Talk:Cosmic inflation

Duration

The section on Duration has indirect citation to

• Liddle, Andrew; David Lyth (2000). Cosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure. Cambridge. ISBN 978-0-521-57598-0.

but the section of that book that discusses the 60-e-fold factor is about a model BGT that is not considered viable. The other ref in the footnote is incorrect. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Causal Universe of Brout Englert and Gunzig

Hi @Smassar. The priority claim added in the section "The Causal Universe of Brout Englert and Gunzig" needs a secondary, historical reference. Simply citing the primary work amounts to original research because you are asserting their priority without providing evidence of an analysis other than your post. Thanks in advance. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Johnjbarton. Thanks for your comment. How do I address your concern? (The problem is that the work of Brout, Englert and Gunzig has been largely ignored in the history of this topic).

- I can cite specific paragraphs and phrases in the two papers of Brout, Englert and Gunzig. Should I do this in the comments section? Or in the wikipedia article itself?

-A few scientists have acknowledged their contribution. For instance Brandenberger, R. (2017). Initial conditions for inflation—A short review. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 26(01), 1740002. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.01918 cites their work in its Ref 1. Another example is Mukhanov, V. (2013). Quantum cosmological perturbations: predictions and observations. The European Physical Journal C, 73, 1-6, see Ref 5 in this work. Both these authors are very well known in the field. Smassar (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

-Here is a history of science article that discusses their contribution SMEENK, Chris. False vacuum: Early universe cosmology and the development of inflation. In : The universe of general relativity. Boston, MA : Birkhäuser Boston, 2005. p. 223-257. Smassar (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Discovery priority is not solely a matter of timeline. For a discovery to be important it has to have impact. If the work of Brout, Englert and Gunzig was not read by other scientists and used in follow-on work, then their priority is not significant. A secondary reference can establish the influence. The most interesting and compelling references are historical analysis, but scientific reviews or even other primary scientific works are sources establishing impact.

However now I see that my claim about your edit was incorrect. You only mentioned the priority issue in the edit summary. The Brout, Englert and Gunzig paper has 500 references so it's not ignored.

What would really make an improvement would be to add a review reference to the paragraph and, even better, find a review that positions the work in the field. The Smeenk work might be good for this. A scientific and a historical review ref would be great. The Brandenberger work clearly cites the 1978 work as "inflation". You can say as much, The section title "Early inflation models" should be changed, eg to "Guth model". Johnjbarton (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added Smeenk's article to the section "Sources". Smassar (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This summer

There's a note (note e) that mentions "this summer" and "July" as if Wikipedia is a news source. I think Wikipedia must change. At the least, editors should be told not to use terms like "this summer", "recently", "until now", etc. etc. etc. My opinion is that no edit containing such poorly thought out verbiage should be accepted, but perhaps as a start, when an editor uses such poor judgement, it should be flagged. My guess is that note e was written in 2012, over a decade ago. Since CERN DID announce discovery of the Higgs particle (i.e. a 5 (?) sigma mass|energy spike at ~126 GeV/c², with follow-on confirmation that the particle's properties are as expected) this note should be up-dated (or removed). Two other complaints: the lead contains way too much (imho) about the awards of the originators (Kavli, Dirac, and Breakthrough prizes). These belong in the respective biographies, not in the lead ad nauseam. Condense them. Finally, if I can do my arithmetic, 7.7 plus 5.4 billion is not 13.8 billion. Seems to me someone can't add. (If Inflation occurred 7.7Gy after BB and 5.4Gy ago, it follows that the BB was 13.1Gy ago (or Inflation lasted for 600My) and this is WRONG.) I note that the "Overview" is not an overview but a brief history. I note that the claim that our observable universe is a "patch of a larger unobservable universe" is vacuous - if you can't, in theory, observe it, or its causal effects, then it ain't science. And there are a variety of other problems that are glossed over in the lead. For instance, quantum gravity *must* have had a huge effect during (early) inflation, so claiming that inflation is "accepted" is a bit of a stretch. Also, the claim that most physicists accept inflation NEEDS A reliable citation. And since "most physicists" are NOT experts in the early universe, is this really important? How about using a more appropriate term like "cosmologists"? Finally, I have a problem with the implied claim that the (non-inflationary) Hot Big Bang model is "standard". It is not, and hasn't been for decades. How about, oh just as a suggestion, you actually mention the standard model? (which includes inflation). In case you're unaware of it, it's the Λ-CDM model (which, astonishingly, is nowhere to be found in this article!!!). Anyway, I'd like to see the "overview" completely rewritten into an actual overview. One other thing that's missing in the text is numbers: like when did it start, how long did it last, what was the initial size of the OU, and what size was it when it ended, same with temperature. And no, this should not be sprinkled around here and there. ... Two questions I have: is Dark Energy a necessary assumption of the theory? and is Dark Matter a necessary assumption of the theory? If not, are they necessary results? (I guess that's 4 questions, LOL)98.17.42.35 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of this. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)