mymistake Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Just to clarify a point I made earlier, when I said theories would be replaced down the road I was talking evolutionary and not revolutionary. I meant like when a computer operating system version 2.0145112 is replaced by version 2.0145113. The changes can be very small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Pantheory will know that I am both highly sceptical of his work and his claims and am unable to check them out or verify them for myself. I lack the smarts to do so and I do not have access to any instruments that I could use to verify or falsify his work. . . . So, I would give his work more credence, but for two factors. First, by his own admission, no mainstream publication will publish his work. This causes me some concern. If a scientist cannot meet the standards set by these journals, what am I to make of this situation? Who (as a layman) should I place my trust in? The 'establishment' or the 'maverick'...? If Pantheory can offer me a good reason why I should place my trust in him, then I'll gladly give him a fair hearing. If he needs to invoke such things as establishment bias and vested interest to explain why he cannot get published in the mainstream of science, I will listen and take what he says into account. . Secondly, if I understand his work correctly, he has currently confined himself to post-dictions. That is, he has made his own analysis of existing data sets and interpreted them in a way that disagrees with mainstream physics. All well and good. But where are his confirmed pre-dictions? I ask because the acid test of science isn't in the interpretation of data - it's in the confirmation of predictions based on the data. Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory? That is, specific predicted values for specific observed phenomenon. Where the error bars lie and how wide they are. How well the observed data fall within your range of prediction. The dates you made your predictions and the dates they were confirmed by observations. The whole shebang please! . . . Pantheory, as far as I'm concerned your credibility rides on your satisfying the two above conditions. It seems to me that these are not unreasonable conditions and that any scientist worth his/her salt would be happy to satisfy them. If, however, you feel the need to argue against my setting these two conditions, against their wording or against anything else in this post, I will, of course, give you a fair hearing. Thanks, BAA. Always good points, BAA My ideas and concerns in this thread are similar for all threads in this section. Be skeptical, to some extent, of claims of discovery involving mainstream theory in modern physics. That is my general message in this sub-forum. Of course to consider any new proposal valuable one must first be interested in the subject, then one needs to study it to some extent. The primary fault with modern physics IMO is its complication. I believe the same observations can have vastly simpler explanations. I wholeheartedly believe that Ocamm's Razor should be one of the guiding principles of the scientific method. Mainstream journals will publish my research papers, but not those that come to conclusions outside the body of accepted mainstream conclusions. Remember that most well-known journals publish for free and therefore have to cater to their readership to make money and continue publication. Newer and lesser known journals that charge a fee for publication can be more independent, and select interesting papers of their choice. The results are that some research papers do not necessarily come to mainstream conclusions. There are many variations of theory within the mainstream and journals concerning cosmology, but any research paper that considers an alternative cosmology will be summarily rejected by the most well-known journals, without even being read, once it is realized that the cosmology is outside the Big Bang arena. Exceptions might be those research projects and papers financed or endorsed by well-known academic entities of some kind. I do not want you or anyone to trust in my work any more than they should trust in any work by anyone. There is plenty to read within the mainsteam. Usually going outside the mainstream is like going outside the box for explanations, it requires background knowledge to properly evaluate the possibilities. The value within any study and related paper should be seen within the work itself. The possibility of valid conclusions should always be considered as well as questioned. The case in point here was the gravity-wave news reports, along with claims of them being Inflation related. My original caution when the report first came out was that I considered much speculation was involved in their interpretations and conclusions since there were many other possibilities to explain what they were observing. Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory? Since this thread is not about my theories, discussions of them would be out of place here. If you want to know my present and past predictions I will refer you to the appropriate pages in my book as seen below. Even though such a discussion would be out of place here, I will be glad to discuss details at pantheory.org@gmail.com. <A HREF="http://www.pantheory.org/PDFs/PanTheory.pdf#page=207"> Predictions, past and present, starting on page #207 of "book" at pantheory.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 My ideas and concerns in this thread are similar for all threads in this section. Be skeptical, to some extent, of claims of discovery involving mainstream theory in modern physics. (snip) The primary fault with modern physics IMO is its complication. So you are going to keep bad mouthing science. Anybody who points out why your criticisms are wrong is off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 My ideas and concerns in this thread are similar for all threads in this section. Be skeptical, to some extent, of claims of discovery involving mainstream theory in modern physics. (snip) The primary fault with modern physics IMO is its complication. So you are going to keep bad mouthing science. Anybody who points out why your criticisms are wrong is off topic. IMO Science is the process of the scientific method, primarily experimentation, observation, measurement, hypothesizing, induction, and deduction. Conclusions and theory are the results of the scientific method and study, but not science themselves. Hence to question the validity of any of them as to their details or their whole, is one of the most important aspects and values of science, that of self- correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 IMO Science is the process of the scientific method, primarily experimentation, observation, measurement, hypothesizing, induction, and deduction. Conclusions and theory are the results of the scientific method and study, but not science themselves. Hence to question the validity of any of them as to their details or their whole, is one of the most important aspects and values of science, that of self- correction. Therefore you don't need to urge any extra caution in accepting the "mainstream" scientific theories from scientific "experts". Self correction is already built into the system. A theory becomes mainstream because it has been well tested and it makes useful predictions. It will stay mainstream until new evidence turns up that conflicts with it. Until that day happens nothing changes. Evidence drives the mechanism. If you don't have evidence then you don't have anything useful to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (snip) Always good points, BAA My ideas and concerns in this thread are similar for all threads in this section. Be skeptical, to some extent, of claims of discovery involving mainstream theory in modern physics. That is my general message in this sub-forum. Of course to consider any new proposal valuable one must first be interested in the subject, then one needs to study it to some extent. The primary fault with modern physics IMO is its complication. I believe the same observations can have vastly simpler explanations. I wholeheartedly believe that Ocamm's Razor should be one of the guiding principles of the scientific method. Mainstream journals will publish my research papers, but not those that come to conclusions outside the body of accepted mainstream conclusions. Remember that most well-known journals publish for free and therefore have to cater to their readership to make money and continue publication. Newer and lesser known journals that charge a fee for publication can be more independent, and select interesting papers of their choice. The results are that some research papers do not necessarily come to mainstream conclusions. There are many variations of theory within the mainstream and journals concerning cosmology, but any research paper that considers an alternative cosmology will be summarily rejected by the most well-known journals, without even being read, once it is realized that the cosmology is outside the Big Bang arena. Exceptions might be those research projects and papers financed or endorsed by well-known academic entities of some kind. I do not want you or anyone to trust in my work any more than they should trust in any work by anyone. There is plenty to read within the mainsteam. Usually going outside the mainstream is like going outside the box for explanations, it requires background knowledge to properly evaluate the possibilities. The value within any study and related paper should be seen within the work itself. The possibility of valid conclusions should always be considered as well as questioned. The case in point here was the gravity-wave news reports, along with claims of them being Inflation related. My original caution when the report first came out was that I considered much speculation was involved in their interpretations and conclusions since there were many other possibilities to explain what they were observing. Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory? Since this thread is not about my theories, discussions of them would be out of place here. If you want to know my present and past predictions I will refer you to the appropriate pages in my book as seen below. Such a discussion would be out of place in this thread, but I will be glad to discuss details at pantheory.org@gmail.com. http//www.pantheory.org/myfile.pdf#page=207 Predictions, past and present, starting on page #207 of "book" at pantheory.org Thanks Pantheory. However I must now fess up to not clarifying my terms and conditions sufficiently. The fault is exclusively mine. But I will now redress that mistake. Could you please present independently-derived confirmations of your predictions for us. That is, independently-derived from scientists who are not in any way affiliated to you personally, to your scientific views or to any of the content of your website. As a professional I'm sure you'll agree with me that self-recommendation is no substitute for the impartial recommendation of your non-affiliated peers. I await your reply with interest. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Probably few scientists have read my book in its entirety. Possibly half of those that have read it are now deceased and some I am no longer in contact with. For those that I am in contact with one could call them dissident scientists since all find fault with present cosmology. Most all, including myself, are on the worldwide list of Dissident Scientists published in France by the Jean de Climont Society. Below is a link to the English Translation of that list and related theoretical descriptions. The Information is listed under my name:(Forrest Noble) http://www.scribd.com/doc/229428780/The-Worldwide-List-of-Dissident-Scientists-Jean-de-Climont#scribd Other than persons on this list, I can think of none that would necessarily recall my predictions of past decades, maybe not even any of the dozen or so on this list would necessarily remember. Present affiliates of mine know of my present predictions since nearly all of these predictions have been online since 2007, and the fully edited version 2008. Before the internet none of my book information was available to anyone excepting those that read my 1997 copyrighted book, a copy of which is available through the Library of Congress for a fee. If all of this is too much trouble including reading the above link, then one would have to take my word for it that my theory is over 50 years old and that many of my present and past predictions stated, go back many decades, as stated in my present online book version, 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 IMO Science is the process of the scientific method, primarily experimentation, observation, measurement, hypothesizing, induction, and deduction. Conclusions and theory are the results of the scientific method and study, but not science themselves. Hence to question the validity of any of them as to their details or their whole, is one of the most important aspects and values of science, that of self- correction. Therefore you don't need to urge any extra caution in accepting the "mainstream" scientific theories from scientific "experts". Self correction is already built into the system. A theory becomes mainstream because it has been well tested and it makes useful predictions. It will stay mainstream until new evidence turns up that conflicts with it. Until that day happens nothing changes. Evidence drives the mechanism. If you don't have evidence then you don't have anything useful to say. As you probably can realize, often major self-corrections of theory have come from outside mainstream science and thinking.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 IMO Science is the process of the scientific method, primarily experimentation, observation, measurement, hypothesizing, induction, and deduction. Conclusions and theory are the results of the scientific method and study, but not science themselves. Hence to question the validity of any of them as to their details or their whole, is one of the most important aspects and values of science, that of self- correction. Therefore you don't need to urge any extra caution in accepting the "mainstream" scientific theories from scientific "experts". Self correction is already built into the system. A theory becomes mainstream because it has been well tested and it makes useful predictions. It will stay mainstream until new evidence turns up that conflicts with it. Until that day happens nothing changes. Evidence drives the mechanism. If you don't have evidence then you don't have anything useful to say. As you probably can realize, often major self-corrections of theory have come from outside mainstream science and thinking.. Perhaps you would have better luck at a Christian forum. Many Christians don't understand how science works. However it doesn't matter how many people you convert. Popularity can't make a flawed hypothesis true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Perhaps you would have better luck at a Christian forum. Many Christians don't understand how science works. However it doesn't matter how many people you convert. Popularity can't make a flawed hypothesis true. Perhaps a little humor? As you might imagine I've been a devout atheist for about 55 years going back to high school, although I'm not against religions per se. IMO everyone has a right to their own beliefs and practices as long as they don't bother others. As to popularity, I have little -- and neither do my theories Whether my theories or hypothesis are flawed or not, time will tell. They have stood the test of time now for more than a half of century with only addendums, and without deletions. Other than that I agree with your statement completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Probably few scientists have read my book in its entirety. Possibly half of those that have read it are now deceased and some I am no longer in contact with. For those that I am in contact with one could call them dissident scientists since all find fault with present cosmology. Most all, including myself, are on the worldwide list of Dissident Scientists published in France by the Jean de Climont Society. Below is a link to the English Translation of that list and related theoretical descriptions. The Information is listed under my name:(Forrest Noble) http://www.scribd.com/doc/229428780/The-Worldwide-List-of-Dissident-Scientists-Jean-de-Climont#scribd Other than persons on this list, I can think of none that would necessarily recall my predictions of past decades, maybe not even any of the dozen or so on this list would necessarily remember. Present affiliates of mine know of my present predictions since nearly all of these predictions have been online since 2007, and the fully edited version 2008. Before the internet none of my book information was available to anyone excepting those that read my 1997 copyrighted book, a copy of which is available through the Library of Congress for a fee. If all of this is too much trouble including reading the above link, then one would have to take my word for it that my theory is over 50 years old and that many of my present and past predictions stated, go back many decades, as stated in my present online book version, 2014. Thanks for your reply Pantheory. I now see that I've erred again by not being sufficiently specific in the wording of my conditions. The fault is exclusively mine. But I will now redress that mistake. Could you please provide independently-derived confirmations of your predictions from scientists that fall only within the boundaries I'm now going to delineate. 1. These scientists must be alive. 2. These scientists must not be dissidents who find fault with present cosmology. 3. These scientists must be currently active within mainstream, orthodox cosmology. 4. These scientists must have had their peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream, orthodox journals. 5. These scientists must not be affiliated to you personally, to your scientific views or to any of the content of your website. As a professional I'm sure you'll agree with me that these five points constitute the necessary level of independence from you to qualify as the correct and proper conduct that all bona fide scientists should practice in their work? If you would be so kind as to indicate your agreement with the previous sentence that would be appreciated. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Again realize this thread is not about me or my theories. My comments have suggested caution to all those that accept present cosmology, its interpretations and conclusions, generally without question or the realization of alternative possibilities. This has been the motivation for most of my postings in this category. As to the list above, realize that mainstream theories and orthodoxy are more than worthless if they are wrong. If wrong they cost taxpayers billions of dollars while barking up the wrong tree. Scientists discovering errors of theory and new theory that is realized, will be known for being a great service to both science and humanity. Common now, I have provided confirmation for a number of my predictions in my previous link. This is a French organization. None of its executive committee knows me personally. The published information they have gathered to explain listed theories goes back a long enough period of time to explain to those inquiring that these theories and predictions span the period of time designated. They list 1959 through 2008 for my theories. The gathering of all the information in their books have involved a great deal of work over many years. I expect few scientists would doubt the authenticity of the theoretical information and predictions described in this publication since its sources have been the historic writings of its listed theorists. If anyone chooses to doubt the information in this source it's their prerogative, as it would be for any other historical source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Pantheory will know that I am both highly sceptical of his work and his claims and am unable to check them out or verify them for myself. I lack the smarts to do so and I do not have access to any instruments that I could use to verify or falsify his work. . . . So, I would give his work more credence, but for two factors. First, by his own admission, no mainstream publication will publish his work. This causes me some concern. If a scientist cannot meet the standards set by these journals, what am I to make of this situation? Who (as a layman) should I place my trust in? The 'establishment' or the 'maverick'...? If Pantheory can offer me a good reason why I should place my trust in him, then I'll gladly give him a fair hearing. If he needs to invoke such things as establishment bias and vested interest to explain why he cannot get published in the mainstream of science, I will listen and take what he says into account. . . . Secondly, if I understand his work correctly, he has currently confined himself to post-dictions. That is, he has made his own analysis of existing data sets and interpreted them in a way that disagrees with mainstream physics. All well and good. But where are his confirmed pre-dictions? I ask because the acid test of science isn't in the interpretation of data - it's in the confirmation of predictions based on the data. Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory? That is, specific predicted values for specific observed phenomenon. Where the error bars lie and how wide they are. How well the observed data fall within your range of prediction. The dates you made your predictions and the dates they were confirmed by observations. The whole shebang please! . . . Pantheory, as far as I'm concerned your credibility rides on your satisfying the two above conditions. It seems to me that these are not unreasonable conditions and that any scientist worth his/her salt would be happy to satisfy them. If, however, you feel the need to argue against my setting these two conditions, against their wording or against anything else in this post, I will, of course, give you a fair hearing. Thanks, BAA. Thank you for failing to meet my entirely reasonable conditions, Pantheory. Goodbye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Again realize this thread is not about me or my theories. My comments have suggested caution to all those that accept present cosmology, its interpretations and conclusions, generally without question or the realization of alternative possibilities. This has been the motivation for most of my postings in this category. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to make a suggestion then it is reasonable for others to respond to your suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Pantheory will know that I am both highly sceptical of his work and his claims and am unable to check them out or verify them for myself. I lack the smarts to do so and I do not have access to any instruments that I could use to verify or falsify his work. . So, I would give his work more credence, but for two factors. First, by his own admission, no mainstream publication will publish his work. This causes me some concern. If a scientist cannot meet the standards set by these journals, what am I to make of this situation? Who (as a layman) should I place my trust in? The 'establishment' or the 'maverick'...? If Pantheory can offer me a good reason why I should place my trust in him, then I'll gladly give him a fair hearing. If he needs to invoke such things as establishment bias and vested interest to explain why he cannot get published in the mainstream of science, I will listen and take what he says into account. . Secondly, if I understand his work correctly, he has currently confined himself to post-dictions. That is, he has made his own analysis of existing data sets and interpreted them in a way that disagrees with mainstream physics. All well and good. But where are his confirmed pre-dictions? I ask because the acid test of science isn't in the interpretation of data - it's in the confirmation of predictions based on the data. Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory? That is, specific predicted values for specific observed phenomenon. Where the error bars lie and how wide they are. How well the observed data fall within your range of prediction. The dates you made your predictions and the dates they were confirmed by observations. The whole shebang please! . Pantheory, as far as I'm concerned your credibility rides on your satisfying the two above conditions. It seems to me that these are not unreasonable conditions and that any scientist worth his/her salt would be happy to satisfy them. If, however, you feel the need to argue against my setting these two conditions, against their wording or against anything else in this post, I will, of course, give you a fair hearing. Thanks, BAA. Thank you for failing to meet my entirely reasonable conditions, Pantheory. Goodbye! BAA, it seems your posting as quoted above can be easily misinterpreted by readers. It implies that I didn't respond to your requests as listed above and in posting #57, whereby I did so in posting #58. Instead I found unreasonable your requests in posting #62, the conditions of which you did not quote in your list above. I responded to this in posting #63, which you responded to with disdain in posting #64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Pantheory will know that I am both highly sceptical of his work and his claims and am unable to check them out or verify them for myself. I lack the smarts to do so and I do not have access to any instruments that I could use to verify or falsify his work. . So, I would give his work more credence, but for two factors. First, by his own admission, no mainstream publication will publish his work. This causes me some concern. If a scientist cannot meet the standards set by these journals, what am I to make of this situation? Who (as a layman) should I place my trust in? The 'establishment' or the 'maverick'...? If Pantheory can offer me a good reason why I should place my trust in him, then I'll gladly give him a fair hearing. If he needs to invoke such things as establishment bias and vested interest to explain why he cannot get published in the mainstream of science, I will listen and take what he says into account. . Secondly, if I understand his work correctly, he has currently confined himself to post-dictions. That is, he has made his own analysis of existing data sets and interpreted them in a way that disagrees with mainstream physics. All well and good. But where are his confirmed pre-dictions? I ask because the acid test of science isn't in the interpretation of data - it's in the confirmation of predictions based on the data. Could you please present you confirmed predictions for us, Pantheory? That is, specific predicted values for specific observed phenomenon. Where the error bars lie and how wide they are. How well the observed data fall within your range of prediction. The dates you made your predictions and the dates they were confirmed by observations. The whole shebang please! . Pantheory, as far