mutual masses were the same, since relative force (”relative” due to inertial relativity) due to DE:
f = /\mr but the force between the bodies is f = Gm1m1/r^2. Hence /\ is only an effective blanket correction to gravity in a medium of uniform density. Also it seems DE has to affect net redshift somehow in addition to that from expansion and gravity, otherwise: I could let out a mass on a string and collect work (however small) from it’s /\ tug over the distance. Then if I could convert the mass into energy and send it back w/o redshift, I could keep letting out the same mass – it would be a PM machine. Was I the first to think of that – not likely, let me know what you know or think.

WRT your other question, a graph of the electric field strength of an electron, I can’t help much. I haven’t seen such a graph anywhere so far, IIRC. But you can find e. g. formulas for how the electrostatic potential depends on distance in essentially all books on Quantum Field Theory…

What are your opinions on the idea of a cyclic universe as proposed by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok?

As a layperson some of the arguments they put forward regarding some of the “cludges” in inflationary theory seem compelling.