Inflation: Why all the 10^27s everywhere?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Xezlec
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inflation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the numerical coincidences observed in cosmology, particularly regarding inflation and dark energy, and the significance of large numbers such as 10^27 in various cosmological contexts. Participants explore whether these numerical relationships indicate deeper physical truths or are merely coincidental.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the similarity in energy scales between inflation and dark energy, highlighting the factor of 10^27 and questioning if there is a physical constant involved.
  • Another participant references the idea of numerology in physics, suggesting that the observed large numbers may not be mere coincidences.
  • A participant mentions PAM Dirac's theory of "Large Numbers," which posits significant ratios between fundamental forces and cosmic scales, suggesting these ratios may reveal deeper truths.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of critical mass in relation to the size of the universe, with questions about the validity of equating mass to the square of a distance.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source, suggesting it may contain misleading information.
  • There is a discussion about the radius of the observable universe, with differing figures presented and questions about the true extent of the universe's size.
  • One participant mentions the Hubble Radius and its relevance to cosmological measurements, referencing literature that discusses cosmic numbers.
  • Another participant introduces the latest measurement of the universe's diameter, noting the rapid expansion of distant parts of the universe.
  • Concerns are raised about the human tendency to find patterns in random data, questioning the validity of perceived coincidences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of skepticism and curiosity regarding the significance of the numerical coincidences. There is no consensus on whether these numbers indicate deeper physical truths or are simply coincidental.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss various definitions and measurements related to the universe's size, indicating a lack of clarity and potential discrepancies in accepted figures. The discussion also touches on the reliability of sources and the interpretation of cosmological concepts.

Xezlec
Messages
318
Reaction score
0
I was reading about inflation on Wikipedia (warning: I don't really understand physics and cosmology) and I noticed that it said that inflation and dark energy were kind of broadly similar but that their energy scales were off by a factor of about 10^27. This weirded me out a little because I had also noticed that the figure quoted for the change in the size of the universe during the inflation epoch was thought to be around 10^26. Furthermore, the ratio of the current size of the observable universe (yeah, I know, "observable", but still a weird coincidence) to the size of the universe at the end of inflation was about 10^27. What's more, the ratio of the current age of the universe to the age of the universe at the beginning of inflation (yeah, I know, for the last one I said "end of inflation", but still a weird coincidence) is about 10^53, which is almost 10^27 x 10^27.

Am I just going all numerologist here and making connections where there aren't any? If not, does anyone know why these numbers all turn out to be 10^27? Is there some kind of physical constant that comes into play in all of these or something?

I really need to go see that movie "The Number 23".
 
Space news on Phys.org
Xezlec said:
I really need to go see that movie "The Number 23".

I was going to reference this, but you already did :frown:.

I know that doesn't help your case, but I guess "It is what it is?". If it turns out to be something like the aforementioned movie, I would suggest getting your running shoes and preparing to head for the nearest hill.
 
One of the first to notice these correlations of large numbers with theorist "PAM Dirac" He built a theory called "Large Numbers" based upon the idea that it was more than a coincidence that the strength of the electic field force and the strength of gravity (between for example a positron and and electron) was about 10^42 which is approximately the ratio of the size of the universe to the size of the electron. But the numerology didn't stop there - the critical mass in the universe is on the order of the square of the radius (10^26) = 10^52 ...and there are some others - my personal belief is that these ratio's are telling us something deep - as opposed to Planck numbers which are quoted in almost every cosmological paper as sacrosanct -

Let the hammer fall
 
yogi said:
But the numerology didn't stop there - the critical mass in the universe is on the order of the square of the radius (10^26) = 10^52

Wait, a mass is the square of a distance? Looks like you may have something mixed up there.

...and there are some others - my personal belief is that these ratio's are telling us something deep - as opposed to Planck numbers which are quoted in almost every cosmological paper as sacrosanct

Planck numbers? Are you talking about Planck units? What do you mean by "sacrosanct"? I thought these units were used because they are convenient.
 
yogi said:
the critical mass in the universe is on the order of the square of the radius (10^26)

Also, when you say "the radius", you mean the radius of the observable universe, or what? We don't know the radius of the whole universe, right?
 
Dont read too much into wiki, too much crackpot there. numerology - perhaps. what do you think? the observable universe has a radius of about 13.3 billion light years [light travel time].
 
Xezlec said:
Also, when you say "the radius", you mean the radius of the observable universe, or what? We don't know the radius of the whole universe, right?

The Hubble Radius is about 10^26 meters - there are some transformations that express various cosmological factors in terms of units of distance - Harrison in his book "Cosmology" has an entire chapter on the subject of the cosmic numbers, large and small
 
Haven't you heard the latest measurement of the diameter of entire universe? It's about 156 billion light years wide. No kidding, most part of the universe moving away with the speed of up to 12 times faster than light.
 
Chronos said:
Dont read too much into wiki, too much crackpot there. numerology - perhaps. what do you think? the observable universe has a radius of about 13.3 billion light years [light travel time].

isn't the accepted figure, 45 billion light years radius? And the minimum radius of curvature is 100bly

What's the definition of a coincidence anyway?

The human brain is remarkably good at taking random chaos and recognizing patterns where there are none.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad Some questions about Cosmic Inflation
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
High School Estimates — True Size of the Universe?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Undergrad What does the cosmic inflation theory actually say about flatness?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Why doesn't cosmic inflation violate conservation of energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Undergrad Why is inflation initial patch length ~ 1 Hubble length ?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Grade Inflation at Harvard
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
805
Undergrad Is Inflation unlikely or likely?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Questions on the Inflation Debate
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Graduate What is math showing inflation solves horizon problem?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Big Bang: Size of the Universe at Different Epochs
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
8K