Guth, Kaiser and Nomura versus Ijjas,Steinhardt and Loeb

  • Thread starter Thread starter skydivephil
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A recent paper on arXiv defends inflation and eternal inflation against criticisms related to Planck results, arguing that such critiques can be countered within a multiverse framework. The authors assert that in a multiverse, anything that can occur will occur, rendering probabilistic sifting ineffective. A notable critique highlights the challenge of testing the existence of other universes, suggesting that extreme multiverse theories may require faith rather than scientific verification. This perspective draws parallels between multiverse explanations and theological arguments, emphasizing the ad hoc nature of invoking unseen universes. The discussion underscores the ongoing debate about the validity and implications of multiverse theories in cosmology.
skydivephil
Messages
470
Reaction score
9
Happy new year, an interesting paper just posted on arxiv :
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.7619.pdf
defending inflation and eternal inflation from recent criticism re Planck results.
 
Space news on Phys.org
I believe the authors have mainly succeeded in pointing out that such criticism is easily refuted under a multiverse scenario. Anything that can happen, must happen, therefore probabilistic sifting [which I view as what ISL was attempting] is an exercise in futility. The fallacy of such thinking is evident in this quote:

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
 
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...
Back
Top