Inflation May Need Air

In the late 1970's, when rising prices were on everyone's mind, Alan Guth and others proposed that the universe had also suffered from inflation. According to inflation, when the universe was only 10^{-33} seconds old it expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. Though it appeared to solve some puzzles in cosmology, inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Relativity's stipulation that nothing travels faster than light.

To power inflation, physicists had to infer repulsive "scalar fields" or "inflatons." None of these imaginary forces has ever been observed in nature. Inflation can never be demonstrated by experiment--humans can not time-travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds to observe inflation, and no human experiment can approach the titanic energies near the Big Bang. Nevertheless, inflation theories have been a cottage industry for 3 decades.

In the cover story of this month's SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, cosmologist Paul Steinhardt asks:

The Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology fundamentally flawed?

"In brief: Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt.

"But some of the theory’s creators, including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations.

"Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions."

Steinhardt, one of inflation's founders, has abandoned the idea and is now advocating a cyclic universe. Other alternatives have also appeared. A cosmology where light was much faster in the early universe would sidestep the problem of expanding faster than light. Varying c would solve the same problems that inflation claims--why the universe appears uniform and why it is at a critical density. For inflation to work, the overall density must be tuned to a very precise value. According to GM=tc^3 the "critical" density is the stable density.

Inflation appeared to solve cosmological puzzles and provided much food for thought. Though a useful step, inflation can never be proven. Unlike inflation, a GM=tc^3 model makes a surprising and testable prediction--light is still slowing down at a tiny rate. Evidence for a "c change" may be here with us today.

Running Rings Around Inflation

More people are getting tired of old cosmologies. The old inflationary paradigm proposed that the early Universe expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. The distinguished Roger Penrose of Oxford has long been a critic of inflation. When others claimed that the Cosmic Microwave Background somehow "proves" inflation, Penrose wrote "In my opinion, we must be exceedingly cautious about claims of this kind--even if seemingly supported by high-quality experimental results. These are frequently analysed from the perspective of some fashionable theory." Penrose prefers to work on cyclic cosmologies, where the Universe recycles itself over billions of years.

In November Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan claimed to have discovered ring formations in the CMB. They interpret these splashes in the cosmic pond as evidence of explosions in a previous Universe. Penrose sees the rings as supporting his cyclic cosmology. Other cosmologists claim that such rings are just the result of events in our own Universe. The controversy shows that not everyone believes in the mainstream cosmology.

More than 30 years after it was first proposed, the inflationary paradigm has not led to a compelling theory. Faster-than-light inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Relativity's stipulation that nothing travels faster than light. Inflation can never be proven--no human experiment can time-travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds to observe inflation in action, or even approach the titanic energies so near the Big Bang. The paradigm has created a cottage industry of competing theories, none of which can be proven soon. Physicist Paul Steinhardt, one of inflation's original architects, has abandoned the paradigm and now also works on cyclic cosmologies.

At one time NASA's Beyond Einstein program included an "inflation probe," an unspecified Space experiment to search for inflation's signature. Scientists could not agree what form such an experiment could take. After much argument, Beyond Einstein was concentrated on a Joint Dark Energy Mission, which itself has little chance of ever flying. Ambitious Space experiments involving inflation have led to naught.

In contrast, a cosmology where the speed of light was much faster can be tested today, for it also predicts that c continues to slow. As methods of measurement become more precise, such a surprising prediction can be tested. Experiments showing a c change would be the death knell for the inflationary paradigm. With their idea receding, inflation's proponents are ready to blow up.

Closing in or Closing Out

NEW SCIENTIST reports the "inflaton," the hypothetical particle that would have caused faster-than-light inflation, has still not been found.

Closing in on the inflaton, mother of the universe

"The inflaton particle is credited with generating the universe and fuelling its inflation. It has yet to be discovered, but it is fast running out of hiding places, thanks to the theoretical framework known as supersymmetry (SUSY).

"Enormous and mainly extinct, supersymmetric particles are the dinosaurs of particle physics. Each of these "sparticles" is the partner of a known particle, and they have already solved several cosmological problems, including smoothing the way for a long-sought grand unified theory of physics."

