Undergrad Is there any inflationary model without a fundamental theory?

Click For Summary
Cosmological inflationary models are versatile, potentially applicable to various fundamental theories. Most physicists believe in a single, yet-to-be-discovered fundamental theory that could lead to multiple regions or "universes" with differing effective laws of physics. The discussion raises the question of whether any inflationary models exist that assume multiple fundamental theories, allowing for distinct laws of physics in different regions. However, it is argued that the notion of varying behaviors across regions implies the existence of a theory itself. The implications of such a scenario remain unclear and warrant further exploration.
Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Is there any inflationary model which does not assume that there is only one fundamental theory?
Cosmological inflationary models are general models in the sense that they could be applied to a variety of fundamental theories. Most physicists working in inflation assume that there is only one (but yet unknown) fundamental theory which through inflation would produce multiple regions or "universes" with different effective laws of physics (but with the same fundamental laws, which come from the fundamental theory).

But are there any physicists or models in inflation which explicitly assume that there is not a unique fundamental theory and therefore these regions could be described by different theories with their own laws of physics?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I don't think that is logically possible. Isn't "things behave this way over here and that way over there" itself a theory?
 
Suekdccia said:
are there any physicists or models in inflation which explicitly assume that there is not a unique fundamental theory and therefore these regions could be described by different theories with their own laws of physics?

What would this even mean?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K