Website:- learn.naxxatra.

com
Email:- connect@naxxatra.com

Inflationary Theory: Putting the Bang in Big

Bang

Julie Jacob Thomas1 , Nagashree S2 , Srinidhi Murali3

1
Mar Ivanios College (Autonomous), Thiruvananthapuram
2,3
Christ University, Bangalore

July 2021

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We extend our sincerest gratitude to Naxxatra Sciences for this opportunity as
well as for providing us with the necessary resources to complete this course. We
are extremely grateful to Sitara Srinivasan for her personal guidance and
contagious enthusiasm towards our group’s project. We are also incredibly
grateful to Sagar C. for his tenacity in organising this course efficiently as well as
to Vikranth Pulamathi for his generosity in sharing his insightful knowledge of
the LaTeX software.
 Abstract
The big bang theory has been widely regarded as the best model to
explain the evolution of the universe. The theory is supported by strong
observational evidence of high accuracy, particularly in the form of the
cosmic microwave background radiation. However, the big bang model
could not explain a few key characteristics of the universe, namely its
homogeneity and its flatness. In the cosmology community, these are
referred to as the horizon problem and the flatness problem. Both of
these are fine-tuning problems, problems that require initial conditions
of the universe to be fine-tuned to extremely high degrees of precision
that even a tiny fraction of a deviation from these conditions could
result in a completely different universe than what we know today.
In an attempt to resolve these, Alan Guth came up with the ’Inflation
theory’ which resulted from slight modifications to the big bang theory.
It spoke of an exponential expansion of space-time at the beginning
of the universe. This assumption was enough to solve a number of
problems, including the above-mentioned. This paper is an attempt at
understanding the structure of cosmic inflation, and how it is able to
solve the two problems in a simple, yet intriguing fashion.

1 Introduction
Years of precise observations and measurements have put the age of the universe
at 13.772 ± 0.040 billion years. Working backwards, we have been able to put
a time stamp on almost all of the events that we believe were instrumental in
shaping the universe into what we observe today. In 1915, Einstein came up with
his general theory of relativity and gave a set of field equations that were able to
explain few properties of the universe, namely gravity, curvature and the space-
time continuum.
In 1922, Alexander Friedmann was successful in solving Einstein’s field equa-
tions and obtained a solution for an expanding/contracting universe by giving
his own set of equations, namely the Friedmann equations. In 1927, Belgian
astronomer Georges Lemaı̂tre derived independently the expression relating the
recession of galaxies (redshifted) to their distance from the observers, thereby
hinting at an expanding universe. Two years later, American astronomer Edwin
Hubble experimentally verified the same, and this proportionality between the re-
cessional velocity and the distance to the observed galaxies came to be known as
the Hubble-Lemaı̂tre Law, given by the following equation:

v = H0 D (1)

1
where v is the recessional velocity of the observed galaxy and D is the proper
distance (the distance at which the observed galaxy is present at a specific instant
of cosmological time, which may change with the expansion of the universe). H0
is the proportionality constant known as the Hubble’s constant whose value is
approximately given to be 74km/s/Mpc. This basically states that the universe is
expanding 74km/s faster for every increasing unit mega parsec distance.
But what is the significance of the expanding universe? Why couldn’t it be
static? Did it have a beginning? Has it been the same throughout its lifetime?
All of these questions were answered satisfactorily by Einstein’s theory of gravity.

2 Einstein’s theory of gravity

We know that Einstein’s field equations take the form
1 8πG
Rµν − Rgµν + Λgµν = 4 Tµν (2)
2 c
where Rµν is the Ricci curvature tensor, gµν is the metric tensor and Λ is
the cosmological constant which represents dark energy. Friedmann solved the
field equations and derived two independent solutions known as the Friedmann
equations. They are given as follows:
 ȧ 2 8πGρ kc2 Λc2
= − 2 + (3)
a 3 a 3
ä −4πG 3p Λc2
= (ρ + 2 ) + (4)
a 3 c 3
where a = a(t) is the scale factor of the universe, G is the gravitational constant,
ρ is the energy density, k is the spatial curvature, and p is the pressure. From the
Friedmann model, we define the factor ȧ/a to be the Hubble parameter H.
Now Einstein’s theory of gravity states that gravity is not really a force; it is
an inherent property of space-time itself and is created by properties like energy
density and pressure. Gravity bends the space-time fabric (the universe is assumed
to be like a sheet of fabric where objects create some sort of a depression in it,
making the space around them curved) around massive objects and gives us some
form of curvature. It also gives explanations justifying that the universe is dynamic
in nature. Some of them are as follows -

• The distance between any two points in space-time is given by

(dL)2 = (a(t))2 ((dx)2 + (dy)2 + (dz)2 ) (5)

2
 This somehow looks like the classical pythagorean formula, except for the
time-dependent factor a(t). This means that the distance between any two
points in space isn’t fixed and depends on the scale factor. Hence, the uni-
verse cannot be static.

• Secondly, the Friedmann equation (3) can be simplified by applying Λ = 0,

k = 0 and c = 1 (as is usually done in cosmology), which reduces to
 ȧ 2 8πG
H2 = = ρ (6)
a 3
So Einstein’s theory says that if we put a certain energy density in space,
it has a direct effect on the rate at which the scale factor changes (this can
be thought of as the rate at which the distance between any two points in
space-time changes with time). Here, we don’t have information about the
sign associated with ȧ; it could be positive or negative, which would imply
that the universe could be expanding or contracting. But if we put ȧ = 0,
it means that ρ = 0; i.e. if there is a finite value of energy density in space,
then the space cannot be static.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble experimentally observed the spectrum emitted by dis-

tant galaxies and they were found to be red-shifted, which meant that they were
moving away from us. This justified the idea of an expanding universe.
But what do we know about the rate of expansion?
Applying the same simplification to equation (4) as we did previously, we get the
equation for acceleration
ä −4πG
= (ρ + 3p) (7)
a 3
The equation is quite significant and we’ll get back to this soon, once we establish
the prerequisites.

3 The Big Bang Model

From the above discussion, we can interpret the size of the universe to be propor-
tional to the scale factor a(t). Owing to several years of observations, we now know
how exactly the universe has been expanding, and this can be shown through the
following graphical representation.

3
 Figure 1: The variation of scale factor with time

The graph tells us that at some instant in the early stages of the universe, the
scale factor was extremely small, which means that any two distant points in the
present universe would be extremely close to each other. Extending this logic,
we come to the idea that due to the compressed space-time, the universe must
have been extremely hot and dense, with temperatures of the order of > 1026 K.
At this stage, we didn’t have any of the matter that we see today; no stars, no
galaxies, not even single atoms. All that was present were elementary particles
like electrons, quarks etc. This was the radiation-dominated era.
The photons which were emitted during that time underwent numerous col-
lisions with the particles, and ultimately weren’t able to travel long distances,
resulting in a hot, dense and opaque universe. As the universe expanded and
cooled down, the temperature dropped, quarks formed protons and neutrons, and
the electrons combined with them to form the first neutral atoms. Initially, hy-
drogen and helium were formed in abundance, with traces of lithium. Now as the
universe expanded, these hydrogen gas atoms and molecules became diluted due
to the excess volume, and this allowed the photons to travel long distances without
any collisions; all this taking place when the universe was about 375,000 years old.
For the first time, the universe turned transparent.

3.1 The Cosmic Microwave Background

In 1964, two radio astronomers Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias who were working
at Bell Labs, caught a mysterious noise humming across all parts of the sky at
all times. They were quite puzzled, for obvious reasons, more so because the
noise was consistent even after removing all possible sources of interference. They
didn’t realise, that this noise had the answers to understanding the origins of
the universe. They had stumbled upon what we now call the ’cosmic microwave
background ’ (also called the big bang echo), the same light signal that had started

4
its journey when the universe was 375,000 years. Physicists refer to this as the
’surface of last scattering’. The signal which had initially started out as visible
light, was now found to be peaking in the microwave spectrum, its wavelength
stretched due to the expansion of the universe. This background noise is basically
a black body radiation (electromagnetic) which is completely uniform throughout
the sky in all directions and has a measured temperature of 2.725K. Incidentally,
this is the most perfect black body spectrum that we have come across, as the CMB
measurement exactly matches the black body distribution curve. This uniformity
meant that the universe was perfectly homogeneous and isotropic.

3.1.1 Homogeneity and Isotropy

Homogeneity and isotropy are the properties by which the universe seems uniform
throughout, through translation and rotation of systems in it.This means that the
universe would look the same in all directions and have the same energy-mass
density distribution throughout all of space-time. This was basically given as the
Cosmological principle.

Figure 2: Temperature map of the CMB

CMB measurements are basically temperature maps (see fig (2)) of each pho-
ton that we can detect from the early universe. The temperature map obtained by
COBE in the 1990’s showed a completely uniform map with no difference in tem-
perature whatsoever between any points in space. Further observations showed
that the temperature was the same at all points up to one part in 10−4 ! This was
insanely uniform, considering the state of the universe in its early stages. Improve-
ments in technology were followed by better mapping of the CMB by WMAP and
then by the Planck mapping, which shows us anisotropies corresponding to 1 part
in 10−5 . These anisotropies have helped us understand the formation of matter in
the early universe.
The CMB provided strong evidence in support of the big bang model. De-
spite this, the model had some major problems. These come about as serious

5
shortcomings of the big bang model and form the crux of our discussion in this
paper.

4 Shortcomings of the Big Bang Model

The Big Bang model, though observationally sound, had major issues, the most
important ones being the horizon problem and the flatness problem. Both of these
are cosmological fine-tuning problems i.e., problems arising out of the fact that
certain parameters had to be adjusted extremely precisely in order to fit with
observations. Inflation theory, which we will look at in detail in later sections,
proposes explanations to these fine-tuning problems.

4.1 The Horizon Problem

The first problem that was encountered with the Standard Big Bang Model is what
is called the horizon problem, sometimes also called the homogeneity problem. It
was first discovered by Wolfgang Rindler in 1956. The horizon problem essentially
refers to the inability of the Standard Big Bang Model to explain the apparent
homogeneity of the universe at large enough scales.
To understand the horizon problem in depth, let us look into the concept of
horizons. Suppose r is the maximum distance to which a light ray which started
at the big bang (at t = 0) can reach. Then,
Z t
cdt
r= (8)
0 a(t)

where r is called the comoving radius, c is the speed of light in vacuum and a(t)
is the scale factor at time t.
Here, r is the maximum (coordinate) distance at time t up to which an observer
can receive information and it marks the particle horizon. No information beyond
r can reach us at the instant t.
We can calculate the physical distance (or proper distance) to the horizon,
DHorizon , by multiplying equation (8) by the scale factor,
Z t
cdt
DHorizon = a(t)r(t) = a(t) (9)
0 a(t)

It is possible to obtain DHorizon in terms of angular separation, and it has been

calculated for the present time to be around 2◦ .
Thus, any two points in the cosmic microwave background that are separated
by a distance greater than r (or any two points having angular separation greater
than 2◦ ) lie outside each other’s horizons and are therefore causally disconnected.

6
However, as stated earlier, the CMB radiation coming from all directions shows
that it is almost perfectly homogeneous and isotropic. This is only possible if all
parts of the sky have been causally connected long enough for it to reach thermal
equilibrium.
To illustrate further, consider a galaxy that is 10 billion light years from us in
one direction and another galaxy that is 10 billion light years from us, but in the
opposite direction in the sky. The total distance between the two galaxies would be
20 billion light years. The estimated age of the universe is 13.8 billion years, which
would mean that these two galaxies are causally disconnected; in other words, the
two galaxy have never communicated with each other (as it would require light to
travel faster than 3 × 108 m/s to do so) and the two regions must therefore have
very different properties. Observationally, this is of course not the case. There has
to be another mechanism at work that allowed causally disconnected parts of the
universe to reach thermal equilibrium and attain homogeneity and isotropy.
Now, we can calculate the horizon distance from equation (9) for the radiation-
dominated and matter-dominated eras.
In the radiation-dominated era, a(t) ∝ t1/2 . Hence,
Z t
1/2 cdt
DHorizon (t) = t 1/2
= 2ct (10)
0 t

