Cosmic Inflation Hysteria, Bio Evolutionary Hysteria

What If Cosmic Inflation Is Wrong? Where It Is Shown That Scientists Are Prisoners Of What Looks Good:

How plausible is a piece of knowledge? How does one establish the plausibility of a piece of knowledge? This is the sort of meta theory of knowledge (meta-”epistemology”) which the progress of science unceasingly reveals.

Thus, establishing new science is not just a revelation of the world out there, but a revelation of how we think, and, even better, how we could think, if we wanted to be even more clever than we already are.

In particular mass sociological effects control the “data” all too easily, the more subtle the “data” is.

Here we consider evolution and especially the attitude relative to Lamarck, and then the so-called Big Bang, or as it is now fashionable to say among the cognoscenti, in a bout of poetic mystifying jargon, the ΛCDM model. (Much more sophisticated than Big Boom theory!)

In both cases, silly, and thus all the more enthusiastic, herd effects are involved.


Nothing Real New In Darwinism, But Lots Of Insufferably Shattering New Ideas In Lamarck:

The debate about biological evolution was exemplary: Greece was making lot of money from having mastered selection of species, both natural and artificial, 25 centuries ago. Anaximander, earlier, informed us we all evolved from fishes. Then came the Christian Jihadists, burning books, libraries and infidels, cutting intellectuals alive with oysters shells until they succumbed. Fast forward 23 centuries, and research professor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, having ruined his eyes by spending thousands of hours studying mollusk, and other invertebrate fossils behind his microscope, came up with several new insights.

Lamarck thought that evolution was urged along by two other forces. Teaching evolution was outlawed in England, Lyell and Darwin went to learn it in Edinburgh, Scotland. Next Darwin rolled the basic Greek theory out, claiming to have observed it in Galapagos finches as Lamarck had observed it mollusks. Darwin’s basic theory, purged from its Lamarckian elements, became widely accepted.    

There was no proof that the further additions suggested by Lamarck were wrong, though. However, believing that there was anything in evolutionary theory beyond what the Greeks already knew 25 centuries ago, became “unscientific”. Since when is believing that something could be true which we have no proven is not true “unscientific”?

Since science is a church with great bishops?

Nothing was really completely new in Darwinism, but lots was really new, and religiously shocking, in Lamarck. After lots of ridicule, Lamarck took 2 centuries to be proven right.

We know now that Lamarck was right on one of his two suggested mechanism. And I am pretty sure he is true on the other. Underlying both is full bore Quantum Physics.

Thus spoke Zarathrustra.


Here comes the Bible, latest version! Perfectly correct, if one supposes their suppositions about their suppositions just as correct…

Inflationistas’ Hysteria:

I am for more mild inflation in matters economical, and also in matters cosmological, but not beyond that.

For decades, cosmologists have screamed from every rooftop that cosmic inflation was right. I was dubious, because they made an hypothesis which was astounding, to explain something rather mundane. (And extremely natural, if one entertains the fancy that the universe is hundreds of billion years old, not just 13.8 billion!)

The short of it is that the universe is huge, at least 45 billion light years across, but looks everywhere the same, as if it originated from just one place (or as if it were immensely old). To explain the discrepancy, some cosmologists, starting in the USSR, assumed the universe expanded at enormously faster than light speed. The speed of light along loops in space is locally limited. The speed of space, though is not limited (a curved manifold of dimension n embeds in one of dimension (2n +1) so that the curvature of the former is a trace of the flat one of the latter).

This was a huge hypothesis to explain a smaller problem. Basically, it looked as if cosmologists had got the temporal dimension of the universe wrong. Or maybe the Big Bang was wrong. Or maybe both, a bit.

Instead, cosmologists assumed a completely new force, Cosmic Inflation, and thus a completely new source of energy. They went for a phantasmagoric “explanation”, instead of modestly admitting that they did not really witness the proverbial “First Three Minutes”, from their position, on the right of God.

If CI existed, why should CI appear just once? Why not here, there, and everywhere, now, yesterday and tomorrow? Could one make universes out of nothing? Yes, yes and yes, screamed hysterical cosmologists from all rooftops.

A rule in thinking is that when one has a problem with a ready class of explanations one should not explain it with supernatural explanations from the get-go, before the more obvious explanations have been proven wrong.

Here conventional theories of the Hot Big Bang may not be not quite correct, so hysterical physicists decided that everything-we-know makes no sense, to start with. It turns out that their arguments amounted to hand waving (OK, a gas cools down when expanding; however a quantum fluctuation is not a gas!) fabulous mathematician cum physicist Roger Penrose claims that obtaining a flat universe classically without any recourse to inflation out of a quantum fluctuation is 10^100 more likely.

A casual look shows that conventional Big bang theory makes a lot of assumptions we have no proof of (for example in astrophysics). Absence of logical contradiction is no proof of experimental existence. Especially when, in the end, the theory one gets (the conventional Hot Big Bang) seems incorrect (because nothing can solve the flatness problem, short of immense age!)  

The philosophical problem became even more acute when an experimental cosmological inflation was discovered, Dark Energy. The conjunction of CI and DE made the universe expand tremendously, brake down, and then re-accelerate. Weird. Both inflations differ by a factor of 10^27 in their energy density.

So why not go with Dark Energy alone? Then the universe maybe hundreds of billions of years old.

Why not? Just to say that can’t possibly be true, because one has seen the universe expands very fast, in a tremendous cosmic inflation, amounts to starting with one’s conclusion.


The Common Denial Mechanism About Evolutions Either Biological Or Cosmological; We Know, You Don’t, & What We Know Pleases Authority:

The Big Bang cosmology is in the exact mood of the Bible: nothing really new in that mood. They can say they have numbers, I can see there is a lot of completely circuitous logics, where the end proves the beginning. In any case, if it’s in the Bible, it’s right, and God cares about creating a little universe for us.

What hurt with Lamarck’s insights was the God of the Bible again (and the entire empires resting on it). Lamarck basically said intelligence, animal intelligence and an increasing mysterious complexity organizing force intrinsic to life, organized the universe. In any case, smarts, but not those of the God of the Bible. That was therefore censored from the Anglo-Saxon world, where God is a question of national security, or, at least, manifest destiny, grabbing entire continents… When the forces of obscurantism had to surrender, they embraced an obscure amateur gentleman researcher of good English stock. (Not to demean Darwin, but Lamarck, and even his enemy, competitor, contradictor and colleague Cuvier, did the heavy lift, 60 years prior…)

Insights about what truth could be never comes from herds, especially herds of mandarins, when they are genuinely new.  

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , ,

19 Responses to “Cosmic Inflation Hysteria, Bio Evolutionary Hysteria”

  1. Paul Handover Says:

    There is much here that requires very careful reflection. Simply because it is on the very edge of my (small) universe of understanding. However, I did want to question your statement that the universe is at least 45 billion light years across.

    For the other day, NASA published an image taken by the Hubble telescope of a star cluster that was 500 billion light years away.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, Paul, much reflection needed! Thanks for reading the essay!

      There is basically a war between cosmologists now on the subject of cosmic inflation, complete with turncoats who, after helping to create cosmic inflation theory, now are trying to shoot it down (Steinhard, etc.) That’s much better than ten or twenty years ago, when I was the only one saying what I am saying (which is more than what was in this short essay, so questions are welcome; actually I need to add links to some of my previous essays…)

      What you read about that star is a typo. Here it is, from 2013:

      How far away is the farthest star we can observe? Youichi Ohyama (Academia Sinica, Taiwan) and Ananda Hota (UM-DAE Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences, India) might have an answer. Using optical and ultraviolet observations from several instruments, the duo has pinpointed what might be the farthest star spectroscopically observed — at a dizzying 55 million light-years away.
      The distant star is a compact source illustriously named SDSS J122952.66+112227.8, a bright bluish blob in the clumpy, 55,000-light-year-long gas tail of the galaxy IC 3418. IC 3418 is falling into the 1,000-plus-member Virgo galaxy cluster, and the tail probably formed due to ram pressure as the hot intracluster medium stripped away the falling galaxy’s cool gas

      The 45 billion light year figure is a lower bound obtained by the standard Big Bang theory.

      • Paul Handover Says:

        I double checked and you are correct. I added a zero!

        But more fundamental is my confusion over the age of the universe. Is it 13.82 bn years old? If that is correct then how can a distant galaxy or light source be 55 bn light years away?

        Can you spell it out in words of one syllable? 😎

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          OK, let me try. (Giving a new meaning to short explanation!)

          Suppose the Big Bang is right. So the universe U expanded for say 14 billion years. One can prove mathematically that U is a curved surface in a bigger space M (that’s a general theorem for any space/manifold of dimension n, it belongs to a space of dimension 2n + 1).
          U itself can expand at any speed within M (that does not impact the speed of light hypothesis along loops WITHIN U!)
          Suppose U expanded at the speed of light for 14 billion years. Then clearly the diameter of U would be 28 billion light years.
          However, the Cosmic Inflation hypothesis is that the universe U expanded at much faster than the speed of light. Something like 10^27 times faster (1,000 trillions of trillions times the speed of light). At least in the very beginning.

          There are lots of detailed computations resting on solutions of Einstein’s theory of gravitation due to De Sitter and others, elaborated nearly a century ago. This way, observed features of the universe U can be explained, such as ripples in the Cosmic Background Radiation at 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

          Philosophically, though, on the largest logical scale, this is all rather circuitous, to the point of proving what it assumed to start with. That’s my point. If the universe U is immensely older, we get a lot of what is observed… WITH STANDARD PHYSICS (no need for quantum fluctuations in a cosmically inflating universe). In particular, as I said in preceding essays, cosmologists assume only the Big Bang can generate the abundance of some elements, as if they knew star physics perfectly (they don’t: stars of “impossible” mass have been observed… and thus of “impossible” heat inside…)

  2. Sinisa Lazarek Says:

    May 12, 2017
    @ Patrice

    You say that the horizon/thermal equilibrium of the Universe is a mundane problem. I am wondering why you say that?

    If we assume lambda-CDM model to be correct…and thus our estimates of the age of the universe to be more or less correct (lets say to couple billion years +/-)… how did universe get to be in such a uniform state.. even hypothetically?

    Sure, it’s easy to wave a hand and say, the universe might be several hundred billions years old… but not according to data.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Sinisa: Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. You put your finger on the problem.

      Assuming that the Lambda-CDM model is correct, is assuming what some of us want to see proven beyond any suspicion. I do not just observe data in that regard, but also a lot of suppositions whom cosmologists have been making about what the data is supposed to mean. The data is interpreted by the Lambda CDM model, before being used to support said model.

      Let’s concentrate just on CDM. Although I do believe in Cold Dark Matter, I have seen theories of it which are in complete contradiction with my own CDM suggestion. Actually it seems that most CDM theories contradict mine (especially regarding galactic halos). Not to say I am a potential genius, but there are more possibilities out there than generally considered. As far as I can see. And no doubt we will see more very soon. Galactic halos are more readily observable than what supposedly happened 14 billion years ago.

  3. EugenR Says:

    I can imagine a mathematical model, very different from the big bang, inflation and multiverse theory, and maybe even supported by evidence, but what i find even more preplexing​ in your long essay is your hint or should i say faith in cosmological intention. It is a very old idea, and when you see the complexity of the life or even more the human consciousness, it is hard not to be cached by this idea. Add to it the wholistic global or even cosmic consciousness, and you are in the category of mystics, religion and faith.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Wait a minute here, I am not Teilhard de Chardin… First in the Cosmic Inflation story, I am accusing many a cosmologist to reproduce subconsciously the schema in the Bible (“Fiat Lux!”) So it’s the other way around. In my set-up, the universe is much older, thus much more inscrutable…

      In the case of biological evolution, I would venture to say that animal life is all about (SELF-GENERATED) intelligent design. There is now increasing direct scientific proof of that (essay on cephalopods coming).

      Quantum Physics denotes a sort of intelligence. Thanks to nonlocality, Quantum processes are all-knowing at a distance, and act accordingly. Sounds like God, but it’s an experimental fact. Experimental God, so to speak.
      Nothing mystical about it. But because the Quantum has some characteristics of the proverbial “God(s)”, it’s tempting to see in those who explain what has been found, to be called names.

