Dear Professor Linde
Thank you for your response: I understand that the earlier email sent to
Professor Kovac has been passed on to you – and you respond on his behalf.
Indeed – forgive the typo error: 13.8 BILLION it is. After your figures –
what is a mere BILLION between friends? My error was a fraction of your billions
% error that is demonstrably so.
Kindly note that my questions are very clear – one should not be obliged to
read a 270 page book which plainly is irrelevant if only to the extent that you
will still insist that it will use the wrong version of your inflation theory.
I kindly ask you to respond to simple, basic matters raised by my emails
which you will understand go to the very heart of matters. To the very heart of
your inflated theory.
I have looked at the book very quickly – and find even in the introduction
– a reference to UNIFIED
THEORIES.
There can be no unified theories of anything: it is a contradiction in
terms – implying that it cannot be impeached.
I have always had trouble with an everything – theory purporting to describe all forces of
nature – irrespective of the obvious: that you have no intention of
explicating your own theory of inflation. \
This has always been the problem of the true – believers of
particle physics – they never feel the obligation to be held to account. TO
EXPLAIN THEMSELVES, IF YOU LIKE.
I REPEAT _ NOT ONLY CAN YOU NOT HAVE A THEORY OF EVERYTHING – BUT BY IT’S
VERY NATURE YOU VITIATE WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR!
RTHIS IS A SHAME THAT THIS IS NOT READILY UNDERSTOOD BY PEOPLE IN YOUR
PROFESSION.
I also find probs with this ‘’Self
– Reproducing Universe. CH 1.8
Your details do not bear out the title – it does not even try!
So my dear professor – where do you suggest that I look for clear answers
to your questions?
You wrote the book in 1990: you should know every page – every formula:
tell me i beseech you – and cut and paste it didactically to my questions.
There must be merely a handful or two questions.
Come to think of it: why is a 1990 book – basis of your theory – being
quoted defacto as new? AKA Nobel Prize candidate?
And perhaps more important – why are you defending this theory basis a 1990
book? This is not quite the same question.
Kindest
Regards
Geoff Seidner
Preface to the Series x
Introduction xi
CHAPTER 1 Overview of
Unified Theories of Elementary Particles and the
Inflationary
Universe Scenario
1
1.1 The scalar field and spontaneous symmetry breaking 1
1.2 Phase transitions in gauge theories 6
1.3 Hot universe theory 9
1.4 Some properties of the Friedmann models 13
1.5 Problems of the standard scenario 16
1.6 A sketch of the development of the inflationary universe scenario
25
1.7 The chaotic inflation scenario 29
1.8 The self-reproducing
universe 42
1.9 Summary 49
CHAPTER 2 Scalar Field, Effective Potential, and Spontaneous Symmetry
Breaking
50
2.1 Classical and quantum scalar fields 50
Abstract
This is the LaTeX version of my book “Particle Physics and Inflationary
Cosmology”
(Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990). I decided to put it to hep-th, to make
it easily
available. Many things happened during the 15 years since the time when it
was written.
In particular, we have learned a lot about the high temperature behavior in
the electroweak
theory and about baryogenesis. A discovery of the acceleration of the
universe has changed
the way we are thinking about the problem of the vacuum energy: Instead of
trying to
explain why it is zero, we are trying to understand why it is anomalously
small. Recent
cosmological observations have shown that the universe is flat, or almost
exactly flat, and
confirmed many other predictions of inflationary theory. Many new versions of
this theory
have been developed, including hybrid inflation and inflationary models based
on string
theory. There was a substantial progress in the theory of reheating of the
universe after
inflation, and in the theory of eternal inflation.
It s clear, therefore, that some parts of the book should be updated, which
I might
do sometimes in the future. I hope, however, that this book may be of some
interest
even in its original form. I am using it in my lectures on inflationary
cosmology at
Stanford, supplementing it with the discussion of the subjects mentioned
above. I would
suggest to read this book in parallel with the book by Liddle and Lyth
“Cosmological
Inflation and Large Scale Structure,” with the book by Mukhanov “Physical
Foundations
of Cosmology,” which is to be published soon, and with my review article
hep-th/0503195,
which contains a discussion of some (but certainly not all) of the recent
developments in
i
PARTICLE PHYSICS AND INFLATIONARY COSMOLOGY 42
1.8 The self-reproducing
universe
The attentive reader probably already has noticed that in discussing the
problems resolved
with the aid of the inflationary universe scenario, we have silently
skirted the most important
one — the problem of the cosmological singularity. We have also said
nothing about
the global structure of the inflationary universe, having limited ourselves
to statements
to the effect that its local properties are very similar to those of the
observable world.
The study of the global structure of the universe and the problem of the
cosmological
singularity within the scope of the inflationary universe scenario conceals
a number of
surprises. Prior to the advent of this scenario, there was absolutely no
reason to suppose
that our universe was markedly inhomogeneous on a large scale. On the
contrary, the
astronomical data attested to the fact that on large scales, up to the very
size of the entire
observable part of the universe Rp ∼ 1028 cm, inhomogeneities
####################################
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Greetings from Australia to Prog
Kovac!
Dear Geoff,
The details of the calculations
can be found in my book published in 1990. Its electronic version can be found
here
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf
I am sure that you can calculate things correctly using it, but please note:
different versions of inflationary theory give different answers. We are still
trying to determine which of these theories is better. And, by the way, nobody
estimates the age of the universe as 15.8 billion years. It is 13.8 billion
years.
Best wishes
Andrei
On 3/26/14, 6:50 PM, g87
wrote:
Contact Information
- office:
Department of Physics
Varian blg. 352
Stanford
University
Stanford, CA 94305
- phone: (650)
723 2687 and 650 494 6106
- FAX: (650) 725
6544
- email: alinde@stanford.edu
Dear Professor Linde,
Kindly explain how the
figures about the ‘’the
trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second quoted in The Australian
article, became ‘’millions and billions as delivered by you on a video on The
Australian’s website
.
‘’The theory posits that less than a trillionth of a
second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded by a factor of 100 trillion,
trillion times.’’
This represents thousands of
billions of percentage points variation. It may or may not make that much
difference if you could kindly explain how the figures were arrived at basis
either of the scenarios. Note also please that the
former is represented by 1 and 36 zeroes.
Then kindly give my
students an idea as to how you arrived at your calculations representing events
of such astonishingly brief duration 15.8 BILLION years ago. We have always been
fascinated by large / ultra – small numbers: did you ever think of using google
plex as a means of delineating these figures?
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 11:47 AM
Subject: Greetings from Australia to Prog Kovac!
Email:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics
60 Garden Street, MS
42
Cambridge, MA
02138
Dear Professor
Kovac
I read about
your ‘Inflation’ theory in The Australian on March 19. See the video also
hereunder by Professor Chao Lin Kuo and ‘the founding father of Inflation
theory’, Prof Andrei Linde.
‘’The theory posits that less than a trillionth of a
second after the Big Bang, the universe expanded by a factor of 100 trillion,
trillion times.’’
I hope you win
the Nobel Prize. As an amateur mathematician may I offer some constructive
advice?
You may care to
respond to these questions and perhaps adjust your material for our consumption.
Much appreciate – I am sure you have all the data ready. We do understand
numbers.
You may care to
try to get those figures right. About the ‘’the trillionth of a trillionth of a
trillionth of a second in The Australian, became ‘’millions and billions as
delivered by Prof Linde.
Note also that
the former is represented by 1 and 36 zeroes. Far more accurately
delineated.
The latter is at
huge variance by millions of per cent. Not elegant. Indeed it may not matter if
you do not respond to other arenas herein this epistle.
Could you send
me your calculations as to how you either of the above were calculated? I tutor
people in the higher forms of large numbers and they are keen to understand why
you did not use google plex: surely more manageable? AND of course – read below
please.
We are also not
able to appreciate the margin of error over 15.8 Billion years and how you
accounted for it via your "five-sigma" certainty’’ to millions to one
certainty. In two realms that clearly add to the potential for error by far to
great a figure to meaningfully calculate
here.
We would like to learn more about these theoretical
calculations of yours.
Please note that
these comments pasted here also appear to be inelegant – for completely
disparate reasons. I hope you understand what is implied – as it would take too
long to elucidate.
‘’The
theory posits that less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, the
universe expanded by a factor of 100 trillion, trillion
times.’’
Yours
Sincerely
Geoff
Seidner
East St Kilda
Melbourne
Australia
PS
Inflation theory elicits Zimbabwe and post war
Germany: surely one of them tangents are strained? Your title is seemingly
trite- you may consider
 |
This
email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
|
