Cosmological Inflation Theory Self-Destructed

In 1981,  American theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Alan Harvey Guth proposed the “Inflation Theory” which is “the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a positive vacuum energy density (negative vacuum pressure).” The theory was invented in order to solve problems (flatness and the horizon) that were conflicting with real-time observations pertaining to the big bang theory.

About 31 years later as the premiere dominant paradigm trying to keep the big bang theory intact, it has been an enormous failure! One of which has scientists back to square one.

New Scientist broke the news…

“The problem is that once inflation starts, it is nearly impossible to stop. Even in the tiny pre-inflation cosmos, quantum fluctuations ensured that the inflaton field had different energies in different places — a bit like a mountain having many balls balanced precariously at different heights. As each one starts rolling, it kicks off the inflation of a different region of space, which races away from the others at speeds above that of light.”

“Because no influence may travel faster than light, these mini-universes become completely detached from one another. As the inflaton continues its headlong descent in each one, more and more bits of space begin to bud off to independent existences: an infinite “multiverse” of universes is formed…”

And that is not all, it gets even better…

“This is not good news for our hopes for cosmic enlightenment. In a single universe, an underlying theory of physics might offer a prediction for how flat the universe should be, say, or for the value of dark energy, the mysterious entity that seems to be driving an accelerated expansion of the universe. Astronomers could then go out and test that prediction against observations.

That’s not possible in an infinite multiverse: there are no definite predictions, only probabilities. Every conceivable value of dark energy or anything else will exist an infinite number of times among the infinite number of universes, and any universal theory of physics valid throughout the multiverse must reproduce all those values. That makes the odds of observing any particular value infinity divided by infinity: a nonsense that mathematicians call “undefined”.

Interesting enough, the article points out that the “inflation theory” was predicting things that were useless or not wanted. Tegmark suggests that the theory has finally died. Is that true? Those of you who believe in this theory, has it in fact died?

The article concludes…

“We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe,” says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor.  “Instead, it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We’re back to square one.” Tegmark agrees: “Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed.” 

“Sean Carroll was only a little less pessimistic.  ““Inflation is still the dominant paradigm,” he said, “but we’ve become a lot less convinced that it’s obviously true.”  By starting with such precisely balanced conditions, it explains less than the flukes it was intended to explain.  “If you pick a universe out of a hat, it’s not going to be one that starts with inflation,” he said.”

Instead of rescuing the big bang, it created more problems than it solved which is increasing complexity within its explanation due to falsifications and that is not a good sign for something being factual. So what happens? They retreated to other irrationalities, like brane theory or the no-boundary proposal. The brane theory requires a lot more fine tuning in the Universe than what we see.

And another thing, it doesn’t matter if one can punch in equations all over the computer.  If the inputs to a “proposal” are bogus, no amount of mathematical manipulation can rescue it!

In a November issue of Astronomy back in 2004, Bob Berman nailed it on the head after flip flops by cosmologists over a ten year period…

Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities.  It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted. In one sense, it’s very cool.  Imagination rules!  It’s a unique period in cosmology’s history.” 

“Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters.  It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately, cosmologists are starting to resemble naked emperors parading before the mass media.  Hey, we love you, but you have no clue about the universe’s true origin or fate, and little knowledge of its composition.  Yet each pronouncement is delivered with pomp and flair.  Maybe you need a serious “time out.”

Perhaps not a time out, but rather a much better framework!

Science News From Interesting to Way Out There

In the evolutionary framework, natural selection for the most part selects the best. But nature demonstrates otherwise. Pretending to be a dangerous, they species are harmless and their bluff is far from perfect, yet it is quite effective.  Evolutionary biologists call it a great example of evolution in action. However, the species perform mimics that are poor as a result, they say their supposed emergence remains something of a puzzle.

Many explanations have been invented to explain these imperfect mimics.  The best mimics happen to be the biggest while smaller species are very successful with imperfect ones. Since that is the case, evolutionists claim that natural selection proclaims it to be sufficient enough! Like many of these studies is it demonstrating upward evolution or just variants within a kind? Variants within a kind which isn’t evolution because those variants are not turning into another species.

Next is an invented explanation to fill in a gap about the behavior of gravity which is believed to be no enough to keep the Universe together, so dark matter was invented. Now scientists work on discovering it directly costing billions of dollars. Here is what science daily writes on one of more recent studies…

“There’s more to the cosmos than meets the eye. About 80 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes, yet its gravitational influence is manifest in the orbital speeds of stars around galaxies and in the motions of clusters of galaxies. Yet, despite decades of effort, no one knows what this “dark matter” really is.”

“Many scientists think it’s likely that the mystery will be solved with the discovery of new kinds of subatomic particles, types necessarily different from those composing atoms of the ordinary matter all around us. The search to detect and identify these particles is underway in experiments both around the globe and above it.”

Regardless if dark matter exists or not doesn’t really have any effect on the creationist model, but it seems after decades of research reveal that scientists are no closer t knowing what they are looking for.  Job security?

“Instead of analyzing the results for each galaxy separately, the scientists developed a statistical technique — they call it a “joint likelihood analysis”…”An important element of this work is that we were able to take the statistical uncertainties from an updated study of the dwarf stellar motions and factor it into the LAT data analysis,” said Johann Cohen-Tanugi, a physicist at the Laboratory of the Universe and Particles at the University of Montpellier 2 in France and a member of the research team.”

In another discovery, maturity found in our backyard. Back in the 90’s the Hubble stunned scientists when it viewed mature galaxies in deep space, where they thought they would find younger stars.  Now another observation reported by MSNBC is falsifying the “big bang theory”…

“Astronomers have discovered a planetary system that formed nearly 13 billion years ago, suggesting the early universe harbored more planets than has been thought. The system consists of a star called HIP 11952 and two Jupiter-like alien planets. It is just 375 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Cetus (the Whale). The planets are likely the oldest yet found; at 12.8 billion years old, they’re just 900 million years younger than the universe itself, according to the commonly accepted Big Bang theory.”

Increasing complexity in a theory is never a good thing in a traditional practice of the scientific method. The Earth has been labeled as 4.5 billion as well as the rest of our solar system by evolutionists now only 375 years away from us, there is a planetary system that supposedly formed 13 billion years ago.  Some who believe in those time frames along with the big bang suspect the measurement for this discovery is not accurate and will eventually correct itself.

On the contrary, you will see many invented explanations that will attempt to explain such complexity while increasing the overall complexity of the theory itself much like Darwinian evolution.  There is much going on in other areas of science that these people are wasting tons of taxpayer’s money with their beliefs.

Failing Paradigm Questions Basic Law And More

The big bang ‘theory’ presents a sequence of events which is totally incompatible with the Bible and not only that, but it has progressed to be incompatible with current observations in space than ever before. For example, the big bang makes no predictions about lumps rather it predicts a uniform explosion. Using some invented explanations, they try to get by but now it’s getting harder, scientists are discovering there are even more lumps in distant space. Something that caught astronomers way off guard because the observation was not able to meet the prediction of their ‘theory’ once again. What are lumps and where do they come from?

What has been observed in space are lumpy aggregates of matter like galaxies and clusters of galaxies with near vacuums of empty space between them, this is what they call lumpiness in space. When tiny differences in temperature measured in the cosmic background radiation was detected. fudge factors were added like dark matter, dark energy and inflation.

When these new observations came up recently it did not cast doubt on whether or not the big bang is a completely falsified ‘theory’ for those who firmly believe in it rather it began to question the fudge factors which were inserted to rescue it to keep it going and now only that but call into question one of the most basic laws, gravity itself.

Wired Science reports…

“The universe appears to be clumpier than astronomers expected, according to the largest galaxy survey to date. The extra clumps could call for a redesign of the standard model of cosmology, and maybe a new understanding of how gravity works.

“Maybe on very large scales, Einstein’s general relativity is slightly wrong,” said cosmologist Shaun Thomas of University College London, lead author of a new paper in Physical Review Letters. “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on. When viewed close up, the matter in the universe bunches up into stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters. But as you zoom out, cosmologists expect the universe to look more and more smooth, sort of the way details in an earthly landscape blend together when viewed from an airplane.”

