The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
Open accessAbstract
Recent results from the Planck satellite combined with earlier observations from WMAP, ACT, SPT and other experiments eliminate a wide spectrum of more complex inflationary models and favor models with a single scalar field, as reported by the Planck Collaboration. More important, though, is that all the simplest inflaton models are disfavored statistically relative to those with plateau-like potentials. We discuss how a restriction to pl ateau-like models has three independent serious drawbacks: it exacerbates both the initial conditions problem and the multiverse-unpredictability problem and it creates a new diffi culty that we call the inflationary “unlikeliness problem.” Finally, we comment o n problems reconciling inflation with a standard model Higgs , as suggested by recent LHC results. In sum, we find that recent ex perimental data disfavors all the best-motivated inflation ary scenarios and introduces new, serious diffi culties that cut to the core of the inflationary paradigm. For thcoming searches for B-modes, nonGaussianity and new particles should be decisive. The Planck satellite data reported in 2013 [1] shows with high precision that we live in a remarkably simple universe. The measured spatial curvature is small; the spectrum of fluc tuations is nearly scale-invariant; there is a small spectr al tilt, consistent with there having been a simple dynamical mechanism that caused the smoothing and flattening; and the fluctuations are nearly Gaussian, eliminating exotic and complicated dynamical possibilities, such as inflationary models with n oncanonical kinetic energy and multiple fields. (In this Lette r, we will not discuss the marginal deviations from isotropy on large scales reported by the Planck Collaboration [2].) The results not only impose tight quantitative constraints on all cosmological parameters [3], but, qualitatively, they call for a cos mological paradigm whose simplicity and parsimony matches the nature of the observed universe. The Planck Collaboration attempted to make this point by describing the data as supporting the simplest inflationary models [4, 5, 6]. However, the models most favored by their data (combined with earlier results from WMAP, ACT, SPT and other observations [7]) are simple by only one criterion: an inflat on potential with a single scalar field su ffi ces to fit the data. By several other important criteria described in this Letter, the favored models are anything but simple: Namely, they suffer from exacerbated forms of initial conditions and multiverse problems, and they create a new diffi culty that we call the inflationary “unlikeliness problem.” That is, the favored inflaton potentia ls are exponentially unlikely according to the logic of the inflati onary paradigm itself. The unlikeliness problem arises even if we ∗ Corresponding author
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems
Guth, A. H. (1981) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.347 · Cited by 9,983
A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity
Starobinsky, A. A. (1980) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-x · Cited by 7,677
Linde, A. D. (1982) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)91219-9 · Cited by 6,405
Cosmology for Grand Unified Theories with Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking
Albrecht, A., & Steinhardt, P. J. (1982) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.48.1220 · Cited by 4,981
Self-citationCosmological Inflation and Large-Scale Structure
Liddle, A. R., & Lyth, D. H. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139175180 · Cited by 2,317
Physical Foundations of Cosmology
Mukhanov, V. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790553 · Cited by 2,316
Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO
Degrassi, G., Di Vita, S., Elias-Miró, J., Espinosa, J. R., Giudice, G. F., Isidori, G., & Strumia, A. (2012) · Journal of High Energy Physics · doi:10.1007/jhep08(2012)098 · Cited by 1,524
Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant
Weinberg, S. (1987) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2607 · Cited by 1,166
Birth of inflationary universes
Vilenkin, A. (1983) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.27.2848 · Cited by 998
Cosmological implications of the Higgs mass measurement
Espinosa, J. R., Giudice, G. F., & Riotto, A. (2008) · Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/05/002 · Cited by 342
Initial conditions for inflation
Linde, A. D. (1985) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/0370-2693(85)90923-2 · Cited by 201
Cited by
Planck 2018 results: X. Constraints on inflation
Planck Collaboration, Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., Ashdown, M., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., Ballardini, M., Banday, A. J., Barreiro, R. B., Bartolo, N., et al. (2020) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833887 · Cited by 2,442
The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others
Adams, F. C. (2019) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.02.001 · Cited by 62
In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned?
Carroll, S. M. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1406.3057 · Cited by 87
“I won’t discuss this issue here, but for recent commentary see [28, 29, 30, 31].”
BackgroundAbdalla, E., Abellán, G. F., Aboubrahim, A., Agnello, A., Akarsu, Ö., Akrami, Y., Alestas, G., Aloni, D., Amendola, L., Anchordoqui, L. A., et al. (2022) · Journal of High Energy Astrophysics · doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 · Cited by 37
Desai, S., & Popławski, N. J. (2016) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.02.014 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P. J., & Loeb, A.
- Venue
- Physics Letters B
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 723
- Issue
- 4-5
- Pages
- 261-266
- ISSN
- 0370-2693 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117078172
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 23.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.