SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Higgs boson is delightfully stirring the mud puddle in the astrophysics community even after found! Instead of clearing everything up, now more questions have to be asked.
British cosmologists are puzzled: they predict that the universe should not have lasted for more than a second. This startling conclusion is the result of combining the latest observations of the sky with the recent discovery of the Higgs boson. Robert Hogan of King's College London (KCL) presents the new research on June 24 at the Royal Astronomical Society's National Astronomy Meeting in Portsmouth.
The controversy seems to be about one of the predictions of BICEP2 allegedly being observed, and if so, Robert Hogan seems to think that if they did see this effect, then the universe would not exist today, it would have went straight to 'Big Crunch' right after the 'Big Bang'.
Pop the corn, this may be a good one!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday June 25 2014, @05:36AM
I'm not so sure about that.
I'm not an astrophysicist or quantum field theorist, so I can't speak from authority either. I do hear about it a lot, and one of things I've noticed is that there is a heck of a lot math involved. It's all tied to observations and whether or not they fit a model.
Part of what I've been sold on by people is that the Big Bang theory is supported by observations, and is not in the same ballpark as creationism. Creationism operates solely on circular reasoning because God can be neither proved or disproved. It begins with the assumption that God exists, he sent Jesus, and the Bible is 100% fact. It's also the rejection of any kind of observations and theories that can prove the "Bible Model" not being perfect.
If gravity was denied in the Bible, they would deny gravity just like Bugs Bunny, and that's looney tunes.
The Big Bang has, at minimum, some observations and actual data. That's already infinitely more than Creationism.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.