NASA's Observatories Combine to Crack Open Secrets of the Crab Nebula and Its Ancient Pulsar
New Mars' Mystery --"Strange Bright Streaks Observed in NASA Infrared Images"

'Cold War' Rages Over Inflationary, Expanding Theory of the Universe --"Does Not Meet the Standards of Real Science" (WATCH Today's "Galaxy" Stream)




From the earliest human civilizations, people have looked to the heavens and pondered the origins of the stars and constellations above. Once, those stories involved gods and magical beings. Now, there’s science, and a large research enterprise focused on understanding how the universe came to be. Squarely in the center of this research enterprise is inflationary theory. It argues that the universe was born out of an unstable, energetic vacuum-like state then expanded dramatically, spinning off entire galaxies produced by quantum fluctuations.

This theory was proposed in 1980 by Alan Guth, presently at MIT. A year later, this theory was improved and extended by Andrei Linde, Stanford professor of physics, who has spent a lifetime modifying and updating it as new data emerged.


This past January, Paul Steinhardt, and fellow Princeton physicist Anna Ijjas, and Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb published a feature in Scientific American criticizing inflation, concluding it's an idea outside of empirical science. As reported in The Atlantic, "the myriad ways inflation could have played out would lead to so many possible outcomes that no astronomical observation can ever rule the general idea out, they say—and moreover, some advocates for inflation know it. This would go against a basic, popular framing of science suggested by philosopher Karl Popper, in which a theory becomes scientific when it takes the risk of making predictions that nature could then uphold or disprove."


“They really made the accusation that the inflationary community understands that the theory is not testable,” Guth, one of the idea’s founding fathers, says. “Those words angered me.”

Several scientists have joined Guth pushing back against Steinhardt's argument that a long-standing “inflationary theory” about the origins of the universe should be debunked. Inflationary theory, which was first proposed in 1980, posits that the universe expanded rapidly out of an unstable environment similar to a vacuum. Over the past three decades, inflationary theory has gained widespread acceptance.




In response to Steinhardt, Linde and Guth, along with their colleagues David Kaiser from MIT and Yasunori Nomura from the University of California, Berkeley, have written a letter defending the inflationary theory, published in Scientific American May 10. It was signed by 33 academics who read like a Who’s Who of theoretical physicists, including Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University. In it, they take aim at the primary argument in the story: that inflationary theory isn’t really a scientific theory because it doesn’t predict anything and therefore can’t be tested.




“As the work of several major, international collaborations has made clear, inflation is not only testable but it has been subjected to a significant number of tests and so far has passed every one,” the group wrote.

As one example, the inflationary model had predicted that if the universe is ever expanding, it would now be flat rather than open or closed. (Imagine a balloon growing infinitely large. Eventually its surface would appear completely flat.) A flat universe would be represented by a variable called Omega that is equal to 1, “Well, plus or minus a little bit because of quantum uncertainty,” Linde said.

In fact, in the mid-’90s many astrophysicists believed that the universe was actually not flat, with an Omega closer to about 0.3. “That would be a disaster for inflation,” Linde said. He then tried to find the flaw in his own theory. However, all attempts to construct a model of inflation with Omega equal 0.3 were unsuccessful; the proposed modifications of inflationary theory were extremely complicated and unnatural, and most of them simply did not work. Fortunately, in 1998, a series of cosmological observations revealed the existence of dark energy. It turned out that the energy of a vacuum is not zero, as previously thought, and Omega was restored to 1.

“If inflationary theory can’t predict anything, why could it appear to be dead when a prediction turned out not to be true?” Linde asked. And how could it be restored by new data that validated the prediction?

A similarly dramatic situation emerged five years ago, when rumors circulated about a fairly technical issue that’s known as the Gaussianity of inflationary perturbations. The main thing to know about Gaussianity is that the discovery of a large non-Gaussianity of a specific type would rule out 99.9% of the existing inflationary models.

In 2012 and winter 2013, there were persistent rumors that this non-Gaussianity would soon to be reported by the Planck satellite, and in fact preliminary data by the WMAP satellite indicated a possibility of a very large non-Gaussianity. If that had turned out to be true, it could be a crucial blow to the inflationary theory.

However, the Planck data revealed no traces of non-Gaussianity. The very last sentence of the Planck paper describing that data read, “With these results, the paradigm of standard single-field slow-roll inflation has survived its most stringent tests to-date.”

This and many other successful predictions of inflationary theory are undeniable facts, Linde said. “If we trust the arguments made in the Scientific American story, all successful predictions of inflationary cosmology are the result of pure luck, like winning the lottery,” Linde said. “One can do that once, twice, but not this many times. That is why so many leaders of modern physics signed our letter.”

Linde added that the letters section of a popular magazine is not normally where scientific debate plays out. “A long time ago, when I was young and naive, I thought that things like that are impossible in science,” he said. Now, he just hopes people see that the opinions in the story are not shared by many of the biggest names in theoretical physics and observational cosmology.

Linde added that he worries about the younger generation of scientists getting the wrong impression from this story. “I don’t want them to read this article and think that they are spending their time on inflationary theory in vain. But the enthusiastic support that we are receiving makes us optimistic that this is not going to happen,” he said.

The Daily Galaxy via Stanford University and The Atlantic



The full confirmation of this article is described on pages 105, 106 and 107 of my book "From the inside of quarks and beyond to the universe". Please take five minutes to read them.

inflationary theory / big bang hinges on the existence of a proposed magical dark matter/ dark energy which can never be proven or found. i agree with the authors of the scientific american article. the only reason there is so much support against this article is that these scientists have spent their whole lives attempting to prove and defend this idea, they are not about to give up now.

In this article, rapid inflation (I gather that term has gone out of fashion) is adduced as a correct prediction of the theory. I was under the understanding that rapid inflation was first proposed as a possibility to explain the odd "flatness" of the universe--in other words, under the sort of inflation we see nowadays, the universe could not have reached its current level of "flatness" in the 13.7 billion years generally taken as its age.

If this is true, then that "prediction"--that the universe would be flat--is actually not a prediction, but a phenomenon supposed in order to explain the flatness. The phenomenon which the theory was created to explain cannot be adduced as part of the proof that the theory is correct.

Elementary logic.

Maybe it isn't true, and that is not why the theory was invented. If so, the blame for thinking it is true does not belong with the readers. It was explained to us that way many and many a time.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)