Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 338

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 access
Ijjas, Anna, Steinhardt, Paul J., Loeb, Abraham·2013·Physics Letters B

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.023

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 338

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.