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.

$latex V(r) = \frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_{0}r}Q(r)$

where

$latex Q(r)=1+\frac{2\alpha}{3\pi}\int_{1}^{\infty}du e^{-2mru}\left(1+\frac{1}{2u^{2}}\right)\frac{\sqrt{u^{2}-1}}{u^{2}}$

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:

$latex Q(r) = 1 + \frac{\alpha}{4\sqrt{\pi (m r)^3}}e^{-2mr}$

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

$latex Q(r) = 1 – \frac{\alpha}{3\pi}\left[2\log(mr)+2\gamma+\frac{5}{3}\right] $

where $latex \gamma$ 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.

Keep in mind that “A Brief History of Time” was written well before the discovery of dark energy. (Although I believe it was revised at some point . . . I’ve only read the original version.) So when Hawking talks about the universe being close to balanced between collapsing or expanding forever, he’s assuming there is no cosmological constant (which so far as I know is what everyone thought at the time).

Without dark energy, all you have is gravity pulling in opposition to the universal expansion. Now if the slowing due to gravity were constant, eventually the universal expansion would slow to a stop and everything would recollapse. But in fact the slowing isn’t constant: gravity depends on mass, but it also depends on how far apart things are. So as things get further apart, the slowing effect weakens. If gravity is weak enough to begin with (i.e., if the universe doesn’t have enough mass), eventually the slowing loses out and things expand forever. On the other hand, if the universe does have enough mass, things eventually slow to a halt and recollapse. Or we could be on the boundary between these two conditions, where as I understand it the expansion would asymptotically slow to zero but never actually reach the point of halting and reversing course. As it happens the mass of the universe is quite close to that point.

Now, with dark energy making things speed up, the trichotomy given in the previous paragraph no longer applies. Gravity still wants to reduce the rate of expansion, but dark energy is winning out over gravity and making the expansion speed up instead. However, I’ve been told we’re close to a different sort of balance — perhaps the effect of dark energy is truly constant (if I understand right this would have to be the case if the dark energy is due to Einstein’s cosmological constant), or perhaps the effect is diminishing or growing as the universe expands. I think that as far as we know it’s pretty close to constant, but maybe not exactly.

Again, I’m not an expert on general relativity or cosmology, but I’m sure someone will correct me if I’ve gotten any of this wrong.

For caveat (1) we can usually gain confidence that it isn’t the case through independent verification. We still can’t be certain that all of the experimental teams didn’t make the exact same mistakes, but we can at least gain some confidence. This alone means we can never prove it.

For caveat (2) there’s not a whole lot we can do, as there is always the possibility that there’s something entirely different that we haven’t thought of that goes on.

In both situations, however, we do gain significant confidence that we are correct when we have a theory that makes very definite predictions for future experiments, predictions that come out to be true. We expect that the vast majority of the time, if our assumptions are incorrect, then the most likely result upon the development of a new regime of experimentation is that the result will not accord with the theory, because there is only one way for something to be correct, but many many ways for it to be incorrect. This doesn’t mean that anything is ever proven, however, even with your positron example. Positrons are still theoretical models used to explain a set of voltages in detectors. They still aren’t proven in a rigorous mathematical sense.

Hence “certainty” depends on what sort of knowledge you are looking for, and the positive/negative knowledge distinction is still very important.

(PS I am still waiting for someone to show me a graph of the E from an electron at attometer etc. distances so I can see what percentage of classical it is. I just can’t find, e.g. at one am the field is say 76% of the classical etc. Is that so hard to calculate and put forth, or am I not looking well enough? Also, what then is the integral of the equivalent classical field energy? I suspect that if not infinite it is still more than m_e, which remains problematical.)

In both cases, one is repeatedly told that the establishment’s supporter’s can’t prove that their theory is correct. Which is undeniably true, as science never proves anything; it just accumulates evidence,….

Never, Never, Never, Never, Never!

I’m going to take you to task on this. Science most certainly does prove things. We accumulate so much and such a high quality of solid evidence, and test our models to such high standards, that no reasonable person can deny the truth of scientific claims. Science proves its theories.

People need to stop pandering to this “falsification” nonsense, as if every statement in science should have a qualifier tacked on. If people want to waste time nitpicking and trotting out tired trivialities, then they can shove off back to their Wiki-trips and leave real scientists to get back to their jobs. And those jobs are; Discovering the Truth.

A universe without a cosmological constant which has at most the critical density would expand forever, whereas a universe without a cosmological constant which has more than the critical density would re-collapse – thence the term “critical” density. Additionally, Omega = 1 means that space is flat, Omega < 1 means that is shaped as something like a 4-dimensional sphere, and Omega > 1 means that it has something vaguely analogues to a shaddle shape.

However, since in our universe, the cosmological constant is *not* zero, the term “critical density” essentially lost its meaning – the universe will expand forever regardless of its density (if the cosmological constant remains really constant…). On the other hand, the value of Omega still tells us the shape of the universe.

“Say two points are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size. Would they then be 2x lightyears apart? If so, that is an expansion IN space, not OF space.”

Sorry, I don’t see why that should follow. What, exactly, is there expanding “in” space here?

There is a crucial argument against an expansion “in” space, BTW: the change in distance between two objects per time can be greater than light speed. How could that be if we talked about an expansion “in” space? That would violate Special Relativity!

“If they are still x lightyears apart, as the measure expanded with the measured, how can we say it expanded?”

What do you mean by saying the “the measure expanded”? Distances are measured in many ways in cosmology – but none of the methods used in any way “expands” with the universe!

“A true Cosmological Constant isn’t a simple expansion of space…”

Huh? Nobody ever said it is! Actually, a (positive) cosmological constant is the *cause* of an *acceleration* of the expansion!

“…but the opposite effect of gravity, which is a positive curvature of spacetime.”

Err, what are you talking about? Is this meant to say that gravity is “a positive curvature of spacetime”? If yes, where did you get that idea from? (especially the “positive” part)

“Since it includes time, it is fluid, …

Since *what* includes time? Gravity? The cosmological constant? Spacetime? Or what? And why does it follow then that “it” is fluid?

“…so that what is curved in one area can be balanced by what is curved the opposite direction in another area. ”

Huh? Why? How?

““Curved” might be something of a misnomer, since there is no gravitational centerpoint around which the space is bent,…”

No centerpoint is needed for talking about curved space.

“…so it would just show up as an expansion between two points.”

*What* would show up as an expansion? The curvature? Or what?

“There could be other reasons for the 2.7k temperature of the CMBR, such as a phase transition level, above which this radiation is not stable.”

If there were such a phase transition, why haven’t we observed it in the lab? Experiments where the temperature of 2.7K is crossed from above as well as from below are done all the time, and in many of those, electromagnetic radiation is involved. No “phase transition” was ever seen. (are you sure you even know what this means?)

“I could go on, but Sean has not been overly appreciative of my questions in the past.”

I have a vague suspicion what his reasons were…

The issue first arose for me in reading Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. He made the point that “Omega =1,” or nearly so, for the universe to be as stable as it is. Subsequent experiments by COBE and WMAP, of the CMBR, would seem to show the expansion and contraction are generally equal in the observable universe, resulting in a flat space, to the degree it can be measured.

Spaceman,

That is based on the nearly even temperature of the CMBR. The complexity and inelegance would seem to be due to Inflation Theory having to be added to explain this. The issue I keep trying to get an answer to, with regards to Inflation Theory, is how can we say it is an expansion of space, as opposed to an expansion in space, if we still have a stable speed of light to measure it against? Say two points are x lightyears apart and the universe doubled in size. Would they then be 2x lightyears apart? If so, that is an expansion IN space, not OF space. If they are still x lightyears apart, as the measure expanded with the measured, how can we say it expanded?

A true Cosmological Constant isn’t a simple expansion of space, but the opposite effect of gravity, which is a positive curvature of spacetime. Since it includes time, it is fluid, so that what is curved in one area can be balanced by what is curved the opposite direction in another area. “Curved” might be something of a misnomer, since there is no gravitational centerpoint around which the space is bent, so it would just show up as an expansion between two points. An analogy might be running up the down escalator. There could be other reasons for the 2.7k temperature of the CMBR, such as a phase transition level, above which this radiation is not stable. I could go on, but Sean has not been overly appreciative of my questions in the past.