Big Bang Vs Inflationary Big Bang

  • Thread starter Thread starter dm4b
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the comparison between the original Big Bang model and the inflationary Big Bang model, particularly regarding the concept of a finely tuned universe. It highlights that while the original model suggests a highly unlikely beginning, inflationary theory offers a mechanism that alleviates the need for such fine-tuning by explaining observable flatness and other cosmological problems. Recent advances in cosmology, including papers addressing initial conditions and entropy, suggest that inflation resolves issues like the monopole and horizon problems more effectively than the original model. The conversation also touches on the potential for inflationary theory to satisfy prominent physicists like Roger Penrose and Sean Carroll. Overall, inflationary cosmology is presented as a robust framework that addresses multiple challenges faced by the original Big Bang theory.
dm4b
Messages
363
Reaction score
4
I was under the impression that originally the main impetus for inflationary Big Bang was that the original Big Bang model implied a finely tuned Universe, or highly unlikely starting conditions for the Universe.

In other words, the flatness and horizon problems, etc., don't necessarily indicate the original Big Bang has to be wrong. It just implies the Universe had to have a finely tuned beginning.

Well, perhaps the Universe really is fine tuned and our desire to avoid theories that seem to "predict" very unlikely starting conditions for the Universe has led us astray.

Since neither models go back to T=0, perhaps there was a mechanism that forced the Universe into what appears to be a finally tuned beginning. In other words, it isn't really a highly unlikely scenario - it only seems that way due to our lack of understanding of unknown physics that came into play at the very beginning.

So, I guess my questions is are there recent advances in cosmology that show additional advantages to the inflationary model and that exclude the original Big Bang model as impossible now.

Thanks.
 
Space news on Phys.org
dm4b said:
I was under the impression that originally the main impetus for inflationary Big Bang was that the original Big Bang model implied a finely tuned Universe, or highly unlikely starting conditions for the Universe.

In other words, the flatness and horizon problems, etc., don't necessarily indicate the original Big Bang has to be wrong. It just implies the Universe had to have a finely tuned beginning.

Well, perhaps the Universe really is fine tuned and our desire to avoid theories that seem to "predict" very unlikely starting conditions for the Universe has led us astray.

Since neither models go back to T=0, perhaps there was a mechanism that forced the Universe into what appears to be a finally tuned beginning. In other words, it isn't really a highly unlikely scenario - it only seems that way due to our lack of understanding of unknown physics that came into play at the very beginning.

So, I guess my questions is are there recent advances in cosmology that show additional advantages to the inflationary model and that exclude the original Big Bang model as impossible now.

Thanks.

The dynamical mechanism to explain the fine tuning is precisely inflation though! It does deal with physics beyond the standard big bang scenario, namely something weird happening around the GUT scale.
 
Nabeshin said:
The dynamical mechanism to explain the fine tuning is precisely inflation though! It does deal with physics beyond the standard big bang scenario, namely something weird happening around the GUT scale.

I guess I was looking at that a bit differently.

For example, with the flatness problem you really do need fine tuning under the original Big Bang - specifically the Universe had to be very, very close to the critical density.

Under inflation, the observable Universe only appears flat in a way analogous to how the surface of the Earth appears flat to us. So, really, it explains away any need for fine tuning, rather than being a mechanism for it.
 
There was an interesting paper on initial conditions yesterday - Inflation as a Solution to the Early Universe Entropy Problem, http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1087.
 
The fine tuning of Omega is definitely something resolved in inflationary big bang cosmology but not big bang (sans inflation) cosmology. But of course this isn't the only issue. Inflation solves the monopole problem, the horizon problem, the origin of structure problem and explains why the universe is so big and where the hot soup of particles comes from. So even if there was no observational evidence for inflation, which there is according to NASA WMAP team, then it would still have a lot going for it.
 
Chronos said:
There was an interesting paper on initial conditions yesterday - Inflation as a Solution to the Early Universe Entropy Problem, http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1087.

Any comments on this paper? who think it'll satisfy the likes of Roger Penrose and Sean Caroll?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Back
Top