Hi,
I found this scientific paper that I believe is very well supported and is for me the most satisfying new cosmological development I ever read.
Cosmological Particle Production: A Review
(2021 December 7 // @ arXiv…)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.02444.pdf
… the way I read it, it provides an alternative explanation for the cosmological microwave background (CMB) and an alternative for the Big Bang.
There isn’t a link in your post, but it looks like you’re referring to this preprint. The article has been published in a peer reviewed journal paywall warning.
This is a review article, so it isn’t proposing anything new and is instead giving a summary of the current state of the field. These sorts of articles are typically written by someone who is deeply familiar with the subject. They’re also super useful if you’re learning about a new area - think of them as a short, relatively up-to-date textbook.
I’m not sure how you’re interpreting this review as an alternative to the standard model of cosmology and the Big Bang. Everything is pretty standard quantum field theory. The only mention of the CMB is in regards to the possibility that gravitons in the early universe would leave detectable signatures (anisotropies and polarization). They aren’t proposing an alternative production mechanism for the CMB.
How can you tell it’s a review? That sounds like an easy way to learn about a subject’s state-of-the-art, and I’d like to find more.
Haha it’s in the title: “Cosmological Particle Production: A Review”. Also the journal it was published in is for review articles: Reports on Progress in Physics. Mostly though the abstract promises to give a review of the subject.
Another indication is its lengthy (28 pages) with tons of citations throughout. If someone is doing new work, citations will mostly be in the introduction and discussion sections.
Okay, I’m denser than the subjects discussed in it. Thanks for the detailed explanation, it’s appreciated.