Not 42: A New Theory About the Universe & Everything
July 25, 2025 (original pu
by Jaymie Johhns
Origins
Inflation has remained the standard explanation for more than forty years. It proposes that in the earliest instant of the universe, space expanded at an extraordinary rate. This rapid expansion smoothed out irregularities and amplified quantum fluctuations, setting the stage for the formation of galaxies and clusters. The theory has been widely accepted because it solves several key problems and produces results that match observations of the cosmic microwave background.
But it also comes with problems of its own; inflation relies on a particle we have never found and may never be able to detect. The theory also allows for so many variations and adjustable parameters that it becomes nearly impossible to rule out. It explains everything by design, and that makes it difficult to challenge. In the eyes of many critics, that flexibility undermines its scientific credibility.
What has been missing is a theory that keeps what works, removes what cannot be tested, and offers predictions that future observations could confirm or reject.
Method
The new model comes from Raúl Jiménez, an ICREA scientist at the Institute of Cosmos Sciences in Barcelona, working alongside Daniele Bertacca, Sabino Matarrese, and Angelo Ricciardone from the University of Padua. Their proposal begins, not with an explosive singularity, but with something called De Sitter space, a kind of smooth, expanding environment governed by a cosmological constant.
In this environment, space is not silent. Even in the absence of matter, quantum mechanics predicts a constant buzz of activity: space fluctuates; those fluctuations give rise to gravitational waves, which are small ripples in space itself. These waves interact in ways that are nonlinear, meaning they can reinforce or distort each other. Over time, the resulting imbalances create real differences in energy density. Eventually, those differences collapse under gravity and form the seeds of galaxies.
The result is a model that produces structure without requiring an inflaton or a reheating phase. It uses only the laws of physics that have already been tested and confirmed. The authors describe this as a return to first principles.
Predictions
What makes this theory especially important is not just what it leaves out, but what it can still explain. The authors outline specific patterns that should appear in the cosmic microwave background and in the behavior of large-scale structures in the universe. These predictions are not vague. They can be tested by current and upcoming instruments, including the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission and NASA’s planned gravitational wave observatory, known as LISA.
Unlike many versions of inflation, which offer wide flexibility, this model is constrained. If the signals it predicts are not found, the theory fails. That is a strength, not a weakness. Science needs theories that can be proven wrong.
Criticism
Some scientists have raised concerns about the theory’s reliance on ideas that are still theoretical, such as the quantum nature of gravity. Others point out that it does not explain why De Sitter space existed in the first place. It describes how structure formed but does not address the question of origin. These are fair critiques, and they echo similar concerns raised about inflation itself.
Even so, this new approach represents a shift. Rather than stacking new assumptions onto a model that already depends on unverified forces, it strips the framework back to the physics we know. It does not claim to solve everything. It simply makes a case for what might be possible when speculation is set aside.
Perspective
There is also a cultural dimension that should not be ignored. Religious belief is often mocked for depending on ancient texts and unseen forces. Yet in physics, we are asked to place our trust in signals that are billions of years old, and in fields and particles that cannot be observed. The two are not equivalent, but the contrast is striking. When belief is dressed in equations, it is called intelligence; when it is dressed in scripture, it is dismissed.
This new theory does not collapse that divide, but it does make it harder to ignore. It reminds us that science, at its best, should rely on what we can measure, not what we imagine. Simpler is not always better, but it is often more honest.
Discipline
The model from Jiménez and his team is not flashy; it does not reach for elegance or excitement, but rather stays aligned with known physics and asks only to be tested. That distinction is not just scientific; it’s moral — in a field where creativity often outpaces credibility, this kind of clarity matters.
The theory may turn out to be wrong. But if it is right, it would show that gravity and quantum mechanics alone may be enough to explain how the universe grew from almost nothing into everything we see. That is not a lesser story; it’s wondrous in a different way.
Awakening
If the predictions outlined in this paper are confirmed, the change will not be dramatic or loud. It will be quiet and fundamental. A theory that many believed was essential may turn out to be optional. The textbooks will need to be rewritten. The standard story will need to be reconsidered. And science, once again, will be reminded that truth does not always require a new idea. Sometimes, it only requires us to take a second look at what we already know.
Isn’t inflation demonstrable, though?
Maybe I’m not smart enough to understand this.
Nice hgtg reference