Big Bang Decked Again.

[busterdog]

Technology Review: Blogs: arXiv blog: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it's hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling.
That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity.
Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant.
So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts.

A number of interesting points:

Physical constants are not what they think.

Dark matter isn't.

Expansion/contract/vibration -- not expansion.

Can anyone guess where we read those first?

It has always been about models. It is only about proving the model is absolute fact when it is someone else's competing model. When it is your model, it is just theory and wine and cheese for all the non-dissenters willing to applaud and endow the chair. Other models means no job, no wine, no cheese for you, because you can't "prove" it.

Big bang is just another freakin model. It is just an idea with modest support. There are just many other interesting ideas out there.

 

[rcorlew]

Well, without actually viewing the source work, I cannot comment on its accuracy. Big Bang has always been either misrepresented or misinterpreted, it can also be described as inflation theory. We can readily observe the expansion of the universe, the rate of expansion is actually increasing, there must be an explanation.

 

[Cabal]

Well, two things:

Firstly, it'll need to stand up to scrutiny, although it is interesting.

Secondly, isn't an everlasting universe pretty much in direct opposition to what creationism claims?

I know some creationists like to get happy the moment they see anything that looks remotely critical of that there Big Bang theory, but this just seems to make things worse for creationists, not better.

 

[busterdog]

Well, two things:

Firstly, it'll need to stand up to scrutiny, although it is interesting.

Secondly, isn't an everlasting universe pretty much in direct opposition to what creationism claims?

I know some creationists like to get happy the moment they see anything that looks remotely critical of that there Big Bang theory, but this just seems to make things worse for creationists, not better.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There are two creationist agendas: 1. proving creationism by science; 2. disproving evolution and big bang cosmology. The former is a fool's errand. This piece of work however supports the latter to a degree.

The static universe model is obviously something not conducive to proving creationism -- except to the extent that the idea of a static universe is the same as saying that you have no idea how it all began. I mean really. At this point, it is purely a philosophical question, not a question of science. So, by definition, it proves and disproves nothing scientifically.

What the model does is to make it clear that there are radically different and competing models. There isn't consensus. So, this theory is my friend to that extent.

The model also suggests changing physical constants, which is pretty important to some, but not all creationist models. Changing constants also undermines the reliability of Big Bang generally.

Big Bang does at times mess around with a limited window for changing physical constants, which is sort of like a partial pregnancy. It is in for a penny, in for a pound. Anything can happen in such a universe, and that potential cannot be confined to X billion years ago.

Here is an admission that changing physical constants are not an outrage and a fraud, which was the former allegation against some creationist models. Reasonable minds can discuss such issues.

 

[rcorlew]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There are two creationist agendas: 1. proving creationism by science; 2. disproving evolution and big bang cosmology. The former is a fool's errand. This piece of work however supports the latter to a degree.

The static universe model is obviously something not conducive to proving creationism -- except to the extent that the idea of a static universe is the same as saying that you have no idea how it all began. I mean really. At this point, it is purely a philosophical question, not a question of science. So, by definition, it proves and disproves nothing scientifically.

What the model does is to make it clear that there are radically different and competing models. There isn't consensus. So, this theory is my friend to that extent.

The model also suggests changing physical constants, which is pretty important to some, but not all creationist models. Changing constants also undermines the reliability of Big Bang generally.

Big Bang does at times mess around with a limited window for changing physical constants, which is sort of like a partial pregnancy. It is in for a penny, in for a pound. Anything can happen in such a universe, and that potential cannot be confined to X billion years ago.

Here is an admission that changing physical constants are not an outrage and a fraud, which was the former allegation against some creationist models. Reasonable minds can discuss such issues.

You do realize that disproving one theory does not prove another one.

 

[Assyrian]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Alien vs. Predator

 

[crawfish]

You do realize that disproving one theory does not prove another one.

By convincing people that scientific thought is shaky and unreliable, they can bolster the argument for supernatural causes, like Creationism. Or astrology. Or Zoroastrianism.

 

[busterdog]

You do realize that disproving one theory does not prove another one.

Actually, I was remarkably clear on this point. Not reading the post doesn't get you far.

 

[busterdog]

Alien vs. Predator

Ha ha -- but not necessarily the enemey of the enemy of your enemy.

YouTube - Mothra VS Godzilla

 

[busterdog]

By convincing people that scientific thought is shaky and unreliable, they can bolster the argument for supernatural causes, like Creationism. Or astrology. Or Zoroastrianism.

Let's just call it science in the aid of getting a better boundary for a zone of competence for science. It just does poorly in ultimate questions.

 

[marlowe007]

I wouldn't put too much credence in this: the East has an our sciences are more better than your sciences attitude towards the West.

IOW, whatever scientific consensus the latter has established, the former will always attempt to conjure up a competing theory for its own sake. It's the same thing with the OoA/Multi-Regional debate.

 

[rcorlew]

Actually, I was remarkably clear on this point. Not reading the post doesn't get you far.

Well, you did make quite a few statements that I do not understand and leaves me guessing at your point.

First and foremost, we have known that the universe is in motion for about a hundred years, so your point(s) about a static universe are moot.

 

[sfs]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

When your enemy is reality itself, that approach allies you with some pretty strange people.

There are two creationist agendas: 1. proving creationism by science; 2. disproving evolution and big bang cosmology. The former is a fool's errand. This piece of work however supports the latter to a degree.

