= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Some recent evidence against the Big Bang - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (66)
You probably mean "was more abundant". Dark energy density (well, stress-energy density, because it's the stress, not energy which causes expansion) due to some hypothetical field is the mechanism for most models of inflation. What we see now is just pitiful leftovers.
That's not a good argument to reject a model. If you have something with predictive power, you use it, until something better comes along.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Again, may I recommend that you learn a topic before making pronouncements about it?
What I mean is that there seems to be larger scale structure, a giant web of filaments and walls and voids, and that its becoming apparent, this basically existed in tact as far as the eye can see.
How'd it get there? Inflation. Which makes the blink of an eye look like eternity.
Basically inflation, dark energy, and the multiverse can arbitrarily accomplish anything at this point. That was the point of the Inflation Debate article. It doesn't ltierally predict anything in particular. We just observe things and try to make models that fit, and say "the multiverse, crazy, huh?"