Inflation For Dummies

The Elegant Theory of Ination The Astropartigirl https://astropartigirl.com/2017/06/17/the-elegan...
THE ASTROPARTIGIRL
MENU
Explore the Universe with astroparticle physicist Sophia Nasr.
The Elegant Theory of Inflation
Posted on June 17, 2017June 18, 2017 by Sophia Nasr
The Cosmic Microwave Background and its anisotropies, as seen by Planck.

Credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration
Introduction
We live in a 13.8-billion-year-old Universe, today dominated by a cosmological constant (otherwise known as

dark energy), something thats caused the expansion of the Universe to accelerate so much that today, the ra-
dius of the observable Universe is over 45 billion light-years (and the actual Universe is far larger than that). The
farthest we can see back into our Universes past is a mere 380,000 years after the Big Bang, a whisper of the Big
Bang left over in the form of radiation producing the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), pictured above.
The different colors represent little anisotropies, or density fluctuations, in the CMB, which represent the seeds
for the formation of the galaxies we see today.
The Early Universe
Today, we live in a Universe thats composed of ~70% dark energy, ~25% dark matter, and ~5% ordinary mat-
ter, or more generally, ~30% matter. A very tiny amount is attributed to radiation today, so small its only a tiny
fraction of a percent, and can be overlooked in calculations. But this was not the case further back in the Uni-
verses history. First, and perhaps one of the most bizarre and mind-blowing things, is that the cosmological
constant, , which we call dark energy, does not diluteie, as the Universe expands, the density of dark en-
ergy remains the same. But matter and radiation do dilute, and they dilute at different rates. Radiation dilutes as
the scale factor1 to the negative 4th power, or a-4, whereas matter dilutes as a-3. This is a consequence of radia-
tion being relativistic, while matter is non-relativistic. So, way back when the Universe was younger, matter
and radiation were denser, and because the density of dark energy is constant, the Universe was actually domi-
nated by matter and radiation; further back still, radiation was the dominant component of the Universe. The
question
1 of 12 is, how did all this matter and radiation come about? Did it just pop into existence06/18/2017
out of nowhere?
06:25 PM
Well, the theory of the Big Bang postulates that it all came from a singularity and suddenly, the Universe, all
the matter and radiation that come with it, just was (for more details, check out this post from Ethan Siegel
(http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/02/09/the-big-bang-for-beginners/)). And the theory of the Big
Bang describes the Universe astonishingly well, which was confirmed with the discovery of the CMB (as you
can read about in the article I linked above).
However, alone, the theory of the Big Bang alone fails to explain some things:
1. Why is the Universe so homogeneous?

2. Why is the Universe flat, as opposed to heavily curved?
3. Why arent there any magnetic monopoles?
In the following sections, Ill discuss these problems in further detail, and youll see why conventional Big Bang
cosmology cannot account for these problems.
1The scale factor, a, which is actually a function of time, a(t), is just a parameter that describes the expansion of the Universe
with time. By convention, we set the scale factor to 1 today, a(t0) = 1. The scale factor decreases as we move to the past, and in-
creases as we go forward in time.
The Horizon Problem
Even with the anisotropies in the CMB, this whisper of the Big Bang is pretty darn homogeneous, everywhere
the same to an astonishing 1 part in 100,000. Everywhere. The. Same. In a gargantuan Universe. Many points on
the CMB are obviously out of causal contact with each other, and yet, they are seemingly in thermal equilib-
rium with each other. In case youre wondering what causal contact is, its basically this: if two particles, or spa-
ces, can communicate with each other so that they can exchange energy and thermally equilibrate, they are in
causal contact; if they are totally out of reach of each other, then they cannot have communicated with each
other, and hence are out of causal contact (more on this coming up).
2 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
A graphic depicting the CMB some 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The small circles show the extent radiation could reach when
the Universe was 380,000 years old, meaning there are plenty of points on the CMB that are causally disconnected.
Credit: Theresa Knott and Chris
Yet, observations show us that all the CMBs causally disconnected points, separated by distances greater than
the particle horizon2, are in thermal equilibrium with each other. How can this be? Thats like accepting that a
bunch of different apartments across the city have exactly the same furniture set without the tenants having com-
municated with each other! And by a bunch, I mean 20,000 [1]thats how many parts of the CMB are causally
disconnected. Sure, you can have a few apartments with exactly the same furniture set. But imagine that
20,000 apartments had the exact same furniture set. Hard to believe these people didnt talk to each other and say
Hey theres a really good deal on this furniture set, so let everyone know!, right? Of course it is. Thats why
its so startling that observations show the CMB to be 2.725 K everywhere. Conventional Big Bang cosmology
cannot explain this. This is the essence of what is known as The Horizon Problem.
2The particle (or comoving) horizon defines the distance a particle can communicate with another. It is its past light cone. If two
particles are separated at a distance greater than the particle horizon, the particles could never have communicated with one an-
other because the regions are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. For example, the observable Universe
is defined by our particle horizon, and we can never observe anything beyond it.
The Flatness Problem
We also find the Universe to be incredibly flat. Why is this weird? Well, lets talk about curvature. There are
3 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
three possibilities for curvature: a negatively curved Universe (think of a saddle, or a Pringles chip), a positively
curved Universe (say, a sphere), and finally, flat (like a sheet of paper). Of course, the Universe has three spatial
dimensions (and one time), but our brains cant think in 3D, so were stuck to 2D analogies.
The parame-ter 0 is known as the density parameter, which tells us the curvature of the Universe. If the energy density of the
Universe is greater than the critical density of the Universe, then we get 0 > 1, or a positively curved spacetime. If it is less than
the critical density, then
0 < 1, and space time is negatively curved. But if the energy density is exactly equal to the critical density, 0 = 1, spacetime is
flat. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team
But, to be flat, the Universe must have (almost) exactly zero curvature, which means the energy density of the
Universe must be exactly its critical density. The density parameter, 0 = /crit, is basically all the components
of the Universe added together: the cosmological constant, , matter, m, and radiation, r, which add up to
1 for a flat Universe (i.e. 0 = + m + r). And we find that |1 0|= k 0.005 today (https://arxiv.org
/pdf/1502.01589.pdf), where k is the curvature parameter. This means our Universe is really really close to flat.
So, why is this a problem? Well, to get to the density parameter we observe today, at the time of Big Bang Nu-
cleosynthesis, when the first nuclei were formed, the curvature parameter had to be 10-16 (another way to say
this is the density parameter could only deviate from 1 by 10-16); further back to the GUT era, and the curva-
ture parameter needed to be 10-55; finally, at the Planck time, a mere 510-44 seconds after the Big Bang, we re-
quire that the density parameter deviate from 1 by only 10-61 to get the density parameter as close to 1 as it is
today [2]. This, if we rely on conventional Big Bang cosmology. But, why would expansion have not driven the
Universe away from flatness? What Ive described here is The Flatness Problem.
The Monopole Problem
Yet another puzzle is that we dont find any magnetic monopoles today, but theory tells us that in the extreme
4 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
heat of the very early Universe, when the strong and electroweak3 forces were unified into one force, mono-
poles came in copious amounts.
A figure showing the energies at which the forces were united, and the energies at which they became distinct. Source: Lumen
Physics (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/33-6-guts-the-unification-of-forces/)
In the above figure, the TOE (the Theory of Everything)4 is a point just 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, or the
Planck time, while temperatures were some 1032 K. Thats far before the time in question. The time in question
here is the GUT era, or the Grand Unified Theory. During this time, some 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang,
when the Universe was 1028 K, the strong and electroweak forces were unified. When the temperature, or en-
ergy, dropped below the GUT energy of 1015 GeV, spontaneous symmetry breaking occurred, which gave rise
to topological defects in the form of magnetic monopoles (other topological defects that could have been cre-
ated are domain walls and cosmic strings) [3]. The theory of the Big Bang alone tells us there should be lots of
magnetic monopoles left over today. Yet, where are they? We have yet to find a single magnetic monopole in
nature. This is The Monopole Problem.
3Back when the Universe was some 1015 K, the electromagnetic force and the weak force were unified into one force: the elec--
troweak force. Eventually the Universe cooled and the two forces became distinct as we see today. More on forces in a future
blog post.
4The TOE requires unifying gravity with the other forces. It is work that some fields, like string theory, aim to achieve. The
Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything) article on this provides a good detailed explanation of the
TOE.
The Theory of Inflation
As weve seen, conventional Big Bang cosmology doesnt explain how the Universe is so homogeneous and iso-
tropic while 20,000 points are acausal, why the Universe is so flat, and why we dont see magnetic monopoles
today. It would require extreme fine-tuning to work out to what we see today, and we physicists dont like
fine-tuning because it leaves too much up to chance as opposed to explaining how our observations come about
and how they make sense, so its a big problem to just sweep something like this under the rug and accept that
we just so happen to live in these extra-special conditions.
So, physicists did what they do, and came up with a profoundly elegant solution to these problems in theoreti-
cal physicsinflation! Alan Guth is the pioneer of this theory, and coined the term. Others, including Andrei
Linde, and Paul Steinhardt, did pioneering work on the theory as well.
Inflation is driven by a scalar field (a scalar field just describes a potential energy, similar to, for example, a
gravitational potential) known as the inflaton that can carry a potential energy that doesnt dilute (sounds
like the cosmological constant, doesnt it?).
5 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
A scalar field in slow-roll inflation, where classically the field rolls down to the minimum, but experiences quantum fluctuations.
Plot created in Mathematica (ball and arrows added using Paint 3D)
During a period that lasted some 10-36 seconds to 10-33 seconds after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded
from submicroscopic to macroscopic with, as stated by my once professor and always fantastic theoretical
physicist Matthew Johnson, an e180 (http://www.yorku.ca/matthewj/earlyuniverse.html) increase in volume
(thats a lot, as in, ~1078 times its volume!!) over an unfathomably small period of time. When inflation ends, re-
heating begins and converts all this potential energy into matter and radiationthat is, the energy that drove
inflation is put into reheating the Universe and making radiation and matter, so that it didnt just pop up out of
nowhere, as we are to believe if we rely on conventional Big Bang cosmology alone (this means that the reheat-
ing phase is the Big Bang!). And quantum fluctuations translated to the density fluctuations we see in the CMB
today, and provided the seeds for dark matter, stars, and galaxies to form in the Universe.
Now that youve learned (generally) how inflation works, allow me to show you the brilliance of the inflation
solution to the three problems aforementioned, and the exciting implications that come from this theory.
In the coming sections, I have included some mathematical formalisms. I have also indicated where these begin and where
they end, so that if you would like to skip over the math, you may do so and still get the concepts. Also, remember there are
some footnotes! They might be useful. Without further ado, lets bring on the physics!
Solution to the Horizon Problem
As weve seen, the theory of the Big Bang alone is insufficient to explain the astonishing homogeneity of the
Universe. Big Bang cosmology assumes that the Hubble radius5 grows monotonically from the Big Bang singu-
larity, meaning the Hubble sphere starts from a point and grows. This means the particle horizons of many
points on the CMB are acausal, as shown in the figure below.
6 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
In this figure, we see the conventional Big Bang Hubble sphere, our past light cone, and points on the CMB labeled p and q (and
their past light cones). Looking at the past light cones, or particle horizons, of p and q, it is quite obvious that the two points could
never have communicated. [4]
Then, what if instead of monotonic growth, there is a period where this behavior is inverted, so that the Hubble
radius, (aH)-1, shrinks during inflation?
(A bit of math coming up; skip if youd like)
The particle horizon can be related to the Hubble radius as follows:
[5]
where . In the conventional Big Bang case, the strong energy condition (SEC)6, 1 + 3w > 0
(where w is the pressure P divided by the density ), is assumed. This means the contributions to the particle
horizon from early times are vanishing, and the dominant contributions come from later times (because we
have 1 + 3w in the exponent), which results in acausal points on the CMB. But during inflation, it turns out that
the SEC is violated, so that 1 + 3w < 0, which results in the lower limit of the integral dominating the solution,
giving us a shrinking Hubble sphere, [4] , which means the particle horizon for the seemingly
acausal points coincided, giving them time to thermally equilibrate. The SEC violation and shrinking Hubble
sphere relation, along with , are actually conditions for inflation. [6]
(Math done, continue reading here)
So if the Hubble radius shrinks during inflation, the way the Hubble sphere evolves is sort of inverted so that
it doesnt just grow from a point, but rather, shrinks during inflation, and then goes back to its conventional
growth. This leads to the Big Bang singularity starting in negative conformal time7, so that the seemingly
acausal points were once in causal contact, but are seen as acausal on the CMB today.
7 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
The figure above shows a shrinking Hubble sphere during inflation, which then expands in the Big Bang. The reheating phase be---
comes the Big Bang. The two points that are acausal on the CMB were causal points during inflation, so that all acausal points
were in causal contact. [7]
In summary, with an inflationary period, the acausal points we see on the CMB today were actually far closer
prior to inflationthey were causally connected, and thus able to communicate and thermally equilibrate. The
Universe expanded exponentially during inflation (recall I said that the Universe grew by ~1078 in volume dur-
ing inflation), so that all these seemingly acausal points did have time to exchange information when they were
in causal contact, producing the homogeneous CMB today. For the mathematically inclined reader, refer to my
citations at the very end of this article.
5The Hubble radius defines the distance at which two regions beyond it cannot talk to each other nowie, they are acausal now.
The particle horizon, however, defines the distance beyond which two regions can never have communicated with each other.
This distinction is really important.
6The strong energy condition basically states that gravity cant be repulsive, or that matter always attracts to matter; i.e. pres-
sure cannot be negative.
7Conformal time might be better understood as a distance, where the particle horizon is equal to the conformal time passed
since the Big Bang, multiplied by the speed of light. It is the time it would take a photon to travel from here to as far into the
Universe as we can go, and hence not a physical time: if we froze the expansion of the Universe, it would take a photon ~45 bil-
lion light-years to travel there, since the observable Universe is ~45 billion light-years in radius; but the Universe is only 13.8
billion years old. Hence it is better understood as a distance.
Solution to the Flatness Problem
The flatness problem essentially asks: why is the Universe so flat when it couldve taken on some curvature
during its evolution?
(Some math ahead; feel free to skip)

8 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
The Friedmann equation, which basically describes the expansion of the Universe, as well as its curvature, is
given in the form
where H is the Hubble parameter8, a is our friendly scale factor, G is Newtons Gravitational constant, is the
density, and k is the curvature of the Universe (I have set c = 1). To see why it was important for me to bring up
some equations, for a flat Universe, k = 0, so that part of the equation disappears, and were left with something
we can rearrange to form what is called the critical density:
And, as I mentioned before, to get to the critical density we have today, we require extreme fine-tuning if we
assume the Hubble sphere just grows monotonically, so much that the density parameter, 0=0/crit,0, is
only allowed to deviate from 1 by very specific and tiny amounts in the early Universe (as described in the sec-
tion outlining the flatness problem).
Lets go back to the Friedmann equation, and divide both sides by the Hubble parameter squared, and put it in
the following form:
[8]
where here, the density parameter is a function of a, (a) = (a)/crit(a), and (aH)-1 is the Hubble radius. Now,
if the Hubble radius increases monotonically as assumed in conventional Big Bang cosmology, that causes the
curvature k to grow with time, leading to a Universe with a lot of curvature. But, if instead it decreases during
inflation, it drives the Universe to flatness instead, solving the problem and yielding a flat Universe today.
Another way to explain this is by noting that during inflation, the Universe expanded exponentially, so that the
density parameter was proportional to the negative exponential of the Hubble parameter multiplied by time:
[9]
where Hi is the Hubble parameter during inflation. So then we can express this as
[9]
where tf describes the time at the end of inflation, ti describes the time at the beginning of inflation, and N in
the exponential is the number of e-foldings9 of inflation. Lets assume there are 100 e-foldings of inflation.
Then, regardless of the Universes initial curvature (represented on the right side of the above equation), its
taken down by e-200, which is ~10-87, bringing the left side of the equation, |1 (tf)|, extremely close to zero,
i.e., = 1, and were left with a flat Universe.
(Math complete, you can return now!)
What inflation basically does is it acts to drive the Universe to flatness, so that no matter how much curvature
you started with, you will end up with a flat Universe. Because of the exponential expansion that the early Uni-
verse undergoes due to inflation, we find that after inflation, it flattens the Universe (in Barbara Rydens words)
like the proverbial pancake [9] (ah, this is one of my favorite quotes on this). Take a sphere as an example.
9 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
Graphic showing the surface of a sphere as it grows, and ends up appearing flat. Source: Abyss.uoregon.edu(http://abyss.uore--
gon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec25.html)
For an ant, a small sphere of radius, say, 1 cm, has a pretty curved surface. Take the sphere and increase its size
to 10 cm in radius, and the ant sees the surface as less curved, but still curved. Now lets increase the size of the
sphere to 5 meters in radius. Does it look flat to the ant? Its certainly more flat than it was, but when the ant
walks around, it realizes theres some curvature. Now, lets take it to the extreme and make the sphere the size
of the Earth (which has a radius of 6731 km). The surface of the sphere is flat to that ant. This is sort of analo-
gous to the Universe being flattened out by inflation. And note that today, since we are bound by our particle
horizon, for all we know, we might be seeing a part of the Universe that appears locally flat, but might actually
have curvature that we cant detect because its beyond our past light cone! Ah, the Universe is wonderful.
8The Hubble parameter, H, is basically a parameter that describes the expansion of the Universe. More precisely, it is deter--
mined by multiplying a dimensionless Hubble parameter, h, by 100 km s-1 Mpc-1, where h is 0.678 today according to the
Planck results, so that H0 = h 100 km s-1 Mpc-1 = 67.8 km s-1 Mpc-1.
9When we say e-foldings, it simply means the number that the exponential, e, is raised to. So, if the number of e-foldings is 8,
then that means you raise the exponential to the power of 8: e8.
Solution to the Monopole Problem
Finally, we come to the monopole problem, which is a particle physics problem that arises from GUT theory.
Recall that once the Universe cooled to the point that the strong and electroweak forces became distinct, sym-
