Going inside Scientific American, February 2017
They’re started a Cosmic Controversy over the very nature of inflation.
Heads-up! Your article has a broken link to a very key reference:
- Go to: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-cosmic-controversy/
- Go to the second paragraph up from the bottom, and at the end of that paragraph, you will find these words and the link as you have it right now: “For more details, see our 2014 paper “Inflationary Schism” (preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6980).”
- That link does not work. This link does: https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6980
- You’ll readily see that the “close parenthesis” should not have been part of the linked address.
Also, regarding that article’s contents:
- One is pushed to ask, “How can so many smart people miss the obvious?”
- Our understanding of the big bang is wrong. Ask Turok.
- Our understanding of space and time are wrong. Ask Arkani-Hamed.
- Our understanding of infinity is wrong. Ask Tegmark.
- These three are right to be critical but they have no radically new insight.
- The obvious is a natural inflation; and within it, the obvious is base-2.
- The group of dissenters are all tied up in knots.
- The original authors are at least trying to break free. but, the big bang also has the universe in knots.
- Of course, at some time near the beginning there were sounds, but perhaps it was more like Kepler’s Harmonice Mundi! In that light, this page will eventually be linked to an article about harmony (being written).
- Maybe it all started simply and expands naturally using base-2 notation or simple doublings from the Planck units to the Age of the Universe.
Chart of the numbers: https://81018.com/chart
Simple theory: https://81018.com/spacetime/
Natural Inflation: https://81018.com/thrust/