The article does not mention that the theorized SUSY particles have never been observed, despite many searches by accelerators. The phase space that they could inhabit gets smaller and smaller. If these SUSY particles are found not to exist, it would be bad for the inflationary paradigm. Physicists would then come up with a theory that will require an even bigger accelerator and more research dollars to disprove.

The inflationary paradigm speculates that the early Universe expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. This would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy conservation) and Relativity's stipulation that nothing travels faster than light. No human machine can replicate the titanic energies near the Big Bang. The inflationary paradigm can never be proven experimentally.

GM=tc^3. When t was tiny, c was enormous and the Universe expanded like a "Bang." As t increased, c slowed due to gravitation and continues to slow at a tiny rate today. This would avoid the problems of inflation, and predicts a Universe exactly as we observe today. Even the 4.507034% baryonic matter can be predicted from pure mathematics. The prediction of a slowing speed of light can be measured in a laboratory.

Trillions

How much is a trillion? Watching old episodes of COSMOS, it is easy to recall Carl Sagan marvelling at “billions and billions.” Soon Americans will face a proposed annual deficit of 1.8 TRILLION dollars. This is a big, big number--so far removed from our experience that few can conceive of it. Such numbers are beyond astronomical, for previously only physicists or astronomers had to use them. Perhaps someone thinks that voters are not intelligent enough to grasp 1.8 trillion. It is science’s duty to explain the meaning of trillions.

HOW BIG?

One trillion is 10 raised to the twelfth power, 10^12, 1 followed by 12 zeroes or 1,000,000,000,000. A million, million dollars are very difficult to put into perspective. A million dollar bills laid end to end would form a row 156 kilometres long. To make a trillion, each dollar in that row would be the base of a million-strong column. Each of those columns would reach 65 kilometres. A trillion dollar bills would cover an area of 10,000 square kilometers, large as the States of Hawaii or Massachusetts.

Such a pile of money would truly touch the sky. The paper that makes up dollar bills is 0.01 cm thick. If a trillion dollars were stacked one atop another, they would reach to 100,000 kilometres, more than 1/4 the distance to the Moon. Just stacking those dollars would create a Space Elevator and ensure perpetual access to Space. A trillion dollars would build a city-sized settlement on the Moon or a constellation of solar power satellites. Would the taxpayer get as much for a 1.8 trillion-dollar deficit?

Possibly the only way to envision astronomical numbers is through astronomy. Our Milky Way galaxy contains about 250 billion stars. The number of galaxies in the Universe is also in the hundreds of billions. The years 2000-2008 contained the highest US deficits in history. The highest of these deficits was 450 billion, roughly equal to the number of stars in a galaxy. The projected 2009 deficit is double the record, over 900 billion. The proposed deficit of 1.8 trillion is double 2009’s deficit, 7 times the number of stars in our galaxy! Humans on our tiny dot have barely the vision to conceive of such numbers, much less borrow them.

The proposed deficit is 6000 dollars for every woman, man and child in the US. Only 100 million Americans actually pay federal tax, so each would incur 18,000 dollars of additional debt in a single year. This would add to the 11 trillion dollars of existing US national debt; over 100,000 dollars for each taxpayer. In addition to his or her personal debt, each taxpayer already owes enough for a 4-year college degree, a light plane or a very nice car.

The deficit cannot be blamed on one political party. It grew during 2000-2008 and doubled in 2009, when one party was in power. One reason for the spike was the 700 billion dollar TARP bank “bailout,” signed by the same party’s President. The 787 billion-dollar “stimulus” package was pushed by the other party’s President. Many more billions were spent on "bailouts" for well-connected companies "too big to fail." (see below) These vast sums spent by both parties did not prevent the US from sliding into recession or stop today's unemployment from growing.

INFLATION

The downside of a deficit is inflation. If a government prints money excessively, it erodes the value of a currency and causes prices to rise. In extreme cases, like 1930’s Germany or Zimbabwe today, a currency can become virtually worthless. The last period of US inflation was in the 1970’s, beyond the memory of many voters. If deficits continue to grow, they may learn the meaning of inflation.

In the late 1970’s, when high prices were on everyone’s mind, physicist Alan Guth and others came up with the inflationary paradigm. According to this idea the early Universe inflated at warp speed, many times faster than light. Inflation had the convenient property of being untestable. No experiment could time-travel to the first 10^(-33) seconds of the Universe, or approach the titanic energies near the Big Bang.

Inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Relativity’s stipulation that nothing travels faster than light. The various inflationary theories rely on “inflatons,” scalar fields and other entities that have never been seen in Nature. Despite its lack of success the inflationary paradigm persists, crowding out more promising ideas like a changing speed of light.

ONE VOICE

This explanation of trillions may be a voice crying out in the wilderness. Few will likely read it; or it will be crowded out by noise in the media. Like inflation, a faulty idea can gain momentum of its own, drawing attention from a changing speed of light. A government will try to pass a 1.8 trillion-dollar deficit over a public which cannot conceive of such a number. The deficit, and the 11 trillion dollar national debt, will be passed on to our generation.

In Search of Inflation

Faster-than-light inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and Relativity’s stipulation that nothing travels faster than light. The inflationary paradigm has the convenient quality of being unprovable. Scientists can not time-travel to the Big Bang; no human experiment can approach the unimaginable energies. Like strings, inflation can never be reproduced in an experiment. This has not stopped a divergence of theories from popping up. A cottage industry of inflation has kept theorists in business with their lack of success.

In search of inflation, this week we hoped to see the Ballunar Festival in Houston, Texas. The festival brings colourful hot air balloons to the grounds of the Johnson Space Center. Unfortunately this fun event has been cancelled due to Hurricane Ike. Even at the Space Center, nature has not allowed inflation to occur.

If the speed of light slows according to GM=tc^3, it will still be slowing at a very tiny rate. An accurate enough laboratory experiment could measure change in c. It is impossible to prove experimentally that c is constant, because a more accurate experiment could prove that wrong. As scientific predictions go, “c change” is quite a good bet.

The Dark Side

Good luck to Ethan on his new job starting today!

To preserve them for the future, some of the best "hate Riofrio" posts will soon be published. We must appreciate the many hours of anger that must go into these efforts. To keep Ethan from being misquoted or taken out of context, his entire post will be repeated. Unfortunately, space does not allow printing all the comments. From April 24, 2008:

SOMEONE HATES INFLATION

Warning: Crazy talk ahead. Some of you may remember that I wrote about inflation and why its alternatives fail awhile back. Apparently, Louise Riofrio didn’t get the memo. When there’s misinformation about cosmology out there, it’s up to me to set the record straight. (And I am not alone.) Let me first remind you about one of the alternatives to inflation I debunked last month:

Add defects and vary the Speed of Light. This one’s out. Why? Because we would see defects in the Cosmic Microwave Background, and we don’t. The constancy of the speed of light is highly supported by experiments, but there is a theoretical disaster if it turns out that either c (the speed of light), G (the Gravitational constant), or h (Planck’s constant) changes: energy is no longer conserved in the Universe! It’s possible, but… yeesh!

Now, it is very important to consider alternatives to our cosmological model, and to test them as best as possible, both experimentally and observationally, as well as theoretically for consistency.

So let’s remember what inflation does for us: gives us a flat Universe, with the same temperature everywhere, without defects or ultra-high-mass relic particles, and the observed spectrum of fluctuations. Well, Louise comes out with this graph, which I assume comes from a popular science magazine:



Now, I’m not an expert on inflation, but I’m pretty adept with it. Inflation does not give a unique prediction like that for the angular correlation function. Each individual model of inflation does, but we don’t know what that model is. How do we figure it out? Measure the scalar and tensor indices, as well as other cosmological parameters, and then reconstruct the model of inflation from that. What’s Louise’s solution? Vary the speed of light and change the age of the Sun, Earth, and Universe. That could be why her work isn’t published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

There is crazy out there, folks. Even from people with Ph.D. degrees, sadly. Does inflation solve everything? No. But is the speed of light constant? Well, we can place limits on its variation from two major sources:

1. Quasar Absorption Lines: These can be used to measure the time variation in the speed of light, as the frequency of the absorbers are highly dependent on whether the speed of light stays the same or not. (For those of you who are experts, this is the same experiment that measures variations in the fine-structure constant.) The results for this place limits on the variation of the speed of light, c, to change by less than 0.24% over the last 10-12 billion years. (Remember, if you will, that the Universe is only 13.7 billion years old.)

2. Natural Nuclear Reactors: the Oklo Nuclear Reactors have been going strong for nearly 2 billion years. By measuring the rate of radioactive decay and isotope abundances, we can determine how much the fine structure constant, and therefore how much the speed of light, has changed. The limits from this are that over the last 1.7 billion years, the speed of light has changed, at most, by 0.02%.

Now what is Louise’s prediction? That the speed of light, c, changes as the age of the universe to the minus-one-third power (i.e., c ~ t-1/3). Over the same time as Oklo (where t changes from 12.0 billion years to 13.7 billion years), that would correspond to a change in the speed of light of 4.5%, or over 200 times what is observed.

Verdict? Inflation, valid. This alternative? Invalid. Very, very invalid. And don’t let anyone, even the Carnival of Space (which I love, is great this week, and you should check out), tell you different. You’ve got the info, now, and you know better.

Poking Holes in Inflation

NEW SCIENTIST has been only too eager to poke holes in the inflationary paradigm.

Energetic Axions Paint Inflation Into a Corner

"INFLATION, one of the most important ideas in big bang cosmology, may have hit another stumbling block.

"The best explanation for how the newborn universe went through a period of ultrafast expansion has been under increasing scrutiny recently after researchers found irregularities in the cosmic microwave background--the radiation left over from the big bang--that appeared to contradict some of the predictions of the simplest version of the model. (New Scientist 6 June 2008)

"Now this model faces yet another challenge, this time linked to hypothetical particles called axions, which are thought to have preciptated a fundamental change in the state of the early universe."

Inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics and Relativity's stipulation that nothing travels faster than light. The paradigm rests on hypothetical "inflations" or "scalar fields." The most recent work relies on alternate universes, each with different values of inflation. None of these fantasies have ever been observed in nature. We can not time-travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds, and no human experiment can approach the titanic energies of the Big Bang. Inflation has the convenience of being unprovable.

A growing body of evidence casts doubt on inflation. Nevertheless the paradigm has been part of mainstream cosmology, creating great resistance to alternatives. A divergence of inflation theories has kept theorists employed for decades. With one hand inflation's proponents claim there are no alternatives, with the other hand they desperately try to quash alternatives. A changing speed of light would replace both inflation and "dark energy."

"Inflation Deflated?"

That title wasn't written here, but news has reached this week's cover of New Scientist that the old theory may be in trouble. In the late 1970's Alan Guth and others suggested that the early universe expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. Though it solved problems with the Big Bang, inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics and Relativity's stipulation that nothing moves faster than light. The trouble with inflation was even subject of the editorial:

Why the Best Theories Aren't Always Right

"The theory has inspired a generation of experiments and observations that have hugely increased our understanding of the universe. Questioning and replacing long-held ideas is what science does best."

For decades inflation has served as a useful step. No one has a clue what could make the universe expand faster than light. The multitude of theories rely on mysterious "scalar fields" or "inflaton potentials." None of these fantasies has ever been observed in nature. Though it has been good for theorist's careers, inflation can not be proven. Humans can not time travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds, and no human experiment can approach the titanic energies near the Big Bang.

We can search the Cosmic Microwave Background for signs of inflation. At a conference in Cambridge last December, physicist Benjamin Wandelt showed evidence of non-gaussianity in the CMB. Inflation predicts that the CMB should be the same at all scales and in all directions. Discovery of non-gaussianity would be evidence that inflation is leaking. Wandelt's preliminary results have reached the critical pages of Physical Review Letters v. 100, 181301, Evidence of primordial non-gaussianity (f) in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data at 2.8$\sigma$

New Scientist continues about inflation:

"But it has its flaky side too. Michael Turner of the University of Chicago compares it to a patchwork of duct tape repair. 'It might last for 10 years, but it won't last forever,' he says."

