Talk:Cosmic inflation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cosmic inflation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Cosmic inflation was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 1, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 22, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 17, 2014. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Cosmology High‑importance Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Cosmology task force. Physics: Relativity High‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force.

On 21 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Inflation (cosmology) to Cosmic inflation. The result of the discussion was moved.

Rewrite of "Theory" section.

I plan to rewrite the Theory section. The current section is poorly sourced: we should be referencing standard cosmology textbooks. The structure is ok but the first 'intro' subsection is too long. Its only job should be to review the three motivations and point to expansion as the proposed solution. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Defects and phase transitions.

I added a section on the effect of the WMAP measurements on the acceptance of inflation vs topological defects. This based on Smeenk and it matches other things I've read. However the last bit of Smeenk on this topic suggests that the defect-after-phase-transition thing could operate in conjunction with inflation, something I've also read elsewhere. So I'd like to find a source that clarifies this story. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Concept" section

"A distance of 1 cm expanded to a distance more than 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon.  All of the mass-energy in all of the galaxies currently visible started in a sphere with a radius around 4 x 10^-29m then grew to a sphere with a radius around 0.9m by the end of inflation."

At least one of these expansion examples is off by many orders of magnitude. Clive tooth (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did verify that the sources says this. The Earth Moon distance is 4x10⁸m times 20 works to 1.6x10¹⁰m which matches the source claim of 10 billion meters. The Cox/Forshaw uses a time of 4x10^-36s. The ratio the 1cm and 10 billion meters is ${\displaystyle 10^{12}}$, about 6-8 orders of magnitude too small. Earth - Sun would still be 3 orders short.

Ryden seems to use time equal to ${\displaystyle (N+1)t_{\textrm {GUT}}-t_{\textrm {GUT}}}$ where N is the number of "n-foldings" around 60 and the time is ${\displaystyle 10^{-36}}$. The minimum scale factor ratio for inflation is ${\displaystyle 10^{26}}$. Dodelson uses ${\displaystyle 10^{28}}$. Kolb and Turner have several different models, but they confirm the 60 e-foldings minimum. Zee gives similar numbers.

So the Cox/Forshaw must be a misprint/error. I will remove the Cox/Forshaw, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw your "about 6-8 orders of magnitude too small", it crossed my mind that changing a single letter the Cox/Forshaw quote would rescue it:

"A distance of 1 nm expanded to..."

Of course, I have no idea if this was their intention. 92.29.146.69 (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in some source I read while double checking this I saw "subatomic distances" as the referent so maybe they meant 1nm.

It is very difficult to come up with a comparison for 26 orders of magnitude. The attractive feature of "Earth to Moon" is its seeming everydayness, but do you feel you know how far away the Moon is? An I'm not sure 1nm is helpful for the lower side for that reason.

Maybe "100 trillion-trillion times"? At least it seems been to me ;-) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A nanometer would expand to about 10 light years during cosmic expansion.

But the nanometer is very far from "subatomic distances". And talking about a nanometer sphere expanding may give the impression that such a sphere existed at the start of cosmic expansion. Whereas we have no idea (and may never know) if such a huge sphere existed then.

A ball-park way of thinking of it is a sphere with a radius of about one trillionth of the radius of a proton expanding to a 1 meter radius sphere. 92.29.146.69 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[For some reason I had been writing "expansion" instead of "inflation".] 2.100.155.145 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]