I do not see the Inflation paradigm as ad-hoc, for it explains the
flatness, Horizon problem and lack of early universe relics better
than any other to date. Now the Big Bang may be replaced by
oscillating solutions from LQG or other theories, but AFAIK they still
need an Inflation period.
Ronald
On Jan 19, 2:30 pm, Günther Greindl <guenther.grei....domain.name.hidden>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Naive question: do physicists reconcile a "really flat" universe and
> > the big bang theory? I don't see how.
>
> you mean this problem?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Flatness.2Foldness_problem
>
> Inflationary theories give a solution, but it is a bit ad hoc.
> I am not a big fan of Big Bang - I like Paul Steinhardt's (not Eric
> Steinhart) cyclic universe, but I have not read enough about that model
> to know if it fares better explaining cosmological observations (but it
> is _compatible_ with current observations).
>
> But those reflections are from before my MWI times ;-)
> MWI explains fine-tuning (but not flatness) due to the anthropic principle.
>
> Cheers,
> Günther
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Jan 20 2009 - 07:22:28 PST