metry breaking occurred, which caused topological defects in the form of monopoles. A familiar topological de-
fect comes from the freezing of water: water as a liquid has its molecules randomly oriented, but when frozen,
it doesnt freeze uniformly, but rather, may have a few layers that begin to freeze separately. Each layer itself
will freeze symmetrically, with its molecules aligned, but the other layers will be misaligned with respect to
each other. The misalignment of the axes of symmetry creates a two-dimensional topological defect called a do-
main wall, and you can also get bubbles frozen into the water, which you can take to be the similar to a
point-like topological defect, which in this case would be the monopole. And there should be a lot of magnetic
monopoles in the Universe, according to GUT theory and using Big Bang cosmology alone.
The number density of monopoles at the time of their creation was about 1082 m-3 [2]. Thats a 1 with 82 zeros
10behind
of 12 it, per meter cubed. Turns out they were also very massive. This means they quickly became non-relativis-
06/18/2017 06:25 PM
tic, meaning they diluted as a-3, like matter, which would result in monopoles dominating the Universe when it
was just 10-16 seconds old [2]. This is assuming conventional Big Bang cosmology. However, inflation writes
the story differently, and explains why we dont see any in the Universe today.
If monopoles were created before or during inflation, then the exponential expansion of the Universe during in-
flation wouldve diluted them so much that there would be nearly no chance of detecting one today. Since dur-
ing inflation, a eHit, the number density of monopoles diluted like nM e-3Hit[10]. Then the 1082 m-3 created
diluted to ~10-49 m-3 after 100 e-foldings, leaving us with just 15 monopoles per parsec cubed at the end of infla-
tion (where one parsec is equal to 3.26 light-years, and a light-year is equal to 9.461015 meters) [11]. If we take
the expansion of the Universe into account from the end of inflation until today, were left with just ~10-61
Mpc-3[11] So, yeah, dont bet on finding a monopole just floating about anytime soon.
Exciting Possibility: Eternal Inflation
Take another look at my plot of the scalar field above. The double arrow indicating quantum fluctuations could
actually keep occurring for a larger inflating field, where inflation stops in our Universe, but goes on forever in
an eternally inflating field. This is eternal inflation, where quantum fluctuations could birth new universes, in-
cluding our own. But the field inflates so fast that these bubble universes move so far apart that they never
come in contact with each other. The eternally inflating field continues to undergo inflationonce inflation be-
gins, it does not stop. Hence, eternal inflation leads to a Multiverse. Alan Guth also argues that nearly all mod-
els of inflation lead to eternal inflation (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.7340.pdf), so if inflation is part of our Uni-
verses history, then our Universe may be one of infinitely many universes.
Could we ever detect a Multiverse? Well, universes could collide with each other. So if our Universe collided
with another in the past, it should have left an imprint on the CMB. Finding such an imprint would be evidence
that there exists another universe next to our own, which would tell us were part of a Multiverse. This is some-
thing scientists looked for in the Planck data, but alas, no imprint was found.
There is a way to get evidence for inflation in the early Universegravitational waves. But not the ones weve
detected from black holesthese are B-modes, specifically created by a period of inflation. Briefly, when scien-
tists look for gravitational waves from black holes, theyre looking for the actual gravitational waves produced.
From inflation, they are looking for a signal, left in the CMB, that tells us inflation produced gravitational waves
(you can read more about the difference between the two in this article by Clara Moskowitz (https://www.sci-
entificamerican.com/article/not-all-gravitational-waves-are-created-equal/); although the article was written
just before the discovery of the first gravitational waves detected by LIGO, its still relevant). If the signals of
b-modes are ever detected, we can be certain inflation happened, and if inflation is proven to be part of our Uni-
verses history, Alan Guth would probably assert that eternal inflation just got real. Are you excited about infla-
tion yet?
Citations
1. B. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology, Chap. 11, Sec. 1, p. 238 (2006).

2. D. Baumann, TASI Lectures on Inflation (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5424.pdf), p. 25, 2016, arXiv:0608407v1
[astro-ph]
4. D. Baumann, Cosmology: Part III Mathematical Tripos (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/Cosmol-
ogy/Lectures.pdf), Chap. 2, Sec. 1.2, p. 32.
6. D. Baumann, TASI Lectures on Inflation (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5424.pdf), p. 27, 2016, arXiv:0608407v1
[astro-ph]
8. D. Baumann, The Physics of Inflation (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/db275/TEACHING/INFLATION
/Lectures.pdf), Chap. 1, Sec. 3.2, p. 12.
1110.
of B.
12Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology, Chap. 11, Sec. 4, p. 246 (2006). 06/18/2017 06:25 PM
NOTE: All the above references are great for the mathematically inclined reader; for the reader who wants to
learn about cosmology, Barbara Rydens textbook is a great starter (with a few fantastically humorous foot-
notes, might I add), but also assumes prior physics knowledge.
Updated June 17, 2017 at 6:27 PM EDT to include definition for (aH)-1 to explain how SEC affects the evolution of the
particle horizon in the case of Big Bang cosmology vs inflation.
Tags: Big Bang, Cosmological Constant, Cosmology, Dark Energy, Early Universe, Flatness Problem,
Horizon Problem, Inflation, Monopole Problem, Multiverse, Physics, Theory Of Inflation,
Universe Categories: Cosmology, Physics
Published by Sophia Nasr
I will be working on my PhD in Physics at UC Irvine this Fall 2017. I specialize in astroparticle physics, and
work on a type of dark matter beyond the Cold Dark Matter paradigm---Self-Interacting Dark Matter. My
interests include cosmology, particle physics, astrophysics, and physics beyond the Standard Model. View all
posts by Sophia Nasr
BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.
12 of 12 06/18/2017 06:25 PM

Inflation For Dummies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inflation For Dummies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inflation For Dummies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Elegant Theory of Ination The Astropartigirl https://astropartigirl.com/2017/06/17/the-elegan...

Posted on June 17, 2017June 18, 2017 by Sophia Nasr

The Cosmic Microwave Background and its anisotropies, as seen by Planck.

We live in a 13.8-billion-year-old Universe, today dominated by a cosmological constant (otherwise known as

The Early Universe

1. Why is the Universe so homogeneous?

The Horizon Problem

The Flatness Problem

The Monopole Problem

The Theory of Inflation

Solution to the Horizon Problem

(A bit of math coming up; skip if youd like)

The particle horizon can be related to the Hubble radius as follows:

(Math done, continue reading here)

Solution to the Flatness Problem

(Some math ahead; feel free to skip)

(Math complete, you can return now!)

Solution to the Monopole Problem

Exciting Possibility: Eternal Inflation

1. B. Ryden, Introduction to Cosmology, Chap. 11, Sec. 1, p. 238 (2006).

Published by Sophia Nasr

You might also like