Inflation would have happened on our side of the Big Bang, so there is a chance that we can find some evidence for it at some point, at least in theory.
Here you go.
Especially the first three paras:
Inflation is a mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle, which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth’s early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Planck spacecraft.[70] This analysis shows that the Universe is flat to within 0.5 percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to one part in 100,000.
Inflation predicts that the structures visible in the Universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations that were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch. The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations, called a nearly-scale-invariant Gaussian random field is very specific and has only two free parameters. One is the amplitude of the spectrum and the spectral index , which measures the slight deviation from scale invariance predicted by inflation (perfect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sitter universe).[e] The other free parameter is the tensor to scalar ratio. The simplest inflation models, those without fine-tuning, predict a tensor to scalar ratio near 0.1.[71]
Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the Planck spacecraft, WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments, and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[72] These experiments have shown that the one part in 100,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form predicted by theory. There is evidence for a slight deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index , n s is one for a scale-invariant Harrison–Zel’dovich spectrum. The simplest inflation models predict that n s is between 0.92 and 0.98.[73][71][74][f] This is the range that is possible without fine-tuning of the parameters related to energy.[74] From Planck data it can be inferred that n s=0.968 ± 0.006,[70][75] and a tensor to scalar ratio that is less than 0.11. These are considered an important confirmation of the theory of inflation.[17]
The problem is inflation is “robust” meaning are there any situations a model could not be adapted to fit? I don’t doubt the intelligence of its proponents or reasons why inflation came to be. It seems to have run itself into very significant methodological problems today.
(https://physics.princeton.edu//cmb50/program1.shtml)
Watch the video panel Section 6 the early universe continued.
I don’t do videos. And when I do, hope over experience, I wish I hadn’t. So unless you have a superior antithesis to the synthesis above…
I don’t do YouTube videos especially on religion. But videos of a 50th anniversary CMB conference at Princeton with a panel of experts are good listening material for me. And it wasn’t meant to be a response arguing against what you wrote. Several members on the panel think inflation is falsifiable. It’s a good discussion.
2 Likes
That was 7 years ago. And took all day. Which of the order of magnitude 100 links is presciently superiorly antithetical to the current synthesis?
Day Three session on the early universe.
The first talk was great. Extremely entertaining and informative and over my head in a lot of parts. He is a proponent of slow roll inflation.
Second talk that day had some mic issues but it was a panel where a few of the people disagreed with inflation moderated by Brian Greene.
2 Likes
Read “the living energy universe”. Study the Mandelbrot set, God’s mathematical mind.
f(x) = x^2 + c = God?
In his book “Questions of Truth,” John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS was asked the following:
Does the vastness of the universe make the inference to God based on fine-tuning less compelling? Couldn’t one argue that God wasted a lot of space in order to create life?
His reply:
The size of the universe is essentially a function of its age. We need time to create second-generation stars, and then for life to evolve, so 13.7 billion years seems about right. If all the 10^22 stars of the observable universe were not there, we would not be here to be daunted by cosmic immensity. In many respects there is no difference between 14 thousand years, 14 million years, and 14 billion years: they are all immense to us and all equally comprehensible to God.
The find-tuning is, of course, about the fundamental constants of nature, which (as far as we know) are the same throughout the universe.
3 Likes
In other words space is absurdly profligate and we live in a just right universe just like all the infinity of equilibrated others from eternity.
1 Like
The Sun is a third generation star. And there can be no doubt about nature’s fundamental constants being the same throughout the infinity of universes from eternity. Even if they vary in every one, the multiverse is certain regardless and not merely an irrational necessity to make our otherwise impossibly unnatural values randomly certain and do away with God. Nature does away with Him regardless. Meaninglessly bizarrely complex nature.
There is probably no way to make support for this statement comprehensible to a humanities person, but in case there is the remotest possibility, I’ll ask you to try. Thanks.
By nature alone it is impossible for all of nature to be a single, finite universe. That a single finite universe will exist for a meaninglessly long time which is nonetheless the only infinitesimal scintilla of existence between two eternities of non-existence including the non-existence of eternity, is…
And even if God is the ground of being, there have always been universes.
Nothing changes. There can be nothing new. How?
PS A single finite natural looking universe only existing requires an explanation, a cause. It is impossible for it to exist naturally. So it needs an infinitely complex anomalously weird supernatural intentional one. An eternal infinity of universes doesn’t. Just infinitely eternal weird nature.
2 Likes
There is:
Take a boundless Cosmos that has always existed and always will exist, put a dress on it, and call it “Mother Nature”, then claim that–like a fickle, strange, and complicated woman–she does a better job than God. LOL!
3 Likes
“claim that this whole vast construction exists simply for our sake. This is very hard to believe. ”
Agreed.
“In this perspective the idea that our planet is at the center of the universe, much less that human purpose is central to the existence of the universe, is pathetic.”
Also agreed.
We have very little reason either in the scientific observation of the universe or in the Christian understanding of God to think that everything revolves around human existence. The God I believe in is bigger than that – enough for an infinite number of infinite universes filled with an infinity of civilizations. I don’t know or even have good reason to believe that such exists, but neither do I have any evidence or good reason to believe such does not exist.
I am not buying it. While I dispute the notion that God can do whatever we say by whatever means we care to dictate. The claim that the universe cannot be any smaller, is one without evidence or good argument and rather absurd on the face of it.
On this, however, I more than agree. compared to what it took for the sun, earth, and life to come into existence, the 13.8 billion year age of the universe is surprisingly short. The evidence suggests that the stuff of our planet came from neutron star collisions – rare enough events to make the time available rather short indeed.
Furthermore, it seems quite possible that our observation of nearby space will be somewhat misleading. Of course we exist in a region of space rich in the elements needed for our existence. But I think it is highly likely that the vast majority of space, particularly those filled with ancient M class stars are all but devoid of such elements. And thus life is far more rare in the universe than many suppose.
And yet… there is no getting around the fact that the universe is VAST – so enormous it is hard to wrap our heads around it. That size trumps all arguments for how rare the stuff of life is to make it a surety that life is elsewhere in the universe. That does not, however, mean that we will ever see it, even in our most powerful telescopes or with our most far reaching probes. By the same argument from the size of the universe the likelihood that we shall ever encounter other civilizations is practically nonexistent.
2 Likes
She does all of the job. What’s left for God to do?
How does bringing God in to the story - which includes the fact of the accelerating expansion of spacetime - help?
There is no evidence that the multiverse exists-- or that it doesn’t exist. John Polkinghorne doesn’t believe there are any theological problems with a multiverse.
Dole out smitings.
1 Like
There is nothing but evidence the multiverse exists. Polkinghorne - lovely chap, met him in a carpark - nonetheless was an incredulous IDer.