Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Nereid » Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:34 pm

Grits wrote:The big bang myth was invented by a belgian priest,

Sorry Grits, but that itself is also a myth.

What Georges Lemaître did was to propose what we'd today call a scientific model (the term "Big Bang" came from Fred Hoyle, many years later), and as a model for the creation of the universe it lasted only as long as the fundamental incompatibility of General Relativity and quantum mechanics remained unknown (which wasn't all that long).
so it's not surprising that it's seen as a "creation myth", it's essentially the genesis myth from the bible without mentioning god. Believers are quick to point out that no "origin event" is proposed, just a "winding back the clock" to approach the implied origin event. They are approaching lim -> t=0, so t=0 is implied.

That is incorrect; as science, cosmological models based on GR+electroweak+a theory of the strong interaction do not, and cannot, imply t=0; there is a very hard limit to how far back the extrapolation can be done (the Planck scale).
What's "well-established" about this "electroweak" force is that the fictional "weak force" vanishes at high enough energies (ionization).

That description bears no resemblance to the work (science) that earned Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979; how did you come to that conclusion?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Grits » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:24 pm

Nereid wrote:What Georges Lemaître did was to propose what we'd today call a scientific model


The "big bang" myth is not a scientific model. The scientific method requires several things, one of which is experimental verification. Experimental verification of "big bang" lies outside the realm of the possible, therefore "big bang" is not science.

The "big bang" myth is essentially identical (if you overlook the century of wishful thinking confabulation/elaboration of the idea) to the genesis myth from the bible without mentioning god.

That is incorrect; as science, cosmological models based on GR+electroweak+a theory of the strong interaction do not, and cannot, imply t=0; there is a very hard limit to how far back the extrapolation can be done (the Planck scale).


The "planck scale" was arbitrarily chosen based on current technological limits. Regardless, you can't escape the fact that "winding back the clock" to "big bang" entails the assumption that, if you can peer back far enough, t=0. All the attempts to "wind back the clock" in this fashion require t approaching 0, with "0 = big bang event" (creation myth). That this "planck scale" was arbitrarily chosen to be the limit of our capabilities is irrelevant, the implication is that we can "wind the clock back" to t=0 (or very very close to it).

That description bears no resemblance to the work (science) that earned Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979; how did you come to that conclusion?

Your appeal to this notion that winning a prize means you're doing good science is unwarranted. That said, here's a quote from one of your heroes there, Mr. Salam:

He once wrote: "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart."

It's no surprise this deluded religionist believes in the "big bang" creation myth.

Here's a quote from Mr. Glashow:

The wild ideas of yesterday quickly become today's dogma. This year I have been honored to participate in the inauguration of the Harvard Core Curriculum Program. My students are not, and will never be, scientists.

Interesting to note: "today's dogma" and "my students...will never be...scientists"

And here's the main point to drive home about their Nobel prize winning efforts:

This unified theory was governed by the exchange of four particles: the photon for electromagnetic interactions, a neutral Z particle and two charged W particles for weak interaction.

This is pretty typical of "big bang" believers, theoretical physicists, astronogers everywhere. Are you stuck because your model makes no sense? Just invent new "particles" or "forces" that take up the slack between your speculations and the observations. It's Ptolemy's epicycles all over again. This is already getting tedious and it seems I've just started here.
Grits
Guest
 

Re: is "weak" a real force or an imagined one?

Unread postby Grits » Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:28 pm

Nereid wrote:That description bears no resemblance to the work (science) that earned Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979; how did you come to that conclusion?

I thought this deserved a response all its own. It's your claim that my description bears no resemblance to the claims that won this Nobel prize. What exactly is "unification" of these two forces? It means one of them disappears. The "weak force" isn't even said to exist above a certain size scale. Electromagnetic forces aren't said to vanish on any scale. So which one of these "forces" should we abandon? The one we can generate, amplify, block and manipulate in any fashion, or this imaginary "weak force" that's only said to exist on certain scales and that we can NOT manipulate in any known fashion? I know where my money is laid.
Grits
Guest
 

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Aristarchus » Sat Dec 04, 2010 8:12 am

I would just like to add, because I've seen this mentioned on other threads on the TB forum, but we should not confuse interpretations of the Book of Genesis with what is proposed in the big bang theory. As commentary of the Saturn Myth have proposed, the Genesis myth could have been a historical rendering of what was actually witnessed in the sky, and explained in the kind of perception and language of the time - even though, I have also read how those adhering to the Qur’an have sought to seek the BB theory as conforming with the text of Genesis.