      BTW, my main contribution suggesting how Dark Matter is CREATED, starts from the hypothesis that there are (cosmic) limits to Quantum nonlocality.

  4. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    “And Quantum processes act accordingly, non-locally. Sounds like God, but it’s an experimental fact. Experimental God, so to speak.”

    Nathan Daniel Curry: Entanglement might just be like acupuncture. Ley lines of a greater order that, though implicit in space-time, mirrors connections in a temporal illusion.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Quantum Entanglement is the real causal ordering of the universe. Not the hallucinogenic multiverse, the real universe, one and only. In particular, it has primacy over LOCAL TIME, and LOCAL SPACE.

  5. Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

    I get your response. Seems to me there is Bohm and his implicit order, there is strings (which is dumb) and there is the multiverse (also dumb). I get entanglement and Bohm covers that.
    But I don’t see why there can’t be multiple universes too; as part of a subtle greater implicate order.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Multiverses are a contradiction in adjecto. The reasoning leading to them is flawed (and, amazingly enough, from parroting Einstein!). I have written many essays on the subject. Einstein would have been baffled and revolted by what his fishy reasoning led to. See my Einstein’s Error, the Multiverse…

      • Nathan Daniel Curry Says:

        I think you speak from the viewpoint of physical dimensions. Perhaps I mean something more subtle. In a way, the universe of a fish is a very different one to an eagle. I wouldn’t be surprised though if we do discover more subtle dimensions one day.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Nathan: I know somewhat general dimension theory. And general topology. I am well beyond Quantum foam (as found to justify ripples in Big bang), because the foam has to be nonlocal. Clearly, Quantum Entanglement modifies topology itself, making it into a quasi T2 dynamic topology. So I am well beyond dimension already. The architecture of Quantum Interaction creates absolute dimensions. A problem is that they are more fundamental than the force scheme Riemann thought about. Conventional forces and dimensions change inter-geodesic distances (Riemann). Here what is changed is the nature of the geodesic spaces themselves.

  6. ianmillerblog Says:

    I must confess that I can’t for the life of me see why the incredible inflation is necessary. If it is too big say, 300,000 yrs after the big bang, why not simply admit the Universe is older? My personal view is we simply do not have enough knowledge to know what was going on earlier than when matter began condensing out.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      My point entirely, indeed. The universe is WAY older, it’s blatant, instead they invent what you rightly call “the incredible inflation”. It’s a sort of madness we have seen in the past. Consider Ptolemy. There were plenty of reasons to believe the Moon and company were real object similar to Earth, which was known to be round. The Moon looked smooth, but an obvious comparison of Earth’s mountains to Earth radius would have shown that was normal. And so on. Instead they went for these crazy spheres within spheres, and an immaterial explanation to a material world…

      Notice that “the incredible inflation” is also IMMATERIAL (was never observed directly; that was why Linde (USSR/Stanford) rolled out is inflation-everywhere theory, which is very similar to the Many-Worlds-Everywhere theory.

  7. Sinisa Lazarek Says:

    May 14, 2017

    I’m not sure DM is that relevant concerning horizon problem, what I initially commented on.

    Because even our crudest estimates/measurements on age of universe (from beginning to middle 20th century) gave the time that’s just to short to reach this state of uniformity. And that’s without any DM. Later things, like lambda and dark matter and dark energy etc.. that just tweaked it down more and more. But 13.7 or 20 or 25 billion.. it’s all in the same ballpark.

    Going back to inflation. I have nothing against something “less” strange.. but what?

    • Narad Says:

      “I’m not sure DM is that relevant concerning horizon problem, what I initially commented on.”

      You really have to check out Patrice’s blog to get an idea of the flavor of, ah, things.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The sort of cosmic inflation which is observed, Dark Energy is compatible with a universe which would be hundreds of billions of years old. OK, that does not “PROVE” it. But something similar happened with the age of the Earth. Fossils were well-known by Aristotle’s time, and a mystery. Aristotle sent his students to record live species. Also there was this huge meteor which landed in northern Greece and was visited for centuries. Indices, indices…

      The Big Boom theory rests on lots of hypotheses within hypotheses, for example about nucleosynthesis and astrophysics… Not to say that shows it’s wrong. Simply it’s much less strong that people usually assume.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: