3 ms·

Definitely more problematic. And Webb only made it more confusing :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Definitely more problematic. And Webb only made it more confusing :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem > Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the quantum vacuum energy contribution to the effective cosmological constant is calculated to be between 50 and as many as 120 orders of magnitude greater than has actually been observed, a state of affairs described by physicists as "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science" and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics".

dventimi 1y ago
"problematic" is a matter of degree, and is relative. Inflation is less problematic than some theories (e.g. "magic"). Are there any alternative theories that are less problematic than inflation, and yet also solve the same problems that inflation solves?
- hwillis 1y ago
  Cosmic inflation is the observation, not the explanation. The expectation is that cosmic inflation should be much, much larger based on what we understand about quantum mechanics: that vacuum is practically boiling with energy, and should be forcing stars away from each other. Instead we observe that it is very small. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek responding to OP, who was not specific about what they find problematic. The vacuum catastrophe is the area in physics where our explanations explain the smallest amount of our observations. We're very confident in our measurements and understanding at both the large and small scale, and there is essentially no explanation that anyone has any confidence in. By comparison, observations of dark energy/matter are practically perfectly accurate. It's a single order of magnitude difference from expected observations. We have some half-decent candidates to explain them. Unlike magic, inflation is not a theory in search of an observation. The fact that we don't see inflation is what is so desperately confusing.
  - dventimi 1y ago
    I don't consider cosmic inflation to be an observation. I consider it theory.

dventimi 1y ago

"problematic" is a matter of degree, and is relative. Inflation is less problematic than some theories (e.g. "magic"). Are there any alternative theories that are less problematic than inflation, and yet also solve the same problems that inflation solves?

hwillis 1y ago
Cosmic inflation is the observation, not the explanation. The expectation is that cosmic inflation should be much, much larger based on what we understand about quantum mechanics: that vacuum is practically boiling with energy, and should be forcing stars away from each other. Instead we observe that it is very small. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek responding to OP, who was not specific about what they find problematic. The vacuum catastrophe is the area in physics where our explanations explain the smallest amount of our observations. We're very confident in our measurements and understanding at both the large and small scale, and there is essentially no explanation that anyone has any confidence in. By comparison, observations of dark energy/matter are practically perfectly accurate. It's a single order of magnitude difference from expected observations. We have some half-decent candidates to explain them. Unlike magic, inflation is not a theory in search of an observation. The fact that we don't see inflation is what is so desperately confusing.
- dventimi 1y ago
  I don't consider cosmic inflation to be an observation. I consider it theory.