Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
29 online now:
caffeine, JoeT, kjsimons, PaulK, Theodoric (5 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,830 Year: 16,866/19,786 Month: 991/2,598 Week: 237/251 Day: 8/58 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang Found
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 11 of 301 (722263)
03-19-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
03-18-2014 9:21 AM


I think the real story is not "Big Bang Found" but "Predictions of Inflationary Hypothesis Confirmed". We already knew there was a Big Bang, but up until now the Inflationary Hypothesis was just an ad hoc explanation which was appealing because it ad-hoc-explained so many things at once.

The corollary, which is significant for debates about origins, is that the (cosmological) fine-tuning argument now looks like even more of a crock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2014 9:21 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 301 (722264)
03-19-2014 11:49 AM


This is rather sweet: one of the guys who made the measurement got a cameraman and went round to Andrei Linde's house to surprise him with the news.

Video here.


  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 18 of 301 (722342)
03-20-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by shadow71
03-20-2014 12:38 PM


That's not a broad brush. Whether we like it or not, the word "creationist" now means "science denying kook", rather than "someone who believes in a creator". If you have an issue with that, take it up with the creationists --- they hijacked the word, we would be happier if they called themselves science-denying kooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by shadow71, posted 03-20-2014 12:38 PM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 51 of 301 (722712)
03-24-2014 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by kbertsche
03-21-2014 9:43 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
Well, you know, I'd be more inclined to think that the Big Bang was consistent with the Bible if the world was less full of Christians telling me that the Big Bang is an evil atheist lie contrary to the Bible and thought up by Satan to con people into rejecting God. The existence of these people, who are invariably awfully keen on the Bible and indeed never shut up about it, suggests that Ross's interpretation is not exactly clear-cut. So while I might concede that the BB is consistent with the Bible if you interpret it with enough latitude, the fact that it occurred doesn't seem to me to be evidence weighing on the side of the Bible, that would be going too far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 03-21-2014 9:43 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 03-24-2014 2:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 176 of 301 (723441)
04-01-2014 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 11:16 AM


Re: You haven't said much here...
My question was more fundamental and philosophical. Since we can observe only our present universe, how can we ever hope to get any direct evidence of other universes or of the multiverse? Perhaps we can get some very indirect evidence and hints. But can we ever get direct evidence, like we now have for cosmic inflation? I am very skeptical. I suspect this will remain an intriguing hypothesis.

Well, this is how science works. If a theory works every time we can test it, we should believe that it's valid in those cases where we can't. This is the principle of science: the entire scientific method can and must be built up from that premise.

So if the Inflationary Hypothesis should now be considered the Inflationary Theory, or (if we are still unconvinced) if it should one day be so considered, and if the Inflationary Theory implies the existence of many universes --- then we should either believe in many universes or we should ditch the scientific method and go find something else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 11:16 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 3:44 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 178 of 301 (723450)
04-01-2014 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by kbertsche
04-01-2014 3:44 PM


Re: You haven't said much here...
But my question is, What sort of experimental, observable evidence can possibly exist for a multiverse or for other universes?

In terms of observing them directly. None --- that's exactly what make them other universes.

But do current inflation theories require, or even imply, a multiverse?

Apparently. If you're going to ask me why, I'm not a cosmologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by kbertsche, posted 04-01-2014 3:44 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 193 of 301 (723498)
04-02-2014 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by kbertsche
04-02-2014 1:00 AM


Re: Double talk..
But if you insist on having an event as the cause, there certainly is an external event that triggers the nuclear decay; the creation of the unstable nucleus itself. When the unstable nucleus is created, we can be sure that it will eventually decay.

You'd make a great pathologist. "I have determined the cause of this man's death --- he was born!"

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by kbertsche, posted 04-02-2014 1:00 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2014 1:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 200 of 301 (723520)
04-03-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by kbertsche
04-03-2014 1:01 AM


Re: Double talk..
Well, it's one thing to say that the cause of the fluorescence is the UV light. It's much more tendentious to point to a particular electron and say "The cause of the fall to its ground state was being hit by a high-energy photon".

Suppose someone says: "John's death was caused by his interest in botany". How do you make that out? we ask. "Well, he'd never have been at the top of that cliff if he hadn't wanted to see the rare Clifftop Saxifrage". Well, this may indeed have been a necessary and sufficient condition to get him to the top of the cliff, but surely the cause of his death was whatever got him to the bottom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 04-03-2014 1:01 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by kbertsche, posted 04-04-2014 8:30 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 201 of 301 (723523)
04-03-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by 1.61803
04-03-2014 10:26 AM


Re: Go North Young Man!
Yes. But what if we do not know what this god thingy is yet?

What if we don't know what unicorns are yet? How dumb we'd look saying there are no unicorns if it turns out that in fact they're black and white flightless birds that look like this:

Silly of us, there are lots of unicorns, they live in Antarctica and eat fish.

But of course we can't be wrong about what a word means, we have to be right about that, we made the words, we defined them, it can't turn out that "unicorn" really means penguin rather than "horse with a horn". In the same way, I can't find out that "this god thingy" really is my left leg, and exclaim: "How dumb of me to be an atheist, there was a god all along, it was attached to my groin". The word "god" may not be as well-defined as "unicorn", but it is sufficiently well-defined that I can't be wrong about the existence of God in that particular way.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 10:26 AM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2014 2:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 207 by 1.61803, posted 04-03-2014 3:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 225 by frako, posted 04-04-2014 8:20 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019