Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Big Bang is currently accepted to the extent that it is because it has managed to fit the facts best. Isolated suggestions here and there will explain this bit better or explain that bit better and it makes for a great New Scientist article every last freaking time somebody somewhere puts a pre-pre-print up on arxiv, but nobody has actually put together a theory that explains the totality better than the current standard theory. Everybody already knows that it's broken, that's not news. And it takes more than "one paper" to determine the matter either way, I can pretty much find "one paper" that'll say just about anything.

We know we don't know. That's not news. Nobody has anything better yet. But that's hardly an excuse to just throw our hands up and "abandon" what is currently the best we've got.

In other news, everybody knows the Standard Model of particle physics has to be broken; it is accepted not because it is right but because nobody has actually come up with anything uniformly better.

"Big Bang is currently accepted to the extent that it is because it has managed to fit the facts best. "

well the problem is is that it doesn't. And in science, if you find a contradicting fact in a theory, then that theory is totally abandoned. The problem with the big bang is that multiple facts have come up debunking the big bang theory, but it is still accepted as a science. I could give you a few facts debunking the big bang theory, but the real question is: If I could prove to you a fact that disagreed with the big bang, would you then abandon the theory or would you not accept my evidence, and believe in two contradicting facts at the same time? When two facts contradict in simultaneously in a scientific theory, it is no longer a science but religion. Therefore, the big bang is actually religion disguised as science.

Just prove it, and stop criticising the reaction that you've decided that everyone would have if you did.

One thing I've heard is quasars show the red-shift phenomena may not be as good of an indicator of universe age as we'd thought. The red shift, I believe, is one of our primary evidences for a big bang.

There are a few anomalous millisecond pulsars that are older than the universe. The orthodox explanation is the pulsar age calculations are flawed. The heretical explanation is the age of the universe calculations are flawed.

A theory isn't completely abandoned just because of a single contradicting observation. The theory may explain a host of other phenomena very well, in which case then new observation merely shows a limit past which the theory no longer applies. As an example, we know of many observations which contradict the predictions of Newtonian gravity, but we still use that theory for planning space probe trajectories.

I would like to know what you mean when you say "big bang theory". I think that would help ensure we're all talking about the same thing.

When I say "big bang theory", I mean the idea that the universe we live in was in a very hot, dense state roughly 13.7 billion years ago, along with some other details such as a brief period of cosmic inflation.

"A theory isn't completely abandoned just because of a single contradicting observation."

Uhhh, yes it is.

You've just demonstrated that you're not interested in a conversation.

Welcome to my killfile.

> Uhhh, yes it is.

Did you not see the bit about Newtonian physics in the post you're replying to?

Every scientific theory gets revised as new information comes out. Our understanding of evolution, physics, biology, etc. have all changed drastically over the last few decades, but we didn't throw out the theories - we adjusted them were necessary to more accurately include new data.

"If I could prove to you a fact that disagreed with the big bang, would you then abandon the theory"

Sure I would! What are some of your facts?

red shift

Could you be more specific?

Scientists call it the Big Bang Theory. And in Science, the word "theory" is supposed to basically be the equivalent of a proven phenomenon. Scientists do not admit that the Big Bang theory is broken. They really believe that everything in the universe came from nothing even though it violates everything in cause-and-effect.

Go back far enough and everything boils down to "something from nothing" or "something was always there". Both options violate everything in cause-and-effect.

We either don't exist - demonstrably false - or the universe's start doesn't necessarily abide by cause-and-effect as we humans understand it.

Couldn't God have created everything from nothing? God is philosophically understood to be a self sufficient being. He is also understood to be all powerful, thus capable of creating something from nothing.

Seems a justified and tidy resolution to the supposed problem you refer to.

You are just adding another layer of abstraction. Something created God or God has existed forever.

If the universe existed forever, you don't need to create a God to create the universe.

There is a difference though. From what we know of the big bang, there is a starting point of the universe. The universe being started from nothing violates physical laws. A spiritual entity wouldn't be bound by the same physical logistics. Even if someone argues that it is "unlikely" for God to exist, it is still atleast a logical possibility.

> From what we know of the big bang

There's a lot we know we don't know of the Big Bang.

> The universe being started from nothing violates physical laws.

So does a God. Something has to be violating physical laws as we currently understand them (and we hardly know everything yet...), so adding God doesn't really get you anywhere.

No, it's a third option because God is outside of time. So, since the term "always" is tensed, it doesn't apply.

Why can God exist outside of time, but not a natural process?

"Process" is time bound by definition. There are also other characteristics of God's causality that natural processes cannot have. For instance, free will is the ability to create something from nothing, and natural processes cannot do this.

That would be a case of "something was always there."

And in Science, the word "theory" is supposed to basically be the equivalent of a proven phenomenon.

Citation please.

There are a lot of theories in science. They vary greatly in how well accepted they are.

As for the source of the Big Bang, there is a wide variety of speculation on that. Including a previous universe collapsing (no coming from "nothing" and a quantum fluctuation. But until we have a theory that combined general relativity with quantum mechanics, we won't have a real idea how reasonable different theories are.

> And in Science, the word "theory" is supposed to basically be the equivalent of a proven phenomenon.

No, that's a "theorem". A "theory" refers to a widely accepted idea, like gravity or evolution.

I think you mistake an indicator for an indicated. A theory tends to be widely accepted because it is the best explanation for evidence.

If something is a theory just because it is widely accepted, then that would make the idea that "lifting our arms is hard due to gravity" a theory, whereas the correct view is merely an idea that experts believe is correct.

You post that as a comment on an article claiming to have found support for a variant of the eternal inflation theory? Scientists are proposing all sorts of variants of various theories and many of them are way more upset about an initial singularity at the start of the universe than you, a known problem since pretty much the first day it was proposed, with numerous discussions on how this is incompatible with quantum mechanics and all kinds of other known issues it has. I take it you didn't read the article or actually know anything about the state of modern cosmology, which implies that you're just triggering on keywords and then knee-jerking a post in response. Please take that elsewhere.

The scientists are not "upset" about the inaccuracies of this. If they truly thought that the Big Bang has a lot of problems, why would they not call it the Big Bang Hypothesis? Scientists don't propose this as a "possibility that may have occured", they speak of it as a fact where only tiny details need to be worked out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com