Unfortunately it has not been made clear why special (or “right”) initial conditions would be required; most scientists think that this is NOT necessary and it would most likely be unphysical. What has been established, however, is that independent of initial conditions the release of the inflation would lead to the homogeneity and isotropy we observe today. Finally, we actually observe the “remnant” of inflation by the accelerated expansion of the universe – which is the same process running at a lower energy level (which is where the “dilemma” of a mismatch of 10^120 orders of magnitude between certain energy levels comes in). Given this “mismatch”, any low probability of a theory is not immediately ruled out, it’s just more or less (un-)likely; nothing more, nothing less – and it certainly doesn’t justify to misname a theory a “myth”.

Not clear to me from the video where the 10^10^100 come from. And why an initial velocity is such a big problem. Would it overshoot the minimum of the potential, oscillate too much for too long?

The energy that is compressed in a tiny ball which exploded in a minuscule of time frame and still expanding after 13.5 billion years, equals a myth only. Why can’t we have a re-look at the Oscillating Universe and a Steady State Theory of Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar. The Hindu Scriptures like Surya Sidhantha, abhorred by Science incidentally, points to one such mechanism of birth, death and rebirth of epochs of 4 YUGAS, called 1 Yuga cycle which is 4.32 million years. These Yuga cycles repeat many times (72 million times) and last for many trillion years(311.04). A food for thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga_Cycle

We are then back in the world of statistical confidence intervals, and can reject the joint proposition of inflation as consistent with currently known theory assumptions, with 100% confidence. However we cannot have 100% confidence that these underlying theory assumptions will themselves remain robust over time.

I don’t have a problem with this. If you literally have eternity to wait then it doesn’t matter how special the initial conditions are – maybe only patches of spacetime where these conditions are met undergo inflation, hence only these patches create a universe, and if the probability is non-zero, they will eventually happen – nobody is out there keeping a timesheet of when they happen. As easy as that.

I agree, if probability is non-zero and time-frame sufficiently large, all events will eventually occur.

This is not very unusual especially when we looking for a very deep theory. In my opinion now we should have to look further with a new idea…

As it has been said – with infinite time being available all possibilities become probabilities. Nevertheless William of Ockham (Ockham’s Razor) and many others back in the 13th century had something to say about probabilities.

I find that Elizabeth’s answer is sufficient to answer this.

Hello Ladies & Gentlemen,

A googolminex is one in the googolplex of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 10.

It is unlikely with the chance of a googolminex that inflation is relevant.

Scientific Method shows a repetitive result. 1, or less than 1 googolminex of a chance is a difficult result to replicate.

As science, the googolminex chance, or less than a googolminex chance is unlikely.

To begin inflation with such a low probability seems not to be likely.

I believe that the probability does not affect the authenticity of the theory being true in the end. If the theory can be verified, and the inflaton field can somehow be measured and coincide with these results to prove inflation, then that is evidence in support of inflationary theory. The initial state of the universe is one of the possible ones for inflation. This kind of argument in my head is similar to the fine-tuning argument, when thinking about the fact that the universe is ”fine-tuned” such that humans can exist, which similarly has a low probabililty.

However, I will agree that the probability makes it such that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that inflationary theory is correct, thereby largely discrediting it until further evidence is shown.

What will happen to dark matter?

I think there isn’t any linked between them but it have linked with something isn’t discovered.

Hard to come to grips with an idea that has so many chances to be wrong. It seems to me that it comes down to the fact that humans have a hard time visualizing infinity, science is always defining them but refuses to admit when they see one. consider that the CMB is 13.8 billion light years in all directions, so we must be the exact center of the Universe right? Wrong, that’s just as far as we can see at the moment.

An interesting fact. I am curious about the alternative, e.q. the solution of the flatness problem.

Unlikely initial conditions don’t automatically disqualify a theory from being scientific. The key is whether the theory can be tested, make predictions, and explain observations. Even if initial conditions seem improbable, a theory can be scientific if it meets these criteria. It’s about testability, prediction, and alignment with evidence. Unlikely conditions could spur further investigation and insights.

Though his suggestion that inflationary theory has been a failure is thought provoking, I must admit that I too have been in agreement with several others, that given enough time, even VERY unlikely events can happen. It’s possible that evidence of his claims is forthcoming, and I am interested in hearing a bit more about his idea. Considering alternative explanations is important when considering theories that were created, in a sense, “fit to order” to provide an explanation for a a specific perceived problem, such as flatness and horizen.