Planck time, Planck length, inflation epoch. Using H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc today, that is 2.236 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm using CGS. What do we encounter during inflation? 3D space could be expanding faster than 10^30 cm/s (> 10^20 c) so some 10^48 or more magnitude change in space expansion rate, takes place slowing down What happened to the cosmological constant? Did someone use repulsive gravity (Alan Guth does)? How did we end up in our universe with 2.236 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm space expansion rate (H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc) instead of space expanding so fast, nothing forms in the universe, no Moon, no CMBR? Then there is the temperature change. Going back to nearly Planck time, the temperature could be 10^27 to more than 10^31 Kelvin, just read various inflation reports on NASA ADS Abstract service. The CMBR forms plunging to about 2.7 K today. Currently the universe diameter in BB cosmology reported is 93 billion light-years across, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html. That is about 8.8 x 10^28 cm so comparing to inflation rate of expansion, the expansion of space can zip past this distance very quickly 
That's interesting if indeed H0 begins with the CMBR. I never thought about it, but it makes sense. Just prior to the event that created the CMBR , the light scattering by electrons, etc., would have produced a faster expansion rate, so once atoms formed, that internal pressure would be less.
The arXiv link cited in the space.com article is a 67 page report with 28 references to *expansion of space* and 5 references to *cosmological constant*. It all looks very sensitive to various rate changes for expanding space and other parameters used to arrive at the CMBR observed. This report includes some easier numbers for me to look at on inflation epoch, 'The Founder of Cosmic Inflation Theory on Cosmology's Next Big Ideas', https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/
Astrophysicists simulate microscopic clusters from the Big Bang, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-astrophysicists-simulate-microscopic-clusters-big.html, and paper link, Formation of inflaton halos after inflation, https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063525, 22-Mar-2021. "ABSTRACT The early Universe may have passed through an extended period of matter-dominated expansion following inflation and prior to the onset of radiation domination..."---Rod
The earliest nano-nanoseconds are incredibly difficult, no doubt, for particle physicists. To propose a model that begins with the matter of the universe -- this isn't a small value -- and have it convert to energy seems very ad hoc. The computer simulations that result are probably interesting, but is there any lab evidence for pre-mass.?Helio et al. Here is another report that parallels this article. Post-inflation cosmology
I'm unclear on what you are implying. Do you expect them to be similar?
The inflation model, added to the BBT, has been considered to be a bit ad hoc, but nothing like the above. It was introduced to explain why we see less cosmic structure [The Horizon Problem] than we actually observe since quantum action during the first instance of time would have caused a lot more anisotropy. It also solved the Flatness Problem.
HO is simply a value derived from observations, beginning with Lemaitre's calculation from Slipher's redshift values.
That is more likely than, say, the formation of pink elephants, but "where's the beef?". Is there evidence for this, and where is this going? I'm unclear where this fits in your view of BBT. Is it favorable to BBT, dis-favorable, or just something interesting?
Are you suggesting that the prior "reporting on cosmology" was disingenuous?Okay put it all out there now, warts and all for the cosmology department. Transparency in reporting on cosmology seems to be *emerging*
Right, I have no expertise of actual events during the first nano-nanoseconds, and I suspect none do. Until Faraday came along, there was no such thing as a magnetic field, no EM equations until Maxwell, no clarity for other galaxies until Hubble. The QM circumstances at just after t=0 may well require new phenomena given the incredible extremes in T, P, density, etc. Inflation (and DE no doubt) involves an understanding of what negative gravity might look like.
Slower than at the predicted rate at Inflation. Is the lack of a substantiated rate a problem for BBT?
It, as I've stated in the past, helps me to approach BBT from working from now backwards in time. The CMBR comes from shrinking our known universe from 2.7K enough to reach ~ 3000K, when conditions first allowed atoms to form, thus produce the photon outflow we see as the CMBR. This is, currently, as far back in time we can observe. But the math is, I assume, straightforward in shrinking the universe to a tiny size and calculating the time for that to happen (ie 380k years.) At some tiny point in time, known physics finds itself on the precipice between their equations and earlier events. The fact that they can get as close to t=0 as they do is something remarkable for physics, IMO.
Agreed. If ideas can't be explained with words, then the idea itself likely lacks real understanding in the first place.
If it makes predictions that can be tested it would be exciting to see. The CMBR may be, however, what falsifies the model.
Yes. This isn't too surprising since the CMBR is the last thing we can see, so far. There are some neutrino telescopes that may change this. The BBT, it's worth noting, became mainstream when the CMBR was discovered, as predicted .
. Agreed, but extrapolations are hardly a violation in science. To assume the CMBR is some sort of barrier repulsing a negative contraction (reversing time) would violate known physics. Inassume the real challenge comes in the first millisecond.
