Inflation Deflated ? the dead of inlation models ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter audioloop
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inflation Models
AI Thread Summary
Observations from the Planck spacecraft have revealed fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) that challenge the uniformity predicted by inflation models, yet these fluctuations are not evidence against inflation. Instead, they are seen as a consequence of inflation, supporting the theory by demonstrating how quantum fluctuations can manifest as temperature and polarization variations in the CMB. While certain large-scale anomalies detected by Planck pose challenges to simple inflationary models, they do not invalidate the concept of inflation itself. The lead spokesman for the Planck team indicated that these anomalies could suggest new physics rather than signify the end of inflationary theory. Overall, the findings reinforce the need for a deeper understanding of inflation and its implications for the universe's structure.
audioloop
Messages
462
Reaction score
7
Space news on Phys.org
The fluctuations seen in the CMB are predicted by inflation -- only classically do we expect inflation to furnish a perfectly homogeneous universe. Inflation is expected to amplify and stretch quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field which come to manifest themselves as temperature/polarization fluctuations in the CMB. The discovery of these temperature anisotropies by COBE in 90's (way before Planck) is actually considered to be some of the first evidence for inflation -- not against it. By studying the properties of these fluctuations, e.g. their power spectrum, we can learn much about the physics of the inflationary era. So, no. Far cry from killing inflation: the inhomogeneities are a consequence and vindication of the inflationary proposal.

Now, in the article they also talk about certain large-scale anomalies seen by Planck. Indeed, these are a challenge to the simplest realizations of inflation. But, they are by no means a death knell. If they are indeed of primordial origin -- a fact that is not currently known -- then we will need to consider more complicated forms of inflation, for example, ones that involve a breaking of isotropy through vector fields.
 
At the Planck press conference the lead spokesman, Georges Efstathiou said:
"
I think if I were an inflationary theorist I would be more happy than disturbed by these results, but we have to be open-minded that there might be new physics involved in these anomalies"
So yes its possible that the anomalies may be a hint of exotic new physics that could expand our narrative of the universe beyond or even before inflation but to say inflation is dead due to Planck seems rather opposite to what the PLanck team themselves are saying.
 
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...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top