On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 1:23:19 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 12:28:58 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:17 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed >>>>>> when the universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away >>>>>> when it was 10^-35 seconds old then the particle associated with the >>>>>> inflation field would have decayed away too and we wouldn't expect to >>>>>> see >>>>>> it today even at places where we can reproduce conditions the universe >>>>>> was >>>>>> in when it was 10^-17 seconds old. If it still existed it would still be >>>>>> strongly connected to regular matter but we could not detect it but the >>>>>> universe could and would still be expanding at an exponential rate and >>>>>> galaxies stars and planets would not exist, we couldn't detect it >>>>>> because we wouldn't exist either. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *> Very good reasons for saying that no such field or particle exists, >>>>> or have ever existed.* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Or has ever existed? How do you figure that? >>>> >>> >>> If they had ever existed, they would couple strongly to ordinary matter, >>> and we would see such inflatons now. We don't, which is a very good reason >>> for saying that they do not exist -- now or ever. >>> >>>> >>>> *> I hope you understand the difference between thermal fluctuations >>>>> and quantum fluctuations....* >>>>> >>>> >>>> The thermal fluctuations that have been actually observed in the Cosmic >>>> Microwave Background Radiation is consistent with them being caused by >>>> random quantum fluctuations. Do you have an explanation for these >>>> variations in temperature that does not involve random quantum >>>> fluctuations? >>>> >>> >>> There are no such things as such quantum fluctuations: such fluctuations >>> would be local, and violate energy conservation. >>> >> >> >> *If you measure the energy of a region repeatedly, the measurements will >> vary due to the UP. How is this a violation of energy conservation? It >> would be if it were explained by "borrowing" of energy for short times, but >> these measurements in fact vary, so IMO it's not a violation of energy >> conservation unless one appeals to the fallacious explanation of >> "borrowing". Moreover, how can these variations, or fluctuations in energy >> be independent of temperature fluctuations as you seem to suggest? AG* >> > > Variations between the results of different measurements are OK because > that merely reflects a superposition of different energy states. > Fluctuations absent repeated measurements are not OK. Thermal fluctuations > are just the result of the distribution of different energies between > particles in a gas or the like. >
*If you ignore the non detection of the inflaton particle, and in reference to my recent argument, why don't you see inflation as a plausible explanation for the flatness of the observable universe? AG * > > Bruce > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
