On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:04:22 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > 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. >
It's your problem, not mine; sort of an intolerance for detailed dialogue on deep and confusing issues. AG > > 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. > I agree with inflation wrt the flatness problem. Not sure exactly which part of inflation Bruce finds questionable. AG > > 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/4433c8fc-3b03-4c71-9920-1b2cb01160e9%40googlegroups.com.