There is no direct evidence, if we ignore CERN and other labs that argue favorably for the std. model. I think this is true.
That’s likely an understatement, especially in the first nanosecond. BBT, however, is abundant with many lines of independent objective evidence that seems to only get shaky in the first fraction of a nanoseconds. I read that the “wheels of the physic‘s wagon“ at close to t=0, which implies that the wheels are rolling fine(?) until that very early instant. There are likely, however, dozens and dozens of hypotheses to reach into the unknown early period.
Yes, that was 1948, IIRC. Any idea what tripped them on a more accurate value?
Something I note in the 67 page paper of this space.com report. FYI. The standard BB model fails to create a uniform CMBR or nearly so. That is why inflation is used now, and others pursued VSL theory.
That doesn't surprise me since it was much earlier that many other things took place prior to things cooling down to allow electrons to join protons to form the first atoms.
The CMBR temperature was only about 3000k, so much cooler than the average star's surface temperature. It would be the much earlier epochs of interest in addressing radiation dominance. It is hoped that neutrino telescopes might be able to get some information from that first second period, which would likely be able to give objective evidence for, and against, many hypotheses, no doubt.
At the time of Recombination (CMBR), the physics supports a universe at a temperature of about 3000k, so very much an optical light event (yellowish-orange?This suggest to me the CMBR could be redshifted light from a very different wavelength originally, not infrared but perhaps the optical light
), though the bulk would have been in the infrared. Peak wavelength is about 965 nm, so in the near IR portion.Yes, but Inflation theory is part of BBT, which explains why there is such little anisotropy. It is a bit ad hoc, but nothing seems better in mainstream science. There is no alternative theory (BBT) that so beautifully explains the many observations found in the Big Bang Bullets list.
I suspect the Wiki link above may be as good as anything. No doubt there are alternative models.
I assume you mean clarity, as "transparency" is often used to finger point at others for intentionally keeping things cloudy to serve their own purpose, or is that your meaning? If so, it can happen even among scientists, but it's far more rare.Looking for transparency in all this
The inflation expansion rate exceeds 10^21 c (Alan Guth), so 93 billion light years covered very quickly Inflation theory has now opened post-inflation universe and some real differences can emerge in post-inflation calculations, well before BBN that is said to create the abundance of light elements in the universe today with a specific density and temperature used as well as expansion rate. Inflation features magnetic monopoles, something Alan Guth documented in 1984 Scientific American. Many exotic particles emerge like magnetic monopoles, and stars could form from them just like post-inflation universe where tiny black holes can form or even inflaton stars. Magnetic monopoles are as abundant as hydrogen and just as stable as the proton. Our observable universe according to Alan Guth in 1984 could be filled with stars made of magnetic monopoles, but inflation pushed them out of our bubble and into someone else's bubble
The inflation rate only lasted for 10^-32 seconds, so I think this equates to the size of a grapefruit, IIRC.The inflation expansion rate exceeds 10^21 c (Alan Guth), so 93 billion light years covered very quickly
One problem I see, just how many new, exotic particles are created during inflation, and now the post-inflation universe? I know about magnetic monopoles, now I see reference to inflatons and inflaton stars too Here is what I consider clarity and transparency. Without inflation, the standard BB model has a definite light-travel time problem explaining the smoothness of the CMBR that we see today as the universe continues to expand. This indicates the standard BB model has kinks in it and patches are needed.
Given the discovery of acceleration (ie DE), I would be surprised if there weren't some hypotheses like these.This seems consistent with other reports I read but how did inflation end? Now we have eternal inflation too, just check out NASA ADS Abstract service and others. Once inflation starts, it never really ends
A bigger issue, IMO, is the imbalance between matter and anitmatter is no small matter.
Yep, that's correct. This is why I have mentioned that Inflation Theory is one that isn't hard to see as ad hoc. It was invented to be a patch to tackle the problem that emerged in BBT where we had so little anisotropy and that the universe seems to be so incredibly "flat". But the first nanoseconds requires super physics, and not your everyday kind of physics. So Inflation Theory, regardless of the reason it came about, is still a powerful addition, and it may be valid.
Given the discovery of acceleration (ie DE), I would be surprised if there weren't some hypotheses like these.
A bigger issue, IMO, is the imbalance between matter and anitmatter is no small matter.
Yep, that's correct. This is why I have mentioned that Inflation Theory is one that isn't hard to see as ad hoc. It was invented to be a patch to tackle the problem that emerged in BBT where we had so little anisotropy and that the universe seems to be so incredibly "flat". But the first nanoseconds requires super physics, and not your everyday kind of physics. So Inflation Theory, regardless of the reason it came about, is still a powerful addition, and it may be valid.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram