We’ve all heard of the claim of “settled science” when it comes to global warming/climate change, and we’ve all heard of the “Big Bang Theory”, and I’m not just talking about the popular TV show. The scientific theory goes all the way back to 1927.
This is an artist’s concept of the metric expansion of space, where space (including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe) is represented at each time by the circular sections. Note on the left the dramatic expansion (not to scale) occurring in the inflationary epoch, and at the center the expansion acceleration. The scheme is decorated with WMAP images on the left and with the representation of stars at the appropriate level of development. Credit: NASA
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe. It states that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on. (Source: Wikipedia)
Now, it seems there’s a challenge to this ‘settled’ science, and a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning.
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein’s theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Janice,
A perfect sphere is a fictional concoction of mathematics; one manifestation of it being the Cartesian equation : x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2
There is absolutely NOTHING in any branch of mathematics that actually exists in the real physical universe; only approximations.
So the above equation can not explain how you get 8 km high mountains on the surface of the earth; which therefore is not a perfect sphere.
There aren’t even any points or lines either.
g
“and butter…… and salt…… and beer to infinitely wash it all down!”
Funny you should mention butter: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/23/butter-bad-saturated-fat-healthy-eating-industry
Apart from the fact that I can now enjoy toast that tastes good again, a few interesting points from that link:
(1) it’s about well established science that appears to be wrong
(2) That science is around the same age as the AGW meme
(3) The article is keen to point out that certain industry segments have benefited from it
(4) They point out how such financial interests may have influenced the science over the years
All sound familiar so far?
(5) It’s the Guardian reporting it – who can see exactly how such things might work for fatty foods yet can’t openly scoff at any suggestion that the same might happen with AGW “science”
(6) The vast majority of the commenters, who would also sneer at AGW scepticism, take the whole thing enthusiastically onboard, including going as far as suggesting conspiracies by the sugar industry!
Oh, the hypocrisy!
Here are some stars in just one nearby galaxy (M31), captured by the Hubble telescope (the very bright stars are much closer, in our own galaxy).
And this explains some of the questions upthread (how big is the universe?)
Quantum equation dilemma:
1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Perpetual Motion Machine
**Some restrictions apply. No quantum superstates or 3rd postions allowed.
cnxtim
February 10, 2015 2:10 pm
There should be no debate over the use of the term” settled “. Science is only settled when it absolutely passes, and continues to pass the Scientific Method.
Everything else is conjecture, hypothesis or theory.
Often interesting but don’t overreact, introduce laws, start universal taxation regimes and DON’T blow the budget.
Tom in Florida
February 10, 2015 2:12 pm
Whether or not the BBT is part of the path to understanding where we all came from, at least we are not being asked to give up our lifestyles, our money and our freedom for it.
zemlik
February 10, 2015 2:13 pm
of course everything that exists is that which is comprehended by human mind. I would like to find the person who described the universe as expanding like a balloon and give them a slap for confusing my tiny mind.
As I can understand things things might well be expanding and might well have been very compressed at some time in the past but as we are in the expanding thing we are in the same thing now as before just the scaling is a bit different. the problem with the big bang is what are we expanding into ? is difficult to comprehend.
and I suppose that it might not be getting bigger by, like a balloon, the edges pressing outwards but more 3D stuff might be bubbling up inside and pushing things apart.
Recent experiments that claim to have slowed light also challenge Einstein’s famous equation and would destroy the notion of ‘spacetime’ and ‘curved’ space.
I can understand the bits that make up me being more compressed in a compressed reality but it would be irrelevant because everything else would be compressed. The reality must react to compression of 3D space. In the big bang theory 3D cannot just keep on getting smaller/more compressed in relation to previous distances between things for some reason I do not understand.
We slow light down all the time. That’s how lenses work. It gets slower in any medium except a pure vacuum… and I seem to remember that according to quantum theory there’s not even any such thing as a pure vacuum as particles can pop into existence randomly for extremely short time periods. (Like Planck time scales.) I won’t even pretend to understand it.
The referenced experiments resulted in decreased speed even after exiting the medium which originally slowed it, IIRC.
Mark
Slywolfe
February 10, 2015 2:14 pm
A universe that ‘appears’ to be ~14 billion years old could certainly have been created ~4,000 years ago.
Why did the Creator leave deceptive clues and curse us with curiosity?
There are. Lots of theories that challenge ‘Big Bang’ and they are not new, but just like alternate theories to greenhouse warming they have been sidelined, ridiculed, shunned and de funded by those supporting the ‘mainstream’ model.
Big Bang, black holes, dark energy and dark matter are all problems of general relativity. The first violates the ‘something from nothing’ law, both BB and Black Holes suffer from the laws of physics no longer working. Dark energy and matter from the absurdity of invisible stuff conviently solving equations that are out by up to 90%!
The recent comet landing gives a perfect example of Nerds desperately clinging to theory whilst reality ridicules. The comet is clearly not a ‘dirty snowball’, but a giant lump of rock. Every other comet they have gotten close enough to photograph is the same. The implications are as profound as Galilaeo. Gravity might not be constant. Electrical forces might exist in space on huge scales. But like AGW funding and jobs are on the line and admitting that those who currently don’t receive it might be right would be career suicide!
I also forgot about the extra dimensions. Created for the same purpose as dark matter. The theories didn’t match observation so they retrofitted the theory with something that was impossible to observe!!
Sounds more like religion to me but there you go!
Epiphron Elpis: “Dark matter” isn’t even matter, it’s just dark. It’s just a measure of the gap between theory and observation. It could be called “daark knowledge”. Or “dark heat” could be the gap between global warming models and the actual flat “pause” — if they could get away with that — but the thermodynamicists have sort of pre-empted that with their “entropy”, the original measure of that which we cannot detect.
The implications are as profound as Galilaeo.[sic]
Galileo believed that comets were an optical atmospheric phenomenon and viciously attacked anyone who claimed they were objects in the space between Earth and Sun.
The Standard Models of particle and cosmological physics, and of climate ‘science’ are not Popper falsifiable and fall across the line of Demarcation from science.
RWturner
February 10, 2015 2:32 pm
Go figure, a theory involving magic is probably not correct. Shocking. /s
If the Universe makes a Big Bang and there’s no one there to hear it did it really make a noise?
DataTurk
February 10, 2015 2:35 pm
Anthony, I think this topic is simply not germane to the climate change discussion for the fairly simple reason that very few physicists would preemptively declare the science settled and forestall any future debate or new observations of fact from the advancement of the science. I believe that astrophysicists, in particular, are quite aware of the limitations imposed by our technology and our ability to conceptualize the beginning of the universe, and have historically been open to debate….sometimes acrimonious…but usually aimed at improving our ability to describe and model our universe.
This article, and it’s inflammatory headline, are not up to your usual high standard.
No I think you will discover that the powers that be are just as closed minded and protective of their positions in this area as they are in climatology. The same cronyism in peer review. The only difference is that the skeptics in cosmology don’t get the same media coverage
“In the end the data always wins, that’s the difference”
Oh you poor naive fool 🙂 data is ignored, shunned, ridiculed, slandered in every area of science or human endeavour! Human nature applies to all humans, even scientists! No one likes to be proved wrong and outward commitment to scientific method is a poor weapon against pride and ego. Especially if careers and funding are on the line.
Turk,
“In the end…”
With respect to BBT I don’t really care how far away the end is … no damage will be done.
With respect to the bad data and its use, as associated with climate scare, I hope the end is near. The end needs to get here before too much damage is done.
Our host used to have a site description which encompassed “Puzzling things in nature. . .” Not just “climate.” At some point last year that changed. Personally, I liked the broad scope, and enjoyed the greater variety of topics that it generated. So an occasional article on cosmology or other “non-climate” topics is particularly welcome, IMO.
/Mr Lynn
Improbable.
The universe is expanding. That makes a steady state universe improbable as it should have expanded too much by now. It needs to be a wobbly universe.
The lack of gravity waves is a sign that the inflation period didn’t happen with the current laws of gravity applied.
It’s inflation theory that is challenged by the everlasting wobbly universe theory.
But that assumes that the laws of gravity are constant at all matter densities – for which we need both dark matter and dark energy to make the sums work.
Or fiddle-in and fiddle-out factors as the cynical might say.
It isn’t beautiful mathematics.
The standard model has problems at all scales, not just at the micro level. That’s why they had to invent dark matter and dark energy.
Also “the greenhouse properties of CO2 is solid science”? I would argue that the properties of CO2 are solid, the “greenhouse” bit is pure conjecture.
‘with the greenhouse properties of CO2, which is solid science.’
In a bell jar with nothing else involved , so like a square chicken in vacuum the model works providing that the model covers all and knows all about the thing is it trying to model, and with climate we are not even close to that. Its not the rules that matter but how to and what your applying them to, if there is a truck load of variables you don’t understand then you simply cannot claim ‘this is not an issues becasue of the laws of anything ‘ If that was not the case they there would be no need at all to come up with 100 reasons why the models have failed in , no need for any ‘missing heat ‘ or missing anything . You want to make claims of perfection , or ‘settled science ‘ you better have a perfect evidenced to start with
Yes in deed, every physicist agrees with every other physicist.
And they all agree on the ‘greenhouse properties’ of CO2 but they just can’t come together on that feedback thingy.
Quote from the abstract of Causal Dynamical Triangulations and the Quest for Quantum Gravity:
“It is the only approach to have demonstrated that a classical universe can be generated dynamically from Planckian quantum fluctuations.”
The other “brane” dimensions may simply be non-physical hidden variables.
johann wundersamer
February 10, 2015 2:47 pm
the fallacie of ‘logic speech’:
‘a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning.’
when a language offers a word ‘beginning’ there has to be a phenomenon called ‘beginning’.
all cretes are liars explains the authochton crete to the tourist.
AND:
PREDICTS – already accomplished beginning.
Karl Kraus for wording, Phillip K.Dick for pre diction.
Hans
zenrebok
February 10, 2015 2:49 pm
Serious question for the statics crowd.
Against an infinite time line, does the significance of any event in the Universe fall to zero?
If that is the case, then local, not cosmic events are both important to a species, but of zero value across cosmological time spans and distances.
Does it follow then, that events have simultaneously no value, and absolute value. Depending on where one stands? And who’s affected?
Have I fallen for a faulty philosophical carrot?
All values are always dependent on where one stands. Everyone is affected, and nobody is affected. Dust to dust, and ashes to ashes. The only time and place that really matters, to any individual, is the time and place that they occupy. Even without regard for religious morals, though, many people try to do good during their life, try to improve their lot, and the lot of those that will come after them. They do so regardless of whether it makes a farthings worth of difference to the universe. And though the arguments on this blog will make no difference to the world knowledge on this subject, we still come here and argue. It is in the nature of humans to assign values to their thoughts and actions. Who is affected? We all are.
Thanks for that. Its a fine point made finely. I ponder often upon, what would transcend local space events, and influence everyone every where in the cosmos. A universal change in the charge of an electron might do it.
n.n
February 10, 2015 2:52 pm
There is a theory that models do not conform to nature, but that nature conforms to models. That human consciousness is a causal force that establishes patterns in the chaos.
As we indulge in childhood fantasies, and impatiently join our ancestors in peering beyond the scientific domain, we must wonder if we will ever pass beyond inference and confirm our perceptions. First, it was gods riding through the sky. Now, it is uniformity and independence to calm our fears of the unknown and anchor our identities in divine grounds.
Jeff Glassman February 10, 2015 at 1:48 pm
[T]he Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics … oh, and a handful of assumptions. The first is that the red shift is a Doppler shift. Perhaps so; the arguments against tired light are good. But the last time I looked, cosmologists had no corroborating measurement that the Universe is expanding, now or ever. . .
The distinguished astronomer, the late Halton Arp, offered observable evidence that quasi-stellar objects with high red shifts were physically connected with low-red-shift galaxies. He hypothesized that the former displayed ‘intrinsic’ red shifts, and that the Doppler Effect as evidence for an ‘expanding universe’ was mistaken. Interestingly, he speculated that the quasars were actually young galaxies, ‘birthed’ from older ones. For these ideas, he was shunned by academic astronomy, not unlike the attitude of the academic Warmists to skeptical scientists. See: Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (1998); http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423609409&sr=1-1&keywords=arp+redshift
/Mr Lynn
Try reading “conversations with God – book 1” by Neale Donald Walsch. See the part on the Big Bang theory. Wraps up God and the Big Bang theory in one!
Alternatively you could go for “The hitchiker’s guide to the Galaxy” the simple answer is 42 😉
Not nothing. The BBT theory is everything was created out of an infinite energy unquantifiable beyond cause and affect something, or (steady state) everything always was and came from nothing, it just was.
In this you have identified what philosophers call the cosmological argument, which supports everything coming from an infinite beyond cause and affect something, which some call God.
Alan McIntire
February 10, 2015 3:15 pm
Fred Hoyle believed in a “steady state” universe, constantly expanding ,and new matter spontaneously created in the gaps left by the expansion. It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term “Big Bang” as a derogatory insult.
George Gamow hypothesized microwave background ratiation of about 5 degrees K as a remnant of the big bang. Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias had problems with static received by their antenna. At firs they thought it was the result of bird shit, but even after a thorough cleaning, the static was still there. It turned out they discovered the background radiation predicted by George Gamow- but 2.7 K rather than the calculated 5 K. Of course there are singularity problems to be resolved, but there must have been a pretty uniform explosion 13.8 billion years ago, else where did that 2.7 K radiaiton come from?
The only problem with that, Vukcevic, is that this is, I believe, broad band radiation which follows the full planck profile, as if from a solid body at 2.7K. It is not line spectra, which you might expect from some very thin dispersed gas.
Wow. I had to read all that stuff above to finally get a good laugh. Just saying bird shit several different ways is funny. I didn’t know how much I don’t know until now. I wish I could understand more of it. I do understand Doppler shift and bird shit. I have been aerial bombarded by a seagull. I’m glad cows don’t fly.
adding key information…as you said, “It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term “Big Bang” as a derogatory insult” ..adding…directed at Father Georges Henri Lemaitre, PhD the Belgian priest and physicist who came up with the “primeval egg” theory.
People then and even now are so pissed off that the big bang was invented by a catholic priest they self edit to exclude that single fact.
Yup A Catholic Priest invented the Big Bang.
Actually Fr Le Maitre resurrected the cosmic egg, rather than inventing it. The idea is expounded in Sanskrit scripture. The Sanskrit term for it is Brahmanda (Brahm means ‘cosmos’ or ‘expanding’, anda means ‘egg’). Certain Puranas such as the Brahmanda Purana speak of this in detail.
George Gamow actually predicted 50 Kelvins (degrees not used on the Kelvin scale). Sir Arthur Eddington had much earlier measured starlight and estimated ~3 Kelvins.
In the International System of Units (SI units), the units of absolute temperature are ‘kelvins’, with a small ‘k’. All the SI units begin with a small letter, i.e. watts, metres, seconds etc. Kelvins, with a capital K, does not conform. Also wrong, as you say, is ‘degrees Kelvin’, since the units are kelvins and not degrees.
The confusion arises, I think, because when abbreviated, then capital K is correct, as in 255K. But the abbreviation for metres is ‘m’ , for seconds is ‘s’, with small letters but capital W for watts.
There is a logic to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
[Note: Kelvin and ‘degrees Kelvin’ were correct before the convention changed in the 1960s, so George Gamow would probably have said degrees Kelvin]
Visible light from about 13.8 billion years ago would be red-shifted about 1000z.
Just sayin’.
bfl
February 10, 2015 3:22 pm
Well some believe that there are parallel universes and you can “prove” that parallel universes do exist: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=966.0
“What happens when the red laser light is slowed to one photon at a time (no, this can’t be done in your dining room)? That is, when only one photon is fired through each of the four slits, the same pattern appears. Could it be that, when the photon passes through the slits, they change course and recombine? Nope. When detectors are placed at each of the four slits, and one photon again is passed through them, only one of the detectors goes off, meaning that the photon hasn’t split.
David Deutsch, using an experimentally confirmed prediction from quantum theory, believes that what’s causing the interference are shadow photons. More specifically, interference, as in this experiment, is not only common for photons but for every particle. So, Deutsch writes in “Fabric of Reality”, this is what is causing the interference, “[W]hen a photon passes through one of four slits, some shadow photons pass through the other three slits.” The shadow photons, then, are blocking the tangible photons, causing only three shadow slits.
These shadow photons form a parallel universe. David Deutsch writes that they behave as tangible particles do. They obey the law of physics but with the difference that they’re in a different position.”
If you want to take advantage of these other worlds and experience “Quantum Jumping”, go here: http://realityshifters.com/pages/quantumjumping.html
Then there is the “cyclic model” that doesn’t require a Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
I’m comfortable with cycles of Big Bang/Big Crunch.
But beyond that physical cycle, how about an intangible one, to whit, cyclic time (!). http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html
Phlogiston
February 10, 2015 3:49 pm
Don’t forget String theory’s take.
Before the BB the 11 (or more) dimensions were internalised and the universe thus had no length.
Then the 3 “space” dimensions leaked out. That’s all. It makes the Big Bang less of a big deal.
Singularities also go away with String theory since nothing can be smaller than the Plank length of 10^-32 mm. If it tries to be smaller it finds that it gets bigger instead.
I favour the topological string paradigm and find opposition to it to be mostly based on prejudice and misunderstanding.
Lack of evidence is not the same as falsifying evidence.
And there is evidence of a kind – such as dramatic improvement in performance of mathematical formulations of the strong force when string topology is brought in (Venetziani).
This is almost like religion. So get ready to enjoy the debate…
☺
almost like religion because the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a priest and a physicist?
an infinite bowl of popcorn
We have to imagine the bowl, for the popcorn, being a perfect sphere . . .
Janice,
A perfect sphere is a fictional concoction of mathematics; one manifestation of it being the Cartesian equation : x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = r^2
There is absolutely NOTHING in any branch of mathematics that actually exists in the real physical universe; only approximations.
So the above equation can not explain how you get 8 km high mountains on the surface of the earth; which therefore is not a perfect sphere.
There aren’t even any points or lines either.
g
and butter…… and salt…… and beer to infinitely wash it all down!
“and butter…… and salt…… and beer to infinitely wash it all down!”
Funny you should mention butter:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/23/butter-bad-saturated-fat-healthy-eating-industry
Apart from the fact that I can now enjoy toast that tastes good again, a few interesting points from that link:
(1) it’s about well established science that appears to be wrong
(2) That science is around the same age as the AGW meme
(3) The article is keen to point out that certain industry segments have benefited from it
(4) They point out how such financial interests may have influenced the science over the years
All sound familiar so far?
(5) It’s the Guardian reporting it – who can see exactly how such things might work for fatty foods yet can’t openly scoff at any suggestion that the same might happen with AGW “science”
(6) The vast majority of the commenters, who would also sneer at AGW scepticism, take the whole thing enthusiastically onboard, including going as far as suggesting conspiracies by the sugar industry!
Oh, the hypocrisy!
Here are some stars in just one nearby galaxy (M31), captured by the Hubble telescope (the very bright stars are much closer, in our own galaxy).
And this explains some of the questions upthread (how big is the universe?)
how big is the universe 🙂
at least 250X bigger then the visible 90 billion light-years sphere:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/422579/cosmos-at-least-250x-bigger-than-visible-universe-say-cosmologists/
Quantum equation dilemma:
1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Perpetual Motion Machine
**Some restrictions apply. No quantum superstates or 3rd postions allowed.
There should be no debate over the use of the term” settled “. Science is only settled when it absolutely passes, and continues to pass the Scientific Method.
Everything else is conjecture, hypothesis or theory.
Often interesting but don’t overreact, introduce laws, start universal taxation regimes and DON’T blow the budget.
Whether or not the BBT is part of the path to understanding where we all came from, at least we are not being asked to give up our lifestyles, our money and our freedom for it.
of course everything that exists is that which is comprehended by human mind. I would like to find the person who described the universe as expanding like a balloon and give them a slap for confusing my tiny mind.
As I can understand things things might well be expanding and might well have been very compressed at some time in the past but as we are in the expanding thing we are in the same thing now as before just the scaling is a bit different. the problem with the big bang is what are we expanding into ? is difficult to comprehend.
I love this stuff!
of course for the universe to be expanding 3D space must be being created in order to fit everything in.
and I suppose that it might not be getting bigger by, like a balloon, the edges pressing outwards but more 3D stuff might be bubbling up inside and pushing things apart.
Recent experiments that claim to have slowed light also challenge Einstein’s famous equation and would destroy the notion of ‘spacetime’ and ‘curved’ space.
I can understand the bits that make up me being more compressed in a compressed reality but it would be irrelevant because everything else would be compressed. The reality must react to compression of 3D space. In the big bang theory 3D cannot just keep on getting smaller/more compressed in relation to previous distances between things for some reason I do not understand.
We slow light down all the time. That’s how lenses work. It gets slower in any medium except a pure vacuum… and I seem to remember that according to quantum theory there’s not even any such thing as a pure vacuum as particles can pop into existence randomly for extremely short time periods. (Like Planck time scales.) I won’t even pretend to understand it.
The referenced experiments resulted in decreased speed even after exiting the medium which originally slowed it, IIRC.
Mark
A universe that ‘appears’ to be ~14 billion years old could certainly have been created ~4,000 years ago.
Why did the Creator leave deceptive clues and curse us with curiosity?
Rats! Here I was going with 6,000 years!
I managed to find 48 different dates for the creation, but then I got bored…
Pompous,
Don’t brag!
A lot of us couldn’t find one date for an event that exciting.
Gurgle is your friend 😉
You know how dog years work … those are God years ….
And of course you need to be God to know how they work.
Spin foam, that will be the next big thing after plastic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_foam
Oh no–The Universe is EVEN BIGGER THAN WE THOUGHT
I’m blaming CO2 for fizzing up and stretching it out.
There are. Lots of theories that challenge ‘Big Bang’ and they are not new, but just like alternate theories to greenhouse warming they have been sidelined, ridiculed, shunned and de funded by those supporting the ‘mainstream’ model.
Big Bang, black holes, dark energy and dark matter are all problems of general relativity. The first violates the ‘something from nothing’ law, both BB and Black Holes suffer from the laws of physics no longer working. Dark energy and matter from the absurdity of invisible stuff conviently solving equations that are out by up to 90%!
The recent comet landing gives a perfect example of Nerds desperately clinging to theory whilst reality ridicules. The comet is clearly not a ‘dirty snowball’, but a giant lump of rock. Every other comet they have gotten close enough to photograph is the same. The implications are as profound as Galilaeo. Gravity might not be constant. Electrical forces might exist in space on huge scales. But like AGW funding and jobs are on the line and admitting that those who currently don’t receive it might be right would be career suicide!
I also forgot about the extra dimensions. Created for the same purpose as dark matter. The theories didn’t match observation so they retrofitted the theory with something that was impossible to observe!!
Sounds more like religion to me but there you go!
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
Epiphron Elpis: “Dark matter” isn’t even matter, it’s just dark. It’s just a measure of the gap between theory and observation. It could be called “daark knowledge”. Or “dark heat” could be the gap between global warming models and the actual flat “pause” — if they could get away with that — but the thermodynamicists have sort of pre-empted that with their “entropy”, the original measure of that which we cannot detect.
Galileo believed that comets were an optical atmospheric phenomenon and viciously attacked anyone who claimed they were objects in the space between Earth and Sun.
The Standard Models of particle and cosmological physics, and of climate ‘science’ are not Popper falsifiable and fall across the line of Demarcation from science.
Go figure, a theory involving magic is probably not correct. Shocking. /s
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
None of the Universe would exist if not observed. It’s all in your mind, which may not exist either. … or it could just be multi-dimensional collapse!
If the Universe makes a Big Bang and there’s no one there to hear it did it really make a noise?
Anthony, I think this topic is simply not germane to the climate change discussion for the fairly simple reason that very few physicists would preemptively declare the science settled and forestall any future debate or new observations of fact from the advancement of the science. I believe that astrophysicists, in particular, are quite aware of the limitations imposed by our technology and our ability to conceptualize the beginning of the universe, and have historically been open to debate….sometimes acrimonious…but usually aimed at improving our ability to describe and model our universe.
This article, and it’s inflammatory headline, are not up to your usual high standard.
No I think you will discover that the powers that be are just as closed minded and protective of their positions in this area as they are in climatology. The same cronyism in peer review. The only difference is that the skeptics in cosmology don’t get the same media coverage
In the end, though, the data always wins. That’s the difference.
“In the end the data always wins, that’s the difference”
Oh you poor naive fool 🙂 data is ignored, shunned, ridiculed, slandered in every area of science or human endeavour! Human nature applies to all humans, even scientists! No one likes to be proved wrong and outward commitment to scientific method is a poor weapon against pride and ego. Especially if careers and funding are on the line.
Turk,
“In the end…”
With respect to BBT I don’t really care how far away the end is … no damage will be done.
With respect to the bad data and its use, as associated with climate scare, I hope the end is near. The end needs to get here before too much damage is done.
Our host used to have a site description which encompassed “Puzzling things in nature. . .” Not just “climate.” At some point last year that changed. Personally, I liked the broad scope, and enjoyed the greater variety of topics that it generated. So an occasional article on cosmology or other “non-climate” topics is particularly welcome, IMO.
/Mr Lynn
+10
Ditto.
Perhaps Fred Hoyle’s Steady-state theory was right after all!! I love WUWT!
Improbable.
The universe is expanding. That makes a steady state universe improbable as it should have expanded too much by now. It needs to be a wobbly universe.
The lack of gravity waves is a sign that the inflation period didn’t happen with the current laws of gravity applied.
It’s inflation theory that is challenged by the everlasting wobbly universe theory.
But that assumes that the laws of gravity are constant at all matter densities – for which we need both dark matter and dark energy to make the sums work.
Or fiddle-in and fiddle-out factors as the cynical might say.
It isn’t beautiful mathematics.
There is a way to get around it using very simple maths, by introducing concept of ‘Relativistic Gravity’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CU.gif
OH NO!!!!
There really is a “Hockey Stick”! 😎
The observable universe appears to expanding. What of the rest of the universe that is not observed?
[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]
The standard model has problems at all scales, not just at the micro level. That’s why they had to invent dark matter and dark energy.
Also “the greenhouse properties of CO2 is solid science”? I would argue that the properties of CO2 are solid, the “greenhouse” bit is pure conjecture.
‘with the greenhouse properties of CO2, which is solid science.’
In a bell jar with nothing else involved , so like a square chicken in vacuum the model works providing that the model covers all and knows all about the thing is it trying to model, and with climate we are not even close to that. Its not the rules that matter but how to and what your applying them to, if there is a truck load of variables you don’t understand then you simply cannot claim ‘this is not an issues becasue of the laws of anything ‘ If that was not the case they there would be no need at all to come up with 100 reasons why the models have failed in , no need for any ‘missing heat ‘ or missing anything . You want to make claims of perfection , or ‘settled science ‘ you better have a perfect evidenced to start with
Spherical cows…
Mark
Mark…..Fedora 18
Yes in deed, every physicist agrees with every other physicist.
And they all agree on the ‘greenhouse properties’ of CO2 but they just can’t come together on that feedback thingy.
Quote from the abstract of Causal Dynamical Triangulations and the Quest for Quantum Gravity:
“It is the only approach to have demonstrated that a classical universe can be generated dynamically from Planckian quantum fluctuations.”
The other “brane” dimensions may simply be non-physical hidden variables.
the fallacie of ‘logic speech’:
‘a new quantum equation predicts the universe has no beginning.’
when a language offers a word ‘beginning’ there has to be a phenomenon called ‘beginning’.
all cretes are liars explains the authochton crete to the tourist.
AND:
PREDICTS – already accomplished beginning.
Karl Kraus for wording, Phillip K.Dick for pre diction.
Hans
Serious question for the statics crowd.
Against an infinite time line, does the significance of any event in the Universe fall to zero?
If that is the case, then local, not cosmic events are both important to a species, but of zero value across cosmological time spans and distances.
Does it follow then, that events have simultaneously no value, and absolute value. Depending on where one stands? And who’s affected?
Have I fallen for a faulty philosophical carrot?
er….statistics crowd….mea culpa
All values are always dependent on where one stands. Everyone is affected, and nobody is affected. Dust to dust, and ashes to ashes. The only time and place that really matters, to any individual, is the time and place that they occupy. Even without regard for religious morals, though, many people try to do good during their life, try to improve their lot, and the lot of those that will come after them. They do so regardless of whether it makes a farthings worth of difference to the universe. And though the arguments on this blog will make no difference to the world knowledge on this subject, we still come here and argue. It is in the nature of humans to assign values to their thoughts and actions. Who is affected? We all are.
Thanks for that. Its a fine point made finely. I ponder often upon, what would transcend local space events, and influence everyone every where in the cosmos. A universal change in the charge of an electron might do it.
There is a theory that models do not conform to nature, but that nature conforms to models. That human consciousness is a causal force that establishes patterns in the chaos.
As we indulge in childhood fantasies, and impatiently join our ancestors in peering beyond the scientific domain, we must wonder if we will ever pass beyond inference and confirm our perceptions. First, it was gods riding through the sky. Now, it is uniformity and independence to calm our fears of the unknown and anchor our identities in divine grounds.
authochton
read autochthon
Thanks – Hans
The distinguished astronomer, the late Halton Arp, offered observable evidence that quasi-stellar objects with high red shifts were physically connected with low-red-shift galaxies. He hypothesized that the former displayed ‘intrinsic’ red shifts, and that the Doppler Effect as evidence for an ‘expanding universe’ was mistaken. Interestingly, he speculated that the quasars were actually young galaxies, ‘birthed’ from older ones. For these ideas, he was shunned by academic astronomy, not unlike the attitude of the academic Warmists to skeptical scientists. See: Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science (1998); http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423609409&sr=1-1&keywords=arp+redshift
/Mr Lynn
First there was nothing.
Then it exploded.
And the explosion left something.
+10, but nobody has a better hypothesis (yet).
Try reading “conversations with God – book 1” by Neale Donald Walsch. See the part on the Big Bang theory. Wraps up God and the Big Bang theory in one!
Alternatively you could go for “The hitchiker’s guide to the Galaxy” the simple answer is 42 😉
Take that as an article of faith.
Not nothing. The BBT theory is everything was created out of an infinite energy unquantifiable beyond cause and affect something, or (steady state) everything always was and came from nothing, it just was.
In this you have identified what philosophers call the cosmological argument, which supports everything coming from an infinite beyond cause and affect something, which some call God.
Fred Hoyle believed in a “steady state” universe, constantly expanding ,and new matter spontaneously created in the gaps left by the expansion. It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term “Big Bang” as a derogatory insult.
George Gamow hypothesized microwave background ratiation of about 5 degrees K as a remnant of the big bang. Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias had problems with static received by their antenna. At firs they thought it was the result of bird shit, but even after a thorough cleaning, the static was still there. It turned out they discovered the background radiation predicted by George Gamow- but 2.7 K rather than the calculated 5 K. Of course there are singularity problems to be resolved, but there must have been a pretty uniform explosion 13.8 billion years ago, else where did that 2.7 K radiaiton come from?
perhaps from a ‘black body’ radiation
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/b/3/3b3a36f6d2a78e7b910a840b60102e61.png
The only problem with that, Vukcevic, is that this is, I believe, broad band radiation which follows the full planck profile, as if from a solid body at 2.7K. It is not line spectra, which you might expect from some very thin dispersed gas.
My theory, and it’s only a theory, is that if you clean up all the bird shit in the universe that 2.7K radiation will disappear.
Wow. I had to read all that stuff above to finally get a good laugh. Just saying bird shit several different ways is funny. I didn’t know how much I don’t know until now. I wish I could understand more of it. I do understand Doppler shift and bird shit. I have been aerial bombarded by a seagull. I’m glad cows don’t fly.
It is not a joke!
Background radiation was originally attributed to ‘bird shit’ in the aerial dish.
adding key information…as you said, “It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term “Big Bang” as a derogatory insult” ..adding…directed at Father Georges Henri Lemaitre, PhD the Belgian priest and physicist who came up with the “primeval egg” theory.
People then and even now are so pissed off that the big bang was invented by a catholic priest they self edit to exclude that single fact.
Yup A Catholic Priest invented the Big Bang.
Yes there’s a lot of denial over that.
Actually Fr Le Maitre resurrected the cosmic egg, rather than inventing it. The idea is expounded in Sanskrit scripture. The Sanskrit term for it is Brahmanda (Brahm means ‘cosmos’ or ‘expanding’, anda means ‘egg’). Certain Puranas such as the Brahmanda Purana speak of this in detail.
The observed fallout from the primeval/cosmic egg was first assumed to be bird shit … nice coincidence.
George Gamow actually predicted 50 Kelvins (degrees not used on the Kelvin scale). Sir Arthur Eddington had much earlier measured starlight and estimated ~3 Kelvins.
In the International System of Units (SI units), the units of absolute temperature are ‘kelvins’, with a small ‘k’. All the SI units begin with a small letter, i.e. watts, metres, seconds etc. Kelvins, with a capital K, does not conform. Also wrong, as you say, is ‘degrees Kelvin’, since the units are kelvins and not degrees.
The confusion arises, I think, because when abbreviated, then capital K is correct, as in 255K. But the abbreviation for metres is ‘m’ , for seconds is ‘s’, with small letters but capital W for watts.
There is a logic to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units
[Note: Kelvin and ‘degrees Kelvin’ were correct before the convention changed in the 1960s, so George Gamow would probably have said degrees Kelvin]
Visible light from about 13.8 billion years ago would be red-shifted about 1000z.
Just sayin’.
Well some believe that there are parallel universes and you can “prove” that parallel universes do exist:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=966.0
“What happens when the red laser light is slowed to one photon at a time (no, this can’t be done in your dining room)? That is, when only one photon is fired through each of the four slits, the same pattern appears. Could it be that, when the photon passes through the slits, they change course and recombine? Nope. When detectors are placed at each of the four slits, and one photon again is passed through them, only one of the detectors goes off, meaning that the photon hasn’t split.
David Deutsch, using an experimentally confirmed prediction from quantum theory, believes that what’s causing the interference are shadow photons. More specifically, interference, as in this experiment, is not only common for photons but for every particle. So, Deutsch writes in “Fabric of Reality”, this is what is causing the interference, “[W]hen a photon passes through one of four slits, some shadow photons pass through the other three slits.” The shadow photons, then, are blocking the tangible photons, causing only three shadow slits.
These shadow photons form a parallel universe. David Deutsch writes that they behave as tangible particles do. They obey the law of physics but with the difference that they’re in a different position.”
If you want to take advantage of these other worlds and experience “Quantum Jumping”, go here:
http://realityshifters.com/pages/quantumjumping.html
Then there is the “cyclic model” that doesn’t require a Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
I’m comfortable with cycles of Big Bang/Big Crunch.
But beyond that physical cycle, how about an intangible one, to whit, cyclic time (!).
http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html
Don’t forget String theory’s take.
Before the BB the 11 (or more) dimensions were internalised and the universe thus had no length.
Then the 3 “space” dimensions leaked out. That’s all. It makes the Big Bang less of a big deal.
Singularities also go away with String theory since nothing can be smaller than the Plank length of 10^-32 mm. If it tries to be smaller it finds that it gets bigger instead.
I favour the topological string paradigm and find opposition to it to be mostly based on prejudice and misunderstanding.
My opposition is based on the complete lack of evidence for it.
It’s not a new theory anymore.
Lack of evidence is not the same as falsifying evidence.
And there is evidence of a kind – such as dramatic improvement in performance of mathematical formulations of the strong force when string topology is brought in (Venetziani).