The magazine also quotes Paul Steinhardt, one of the original architects of inflation who has abandoned ship and is working on cyclic universes. Neil Turok, who works with Steinhardt on alternatives to inflation, has recently been named head of Perimeter Institute. More and more big scientists are expressing their doubts. The PLANCK spacecraft to be launched next year will examine the CMB with much greater accuracy, possibly finding evidence that drives nails in the coffin.

New Scientist concludes with an optimistic note:

"Why would this be good news? Because we might then be forced to go back to the drawing board and conjure up a deeper, more satisfying theory. this could be based on existing alternatives to the inflation and cyclic universe ideas--theories that invoke a varying speed of light or modified gravity..."

Did someone say speed of light? We are winning this game! Questioning and replacing long-held ideas is what we do. (Attacking new ideas is what children with computers do.) It is a painfully long process, but eventually the mass of scientists will drift this way.

On the plane from Washington, one of the movies was STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT. Mr. Worf's line to the Borg: "Assimilate this!"

Angular Correlation

Many things were known before we were born, but far more important is what will become known after we are born. Stirring the pot is useful, and the post "Inflation Sinking" has drawn lively comment. We have a great positive post from Carl Brannen, an entire post devoted to critique that Starts With A Bang, and positive review on the new Carnival of Space!

For nigel and others: here is the early crude version of the angular correlation function. David Cline lectured on this to us at Stanford back in 2003. "Something funny," Dr. Cline titles this page, "the angular correlation function is nearly zero for angles beyond 60 degrees." A student kept his notes, calculated the red prediction curve without computers, and wrote it with marker pen. The typeface has been cleaned up, the data curves untouched. (Dr. Cline may have confused TE with TT curves, but that too is untouched.)

This graph measures the scale of density fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. The old inflationary paradigm states that the Universe is flat, like the Earth. Density fluctuations should exist on all scales. These fluctuations can be modelled using spherical harmonics, the same maths we students used to model the hydrogen atom. When those fluctuations are added together they produce the "Inflation" curve. This prediction is ruled out by both COBE and WMAP experiments.

Theory predicts that the Universe is curved with radius R = ct, therefore the biggest possible fluctuation has peak-trough distance of 180 degrees. This prediction is very robust. You can model this curve in a calculator using sine waves, sawtooth or even square waves because all repeating functions can be modelled as sums of sine waves. Given the limits of marker pen, prediction fits the data quite closely.

Responding to everyone will take some time, but more comments are welcome. Please note that nobody here hates inflation, it has been acknowledged many times as a useful step. This work has been discussed personally with Alan Guth, who is considered a friend. We loved the Titanic, but it too slipped beneath density waves.

Inflation Sinking

In the 1970's as today, rising prices were on everyone's mind. Inflation was proposed to explain uniformity in the cosmic microwave background (which shows that the speed of light has slowed) and other puzzles. Physicist Alan Guth and others proposed that the early Universe expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. Inflation would violate both the First Law of Thermodynamics and Relativity's stipulation that nothing can travel faster than light. Theorists invoked mysterious "scalar fields" and "inflatons" to explain their idea. None of these inferrences has ever been observed in nature. Inflation theories have multiplied like epicycles, providing comfortable careers for Guth and others.

April is also the 96th anniversary of the Titanic sinking! Back in 2006 (when St. Louis reached 1000 viewings of this blog) we saw The Puncturing of Inflation and Inflation Leaking. The leak in Titanic didn't look bad at first, but ship's designer Mr. Ismay did some quick calculations and realised they were sunk. Like the first boats from a sinking ship, leading scientists are abandoning the inflationary paradigm. At the beginning of this New Year physicist Paul Steinhardt publicly abandoned inflation, and is now working on cyclic universes. Read the links for more.

As with the string enterprise, inflation theorists are increasingly desperate to prove their idea. 5 years ago they prevailed upon the WMAP team to interpret the data their way. More recently they have claimed that gravitational waves would be a "smoking gun" proof. Too bad that gravitational waves have never been detected. Monday Physicist Lawrence Krauss, who has been arguing against inflation since 1992, revealed to us what he has been up to. In the new issue of Physical Review Letters; Krauss, grad student Katherine Jones-Smith and associate professor Harsh Mathur show that these waves, if detected at all, could come from an entirely different source. So much for smoking guns.

Inflation predicts that the Universe is geometrically flat, like the Earth. The WMAP angular correlation function is from Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, Scientific American August 2005. Inflation predicts that density fluctuations are the same at all scales, leading to the red prediction curve. In fact fluctuations are nearly zero for angles greater than 60 degrees. Note the error bars--inflation's prediction is ruled out by both WMAP and COBE. As surely as a ship's sails disappearing over the horizon, this shows that the Universe is curved with the radius predicted.

Though it has been useful to cosmologists, the inflationary paradigm can not, repeat can not be proven. Humans can not time-travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds, and no human experiment can approach the titanic energies and densities near the Big Bang. A real Theory would offer a falsifiable prediction: that the speed of light has changed. No experiment can prove that c is constant, for a more accurate experiment can always prove that foolish. It is very possible to prove the Theory. Type Ia supernovae, the "Faint Young Sun" and Lunar Laser Ranging can all be interpreted to show not just that c has changed, but that it has changed in exactly the amounts predicted.

Here's why we are winning: An independent mind is far more agile than a group mind. Independent thought allows new ideas to be considered, checked, discarded or advanced at the speed of thought. Group minds are slowed by speed of communication, time for ideas to be digested by members of the group, organizational rot and reluctance to part with familiar notions. Old paradigms will last until their proponents go to their grave, then a better Theory takes over..

New Year Challenges

The Edge foundation, which tries but fails to find the cutting edge of science, asked a numbrr of people what they have changed their minds about. From Edge World Question Center, physicist Paul Steinhardt is abandoning the inflationary paradigm. For those who don't know "inflation," it didn't occur so don't bother:

"What created the structure of the universe? Most cosmologists would say the answer is "inflation," and, until recently, I would have been among them. But "facts have changed my mind" — and I now feel compelled to seek a new explanation that may or may not incorporate inflation.

"One often reads that recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background or the large-scale structure of the universe have verified a prediction of inflation. This invariably refers to a prediction based on the naïve classical view. But if the measurements ever come out differently, this could not rule out inflation. According to the quantum view, there are invariably pockets with matching properties."

With a big nod to the wondrous Kea, DARPA has issued an ambitious set of mathematical challenges.

Mathematical Challenge Twenty-two: Settle the Smooth Poincare Conjecture in Dimension 4
• What are the implications for space-time and cosmology? And might the answer unlock the secret of “dark energy”?

Now DARPA is putting "dark energy" on lower case and parentheses. More people agree that it is probably not an ethereal repulsive energy, but could be something like a changing speed of light. The Poincare Conjecture indicates that the Universe is spherical. The Ricci flow can be simplified so that $\partial_t$ g_ij = -2 R_ij = 0. This leads to a lot of math, but it also leads to GM = tc^3. The New Year will be full of challenges!

Mars and Science Move Backward

Ptolemy's cosmology compared to Copernicus. Complicated, isn't it?

This week Mars is only 102 million kilometres away, the closest it will be for a some time. The bright red planet can currently be found in the constellation Gemini. On the night of November 15 Mars will appear to halt and then reverse course in the sky. From this week until January 30 the planet will show retrograde motion. Anyone observing the sky for a length of time will witness this backward flight.

For a long time humans thought that Earth was centre of the Universe and the planets circled around us. To explain retrograde motion, astronomers conjured up epicycles, spheres within spheres. By the time of Copernicus, some cosmologies had 60-100 epicycles. The mathematics were quite complicated, which kept science restricted to an elite few. Only in the 16th century did Copernicus' cosmology challenge the epicycles.

Big Bang theory states that the Universe expanded from a tiny volume. Anyone observing the sky will see that it is roughly uniform in any direction. The cosmic microwave background is uniform to one part in 10,000. Large portions of the sky appear to have reached thermal equilibrium, indicating that the Universe expanded faster than today's speed of light.