In the matter-dominated era, a(t) ∝ t2/3 . Hence,

Z t
2/3 cdt
DHorizon (t) = t 2/3
= 3ct (11)
0 t

Now, modifying equation (9), we obtain the physical distance to the source of
the CMB radiation detected uniformly across the sky as,
Z to
cdt
DCM B (te ) = a(te ) (12)
te a(t)

where te is the time at which the cosmic microwave radiations were emitted
and to is the time at which it is observed.
Hence, at the time of emission, the distance of separation between two diamet-
rically opposite points in the sky will be,

Dsep (te ) = 2DCM B (te ) (13)

At the time of emission, the size of the horizon from equation (9) is,
Z te
cdt
DHorizon (te ) = a(te ) (14)
0 a(t)

7
 To check whether the two points in the sky emitting cosmic microwave radiation
are causally connected, let us calculate the ratio of the distance of separation
between the two points Dsep to the physical size of the horizon DHorizon (te ) at the
time of emission. If the ratio is greater than 1, the two points lie in each other’s
horizons and if it is greater than 1, they lie outside of each other’s horizon and no
signal from an intermediate point could have reached both regions.
R t cdt
Dsep (te ) 2a(te ) teo a(t)
= R t cdt (15)
DHorizon (te ) a(te ) 0 e a(t)
To calculate this ratio, consider the case of the matter-dominated universe.
Modifying equation (11) for the limit te to to , we calculate Dsep as,
Z to !
cdt a(te )  t 1/3
e
Dsep (te ) = 2a(te ) = 2 · 3ct0 1− (16)
te a(t) a(t0 ) to
And DHorizon (te ) as,
Z te
cdt a(te )  te 1/3
DHorizon (te ) = a(te ) = 3ct0 (17)
0 a(t) a(t0 ) to
Hence, the ratio can be calculated to be,
!
Dsep (te )  t 1/3
e
=2 −1 (18)
DHorizon (te ) to
 1/3
t0
We can write te
in terms of redshift z as,

a(t0 )  te 2/3
1+z = = (19)
a(te ) to
 t 1/3
0
or = (1 + z)1/2 (20)
te
Applying equation(20) to equation (18, we get the ratio in terms of redshift z as,

Dsep (te ) 
1/2

= 2 (1 + z) − 1 (21)
DHorizon (te )
Current estimates put the value of redshift at the time of the emission of CMB
radiation at z = 1500. Thus, applying to equation (21), we can see that the
separation distance Dsep (te ) is about 80 times the size of the horizon DHorizon (te ).
Thus, at the time of emission of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the
two points lied at separations far outside each other’s horizons.

8
4.2 The Flatness Problem
The flatness problem deals with the fact that the universe is globally flat, which
doesn’t seem to be much of a issue, but the problem arises when we understand
that this has an extremely low probability of occurrence. When physicists observed
the curvature of the universe, it suggested a very fine tuned specific value of density
of energy and matter in the early universe, equal to the critical density ρc . This
critical density is the threshold value of the energy density in the universe above
which it would be closed (positive curvature), and below which it would be open
(negative curvature). But if the energy density is exactly equal to the critical
density, we have a flat universe, and this is precisely what was observed.
The shape of the universe is dictated by the value of Ω which is the ratio of
observed density ρ to the critical density ρc . From our previous discussion, we
know that the obtained value of Ω is extremely close to 1 (ρ/ρc ≈ 1 if ρ ≈ ρc ).
According to big bang theory, the value of Ω being so close to 1 in the present
day universe would mean that the energy density at the time of the big bang was
extremely close to the critical density, deviating by 1 part in 1062 or lesser. This is
necessary because any tiny deviation from the critical density would be amplified
with time. We can talk about three possible cases here -
Case 1: If Ω < 1 : As the universe expands, this value eventually reaches 0
and we end up with an open universe. Ω −→ 0 would imply ρ −→ 0, which means
that no matter would have formed. An open universe would just keep expanding
forever to infinity.
Case 2: If Ω > 1 : As the universe expands, this value would rapidly increase
and go to infinity after a long period of time. Due to infinite energy density, by
the action of gravity, the universe would collapse onto itself. This is termed as the
’Big Crunch’.
Case 3: If Ω = 1 : In this case, the energy density is exactly equal to the critical
density and the universe is in a state of constant expansion, neither accelerating
nor decelerating which can be assumed to stop sometime in the future. Now this
possibility is highly unlikely, considering that the value of Ω must remain equal to
1 forever throughout the expansion, but that is exactly what we have found.
Let us understand the idea of a flat geometry in this way; consider a triangle
in the early universe when the value of Ω is assumed to be 1 (flat). The sum of
its internal angles will be 180◦ . Now let the universe expand and consider the
same triangle in the present day universe. The sum of its angles would be much
greater than 180◦ for a positive curvature and much lesser than 180◦ for a negative
curvature; scientists predicted that either of the two was possible. But observations
showed that the angles summed up to 180◦ , accurate to many decimal places! This
was something that no one had expected, and it verified that the universe was
indeed perfectly flat.

9
 General relativity, through Friedmann equations gives the relationship between
mass density and geometry of space. As space expands the geometry gets flatter.
The universe gets larger, but as it gets larger it becomes less dense as matter
spreads out. So how exactly did the energy density attain the magical value of
the critical density? The big bang theory didn’t have the answer and hence, we
turned to Inflation theory.

5 Inflation Theory
In 1980, physicist Alan Guth proposed a new theory as a modification to the
standard big bang model, with a possibility of explaining the two problems in
a simple, yet uncharacteristic fashion. He proposed the idea of an exponential
expansion, one that was much, much faster than the expansion predicted by the
big bang model at the beginning of the universe; and by beginning, we mean
within the first second of its existence. This period of rapid transient expansion
at the beginning of the universe (<1s) is known as Cosmic Inflation, and this was
believed by many as the only solution to the horizon problem, flatness problem
and many others.
Inflationary theory states that the universe expanded by a factor valued be-
tween e50 and e100 in between t = 10−36 s and t = 10−32 s of its existence, also
known as the ’inflationary epoch’. Now t = 0s is assumed to be a singularity as
predicted by the big bang model, where neither space nor time existed. Ideally,
a singularity is a finite amount of matter compressed into an infinitesimal region
with infinite density and pressure. The extremes being as stated, it’s quite hard
to comprehend how the universe emerged out of a region of infinite energy density,
because that would mean infinite gravity. Here is where our classical intuition
breaks down, and we enter the world of general relativity.
From equation (7), if the acceleration is to be positive, then the term in the
brackets (ρ + 3p) must be negative. We know that energy density ρ cannot be
negative, and hence,
1
ρ + 3p < 0 =⇒ p < − ρ (22)
3
Hence, we need the universe to be filled with a negative pressure component that
momentarily inflates the universe within the above mentioned fraction of time,
and then decay in order to form the matter that we see today. This negative
pressure entity is known as the Inflaton field. For inflation to take place, we need
the following conditions too be satisfied :

• A negative pressure substance should fill the universe at the inflationary

epoch

10
 • It needs to be transient

• It should decay immediately after this phase, making the universe transit
from exponential acceleration to the normal decelerated expansion predicted
by the big bang model

• The decay must provide energy for the formation of elementary particles -
a process called reheating. This should be followed by the experimentally
verified plasma phase predicted by the big bang model.

5.1 The Inflaton field

Figure 3: The Inflaton field potential representation

The inflaton field is basically a scalar field, characterized by its energy density and
pressure, defined as follows
1
ρφ = (φ̇)2 + V (φ) (23)
2
1
pφ = (φ̇)2 − V (φ) (24)
2
where the first term is the kinetic energy that gives the motion of the scalar field
and the second term is the potential energy which is the height of the scalar field.
We have already established that a negative pressure is needed for inflation.
So
1
pφ = (φ̇)2 − V (φ) < 0 =⇒ (φ̇)2 < V (φ) (25)
2
This is the necessary condition for inflation to take place.
The graph shows the scalar field to be rolling down slowly across its potential
until a certain point, after which it drops drastically to its minimum. Now as it
rolls down, inflation takes place as long as the scalar field satisfies (25) i.e., the
height much higher than the velocity. Now if we want the field to roll slowly, we

11
need the potential to not go down steeply, as that would result in the violation of
(25). This is taken care of by the equation governing the the motion of the scalar
field
φ̈ + 3H φ̇ + V 0 (φ) = 0 (26)
If we look at this closely, we observe that this is something like a simple harmonic
motion. Here, φ̈ is the acceleration term, V 0 (φ) is the force that is pulling the
field towards the steep slope, and H φ̇ is some sort of friction imposed by the
expanding universe. This friction takes away some energy (kinetic) from the field;
if the expansion is high, the friction is high, resulting in a slow-roll inflation, which
further allows inflation to take place. Hence, even if there exists a steep potential,
the frictional component is high enough to keep the field in the state of rolling
slow.
This being said, we need the inflation to be transient in nature; it has to end in
order to start the hot big bang phase. After a certain point φend , the field starts to
roll fast and the inflation ends in accordance with (25). The hot big bang plasma
phase begins and expansion decelerates to our observed value.
Now that we have a brief understanding of the inflation theory, let us look at
how it solves the horizon and flatness problems.

5.2 How Does Inflation Resolve the Horizon Problem?

In simple terms, inflation theory argues that all the regions of the sky were in close
proximity in the beginning. Rapid expansion during the inflationary epoch caused
these regions to move away from each other but still retain their homogeneity. As
explained in the previous section, the inflationary model of the universe argues
that the universe underwent rapid expansion at an exponential rate from 1036 to
10−32 seconds after the big bang.
During the inflationary epoch, the energy density of the universe is constant
and remains unchanged by the expansion of space. Consider (6),
 ȧ 2 8πG
H2 = = ρ
a 3
Solving it, we obtain,
a(t) = CeHt (27)
p
where H = 8πG/3. It is clear from equation (27) that the scale factor in-
creases exponentially, leading to an exponentially rapid expansion of the universe.
Consider the expression for DHorizon at the time of emission te in equation (14),
Z te
cdt
DHorizon (te ) = a(te )
0 a(t)

12
 Let us use this equation to calculate how much the horizon expanded at the
end of the inflationary epoch.
Z tend
cdt
Dend (tend ) = a(tend ) (28)
tbegin a(t)

where tbegin and tend are the times at which the inflationary epoch began and
ended respectively.
Applying the exponential form of a(t) obtained in equation (27) and solving
equation (28), we get,

ceHtend
Dend (tend ) = (29)
H
For 100 e-foldings, we obtain the physical size of the horizon at the end of
inflationary epoch as,

ce100
Dend (tend ) = ≈ 1019 cm (30)
H
Now, the radius of the present observable universe (or the physical size of its
horizon in the present day) can be calculated to be 3ct = 1028 cm and at the end of
the inflationary epoch, a(t) was 10−27 times smaller than its present value. Hence,
the physical size of the universe at the end of the inflationary epoch was about
10cm. This is well within the size of the horizon calculated in equation (30).
In conclusion, prior to the inflationary epoch, the tiny regions of space were
causally connected and had reached thermal equilibrium. During the inflationary
epoch, these regions were blown up to occupy astronomical volumes in space that
were previously assumed to be outside of each other’s horizons. These regions were
in fact within each other’s horizons during the inflationary period, neatly solving
the once puzzling horizon problem.

5.3 How Does Inflation Resolve the Flatness Problem?

The basic crux of the inflation theory is that inflation took place through an
inflaton field, that would permeate all of space-time at the time of the big bang
phase. Now unlike the big bang expansion that dilutes the energy density in space
with time, inflation keeps the energy density ρ of the field constant throughout. So
even if the value of Ω deviated a bit, this exponential expansion would basically
force it to get close to 1. This can be understood better by manipulating the
Friedmann equation. The mathematical reasoning of the above arguments is as
follows -

13
 Consider the Friedmann equation (3). Putting Λ = 0 (no existence of dark
energy at the time of the big bang), we get

8πG kc2
H2 = ρ− 2 (31)
3 a
We know that k represents spatial curvature and takes values k = +1, −1, 0 for
positive curvature, negative curvature and flat geometry respectively. Now that
we have established a flat geometry for the universe, put k = 0 and ρ now equals
ρc . Solving for ρc ,
3H 2
ρc = (32)
8πG
Multiplying equation (31) by (3a2 /8πG) on both sides, we get,

3a2 2 3kc2
H = ρa2 − (33)
8πG 8πG
substituting for ρc in the above equation,

3kc2
ρc a2 − ρa2 = − (34)
8πG
Taking ρa2 common from the LHS of the above equation,

ρc 3kc2
ρa2 ( − 1) = − (35)
ρ 8πG
ρ
By definition Ω = ρc
3kc2
(Ω−1 − 1)ρa2 = − (36)
8πG
The RHS of the equation (36) is a constant. During cosmic inflation, the scale
factor a increases exponentially, and hence the ρa2 term in the LHS of the equation
(36) also increases exponentially. Now this happens in a fraction of a second as
discussed earlier, hence in order to keep the RHS constant, the term (Ω−1 − 1)
should rapidly go to 0.

Ω−1 − 1 −→ 0 =⇒ Ω −→ 1 (37)
From (37), cosmic inflation directly results in a flat universe, hence solving the
problem.

14
6 Conclusions
In this article, we discussed Alan Guth’s inflation theory and how it solves the two
major shortcomings of the standard big bang model: the horizon problem and the
flatness problem. Inflation proposes a period of extremely rapid expansion which
lasted from t = 10−36 s to t = 10−32 s after the onset of the big bang. While big
bang describes a slowly expanding universe, inflation talks of a period of expansion
at unimaginably high speeds. It quite literally puts the bang in big bang!
The horizon problem arises out of the big bang’s inability to account for the
observed homogeneity of causally disconnected parts the universe at large scales.
Inflation solves this by showing that regions in space that appear to be causally
disconnected were in fact causally in contact long enough to reach thermal equi-
librium just before inflation began.
The flatness problem arises out of the fact that our universe satisfies the ex-
tremely fine-tuned condition of equal energy and critical densities (or their ratio
Ω = 1) for flatness, as it would require the value of Ω at the time of big bang
to be equal to 1 with an accuracy of one part in 1062 . Inflation comes to the
rescue again by explaining that during the inflationary epoch, rapid exponential
expansion would have smoothed out Ω to its current value. Both of the proposed
explanations are supported by sound mathematical reasoning.
Inflation occurs due to a negative pressure component of the universe known
as the inflaton field. However, the exact nature of the inflaton field is not fully
understood. Inflation theory is a subject of intense debate in the cosmology com-
munity although it is now widely accepted. The big bang theory, combined with
inflation, is currently the best explanation we have for why our universe is the way
it is.

References
[1] Roberta Brawer. Inflationary Cosmology and the Horizon and Flatness Prob-
lems: The Mutual Constitution of Explanation and Questions. PhD thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), February 1996.

[2] Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. vi. cosmological parameters. As-
tronomy & Astrophysics, August 2020.

[3] K.N. Abazajian et al. Inflation physics from the cosmic microwave background
and large scale structure. Astroparticle Physics, 63:55–65, 2015.

[4] Alan H. Guth. Infiationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and
fiatness problems. Physical Review D, 23(2), January 1981.

15
 [5] R. Gannouji L. Castiblanco and C. Stahl. Large scale structures: from infla-
tion to today: a brief report, October 2019.

[6] Jerome Martin. Cosmic inflation: Trick or treat?, February 2019.

[7] R. W. Penzias, A. A. & Wilson. A measurement of excess antenna temperature

at 4080 mc/s. Astrophysical Journal, 142:419–421, 1965.

[8] W. Rindler. Visual horizons in world models. Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, 116:662, 1956.

[9] Leonardo Senatore. Lectures on inflation. September 2016.

[10] Shinji Tsujikawa. Introductory review of cosmic inflation, April 2003.

[11] Konstantinos Xenos. An Introduction to FRW Cosmology and dark energy

models. PhD thesis, University of Patras, January 2021.

16