Initially starting as a solution to the problem of flatness in the early universe, cosmic inflation has become a central idea in modern cosmology. The key to its power comes from how well it can explain many features of the early universe where previous theories of the big bang could not. However, as Adam Koberinski writes, merely generating an explanation is not sufficient enough motivation for a scientific theory, and as a result our understanding of inflation, and therefore the early universe, is far more speculative than cosmology would like to admit.
One of the central virtues of science is that, beyond merely making predictions, it offers explanations for why the world appears to us as it does. This desire for explanation and understanding has its strongest pull in our most fundamental theories; physicists have long-sought a so-called theory of everything that would provide the ultimate explanation for the makeup of the universe. While such a theory is a long way away, recent advances in cosmology have allowed physicists to push our explanations of the universe back to fractions of a second “after” the big bang. Are we inching ever closer to fulfilling the rationalists’ dream of providing a necessary and sufficient condition for the universe as a whole? Or are there conceptual obstacles in the way?
Join the conversation