What Monsignor Georges Lemaître proposed to Einstein was based on the former seeking to comply with a doctrine of the Vatican, which was that of creatio ex nihilo, making the ideas found in the big bang theory at its inception removed outside of even the Genesis creation.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Nereid » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:41 am

Grits wrote:
Nereid wrote:What Georges Lemaître did was to propose what we'd today call a scientific model


The "big bang" myth is not a scientific model. The scientific method requires several things, one of which is experimental verification.

I think, then, that you and I have radically different views of science (or at least physics); I look forward to discussing these with you in a thread that I'm preparing to post, on the relationship between theory, experiment, observation, etc (at least in physics and astronomy).

Just for now: what is the experimental verification that the two strong green emission lines seen in the spectra of so many astronomical objects are due to electronic transitions of doubly ionised oxygen ions? After all, no such emission lines have ever been seen in any laboratory experiment! :o

The "planck scale" was arbitrarily chosen based on current technological limits.

Do you have a source for this?
Regardless, you can't escape the fact that "winding back the clock" to "big bang" entails the assumption that, if you can peer back far enough, t=0.

*I* don't need to do anything; cosmological models based on General Relativity and the Standard Model (of particle physics) are what they are, objectively, and they do not entail any such assumption.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Nereid » Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:23 am

I've just posted the first thread on this: Nature of astrophysics (I) - between theory and observation.
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Goldminer » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:19 pm

Nereid wrote:*I* don't need to do anything; cosmological models based on General Relativity and the Standard Model (of particle physics) are what they are, objectively, and they do not entail any such assumption.


Goldminer says prove it! Last I checked the General Theory of Relativity still had Theory in its title! I grant you that Einstein's ferverent adherents would like to remove the word. Ah! yes! the "Standard Model has no presumptions/ assumptions either? Somewhere, I remember a quote . . . Ah yes here it is

Albert his self wrote:"The important thing is not to stop questioning. If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the answer, I would spend the first 55 minutes figuring out the proper questions to ask. For if I knew the proper questions, I could solve the problem in less than 5 minutes. Question everything”
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Nereid » Wed Jan 12, 2011 1:52 am

Goldminer wrote:
Nereid wrote:*I* don't need to do anything; cosmological models based on General Relativity and the Standard Model (of particle physics) are what they are, objectively, and they do not entail any such assumption.


Goldminer says prove it!

Prove what, exactly, Goldminer?

That cosmological models based on General Relativity and the Standard Model (of particle physics) do not, objectively, entail "the assumption that, if you can peer back far enough, t=0"?
Nereid
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Goldminer » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:59 am

t=0 is the arbitrary beginning of a epoch, a reference point. If I am not mistaken the GPS system has reset the epoch from which it works a couple of times. The Hebrew calendar starts its epoch at a different point in time than the Georgian calendar. Winding time backwards is no more scientific than a pipe dream, and that my friend depends upon what you put in the pipe!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Tina » Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:35 am

Nereid wrote:
Grits wrote:
What Georges Lemaître did was to propose what we'd today call a scientific model (the term "Big Bang" came from Fred Hoyle, many years later)


But Hoyle said it as a joke in response to Lemaitre's exploding cosmic egg model.
User avatar
Tina
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Goldminer » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:30 pm

But then the exploding egg has its analog in the new born Quasar expelled from the active galaxy, and hatching into a new galaxy, à la Halton Arp! So the question is really which came first, the chicken or the egg?

.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby hertz » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:08 am

smart money's on the egg as a cross-species delivery device ;-)
hertz
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 12:29 pm

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby EdgeGuy » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:30 pm

What a thoughtful post.
I like to think that faith in God and suspicion of science is both good faith and good science.
User avatar
EdgeGuy
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:37 pm

Re: Cosmology in Crisis—Again!

Unread postby Sparky » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:38 am

EdgeGuy wrote:What a thoughtful post.
I like to think that faith in God and suspicion of science is both good faith and good science.


I think that suspicion of a god and faith in good science will produce the most good. And conflating the two will do no good.

Being a verboten subject, now that we know what the other thinks, it can be dropped. Agreed? ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Previous

Return to Thunderblogs/Multimedia

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest