SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
This interview with the authors describes a fascinating book that gives facts about cosmology in a combined education and the challenges to the people who can't quite believe in the conclusions scientists draw. Looks neat.
Despite having the world's knowledge at our fingertips, we live in a time of great scientific illiteracy. Disinformation is rampant about vaccines, climate change and even pandemics like Covid-19. But it gets even trickier when talking about the origins of life, the universe, and everything. Some of the facts we often hear about the cosmos are so absurd to imagine — they can almost feel like a religious dogma.
Of course, cosmic theories are based on mountains of data, not whimsical guesses. Yet, how do scientists really know a supermassive black hole is at the center of the Milky Way? How do scientists know distant nebulae are (sometimes) made of hydrogen clouds? How do scientists know 14 billion years ago there was a massive explosion of matter and energy that formed everything in our universe?
We hear these claims often, but most of us aren't able to examine the gritty details behind a scientific theory. Two astronomers get at this problem in the new book The Cosmic Revolutionary's Handbook: Or, How To Beat The Big Bang (Cambridge University Press, 2020).
[...] But Handbook goes one step further, explaining the scientific process in detail, so if you don't accept the mainstream Big Bang theory, you can create your own. Yes, [authors] Barnes and Lewis encourage you to take on the intellectual giants of cosmology — Einstein, Hawking, and all the rest — by taking this data and interpreting your own hypothesis.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday July 17 2020, @06:28PM (15 children)
Piles of cranks with their own pet theory of everything. If only respectable journals would publish time cube or topological geodynamics [tgdtheory.fi] we'd finally overcome the problem of quantum gravity.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday July 17 2020, @06:41PM
You can't throw a heretic science here thusly, Soylentnews is a conformist science linkpump!
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Opportunist on Friday July 17 2020, @07:25PM (6 children)
Someone with a competing theory about, well, anything isn't the problem. Actually, it's highly encouraged. Because otherwise we're prone to navel gazing and avoiding to even reconsider our position. A lot of breakthroughs in science are due to someone coming up with a better explanation for what we observe. From the heliocentric model to quantum physics, they fundamentally challenged the established models and were eventually shown to be superior.
The chance of some revolutionary new model being actually better than what we have is, at this point in time, rather slim, mostly because science is already pretty good at constantly challenging its position and trying to find new and better refined models, but if you have something you think can improve on this, go ahead and present it.
But be prepared to defend your model, because it will be held to the same standards current models are.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @08:10PM (5 children)
You miss one critical failing of science, both contemporary and in the past. When you start speaking of models you run into a problem. When one model is assumed to be correct, things start building up on top of it to artificially support that model rather than challenge it. Cosmic inflation [wikipedia.org] is the best example of this. If you actually rerun our universe from the moment of the big bang to today using all we know, it ends up looking nothing like what we observe - at all. So did we throw away the model or perhaps assume a conclusion we made at some point must have been incorrect?
No, we instead invented cosmic inflation. Cosmic inflation claims that briefly after the big bang, for no explicable reason, everything suddenly just broke all laws of physics as we know them and flew into (dramatically) faster than light warp speed. And then it just as magically it stopped and resumed at its previous rate like nothing happened. There's absolutely no physical basis for why this might have been the case; it's just randomly adding magic to make what we observe fit a model which we assume to be true. And now indeed some might claim that the cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence of the big bang. But it's not. It actually refutes the big bang unless you add magic. This makes it practically impossible to refute models, even when they're completely wrong - because an immense amount builds upon them and if you can't swipe it all cleanly away with one fell stroke, then the new theory will never meet widespread adoption. Basically we end up holding new ideas to a vastly higher standard than we hold existing ones, when the exact opposite should be true since otherwise we risk prematurely pruning the 'right' hypothesis simply because it lacked refinement. Alternatively it may be that something we believe to be true (and thus expect a new model to also validate) is simply false.
And this is not a new problem. You mentioned the geocentric/heliocentric view. When you assume a heliocentric view you can retrofit everything to work with it, but it leads to really *really* strange stuff. For instance it would mean that at some point in Mercury's orbit it simply turns around and starts hauling ass the other way, once again - like magic. And so people simply accepted this because they assumed geocentricism was correct. And even if the heliocentric model was more elegant in many ways, it didn't (yet) explain absolutely everything that had been built upon the geocentric model and indeed it required completely throwing away some long held views such as that planets can magically just turn around. If not for Newton's discovery of the law of gravitation which not only explained everything but packed it all into an elementary little formula - we likely would not have gotten away from geocentricism until we could see the universe 'as through the eyes of god'. But for more complex issues it may be that such a simple formulation or existential solution does not exist which may lead us following a path that begins with 2+2=5.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Friday July 17 2020, @08:18PM (3 children)
How do you know what the universe would look like if rerun without the use of a model? If you want to say "cosmic inflation sounds wacky", go ahead. I'll agree. But the challenge is to find a better model that fits all the known facts.
That said, we KNOW our current theories are wrong. We just don't have better ones. We know because in various special conditions quantum theory and relativity make different predictions. (We don't know which predictions are correct, because these "special conditions" make observation quite difficult.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @09:14PM (2 children)
I don't think it sounds wacky. It's just a hack, and a very extreme one at that. It's like adding a (if (n % 273 == 147) goto WEIRD_FAILURE_SKIP) in a program. And in both cases, such a failure is often indicative of a much more fundamental issue. As for how we know what the universe would look like - well some things are pretty straight forward. One of the biggest issues that we run into is that parts of the universe that we know are causally connected can't be causally connected given our assumption of the age of the universe. Causally connected means two regions are connected by a distance smaller than speed_of_light * age_of_universe. In other words they've been able to causally effect one another. Add in some warp speed magic though and you can patch that right up.
I do not think a *bad* theory is better than no theory because *bad* theories become inertially sustaining. What causes the dimming of KIC 8462852 (Tabby's star)? There have been lots of hypothesis but none really do well without hacks, so the answer is 'we don't know'. And that should be the general path we take. I put *bad* in quotes to emphasize that the reason the big bang + inflation is bad is because of something much greater than uncertainty. We know that the underlying concept simply does not work without magic and that means there is a very good chance that the underlying concept is simply wrong.
By contrast like you mention there are certain issues with quantum gravity preventing a real unification of the micro (quantum mechanics) and the macro (relativity) world. But this is matter is largely just going to be one of refinement. But there is basically zero probability that either concept is fundamentally wrong or will ultimately end up requiring magic to fix. Similar to how Newtonian Gravity could not explain Mercury's orbital precession. It was off by literally 1/100th of one degree per century more than Newton would have predicted, and that was a major exception and major problem. That's generally the sign of a good hypothesis. By contrast (again) the big bang just simply doesn't work at all unless you add magic.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday July 18 2020, @01:15AM
Actually, it's my suspicion that the resolution of the quantum theory/relativity conflict will be as different from both of them as Newton's gravity was from epicycles. (Note that epicycles can be made to make the same predictions as Newton's gravity. But the crystal spheres that were the original model that caused epicycles to be considered get increasingly into trouble.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 18 2020, @01:51PM
What's supposed to be wrong with hacks? They help illuminate the problem. Any better model will need to have an explanation for cosmic inflation, either modeling the inflation or explaining why it's actually some other effect.
What bad theory? Big Bang Theory to the contrary is a good theory.
Unless, of course, it's not going to be a matter of refinement. Given how very different general relativity and quantum mechanics are, I think we'll need more than mere refinement to get there.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday July 17 2020, @09:37PM
Just for the record, the universe expanding faster than the light in it travels does not break any laws of physics. And if you do have a better model, by all means, present it and put it up for scruteny. That's what science is here for.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @08:23PM (6 children)
This is a *good* thing. Einstein was also just a "crank" with absolutely no formal experience, had never published anything, and couldn't even get accepted for a position at any university - anywhere (after trying for 2 years!) He was working as a low grade patent inspector while developing his pet theories which he felt would trump all the collective knowledge of the world's best, brightest, and most experienced. *shrug* He was right.
Of course most people will not be the next Einstein, but that goes of "cranks" and 'doctorate with 8 gazillion [mostly grant fishing] publications'. The more people that participate, the better for society.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Friday July 17 2020, @09:03PM (5 children)
The difference between Einstein and the typical crank is that Einstein actually understood the theories he was challenging, and didn't act just from a gut feeling of “I don't understand it, therefore it has to be wrong.” Also AFAIK he didn't get mad as soon as anyone dared to not immediately believe his theories.
Indeed, the easiest way to identify cranks is to look at their tone. If they accuse the established science to be stupid, then you can be pretty sure they don't have anything substantial to contribute themselves.
Einstein wasn't a crank. His theories spoke for themselves (which doesn't mean everyone immediately was convinced; indeed it took quite some time for his theories to be generally accepted). He hadn't to resort to insults because he had arguments. And those arguments were not on the level of “your luminiferous ether is just the modern epicycles“.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @09:32PM (2 children)
Oh you're going to love this. I'm certain you're aware of probably one of the most famous quotes attributed to Einstein where he referred to quantum mechanics as "spooky action at a distance." What's missed in that quote is it was not a description, but a somewhat antagonistic mocking of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (the one we have now adopted). Picture some air quotes and ghost sounds and you get the flavor of the quote more accurately. Einstein was vehemently against the Copenhagen interpretation since he believed in a much more deterministic universe. This debate is also where quotes such as "God does not play dice" also originate.
Relativity was adopted incredibly rapidly, perhaps moreso than any hypothesis before or since. It certainly was a major exception to Planck's famous witticism that 'Science advances one funeral at a time.' Einsteins' 'annus mirabilis' was 1905. By 1908 he had received worldwide recognition and accolade. And keep in mind the rate of information travel in 1908! And so we only got to see Einstein on the defensive (or would it be offensive?) when it came to quantum mechanics. And indeed the sort of person who has the ego to believe they, with no experience, no more than everybody in the world - well they tend to be a bit dogged in their ways. He took his rejections of the Copenhagen interpretation all the way to the grave.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2020, @11:16PM
I think you are downplaying the hours and hours he spent discussing these issues notably with Bohr, of course, but many others. He spent a lot of time struggling with it and arguing about it, and I think to characterize his action-at-a-distance comment as an angry knee-jerk reaction due to damage to a fragile ego is simply wrong. He could not imagine reality could work in such a way and he was determined to find a better answer, but to suggest he was reacting like a crank that couldn't handle criticism of his theories really shows how little you know of his work and his life. There are some excellent biographies of him (Pais is my favorite), and you should read the works he wrote himself if you want to get a much better idea into his thoughts and philosophies that you can't distal into a popular quip.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday July 18 2020, @08:36AM
Wrong. He absolutely accepted that quantum mechanics worked, he just was convinced that it was not complete, and that the complete theory would then no longer have that problem. Not much unlike Newtonian gravitation had an action-at-a-distance gravitational force, but even Newton himself was convinced that an actual action at a distance was not meaningful and the actual, so far unknown mechanism should be local, and indeed Einstein showed that Newtonian gravitation is just an approximation to a local theory, General Relativity.
Actually the question of the correct interpretation is far from settled. But even if it were, there's an important word in your sentence: “now”.
At Einstein's time, “the” Copenhagen interpretation (actually there are several variants) was definitely not established. And indeed, as interpretation one may argue whether it is even in the realms of science (it is not experimentally verifiable, after all; the formalism of quantum mechanics of course is, but that's one thing all interpretations of quantum mechanics agree on), or should rather be considered philosophy. So even when ignoring the points raised by the other answer to your post, you still have not demonstrated any case where Einstein attacked established science.
And three of the four publications of that “annus mirabilis” were not related to relativity. That in particular included the publication he got his Nobel prize for, the explanation of the photoelectric effect.
And why do you think that as late as 1921, the Nobel committee did not award the prize to Einstein for his Theory of Relativity?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Saturday July 18 2020, @04:29PM (1 child)
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" developed special relativity from accepted and experimentally verified E&M.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday July 18 2020, @09:51PM
In case someone wants to read it: http://chiuphysics.cgu.edu.tw/yun-ju/cguweb/PhyChiu/H305Relativity/EinsteinSpecialRelativity.pdf [cgu.edu.tw]