To explain the uniform sky, scientists starting in the 1970's conjured up inflation. According to this idea, when the Universe was just 10^{-33} seconds old it expanded at warp speed, many times faster than light. Inflation would violate Relativity's principle that nothing can travel faster than light. It would also violate the First Law of Thermodynamics about conservation of energy. Since nothing like inflation has ever been observed in nature, scientists imagine "inflations" and scalar fields.

Inflation shares the convenient quality of being unprovable. We cannot time travel to the first 10^{-33} seconds and observe inflation in action. The temperatures and energies of the Big Bang are also too great for any human experiment to reproduce. The mathematics are quite complicated, which keeps science restricted to an elite few.

Observations of distant Type Ia supernovae indicate that the Hubble ratio v/c appears to accelerate, evidence that the speed of light c is slowing. To explain this, scientists conjured up "dark energy." According to this idea, another repulsive force is causing velocity v to accelerate. This would also violate Relativity and the First Law of Thermodynamics. Since nothing like "dark energy" has ever been observed in nature, scientists have imagined all sorts of diverging ideas. The mathematics are quite complicated, which keeps science restricted to an elite few.

Ptolemy's cosmology of epicycles survived for 1500 years. It prevented humans from figuring out the obvious, that Earth circles the Sun. Today's mainstream cosmology is composed of inflation and "dark energy," which share many qualities with epicycles. Like invisible spheres, repulsive energies can never be observed in nature. Mars appears to travel backward in the sky, but will soon reverse again and travel forward. Will human science show this much intelligence?

Side Exhibits: The Uniform Sky

Above: Inflation's red prediction is ruled out by both COBE and WMAP.

Imitating the popular SETI@Home, a new computing project called Cosmology@Home can use your computer to check if cosmological models actually fit observations. Most of today's myriad "models" are not models but sets of arbitrary parameters. This could be a fun way to use time, but is akin to assigning monkeys the task of recreating Shakespeare. We may find signals from ET's before this project pays off.

Once upon a time humans thought their Earth was centre of the Universe and the planets revolved around us. Anyone observing the planets for any length of time will see that they often appear to move backwards in their orbits. To explain this retrograde motion, astronomers postulated epicycles, wheels within wheels. By the time of Galileo cosmologies had been developed with 60-100 epicycles. The complicated mathematics of epicycles ensured that cosmology was shared by only an elite few. While epicycles could never be proven, they provided physicists with nice careers.

As with the retrograde motion of planets, to see evidence of c slowing one need only look at the sky. Aside from our Sun and Milky Way, the pattern of stars and galaxies is nearly uniform. In the Cosmic Microwave Background, large portions of the sky have nearly the same temperature. Even the ripples seen by WMAP represent temperature variations of less than 1 in 10,000. Large portions of the cosmic horizon appear to have been in contact, indicating a higher primordial speed of light.

When Alan Guth was a struggling postdoc in the 1970's, inflating prices were on everyone's mind. Even for white male physicist, job prospects were not very good. In the theoretical milieu Guth came up with an idea: What if the very early Universe inflated at warp speed, faster than c? Postulating "inflation" at a time of 10^{-35} seconds appeared to solve problems like the cosmic horizon.

Despite decades of work no theorist has a clue how inflation could have started. A universe expanding at many times lightspeed violates both Special Relativity and the First Law of Thermodynamics. Drawing upon the highly theoretical world of particle physics, inflation theorists must infer some sort of "inflaton" or scalar field to get things rolling. In the past 30 years there has been an inflating number of theories: Chaotic inflation, slow-roll inflation, even eternal inflation!

Inflation, like strings, is an untestable hypothesis. We can not time-travel into the first 10^{-35} seconds to observe inflation in action. The energies of the Big Bang are too great for any human experiment to reproduce. Inflation's "predictions" like flatness and homogeneity can be derived from a Theory without ethereal energies. Physicists like Roger Penrose and Nuel Turok wonder if the motivations for inflation are valid. While inflation can never be proved, it has provided physicists with nice careers.

The key prediction of a scale-invariant spectrum is in big trouble. Inflation predicts that temperature fluctuations will be the same at all scales. As observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background, fluctuations are virtually zero above 60 degrees. Like a car running off a curve, this suggests that the Universe is curved not flat. More than a matter of low quadropoles; inflation's red prediction curve is ruled out by both COBE and WMAP. "The supporters of inflation have become too evangelical," Turok declares, "they have no idea why inflation happened but they still believe in it."

When high redshifts of Type Ia supernovae appeared to increase non-linearly, it was the best evidence yet of a changing speed of light. Deftly avoiding a Nobel Prize, physicists inferred another repulsive "dark energy" causing the Universe to accelerate. Earth's formation is theorised to have occured between periods of repulsive nergy, just as Earth is centre of the Universe. There has been another inflation of DE theories, none of which can be proven anytime soon. Even if JDEM is funded it will not return a single track of "dark energy" to prove that it exists.

Despite the seeming long odds, the "GM = tc^3" cosmology has the winning quality of being testable within our lifetimes. Inflation, strings, branes, extra dimensions and "dark energy" all share the convenience of being unprovable. A true Theory makes a prediction that can be tested: The speed of light is slowing down. It is not possible to "prove" experimentally that c is constant, because a more accurate measurement could prove that foolish. It is very possible to prove that c changes. All one needs to do is look at the sky.

Sundancer

Bigelow Aerospace has been quietly and methodically building a presence in Space. With the success of its Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 modules currently in orbit, Bigelow has decided to go straight to a full Space Station. Inflation of launch prices convinced them to take this next giant step soon. Capable of supporting a crew of 3, Sundancer will be available for science, private industry and even hotels. It will be in orbit by 2010, about the time ISS is finally finished. You read it here first last September Inflatable Space.

Another kind of inflation has not made progress. 30 years ago when rising prices were on everyone's mind, Alan Guth suggested that the early Universe expanded at warp speed, faster than light. Speculation about inflation has kept physicists in grants for years. The idea can not be tested, and relies on an ethereal repulsive energy. As with the string enterprise, scientists are getting uneasy. Space.com continues the story:

"Inflation is an extremely powerful theory, and yet we still have no idea what caused inflation-or whether it is even the correct theory, although it works extremely well," said Eric Agol, an astrophysicist at the University of Washington.

For some scientists, inflation is a clunky addition to the Big Bang model, a necessary complexity appended to make it fit with observations. Nor was it the last such addition.

"We've also learned there has to be dark matter in the universe, and now dark energy," said Paul Steinhardt, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University. "So the way the model works today is you say, 'OK, you take some Big Bang, you take some inflation, you tune that to have the following properties, then you add a certain amount of dark matter and dark energy.' These things aren't connected in a coherent theory."

Inflation and a repulsive "dark energy" are part of cosmology's standard model. Like the epicycles of old, the model is filled of such epicycles to explain the Universe. Not all physicists are happy with this unwieldy concorde. They are just waiting to see a better theory.

Eye in London Pt. 2

(The good news is that the abstract was accepted and put on the schedule as a talk, despite pressure from communists who don't even do research. There will be another day.)
Before formation of matter, initial density for a given mass M is just M/V. That number is less than this number, and the difference is 4.507034% precisely what the WMAP spacecraft has measured. Location of the first acoustic peak shows that density (Omega) = 1 as predicted. You can also model proportions of the Universe’s other components. The CMB provides an indication of change in c. The average temperature is the same over large areas. Even at this time of recombination 300,000 years after the Big Bang, c was much faster.

We can search the CMB for signatures of inflation. (Thank you Dr. Cline for the graph.) The old paradigm says that density fluctuations should be the same at all scales. Inflation’s predicted power spectrum is ruled out by both COBE and WMAP. Here is the prediction of Unified Space/Time. When predictions fit the data this closely, perhaps there is something to the theory. CMB data was initially interpreted to indicate that the universe is flat, like the Earth. When changing c is a factor, it is curved with radius R = ct as predicted.