Author
|
Topic: Big Bang alternatives, anyone? (Read 785 times) |
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.54
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
 
|
 |
Big Bang alternatives, anyone?
« on: 2003-07-07 13:04:24 » |
 |
Greetings,
I have appreciated, and still do, the time and effort Hermit and Walter both put into the supply of valuable information to the CoV regarding the BB, and cosmology in general.
Of particular value to myself is when this information is in the guise of a debate and is being used to support a particular argument, etc. It is in this tradition that I decided to search for what was being touted as “Big Bang alternatives” – of course there were many, but I found 3 (links below) of which at my current level of understanding I found myself inadequately equipped to find a response to.
http://www.polaris.net/~ksn/beta.htm
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
http://www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm
I would appreciate any comments as to how I may begin to pry open the theories advocated in the above links… anyone?
Thanks,
the bricoleur
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Big Bang alternatives, anyone?
« Reply #1 on: 2003-07-08 00:19:30 » |
|
[bricoleur] I would appreciate any comments as to how I may begin to pry open the theories advocated in the above links… anyone?
[Hermit] Start by understanding the consensus model for the field in question (if there is one)*. What it says, and as importantly, what it does not say. This allows you to better comprehend the challenges to it. Often "weird theories" arise when challenges are issued to "resolve" a problem seen by the originater, which is not really a component of a model (a strawman in debating terms).
[Hermit] We have good reasons (well tested, receives the bulk of attention) for liking "consensus models." When you see a challenge to them, it is worthwhile evaluating the credentials of the challenger - and when they are working "out of field" it is worth being extremely cautious, even if simply because they are unlikely to know about all of the previous challenges, or indeed, the capabilities and limitations of the models they attempt to address.
[Hermit] A good starting point when evaluating any technical article is to look for those terms which appear to have come from elsewhere, and if not familiar with them, google for them, in order to determine how "in field" researchers have dealt with the issues raised.
[Hermit] Refuting an hypothesis is a lot of work, particularly when the reasons why an hypothesis should be evaluated are not clearly articulated. Even when they are, when the hypothesis in question attempts to base itself on "problems" with a concensus model, be very, very, suspicious. This would fall into the area where strong evidence should be required before accepting the authors position, as the likelihood is that an evaluation would require a vast amount of background information to make a meaningful assessment. Unless you are an "in field" expert, or can find support for the hypothesis under evaluation by "in field" experts, it is likely that no matter how much time you devote to evaluating a hypothesis, that the evaluation will not be particularly meaningful.
[Hermit] When an article is to be found only on the Internet, it is time to tread even more warily. The Internet is full of pseudoscience which is terribly difficult to evaluate meaningfully.
[Hermit] When an article is punctuated by exclaimation points, or peppered with capitalized text, it is a good reason to be deeply suspicious of the credentials of the author. Academic writing tends to avoid such artifacts.
[Hermit] Hope you find this is helpful. Here follows a brief glimpse at the URLs you provided, assessing them according to the above criteria.
http://www.polaris.net/~ksn/beta.htm
Hermit opines - "Very unlikely."
Quote:| The Broadhurst et al. (Nature 343, 726-728 '90) very deep 1-D "pencil-beam" galactic red-shift survey has revealed galaxies clustered at regular intervals of 128 h-1 Mpc, in phase along both north and south galactic poles. This very large scale regular structure, extending to the limit of the survey, over a range exceeding 2.5 h-1Gpc - a quarter of the way across a Big-Bang universe - is fundamentally incompatible with the Big-Bang theory! |
Not true. I think we can safely assume that this is somebody working "out of field," as Bahcall, working from observation, in a publication made the following year (Ref http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu./cgi-bin/nph-ex_refcode?refcode=1991ApJ...376...43B), showed that the perceived distribution noted by Broadhurst was an artifact of the observation methodology, while the origin of the apparent non-periodic distribution is merely the tail-end of large scale superclusters. As a primary "evidence" proposed by this site appears invalidated, I have not addressed the site's arguments further.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
Hermit opines - "Quite possible, but not, on its face, sufficiently persuasive to overturn the BB model - and not appearing to make useful predictions which could be used to evaluate the goodness of the model."
I think I'm with Steinhart on this one
Quote:| The new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time. |
Unlike Steinhart, I see the "standard theory" as having provided us with a number of falsifiable predictions - some of which have been validated (Refer e.g. Hermit, Age of the Universe, 2003-07-04). As for this "new theory", which is not, I think, particularly new, I see it as interesting speculation, although it seems to me that it conflicts with our reluctant (but general) acceptance that Omega appears more and more likely to be less than 1 (i.e. the Universe will keep expanding). Against this, Science is peer reviewed, and thus it is probable that the article is well reasoned and does not contain any major contradictions with known evidence. Ask me again in 20 years.
http://www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm
Hermit opines - "Better than the first, yet still very unlikely."
Ummm. Again we have somebody working "out of field" and again making numerous assertions about "problems" with the Big Bang that appear to me to be less than sound, including the "problem" identified in the first provided url and the assertion (without provided evidence) of a problem with "old galaxies" - a problem which appears to me to be less than likely (i.e. I don't see the need for more than about 7 billion years for any known galactic structure to have formed using existing understanding of gravity (at c), expansion and "simple" newtonian motion).
I don't say that the author's theory is "wrong", merely that at this time it appears that the necessity for a new theory which he appears to be identifying seems less than necessary to me, and for now, I can live with the consensus model which while quite possibly wrong, is receiving the bulk of analysis.
*I recommend Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Big Bang alternatives, anyone?
« Reply #2 on: 2003-07-10 18:13:29 » |
|
Hermit wrote:
<snip>
>
>
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
>
> Hermit opines - "Quite possible, but not, on its face, sufficiently persuasive to overturn the BB model - and not appearing to make useful predictions which could be used to evaluate the goodness of the model."
>
> I think I'm with Steinhart on this oneThe new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.Unlike Steinhart, I see the "standard theory" as having provided us with a number of falsifiable predictions - some of which have been validated (Refer e.g. Hermit, Age of the Universe, 2003-07-04 (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=28792)). As for this "new theory", which is not, I think, particularly new, I see it as interesting speculation, although it seems to me that it conflicts with our reluctant (but general) acceptance that Omega appears more and more likely to be less than 1 (i.e. the Universe will keep expanding). Against this, Science is peer reviewed, and thus it is probable that the article is well reasoned and does not c!
> ontain any major contradictions with known evidence. Ask me again in 20 years.
<snip>
My deep suspicion is we will never fully understand the inflation that took place in the first moments of the BB as I theorize it was an artifact of two closed and distinct sets of physical laws whose margins momentarily "instantiated" a chasm beyond which we may not peer.
However, there is that damnably alluring "Hawking Radiation" which Hermit posits might contain some data which addresses the chasm.
Walter
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re: virus: Re:Big Bang alternatives, anyone?
« Reply #3 on: 2003-07-10 18:15:59 » |
|
Sorry, I meant to add this URL to the end of previous post.
Walter
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
Hermit wrote:
<snip>
>
>
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.html
>
> Hermit opines - "Quite possible, but not, on its face, sufficiently persuasive to overturn the BB model - and not appearing to make useful predictions which could be used to evaluate the goodness of the model."
>
> I think I'm with Steinhart on this oneThe new theory provides possible answers to several longstanding problems with the big bang model, which has dominated the field of cosmology for decades. It addresses, for example, the nagging question of what might have triggered or come "before" the beginning of time.Unlike Steinhart, I see the "standard theory" as having provided us with a number of falsifiable predictions - some of which have been validated (Refer e.g. Hermit, Age of the Universe, 2003-07-04 (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=28792)). As for this "new theory", which is not, I think, particularly new, I see it as interesting speculation, although it seems to me that it conflicts with our reluctant (but general) acceptance that Omega appears more and more likely to be less than 1 (i.e. the Universe will keep expanding). Against this, Science is peer reviewed, and thus it is probable that the article is well reasoned and does not c!
> ontain any major contradictions with known evidence. Ask me again in 20 years.
<snip>
My deep suspicion is we will never fully understand the inflation that
took place in the first moments of the BB as I theorize it was an
artifact of two closed and distinct sets of physical laws whose margins
momentarily "instantiated" a chasm beyond which we may not peer.
However, there is that damnably alluring "Hawking Radiation" which
Hermit posits might contain some data which addresses the chasm.
Walter
--
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual
partner spayed or neutered."
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.54
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
|
|
Re:Big Bang alternatives, anyone?
« Reply #4 on: 2003-07-16 16:38:10 » |
|
Sorry for the delay in responding.
Hermit, I would like to thank you for taking the time to offer such a rounded response. I am aware of the point you make about “punctuated by exclaimation points, or peppered with capitalized text,” and it was what sent the gauge into red when I was reading link 1. However, it is difficult to command respect if all one can offer as refutation, is that.
I admit to finding your handling of links 2 and 3 to be of particular interest, on a level of making my own thoughts clearer. I refer here to your comment of link 2, “Against this, Science is peer reviewed (bricoleur: see below **), and thus it is probable that the article is well reasoned and does not contain any major contradictions with known evidence. Ask me again in 20 years.” And to your comment of link 3, “I don't say that the author's theory is "wrong", merely that at this time it appears that the necessity for a new theory which he appears to be identifying seems less than necessary to me, and for now, I can live with the consensus model which while quite possibly wrong, is receiving the bulk of analysis.” These may seem obvious to you, as it does to me know, but it assisted in clarifying my thoughts considerably, so I thank you.
I have been ‘practising’ these suggestions of yours on some random papers with some promising results, and by promising I mean that my ability to critique has reached a new depth.
** You mention peer review above, which is interesting, as I was about to make a new post about peer review but shall post my question here. As you may be aware I have been searching the archives trying to digest as much of the scientific method as possible, and was wondering, as a non-scientist, just how successful the peer review process is?
I found the following online (yes I was looking for criticisms to peer review, I find this helps the learning process), “Peer review: the Holy Office of modern science” (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-02/ns_mh.html), where the author claims:
“It is argued here that peer review as now undertaken by most scientific journals stifles scientific communication, slows the advancement of knowledge and encourages dishonest behavior among referees. Alternatives to peer review that have already been used by some journals and funding bodies are described. Since these alternatives have proved themselves in practice, the now commonly practised form of peer review can be abandoned or modified. Electronic communication can facilitate this process.”
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but as an individual who has (does?) worked as a scientist, and managed a team of scientists (if I recall correctly from a post I found buried deep in the archives!), what are your thoughts of the peer review process in relation to the article linked above?
Of course this question is open to answering by anyone here.
And before I go, thank you for your thoughts too Walter.
the bricoleur
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