Unfortunately, you have no idea to what degree it supports it. It could be a worthless piece of trash -- but you know you like it because it disagrees with a theory you don't like. That strikes me as a really bad way to choose accurate models. It's also kind of silly in this case, since this model looks even less like creation than the Big Bang does. Has your approach to understanding the universe really been reduced to sitting around, thinking, "I hope science is wrong this time, I hope science is wrong this time"?

What the model does is to make it clear that there are radically different and competing models. There isn't consensus. So, this theory is my friend to that extent.

How does it do that? The paper does not present a model that accurately describes the universe as we observe, e.g. it offers no explanation for the cosmic microwave background, and it's not even clear that it's meaningful as an abstract physics model (see the criticism here, for example). It hasn't been published or been through any kind of peer review that I can think of.

If the model can be fleshed out and turns out to do a better job than the Big Bang, it will win provisional acceptance, just as the Big Bang has. Some scientists will accept it more gladly, since it does away with the faint whiff of creation that lingers about the Big Bang model. Regardless, the better model will win. (I'll bet you fifty bucks that this one doesn't win, though.)

The model also suggests changing physical constants, which is pretty important to some, but not all creationist models. Changing constants also undermines the reliability of Big Bang generally.

Big Bang does at times mess around with a limited window for changing physical constants, which is sort of like a partial pregnancy. It is in for a penny, in for a pound. Anything can happen in such a universe, and that potential cannot be confined to X billion years ago.

?? Because something can happen in such a universe, therefore anything can happen? Mainstream physics puts a reasonable amount of effort into investigating the possibility of changing constants, since that would be a great way of finding new physics (and as anyone who knows anything at all about real scientists knows, finding really new physics would be very hot stuff indeed), and in setting experimental limits on how much they have changed. All the evidence so far is that they've changed very little.

Here is an admission that changing physical constants are not an outrage and a fraud, which was the former allegation against some creationist models. Reasonable minds can discuss such issues.

Reasonable minds have been discussing such issues. More to the point, reasonable, knowledgeable minds have been discussing such issues in the scientific literature for decades. I don't know where you got the idea that changing constants is a taboo topic in physics -- it's not. (Sure, badly informed, inconsistent speculations about changing constants that have already been ruled out by observational data are treated as an outrage and a fraud, but that's only because they are.)

 

[Cabal]

This is rather good:

“Cosmological Models with No Big Bang” by Wun-Yi Shu « The Language of Bad Physics

 

[busterdog]

Well, you did make quite a few statements that I do not understand and leaves me guessing at your point.

First and foremost, we have known that the universe is in motion for about a hundred years, so your point(s) about a static universe are moot.

What a stunning evasion of reason.

 

[shernren]

You don't have to look so far for a BB-less cosmology, busterdog. About thirty years ago Stephen Hawking (in more technical terms) defines the Wheeler-deWitt equation, uses imaginary time to find a Hartle-Hawking state that satisfies it, and arrives at a solution in which the universe, although it has a finite beginning in time, has no singularities, no external constants, and no boundary conditions. He then proudly states in A Brief History of Time as a result that "The Universe is all that was, is, and ever will be" and that his model leaves God with absolutely nothing to do, not even choosing the initial conditions of the universe (for there are none).

I respect your right to declare the enemies of your enemies your friends; I simply doubt your judgment of character. It is a little like American fundamentalists thinking the Taliban should be their best friends: they both oppose abortion, homosexuality, and atheism!

The fact remains that the Big Bang was proposed, at least in part, by a Catholic clergyman Lemaitre. And the facts remain that almost every theory that has opposed the Big Bang, whether it be Hoyle's steady state c-fields, Hawking's imaginary time construction, the electric universe, or this paper, has opposed the Big Bang not by shortening the age of the universe to literal-Biblical proportions but by blowing it up so that the universe is either beginning-less or completely closed.

If you really are trying to support the Bible, why are you being so friendly towards those who would falsify the very third word of the Book - the people who insist that there could not have been a "beginning" with which God could create the universe?

The sad truth is that friendship and enmity with you is defined neither by the degree of reason nor the degree of piety the applicant displays: it is defined by how much that person is a crackpot like you.

 

[rcorlew]

I am going to have to agree with Cabal and shenren on this, Wun-yu Shu's work is the direct opposite of creation, it argues for a constant universe with no beginning and no end (as time and space are interchangeable with the speed of light being the transfer rate). I will let the experts have at this theory over the next couple of years but I be it won't be in favor of Shu's theory.

 

[theFijian]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Perhaps it should be 'better the devil you know'

There are two creationist agendas: 1. proving creationism by science; 2. disproving evolution and big bang cosmology. The former is a fool's errand. This piece of work however supports the latter to a degree.

Two fools errands. Do creatonists still honestly think that if evolution and BB cosmology were refuted tomorrow then people would be knocking AIG's door down? What do you envisage would actually refute these prevailing theories? A supernaturalist model? Hardly, it would be another model which follws the scientific method and which can neither confirm, deny nor comment in any way on the existance of a God.

 

[busterdog]

Perhaps it should be 'better the devil you know'


Two fools errands. Do creatonists still honestly think that if evolution and BB cosmology were refuted tomorrow then people would be knocking AIG's door down? What do you envisage would actually refute these prevailing theories? A supernaturalist model? Hardly, it would be another model which follws the scientific method and which can neither confirm, deny nor comment in any way on the existance of a God.

Gee, what do creationists think? Maybe reading would enlighten you.

 

[Siyha]

I thought creationists agreed with gist of the big bang model.