- #1
Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
- 2,519
- 467
I have been exploring the paper:
I confess I have reservations about inflation being a theoretically necessary era of the early universe expansion. The arguments I have seen supporting inflation seem to all involve it's ability to provide explanations of phenomena that seem to me to not necessarily require an explanation. One example: it explains why scientists so far are unable to discover evidence for any of the hypothetical magnetic monopole particles.
I am wondering if the article cited above is just another of this kind of explanation, or if it is instead a theoretically well accepted phenomenon that without inflation only non-Gaussian CBR perturbations would be observed. I understand that I might possibly find the answer to this in the cited references, but I have several problems.
I am hoping someone here at the PFs will be able to explain to me the rationale for the hypothesis that:
I would much appreciate any help anyone can offer.
Regards,
Buzz
Statistical Tests for the Gaussian Nature of Primordial Fluctuations Through CBR Experiments
http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1993/pub/Pub-93-294-A.pdf .
Here is a quote.http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/1993/pub/Pub-93-294-A.pdf .
Cosmic inflation [1], on one hand, provides a natural way to generate Gaussian initial perturbations [2]; spontaneous symmetry breaking, on the other hand, will lead to the formation of topological defects [4] via Kibble mechanism [3], and the perturbations generated by topological defects can be characterized as non-Gaussian.
The four references are:[1] A. Guth, Whys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981); A. Linde, Phys. Left. B 108, 389 (1982); A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Left. 48, 1220 (1982).
[2] J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 679 (1983); A. Guth and S-Y Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982); S. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 115, 295 (1982); A. A. Starobinskii, Phys. Lett. E 117, 175 (1982).
[3] T.W.B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976).
[4] For a review, see A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. 121, 263 (1955); N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Zett. 66 262.
[2] J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 679 (1983); A. Guth and S-Y Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982); S. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 115, 295 (1982); A. A. Starobinskii, Phys. Lett. E 117, 175 (1982).
[3] T.W.B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976).
[4] For a review, see A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rep. 121, 263 (1955); N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Zett. 66 262.
I confess I have reservations about inflation being a theoretically necessary era of the early universe expansion. The arguments I have seen supporting inflation seem to all involve it's ability to provide explanations of phenomena that seem to me to not necessarily require an explanation. One example: it explains why scientists so far are unable to discover evidence for any of the hypothetical magnetic monopole particles.
I am wondering if the article cited above is just another of this kind of explanation, or if it is instead a theoretically well accepted phenomenon that without inflation only non-Gaussian CBR perturbations would be observed. I understand that I might possibly find the answer to this in the cited references, but I have several problems.
1. I do not know how to interpret the citations to find the references.
2. I think it likely that i may not have any convenient access to the references.
3. I think it likely that i won't be able to understand the content of these references.
2. I think it likely that i may not have any convenient access to the references.
3. I think it likely that i won't be able to understand the content of these references.
I am hoping someone here at the PFs will be able to explain to me the rationale for the hypothesis that:
without inflation only non-Gaussian CBR perturbations would be observed.
I would much appreciate any help anyone can offer.
Regards,
Buzz