as I'm concerned your credibility rides on your satisfying the two above conditions. It seems to me that these are not unreasonable conditions and that any scientist worth his/her salt would be happy to satisfy them. If, however, you feel the need to argue against my setting these two conditions, against their wording or against anything else in this post, I will, of course, give you a fair hearing. Thanks, BAA. Thank you for failing to meet my entirely reasonable conditions, Pantheory. Goodbye! BAA, it seems your posting as quoted above can be easily misinterpreted by readers. It implies that I didn't respond to your requests as you listed them above, whereby I did so in posting #68. Instead I found unreasonable your requests in posting #62, the conditions of which you did not quote in your list above. I responded to this in posting #63, which you responded to with disdain in posting #64. I beg to differ, Pantheory. They'll know exactly what I meant. And if they didn't they can PM me to find out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Further news about how the latest observations are ruling out certain cosmological models. . . . In Alan Guth's 1997 book... http://www.amazon.com/The-Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402 ...he mentions that Inflationary theory is not a single theory, but a class of theories that attempt to explain the very early universe. At the time of writing this book he was aware of at least forty (40) distinctly different Inflationary theories. This 2014 paper... http://ptep.oxfordjournals.org/content/2014/6/06B104.full ...constrains (rules out) a host of inflationary models by combining the 2013 Planck data with other data sets from other experiments, leaving a shortlist of contenders that make the cut. As listed here... Our analysis includes models such as potential-driven slow-roll inflation, k-inflation, Starobinsky inflation, and Higgs inflation with non-minimal/derivative/Galileon couplings. Now I regularly check out Peter Woit's blog... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ ...because he's the Internet's sternest (and possibly the best qualified) critic of String theory and the Multiverse. If something passes muster with him then I reckon it's worth paying attention to. If you scroll down to his Feb 5 post (Planck Data Out) and click on the 'comments' link, you'll see Urs Schreiber... http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Urs+Schreiber ...coming down in favor of the Starobinsky model. . . . More about the Starobinsky model. http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Starobinsky+model+of+cosmic+inflation http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1155 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606018 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Starobinsky . . . Schreiber's comments are (quite rightly) challenged by Anonymous, because the issue isn't anywhere near settled yet. However, as an amateur astronomer who understands nothing about these equations I'm nevertheless very pleased to see clear progress being made in this field. Certain inflationary models are being ruled out by the latest data. Even though the 2015 release of Planck data shows no clear evidence of B-mode polarization caused by primordial gravitational waves (undermining the March 2014 claims made the BICEP2 team) the error bars are being narrowed down. With new data sets from other teams working on measuring the CMB in ultra-fine detail, we can expect further progress in the near future. Other CMB experiments. http://bolo.berkeley.edu/polarbear/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_Large_Angular_Scale_Surveyor http://pole.uchicago.edu/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_B-Mode_Search http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/keckarray/ http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~lgg/spider/spider_front.htm . . . In a way the progress being made in this field parallels the methodical search for the Higgs boson, begun in the 90's, which culminated in the LHC's (Large Hadron Collider) announcement of the discovery of a Higgs-like particle in 2012. I recall reading reports from CERN about how they'd been able to rule out where the Higgs couldn't have been hiding. By the patient process of elimination the LHC team were eventually able to pin down exactly where it could be. Then they combed thru their terabytes of data and millions of particle collisions and found the signal of a particle that had just the right characteristics as the theory suggested. . . . It's my hope that before too long (perhaps in the next five years?) we'll have a definitive answer about the origin of the universe. Thanks, BAA. http://resonaances.blogspot.com/ And in the Weekend Plot : Inflation '15 post we can read how some inflationary models are favored by the latest Planck data and others are not. . . . Going out on a limb now... A strong player emerging from this competition is R^2 inflation which, ironically, is the first model of inflation ever written. Guth's model or Starobinsky's? That model is equivalent to an exponential shape of the inflaton potential, V=c[1-exp(-a φ/MPL)]^2, with a=sqrt(2/3) in the exponent. Guth's inflationary model was defined as having an exponential acceleration - leading to runaway, future-eternal inflation. Is that what the exponential shape of the Inflaton potential means? Hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts