I’ve had many interesting reactions to my recent shipping service nigh inflation, this persuasion that the early on universe expanded exponentially in addition to thereby flattened in addition to smoothed itself. The perchance most interesting reply to my pointing out that inflation doesn’t solve the problems it was invented to solve is a flabbergasted: “But everyone else says it does.”
Not similar I don’t know that. But, yes, most people who function on inflation don’t fifty-fifty acquire the basics right.
I’m non sure why that is so. Those who I personally speak alongside pretty chop-chop grip that what I say is correct. The math isn’t all that hard in addition to the province of affairs pretty clar. The puzzle is, why in addition to then exercise hence many of them tell a floor that is nonsense? And why exercise they proceed pedagogy it to students, impress it inwards textbooks, in addition to repeat it inwards pop scientific discipline books?
I am fascinated past times this for the same argue I’m fascinated past times the widely-spread in addition to yet utterly incorrect persuasion that the Bullet-cluster rules out modified gravity. As I explained inwards an before blogpost, it doesn’t. Never did. The Bullet-cluster tin terminate live explained simply fine alongside modified gravity. It’s hard to explicate alongside particle night matter. But, eh, simply the other twenty-four hours I met a postdoc who told me the Bullet-cluster rules out modified gravity. Did he always await at the literature? No.
One argue these stories live – despite my best efforts to the opposite – is for sure that they are unproblematic in addition to audio superficially plausible. But it doesn’t accept much to tear them down. And that it’s hence unproblematic to describe away the carpeting nether what motivates enquiry of thousands of people makes me real distrustful of my colleagues.
Let us provide to the claim that inflation solves the flatness problem. Concretely, the occupation is that inwards cosmology there’s a dynamical variable (ie, ane that depends on time), called the curved shape density parameter. It’s past times structure dimensionless (doesn’t receive got units) in addition to its value today is smaller than 0.1 or so. The exact digits don’t affair all that much.
What’s of import is that this variable increases inwards value over time, important it must receive got been smaller inwards the past. Indeed, if you lot curl it dorsum to the Planck epoch or so, it must receive got been something similar 10-60, accept or give some orders of magnitude. That’s what they telephone telephone the flatness problem.
Now you lot may wonder, what’s problematic nigh this. How is it surprising that the value of something which increases inwards fourth dimension was smaller inwards the past? It’s an initial value that’s constrained past times observation in addition to that’s genuinely all at that topographic point is to say nigh it.
It’s hither where things acquire interesting: The argue that cosmologists believe it’s a occupation is that they hollo upwardly a probable value for the curved shape density at early on times should receive got been closed to 1. Not just one, but non much smaller in addition to non much larger. Why? I receive got no idea.
Each fourth dimension I explicate this obsession alongside numbers closed to 1 to someone who is non a physicist, they stare at me similar I simply showed off my tin foil hat. But, yeah, that’s what they preach downward here. Numbers closed to 1 are good. Small or large numbers are bad. Therefore, cosmologists in addition to high-energy physicists believe that numbers closed to 1 are to a greater extent than probable initial conditions. It’s similar a bizarre cult that you’re non allowed to question.
But if you lot accept away ane thing from this blogpost it’s that whenever someone talks nigh likelihood or probability you lot should inquire “What’s the probability distribution in addition to where does it come upwardly from?”
The probability distribution is what you lot take away to define simply how probable each possible outcome is. For a fair dice, for example, it’s 1/6 for each outcome. For a not-so-fair die it could live whatsoever combination of numbers, hence long equally the probabilities all add together to 1. There are infinitely many probability distributions in addition to without defining ane it is non clear what “likely” means.
If you lot inquire physicists, you lot volition chop-chop notice that neither for inflation nor for theories beyond the measure model does anyone receive got a probability distribution or always fifty-fifty mentions a probability distribution for the supposedly probable values.
How does it matter?
The theories that nosotros currently receive got function alongside differential equations in addition to inflation is no exception. But the systems that nosotros discovery are non described past times the differential equations themselves, they are described past times solutions to the equation. To select the right solution, nosotros take away an initial status (or several, depending on the type of equation). You know the drill from Newton’s law: You receive got an equation, but you lot exclusively tin terminate tell where the arrow volition wing if you lot also know the arrow’s starting seat in addition to velocity.
The initial atmospheric condition are either designed past times the experimenter or inferred from observation. Either way, they’re non predictions. They tin terminate non live predicted. That would live a logical absurdity. You can’t role a differential equation to predict its ain initial conditions. If you lot desire to speak nigh the probability of initial atmospheric condition you lot take away another theory.
What happens if you lot ignore this in addition to become alongside the belief that the probable initial value for the curved shape density should live nigh 1? Well, in addition to then you lot exercise receive got a occupation indeed, because that’s incompatible alongside information to a high degree of significance.
Inflation in addition to then “solves” this supposed occupation past times taking the initial value in addition to shrinking it by, I dunno, 100 or hence orders of magnitude. This has the outcome that if you lot start alongside something of club 1 in addition to add together inflation, the outcome today is compatible alongside observation. But of course of written report if you lot start alongside some real large value, say 1060, in addition to then the outcome volition still be incompatible alongside data. That is, you lot genuinely take away the supposition that the initial values are probable to live of club 1. Or, to pose it differently, you lot are non allowed to inquire why the initial value was non larger than some other number.
This fineprint, that at that topographic point are soundless initial values incompatible alongside data, ofttimes gets lost. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 typical representative is what Jim Baggot writes inwards his majority “Origins” nigh inflation:
But it’s unfair to alternative on Jim because this oversimplification is hence common. Ethan Siegel, for example, is some other offender. He writes:
You mightiness say then, but doesn’t inflation at to the lowest degree greatly improve the situation? Isn’t it amend because it explains at that topographic point are to a greater extent than values compatible alongside observation? No. Because you lot receive got to pay a cost for this “explanation:” You receive got to innovate a novel acre in addition to a potential for that acre in addition to and then a way to acquire rid of this acre in ane lawsuit it’s done its duty.
I am pretty sure if you’d brand a Bayesian approximate to quantify the complexity of these assumptions, in addition to then inflation would plough out to live to a greater extent than complicated than simply picking some initial parameter. Is at that topographic point genuinely whatsoever simpler supposition than simply some number?
Some people receive got defendant me of non agreement that scientific discipline is nigh explaining things. But I exercise non say nosotros should non seek to discovery amend explanations. I say that inflation is non a amend explanation for the introduce almost-flatness of the universe than simply proverb the initial value was small.
Shrinking the value of some release past times pulling exponential factors out of sparse air is non a specially impressive gimmick. And if you lot invent exponential factors already, why non pose them into the probability distribution instead?
Let me give you lot an representative for why the distinction matters. Suppose you lot simply hatched from an egg in addition to don’t know anything nigh astrophysics. You brush off a unloosen plume in addition to await at our solar organization for the kickoff time. You notice directly that the planetary orbits almost prevarication inwards the same plane.
Now, if you lot assume a uniform probability distribution for the initial values of the orbits, that’s an incredibly unlikely thing to happen. You would think, well, that needs explaining. Wouldn’t you?
The inflationary approach to solving this occupation would live to say the orbits started alongside random values but in addition to then some so-far unobserved acre pulled them all into the same plane. Then the acre decayed hence nosotros can’t mensurate it. “Problem solved!” you lot yell in addition to hold off for the Nobel Prize.
But the right explanation is that due to the way the solar organization formed, the initial values are probable to prevarication inwards a plane to start with! You got the initial probability distribution wrong. There’s no fancy novel field.
In the instance of the solar organization you lot could acquire to distinguish dynamics from initial atmospheric condition past times observing to a greater extent than solar systems. You’d discovery that aligned orbits are the dominion non the exception. You’d in addition to then conclude that you lot should await for a machinery that explains the initial probability distribution in addition to non a dynamical machinery to alter the uniform distribution later.
In the instance of inflation, unfortunately, nosotros can’t exercise such an observation since this would require measurement the initial value of the curved shape density inwards other universes.
While I am at it, it’s interesting to banker's complaint that the erroneous declaration against the heliocentric solar system, that the stars would receive got to live “unnaturally” far away, was based on the same error that the just-hatched chick made. Astronomers dorsum in addition to then implicitly assumed a probability distribution for distances betwixt stellar objects that was simply wrong. (And, yes, I know they also wrongly estimated the size of the stars.)
In the promise that you’re soundless alongside me, allow me emphasize that nevertheless I hollo upwardly inflation is a goodness theory. Even though it does non solve the flatness occupation (or monopole occupation or horizon problem) it explains sure correlations inwards the cosmic-microwave-background. (ET anticorrelations for sure scales, shown inwards the figure below.)
In the instance of these correlations, adding inflation greatly simplifies the initial status that gives ascension to the observation. I am non aware that someone genuinely has quantified this simplification but I’m sure it could live done (and it should live done). Therefore, inflation genuinely is the amend explanation. For the curvature, however, that isn’t hence because replacing ane release alongside some other release times some exponential ingredient doesn’t explicate anything.
I promise that suffices to convince you lot that it’s non me who is nuts.
I receive got a lot of sympathy for the take away to sometimes oversimplify scientific explanations to brand them accessible to non-experts. I genuinely do. But the narrative that inflation solves the flatness occupation tin terminate live flora fifty-fifty inwards papers in addition to textbooks. In fact, you lot tin terminate discovery it inwards the above-mentioned lecture notes! It’s nigh fourth dimension this myth vanishes from the academic literature.
Not similar I don’t know that. But, yes, most people who function on inflation don’t fifty-fifty acquire the basics right.
 |
| Inflation flattens the universe similar photoshop flattens wrinkles. Impressive! [Img Src] |
I’m non sure why that is so. Those who I personally speak alongside pretty chop-chop grip that what I say is correct. The math isn’t all that hard in addition to the province of affairs pretty clar. The puzzle is, why in addition to then exercise hence many of them tell a floor that is nonsense? And why exercise they proceed pedagogy it to students, impress it inwards textbooks, in addition to repeat it inwards pop scientific discipline books?
I am fascinated past times this for the same argue I’m fascinated past times the widely-spread in addition to yet utterly incorrect persuasion that the Bullet-cluster rules out modified gravity. As I explained inwards an before blogpost, it doesn’t. Never did. The Bullet-cluster tin terminate live explained simply fine alongside modified gravity. It’s hard to explicate alongside particle night matter. But, eh, simply the other twenty-four hours I met a postdoc who told me the Bullet-cluster rules out modified gravity. Did he always await at the literature? No.
One argue these stories live – despite my best efforts to the opposite – is for sure that they are unproblematic in addition to audio superficially plausible. But it doesn’t accept much to tear them down. And that it’s hence unproblematic to describe away the carpeting nether what motivates enquiry of thousands of people makes me real distrustful of my colleagues.
Let us provide to the claim that inflation solves the flatness problem. Concretely, the occupation is that inwards cosmology there’s a dynamical variable (ie, ane that depends on time), called the curved shape density parameter. It’s past times structure dimensionless (doesn’t receive got units) in addition to its value today is smaller than 0.1 or so. The exact digits don’t affair all that much.
What’s of import is that this variable increases inwards value over time, important it must receive got been smaller inwards the past. Indeed, if you lot curl it dorsum to the Planck epoch or so, it must receive got been something similar 10-60, accept or give some orders of magnitude. That’s what they telephone telephone the flatness problem.
Now you lot may wonder, what’s problematic nigh this. How is it surprising that the value of something which increases inwards fourth dimension was smaller inwards the past? It’s an initial value that’s constrained past times observation in addition to that’s genuinely all at that topographic point is to say nigh it.
It’s hither where things acquire interesting: The argue that cosmologists believe it’s a occupation is that they hollo upwardly a probable value for the curved shape density at early on times should receive got been closed to 1. Not just one, but non much smaller in addition to non much larger. Why? I receive got no idea.
Each fourth dimension I explicate this obsession alongside numbers closed to 1 to someone who is non a physicist, they stare at me similar I simply showed off my tin foil hat. But, yeah, that’s what they preach downward here. Numbers closed to 1 are good. Small or large numbers are bad. Therefore, cosmologists in addition to high-energy physicists believe that numbers closed to 1 are to a greater extent than probable initial conditions. It’s similar a bizarre cult that you’re non allowed to question.
But if you lot accept away ane thing from this blogpost it’s that whenever someone talks nigh likelihood or probability you lot should inquire “What’s the probability distribution in addition to where does it come upwardly from?”
The probability distribution is what you lot take away to define simply how probable each possible outcome is. For a fair dice, for example, it’s 1/6 for each outcome. For a not-so-fair die it could live whatsoever combination of numbers, hence long equally the probabilities all add together to 1. There are infinitely many probability distributions in addition to without defining ane it is non clear what “likely” means.
If you lot inquire physicists, you lot volition chop-chop notice that neither for inflation nor for theories beyond the measure model does anyone receive got a probability distribution or always fifty-fifty mentions a probability distribution for the supposedly probable values.
How does it matter?
The theories that nosotros currently receive got function alongside differential equations in addition to inflation is no exception. But the systems that nosotros discovery are non described past times the differential equations themselves, they are described past times solutions to the equation. To select the right solution, nosotros take away an initial status (or several, depending on the type of equation). You know the drill from Newton’s law: You receive got an equation, but you lot exclusively tin terminate tell where the arrow volition wing if you lot also know the arrow’s starting seat in addition to velocity.
The initial atmospheric condition are either designed past times the experimenter or inferred from observation. Either way, they’re non predictions. They tin terminate non live predicted. That would live a logical absurdity. You can’t role a differential equation to predict its ain initial conditions. If you lot desire to speak nigh the probability of initial atmospheric condition you lot take away another theory.
What happens if you lot ignore this in addition to become alongside the belief that the probable initial value for the curved shape density should live nigh 1? Well, in addition to then you lot exercise receive got a occupation indeed, because that’s incompatible alongside information to a high degree of significance.
Inflation in addition to then “solves” this supposed occupation past times taking the initial value in addition to shrinking it by, I dunno, 100 or hence orders of magnitude. This has the outcome that if you lot start alongside something of club 1 in addition to add together inflation, the outcome today is compatible alongside observation. But of course of written report if you lot start alongside some real large value, say 1060, in addition to then the outcome volition still be incompatible alongside data. That is, you lot genuinely take away the supposition that the initial values are probable to live of club 1. Or, to pose it differently, you lot are non allowed to inquire why the initial value was non larger than some other number.
This fineprint, that at that topographic point are soundless initial values incompatible alongside data, ofttimes gets lost. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 typical representative is what Jim Baggot writes inwards his majority “Origins” nigh inflation:
“when inflation was done, apartment spacetime was the exclusively result.”Well, that’s wrong. I checked alongside Jim in addition to he totally knows the math. It’s non similar he doesn’t empathise it. He simply oversimplifies it perchance a picayune likewise much.
But it’s unfair to alternative on Jim because this oversimplification is hence common. Ethan Siegel, for example, is some other offender. He writes:
“if the Universe had whatsoever intrinsic curved shape to it, it was stretched past times inflation to live indistinguishable from “flat” today.”That’s incorrect too. It is non the instance for “any” intrinsic curved shape that the outcome volition live almost flat. It’s right exclusively for initial values smaller than something. He too, after some dorsum in addition to forth, agreed alongside me. Will he alter his narrative? We volition see.
You mightiness say then, but doesn’t inflation at to the lowest degree greatly improve the situation? Isn’t it amend because it explains at that topographic point are to a greater extent than values compatible alongside observation? No. Because you lot receive got to pay a cost for this “explanation:” You receive got to innovate a novel acre in addition to a potential for that acre in addition to and then a way to acquire rid of this acre in ane lawsuit it’s done its duty.
I am pretty sure if you’d brand a Bayesian approximate to quantify the complexity of these assumptions, in addition to then inflation would plough out to live to a greater extent than complicated than simply picking some initial parameter. Is at that topographic point genuinely whatsoever simpler supposition than simply some number?
Some people receive got defendant me of non agreement that scientific discipline is nigh explaining things. But I exercise non say nosotros should non seek to discovery amend explanations. I say that inflation is non a amend explanation for the introduce almost-flatness of the universe than simply proverb the initial value was small.
Shrinking the value of some release past times pulling exponential factors out of sparse air is non a specially impressive gimmick. And if you lot invent exponential factors already, why non pose them into the probability distribution instead?
Let me give you lot an representative for why the distinction matters. Suppose you lot simply hatched from an egg in addition to don’t know anything nigh astrophysics. You brush off a unloosen plume in addition to await at our solar organization for the kickoff time. You notice directly that the planetary orbits almost prevarication inwards the same plane.
Now, if you lot assume a uniform probability distribution for the initial values of the orbits, that’s an incredibly unlikely thing to happen. You would think, well, that needs explaining. Wouldn’t you?
The inflationary approach to solving this occupation would live to say the orbits started alongside random values but in addition to then some so-far unobserved acre pulled them all into the same plane. Then the acre decayed hence nosotros can’t mensurate it. “Problem solved!” you lot yell in addition to hold off for the Nobel Prize.
But the right explanation is that due to the way the solar organization formed, the initial values are probable to prevarication inwards a plane to start with! You got the initial probability distribution wrong. There’s no fancy novel field.
In the instance of the solar organization you lot could acquire to distinguish dynamics from initial atmospheric condition past times observing to a greater extent than solar systems. You’d discovery that aligned orbits are the dominion non the exception. You’d in addition to then conclude that you lot should await for a machinery that explains the initial probability distribution in addition to non a dynamical machinery to alter the uniform distribution later.
In the instance of inflation, unfortunately, nosotros can’t exercise such an observation since this would require measurement the initial value of the curved shape density inwards other universes.
While I am at it, it’s interesting to banker's complaint that the erroneous declaration against the heliocentric solar system, that the stars would receive got to live “unnaturally” far away, was based on the same error that the just-hatched chick made. Astronomers dorsum in addition to then implicitly assumed a probability distribution for distances betwixt stellar objects that was simply wrong. (And, yes, I know they also wrongly estimated the size of the stars.)
In the promise that you’re soundless alongside me, allow me emphasize that nevertheless I hollo upwardly inflation is a goodness theory. Even though it does non solve the flatness occupation (or monopole occupation or horizon problem) it explains sure correlations inwards the cosmic-microwave-background. (ET anticorrelations for sure scales, shown inwards the figure below.)
 |
| Figure 3.9 from Daniel Baumann’s highly recommendable lecture notes. |
In the instance of these correlations, adding inflation greatly simplifies the initial status that gives ascension to the observation. I am non aware that someone genuinely has quantified this simplification but I’m sure it could live done (and it should live done). Therefore, inflation genuinely is the amend explanation. For the curvature, however, that isn’t hence because replacing ane release alongside some other release times some exponential ingredient doesn’t explicate anything.
I promise that suffices to convince you lot that it’s non me who is nuts.
I receive got a lot of sympathy for the take away to sometimes oversimplify scientific explanations to brand them accessible to non-experts. I genuinely do. But the narrative that inflation solves the flatness occupation tin terminate live flora fifty-fifty inwards papers in addition to textbooks. In fact, you lot tin terminate discovery it inwards the above-mentioned lecture notes! It’s nigh fourth dimension this myth vanishes from the academic literature.
Comments
Post a Comment