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!

Advertisements

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!

Scientific Discoveries Disagrees With Evolutionary Explanations

In recent weeks, there has been quite a number of reports in many different areas in science which amplify the importance concerning the philosophy of science with  real-world examples.  Scientists help design very expensive but amazing tools for observation.  When these amazing tools observe things that defy evolutionary explanations, how far will scientists alter a theory to avoid these real-world falsifications?

Hubble has been one out of many amazing tools ever to be designed, recently scientists have tweaked it to look even farther into the universe where some claim like science daily will give more insights on how the universe supposedly evolved.

“The research is published Jan. 27, 2011, in the journal Nature. The dim object is a compact galaxy made of blue stars that existed only 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way.”

While it is quite an accomplishment with this thrilling discovery, their model did not predict finding just one.  Are they going to alter the big bang-theory so it doesn’t appear falsified? What does discovering one galaxy so close to what scientists consider the beginning, mean? On astronomer describes the significance, “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe.”

Now the Big Bang theory tells us a story about earlier stars that were made of pure hydrogen which are called, Population III stars (that haven’t been observed)  before heavy elements had been cooked inside the first generation stars, because only hydrogen and helium atoms are supposed to have emerged from the particle soup of the big bang.

Will scientists and the public get to see the very first stars? In New Scientist which asks this probing question, gives an answer…”The earliest galaxies may be too distant and dim to see with JWST.” It’s almost like trying to calculate the age of a black hole where time stands still so it’s left up to one’s imagination. Perhaps this is a good thing for evolutionary theory considering that many predictions that have been falsified through real-world observations. As for creationism, we tend to go with the real-world observations as evidence.

Mars has been another interesting discovery. To the surprise of scientists, sand dunes on the surface of Mars can change very quickly. This presents an interesting problem for old age theorists who believe Mars is like 4.5 billion years old. THEMIS infrared camera used on Mars Odyssey orbiter which is another amazingly designed tool, has been studying the dust on Mars. Why isn’t Mars covered with a kilometer of dust which should have happened if Mars was billions of years old.

Real-time observations show the layer to be thin. This is when imagination comes into play. “Well, maybe throughout most of its history, Mars has had too thin an atmosphere to make dust or initiate saltation or wind abrasion,” Mars seems to have global dust storms that occasionally obscure the entire surface of the planet with dust as fine as talcum powder.  Calculations show that 100 meters of dust should blanket the planet in 4.5 billion years given current estimated dust creation rates.

To explain this anomaly to make things right again (altering unobserved evidence to fit the old-age theory), Christensen used his imagination by suggesting the atmosphere was cycling in and out, which actively produced dust only 2% of the time.  The story sounds great for a screenplay that entails science fiction, but not in the real-world. Always remember that evolutionary explanations are an entirely different enterprise than what is found in scientific discovery which evidence leads to the confirmation of God’s Word!

Newly Discovered Galaxies Surprise Scientists

Nothing makes sense in light of evolution. In 1995, Hubble revealed one of the most amazing sights in one of the deepest regions of space than was previously unknown to man. These galaxies are way too mature for big bang models that predict a chronological order of structure concerning different stages of galaxies development as one looks deeper into space. A new discovery has revealed even more mature galaxies found in very deep space.

These newly discovered galaxies are not only way too mature for the big bang theory, but also are very active says scientists quoted in science daily

“We have found a relatively large number of very massive, highly luminous galaxies that existed almost 12 billion years ago when the universe was still very young, about 1.5 billion years old. These results appear to disagree with the latest predictions from models of galaxy formation and evolution.”


“The newly identified galaxies were five to ten times more massive than our own Milky Way. They were among a sample studied at redshift 3≤z<4, when the universe was between 1.5 and 2 billion years old.”

Indeed, these mature galaxies being observed today are falsifying big bang models. This might make multi-universes more popular, but the big bang theory holds no creditable scientific value. Where is the light and where is the sense?  Could this mean a shift into more anti-realism by trying to explain this with multi-universes?  These are not the type of surprises that should be found for a theory that is believed to be correct.

Other observational problems have existed for awhile with the big bang such as “Population III”  which are supposed to be the first stars ever created but it has never been observed and secular scientists seek only to discover one to claim verification of the theory when they need to find several of  these types of stars to validate a prediction which comes from the big bang theory. Could scientists discover even more mature galaxies in very deep space? Yes, which would be awesome!

So we find no organized structure of development predicted by the big bang, we find massive galaxies that are way too mature, no “Population III” stars have been observed but many would be required to validate and detecting radiation that is too smooth. The theory is dead, the only ones who think  keeping it alive are going by blind faith. Observations are indicating a designed universe that is young, not billions of years old!

Skepticism On The Age Of The Universe

Uncommon Descent had recently posted a lengthy critique on YEC’s (Young Earth Creationists) stance on the age of the universe and then the earth which wasn’t exactly pretty or flattering…vjtorley writes…

“As I was reading the article, however, I was struck by an intriguing thought. Obviously, if you’re going to argue for young-earth creationism, you’ll have to invoke some pretty “far-out” models in the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and geology, in order to explain how the world came to look the way it does today, even though it was created only 6,000 years ago. Certainly, you’re not going to advocate uniformitarianism.”

There are important aspects that vjtorley from UC overlooks when he critiques YECs on the age of the Universe and the big band theory which he most likely believes that intelligent agents were behind it.  If one is going to “advocate uniformitarianism” in trying to find evidence on how old the universe is, it’s going to create some problems. Better data has shown that background radiation temperature is almost uniform, to one part in 100,000, at about 2.725 K even when one looks in the opposite direction. The big bang theory predicts enormous different temperatures. In order for the temperature to even out as it appears now would require more time than the evolutionary time frame would allow which is what modern intelligent design proponents go by.

So the big bang theory which assumes billions of years, has a light-travel–time problem of its own, even New Scientist, a proponent for evolution, makes a realistic observation…

“Our universe appears to be unfathomably uniform. Look across space from one edge of the visible universe to the other, and you’ll see that the microwave background radiation filling the cosmos is at the same temperature everywhere. That may not seem surprising until you consider that the two edges are nearly 28 billion light years apart and our universe is only 14 billion years old.”

“Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.”


Wouldn’t you say, one would have to invoke pretty “far-out” models in the fields of astronomy, and physics in order to explain the unified temperature in the universe?  In order to speed things up, cosmologists came up with the idea of  “inflation” which has it’s own observational problems.  Some others who support the big bang have come up with another explanation which says, the speed of light was much faster in the past than it is now. This was actually proposed by creation scientists years before.

In fact, creationist cosmology has been exploring two major proposals, one has to do with astronomical observations and Einstein’s General Relativity equations. You can read, Starlight, Time and the New Physics by John Hartnett for more information about it. Below is one of his lectures on the big bang theory and it’s quite interesting.

The second proposal which was critiqued in UD, was developed by Dr. Russell Humphreys. His model is also based on general relativity, and explains things like, time dilation, and recent observations showing that suggests we live in a galacto-centric universe. More information is found in his book, Starlight and Time.

vjtorley rests his faith in uniformitarianism in other areas of science and certain dating methods as well, like geology but even there has it’s problems even with the fossil record, abrupt appearances of complex animals with no intermediates before or after. Since many in the modern intelligent design movement advocate, common descent, this is a problem for them as well. And even if you believe those things like vjtorley does, what law of nature dictates how fast it can operate (like forming complex variants) and for how long? If he believes in intelligent agents, don’t you think the information comes by a lot quicker than choosing random mutations?

Estimated age of this comet, 700 years old.

The age is not limited to starlight, comets are often assumed to be billions of years old by those who believe in the evolutionary framework on age, until lately, when comets like Hartley 2 which was observed only 507 miles alway. Scientists calculated lost of material, and estimated that the comet will last no longer than 700 years. Rapid loss of material is common with comets.

So with this better data, not even evolutionary scientists could fit this one into it’s billions of years time frame. So an Oort Cloud was invented to explain why comets like Harley 2 are only hundreds, perhaps thousands of years old. However, this tends to be one of those “far-out” models because there is no observational data to confirm an Oort Cloud even exists let alone being able to create new comets as older ones burn out.

Understanding how starlight works and the age of the universe is an interesting topic, creationists nor evolution or intelligent design proponents know all the answers, it’s a learning process. But one thing is for certain, evidence does point to a young universe which has been and will continue to be addressed!