On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 2:50:51 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 1:27:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:57:59 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> They came to equilibrium, and what thermal fluctuations that deviated >>>> away from equilibrium were "ironed out" by inflation. >>>> >>> >>> It's the "ironed out" that I don't understand. If there were some >>> fluctuations, small deviations from thermal equilibrium, why would a sudden >>> expansion attenuate them? It makes more sense to me that the universe was >>> already very close to thermal equilibrium during inflation, and inflation >>> *preserved* this state. BTW, I am not "belaboring" anything here; >>> rather, I am trying to resolve, or possibly modify, a key element of the >>> inflation model. AG >>> >> >> This is why these post with you drive me nuts. It is for the same reason >> that if waves are stretched out they are made more IR. If clumps are >> stretched out, think hard speed bump vs a soft one that is spread out, or >> if curvatures are stretched these occur on a low energy or larger scale. >> >> LC >> > > Bruce has a dim view of inflation theory. He says it's a solution seeking > a problem. He doesn't say, but if it's related to the present large scale > homogeneity of the observable universe, it raises the issue of whether, > just before or during inflation, the universe was already in thermal > equiibrium. It's a reasonable question because, throughout that time, the > universe was extraordinarily tiny and in causally connected. What's lacking > in your reply, and possibly in the theory supporting inflation ON THIS > PARTICULAR ISSUE, is a rigorous definition of thermal equilibrium, and > whether the time scale of inflation (its duration), the size of the > universe during that time, and the SoL, whether thermal equilibrium is > definitely ruled OUT. Maybe it deviated by just one part in 100,000 and > this is what is measured in the CMBR. If the question drives you nuts, it's > probably because, to some extent, you share the world-view of the ruling > elite in ancient Greece who found the questions of Socrates intolerable and > insisted he drink the hemlock. My method is to test the claims of theories, > and the more polemic the answers, the less confidence I have in their truth > value. That said, I thank you for the plausible information that particles > became manifest with the decay of the original vacuum. AG >
These questions by you drive me crazy because they go around and around. Bruce is very conservative, too conservative I think. Inflation makes some sense out of things, and while it is not a fundamental theory, it does push ignorance back. It also has some measure of observational support. LC -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d01d4cc7-5799-4df2-848b-99a9620578eb%40googlegroups.com.
