Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Turns Out . . .

So as I've mentioned here before, the Big Bang Theory is just that. A theory. It seems mighty convenient and never seems to address the basic problem of how all the matter became so densely compacted in the first place . . . a black hole? . . . but even beyond that, where did the matter come from in the first place? If all fine and dandy to say we are an expanding universe and thing started at point A. It was all jammed in one moment in time, then it exploded and sent matter out.

Sure. That could have happened. But where did the matter come from and how did it get there.

Its like the asteroid theory and the dinosaurs. It just seems to convenient for the evidence we have on hand. It seems as if something is missing. A bigger picture.

Here's some physicist that question it. They return to the idea of an ever flowing river. It too has the same philosophical problems. IFLScience.

Is it contained like Einstein believed? A fixed constant. A river like Hoyle believed. Or expanding as the modern theorists believe?

Hard to say. Maybe these stars know something we don't know.

From the Hubble Telescope.


Anonymous said...

You do know there is a huge difference between the common usage of the word theory and that used in science, right?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Troll Lord said...

Absolutely. But my point is that with any of these discussions we shouldn't seal the deal, as it were, until we know for a certainty. Once someone decides that this theory or that theory is fact, their is a tendency to close the discussion and worse, to force data to fit the prevailing thought.

We see that in almost any field.

Anonymous said...

The paper actually came out nearly a year ago. Only recently has it become overhyped, because someone overinterpreted it and it crosses the internet like a virus.

If you read the paper, it doesn't say there was no Big Bang. It says "if Bohmian trajectories were correct, here is a potential way a universe could be created without a Big Bang". But there is no physical evidence for it, or even for the validity of Bohmian trajectories. It's purely a hypothetical mathematical exercise.

As for theories, nothing ever gets elevated to "Fact". It's not "Fact of Relativity" or "Quantum Fact", even though both are true. Both have passed every experimental test of the last century and we make use of both in modern technology. To a scientist, everything is always up for question and always subject to modification based on new evidence.

There are still questions about Big Bang Theory to be answered of course, but everything we see in the sky is telling us that we're on the right track.

FYI, here's the leading theory on how we account for matter in the universe: