Undergrad Inflation Models that don't produce Multiverse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cosmanino2050
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Inflation models that do not produce a multiverse include those where the inflationary phase of the Universe's expansion is brief rather than eternal. Notably, hybrid inflation is identified as a model that does not lead to a multiverse, contrasting with chaotic inflation and eternal inflation, which do. The concept of multiverse refers to the existence of pocket or bubble universes generated during eternal inflation. The discussion highlights the complexity and variety of inflation models, emphasizing that many do not result in a multiverse scenario.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cosmic inflation theories
  • Familiarity with hybrid inflation and chaotic inflation models
  • Knowledge of the concept of eternal inflation
  • Basic grasp of multiverse theory and its implications
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "hybrid inflation" and its characteristics
  • Explore the implications of "eternal inflation" on multiverse theory
  • Study the catalog of inflation theories available on arXiv
  • Review the paper "Cosmic Inflation" on Wikipedia for foundational concepts
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists interested in the theoretical frameworks of cosmic inflation and its implications for multiverse theories.

cosmanino2050
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
What are inflation models that don't produce multiverse?
What are inflation models that don't produce multiverse?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What are inflation models that produce multiverse? What do you mean by multiverse? Any sources you are reading?
 
I
weirdoguy said:
What are inflation models that produce multiverse? What do you mean by multiverse? Any sources you are reading?
I mean by multiverse these pocket or bubble universes which are produced during eternal inflation. I don't have a broad idea, but I think models like chaotic inflation or hybrid inflation do produce them.
 
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848

This paper is often cited as showing eternal inflation producing a multiverse is generic, and therefore inflation without this feature must be very special. As to a specific model known to be free of this, I don ‘t know - this is not something I know much about.
 
cosmanino2050 said:
TL;DR Summary: What are inflation models that don't produce multiverse?

What are inflation models that don't produce multiverse?
In many models, the inflationary phase of the Universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the Universe. This occurs because inflating regions expand very rapidly, reproducing themselves. Unless the rate of decay to the non-inflating phase is sufficiently fast, new inflating regions are produced more rapidly than non-inflating regions. In such models, most of the volume of the Universe is continuously inflating at any given time.

All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite, hypothetical multiverse, typically a fractal. The multiverse theory has created significant dissension in the scientific community about the viability of the inflationary model.

From Wikipedia: Cosmic Inflation.

But, as the linked article discusses, there are all sorts of inflation models and "eternal inflation" to which this hypothesis applies, is only one of them. (Some time ago, I saw a catalog of inflation theories in a paper on arXiv that listed more than a hundred distinct variants of cosmic inflation theories, but I can't seem to find the link right now.)

Just reading the papers references by the others in this thread and this link, it appears that inflation models where inflation starts and then shortly after stops, as opposed to "eternal" inflation models, don't necessarily produce a multiverse.

As one example, "hybrid inflation" is not "eternal inflation", so it doesn't necessarily produce a multiverse.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
715
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K