Take note, the article outlines these areas could be wrong in light of their belief in the big bang ‘theory’…

1) The most basic and fundamental law of them all, gravity.

2) Einstein’s general relativity.

3) The model within the big bang needs to be tweaked to force the observational data into it.

4) Fudge Factor: Dark energy…“The result could mean cosmologists need to reassess their understanding of dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate…. The extra lumps could also mean dark energy doesn’t exist at all.

5) Observations-” where they say, “…the clumpiness could also come from systematic errors in the observations….”

Like stated before, it’s not like the Big Bang ‘theory’ is questioned to the point where it’s falsified among secular astronomers who stand by their observations but don’t seem to know what to do with the lack of confirmations with their ‘theory’. The hard evidence for the big bang and dark energy are very flimsy at best!

One asks, if astronomers who are unable to judge the validity or their own observations, and if some of the most solid theories in all of science (gravity and general relativity) require an overhaul due to the ever-growing complexity of their ‘theory’, then how much trust can mere mortals like ourselves be placed in the much less solid pronouncements coming from evolutionary biology?

For example, the story about how living things evolved by adapting to environmental challenges. In June 3, of science, experiments were conducted with bacteria. They demonstrated that adaptations do occur but they also discovered the pace of adaptations decelerates over time. “Proportional reductions of a cost became successively less beneficial as the cost itself was alleviated” says Harvard evolutionary biologist Christopher Marx.

The changes in the DNA of bacteria were not a free bonus but came with a cost. It’s another example of the law of diminishing returns which has been coming up more and more and is what creationism predicted in nature when it comes to adaption with mutations!

Just like the big bang as science progresses with amazing technology, the more observations are not matching up with the fundamental principles of evolution. Again one asks, how much faith and trust can mere mortals like ourselves be placed in the failing paradigm of the big bang much less solid pronouncements coming from evolutionary biology?

The Data Continues To Disagree With Evolutionary Assumptions

One of the most fundamental principles within the framework of evolution is a belief in a slow process containing gradual increases in complexity appearing over time. As technology has improved, the empirical evidence has failed to confirm it but rather is falsifying this belief…

Let’s start with, Cosmology. It’s been alluded to in comments in this blog (here) after making a point about the Hubble discovering them back in 1995, more mature galaxies would be discovered. Confirmation has been accommodating! The most recent setback for galaxy formation theories was discovered using gravitational lensing.

The Hubble Telescope team announced

“Johan Richard, the lead author of a new study [1] says: “We have discovered a distant galaxy that began forming stars just 200 million years after the Big Bang. This challenges theories of how soon galaxies formed and evolved in the first years of the Universe. It could even help solve the mystery of how the hydrogen fog that filled the early Universe was cleared.”

Make note of this, there are more mature galaxies or stars deeper in space that have yet to be discovered! Has maturity in the vast deep regions in space been the only thing complicating on what evolutionary scientists believe in galaxy formation? No! It’s also happening in biology.

Live Science reports

“Most of the time we assume that life originated in the oceans, that the primary divisions and the events of evolution took place there,” study researcher Paul Strother, of Boston College, said. “The fact we are finding this complexity and diversity means that the eukaryotes probably had some history of evolution in the freshwater.” 

Science Daily also reported

These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the leap from tiny, simple bacterial (prokaryote) cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.

Some of these ancient fossils are so finely ornamented, and so large and complex, that they are evidence for a surprisingly early start for the emergence of complex eukaryote cells on land. The researchers believe that it was from complex cells such as these that green algae and green land plants — everything from lettuce to larch trees — were able to evolve and colonise the land.”

Even with the evolutionary assumptions on dating, the data is not giving evolutionary scientists what they want. a belief in a slow process containing gradual increases in complexity appearing over time is being eroded all the time with the advancement of science. It wouldn’t be surprising to see secular scientists embracing a shift in the speed of evolution to warp speed or even instant evolution. So these ‘theories’ are not explaining nature or the universe but rather the data is explaining the ‘theories’ themselves. New discoveries hasn’t been complicating creationism rather it has been making its case even stronger!