Is the Universe Out of Tune -Big Bang Theory fails again??

[papau]

http://www.sciam.com/ ....continued at Scientific American Digital

Is the Universe Out of Tune?

Like the discord of key instruments in a skillful orchestra quietly playing the wrong piece, mysterious discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations of the "music" of the cosmic microwave background. Either the measurements are wrong or the universe is stranger than we thought

By Glenn D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz

Imagine a fantastically large orchestra playing expansively for 14 billion years. At first, the strains sound harmonious. But listen more carefully: something is off key. Puzzlingly, the tuba and bass are softly playing a different song.
So it is when scientists "listen" to the music of the cosmos played in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, our largest-scale window into the conditions of the early universe. Shortly after the big bang, random fluctuations--probably thanks to the actions of quantum mechanics--apparently arose in the energy density of the universe. They ballooned in size and ultimately became the galaxy clusters of today. The fluctuations were a lot like sound waves (ordinary sound waves are oscillations in the density of air), and the "sound" ringing throughout the cosmos 14 billion years ago was imprinted on the CMB. Now we see a map of that sound drawn on the sky in the form of CMB temperature variations

“... mysterious discrepancies have arisen between theory and observations ... It looks like inflation is getting into a major jam.” Glen D. Starkman and Dominik J. Schwarz, “Is the Universe Out of Tune? Scientific American, Vol. 293, August 2005, pp. 49, 55.


From the past:

In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?” “But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.” Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

One might also ask where the “cosmic egg” came from if there was a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are specified. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg” (having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode, based on present understanding. Claiming some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. (“How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific)

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,” Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

[bonito]

1. The only thing out of tune with the universe is man.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. I have always suspected that the whole thing was bullshit

A suspect that Steven Hawking is pure bullshit too.

[beam me up scottie]

22. A lovely man and very much admired.

[Maple]

3. Dear me

Another woo-woo theory exposed and shot to hell I see.

[papau]

7. Now, now - I like woo-woo physics theory - anti-gravity force and stars

older than the universe are two of my favorites - although the nothing excapes from a black hole "except information ala Hawking", and action at a distance that you do not know about, and negative information canceling out positive information, and a "finite" number of multiple universes for every combination of qM states since time began, and the latest twisted and knotted universe in the non-universe void - a klein bottle universe perhaps - blocking our view of the big bang, plus 10 or 11 dimemsion strings, plus zero point energy and Bane rubbing and dark matter, are all coming up fast into the favorite category.

Indeed the old question "Are the Laws of Phsyics only local to this solar system" may have to pulled out of the waste basket we tossed it into a while back.

[Maple]

48. Infinite possibilities, no?

String theory is becoming woo woo too

:The most celebrated theory in modern physics faces increasing attacks from skeptics who fear it has lured a generation of researchers down an intellectual dead end."

-snip-

"Already, the split over string theory has caused tensions at some of the nation's university physics departments. "The physics department at Stanford effectively fissioned over this issue," said Laughlin, now on sabbatical in South Korea. "I think string theory is textbook 'post-modernism' (and) fueled by irresponsible expenditures of money."

The dispute could become explosive this year, with the publication of contrarily minded books by two of the best-known and most eloquent scientific popularizers of physics, string theorist Michio Kaku of City University of New York and astro-physicist- particle theorist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland."

http://www.rednova.com/news/space/137255/the_good_and_bad_of_string_theory/index.html

Should be interesting..:popcorn:

Although I've never understood why these things can't be discussed in a civilized open way.

Sir Isaac Newton was into alchemy, and religion and a dozen other things in a big way.

He certainly had an open mind, and asked a lot of questions, no matter how funny we find them now...and perhaps that ability, not to mention mental agility,led him to become one of the giants of science.

Einstein said that 'Imagination is more important than knowledge'

It's a big universe, and so far we know very little about it. It's probably far different than anything we've theorized so far.

Anyway, on Dec 25 I celebrate Sir Isaac Newton's birthday. :D

[Pepperbelly]

4. they seem to have fallen on the Tommy Flanigan gambit in shoring up ...

their favorite notion.

Not enough matter? That's because ... because there is ... uh ... black matter. Yeah, black matter. That's why we haven't seen it. It turns out that ... there is just enough of it to make the cosmic egg go boom. That's the ticket.

[papau]

20. Very True! :-)

:-)

[BillZBubb]

5. Huh?

I don't see how any of this changes the basic idea of a big bang--or at least an expansion. It simply means that we don't yet understand the underlying details.

The fact that the cosmic background radiation exists proves the universe has expanded from a much more compact, much hotter state. Maybe the bang wasn't so big, but expansion is real.

The inflation period has always been problematic. There is a big gap in what we know about that. Nothing new here.

[Pepperbelly]

6. I think the BB is beginning to look like ...

entrenched dogma rather than proven theory.

I think plasma cosomology deserves a good hard look.

[LastDemocratInSC]

8. In science, theories aren't proven - they are disproven

It's a "last man standing" affair. The theories that survive to fight tomorrow are those that are left standing after today's scrutiny. Scientific theories that appear to be dogma are those that haven't been scuffed in a long, long time. The Big Bang is one of those. To date, it's our best explanation of the facts as we know them.

There's plenty more to be learned - and the best is definitely yet to come - but those new things will be variations on the themes we already know. The baby isn't going to be thrown out with the bathwater.

[Pepperbelly]

9. and it still doesn't feed the bulldog.

see my post above.

[papau]

25. our best explanation of the facts as we know them does not explain -so

the next step is change the explanation.

Whether this is throwing the "baby out with the bathwater" or some less drastic move I leave to those who are better at mixing English metaphors/proverbs than I am.

[papau]

10. I love plasma cosomology - thinking out of the box! Good Point! :-)

plasma cosomology - the universe has existed for an infinite time-without beginning or end - an infinite universe evolving over infinite time - the ultimate evolution theory!

Throw in the latest idea from the Greeks -Loop Quantum Gravity - which was in the SA of December 2002 "Throwing Einstein for a Loop - Physicist Fotini Markopoulou Kalamara has developed a way to connect relativity with quantum theory--while making sure that cause still precedes effect" "The result was networks that do not live in space and are not made of matter. Rather their very architecture gives rise to space and matter. In this picture, there are no things, only geometric relationships. Space ceases to be a place where objects such as particles bump and jitter and instead becomes a kaleidoscope of ever changing patterns and processes."......

Creation of matter as the one off product of architecture! ......


.... and I thank the Lord for creating such an interesting world.

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[salvorhardin]

11. We're allowing sources from creationist websites in the Science forum now?

How The Study of Creation Can Be Scientific
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ12.html

All of the OP's quotes under his "From the past" heading are from this page.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes56.html

[Pepperbelly]

12. Scientific American?

WTF are you talking about?

[salvorhardin]

13. Very cute but I was specific in my prior post

All of the OP's sources are from this page of quotes at a creationist web site: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes56.html

Quoting the OP:

From the past:

In a Big Bang universe, linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. But what started the rotary motions?” “But to balance the cosmic energy books—and to avoid violating the most fundamental laws of physics—matter and antimatter should have been created in exactly equal amounts. And then they should have promptly wiped each other out. Yet here we are.” Tim Folger, “Antimatter,” Discover, August 2004, p. 68.

One might also ask where the “cosmic egg” came from if there was a big bang. Of course, the question is unanswerable. Pushing any origin explanation back far enough raises similar questions—all scientifically untestable. Thus, the question of ultimate origins is not a purely scientific matter. What science can do is test possible explanations once the starting assumptions are specified. For example, if a tiny “cosmic egg” (having all the mass in the universe) existed, it should not explode, based on present understanding. Claiming some strange, new phenomenon caused an explosion (or inflation) is philosophical speculation. While such speculation may or may not be correct, it is not science. (“How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific)

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big-bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers.” Fred Hoyle, “The Big Bang Under Attack,” Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

“Astronomy, rather cosmology, is in trouble. It is, for the most part, beside itself. It has departed from the scientific method and its principles, and drifted into the bizarre; it has raised imaginative invention to an art form; and has shown a ready willingness to surrender or ignore fundamental laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics and the maximum speed of light, all for the apparent rationale of saving the status quo. Perhaps no ‘science’ is receiving more self-criticism, chest-beating, and self-doubt; none other seems so lost and misdirected; trapped in debilitating dogma.” Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (New York: University Press of America, 1999), p. xv.

[Zenlitened]

14. Oy. This all has a familar feeling. :(

[beam me up scottie]

16. Yeah, looks like cherry picking,

also known as selective thinking.
Very familiar.
But at least there's something creationists are experts at, besides looking ridiculous.

[papau]

19. open minded scienitific discussion -or discussion approved by the priest

beam me up scottie and the priest salvorhardin?

The idea folks - albeit in the science classes of yesteryear - is to examine and evaluate and if possible "prove and disprove".

So - any comments on the missing low notes in the sound of the universe as predicted by the big bang? Or is Scientific American too hard to read?

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

26. If you're so clever, why can't you figure out how to use spell check?

And I think you would need to post the entire article in order for people to read and discuss it in depth, no?

Or did you think we were *cough* psychic ?

[papau]

28. I believe you would not post until you read the article - unless you had a

background in physics that allowed you to forgo that step.

As for spell check, you will find that if you set your internet protections too high, DU spell check will not work.

So in there will be spelling errors in my posts as I prefer the trade-off of extra security.

Sorry if that bothers you.

[beam me up scottie]

29. I downloaded several dictionaries and use them in my browser,

since I use Opera.

DU's spell check NEVER worked for me so I found a way around it.

Oh, and the dictionaries actually LEARN and EVOLVE when I use them.

Science is neat, isn't it?

[papau]

34. Well said :-) I accept that I have not learned and evolved into Opera

and it's uses.

Indeed I am months behind in Linux :-)

- on a serious note I wonder if age makes you more fearful of failure, so you do not go outside the usual. Perhaps I am getting too comfortable and rejecting change.

Fear of failure and fear of success and the change it will bring - now there are some topics that I could relate first hand info on - but only after saying I know little or nothing about the workings of the Psyche.

In any case I have a heart operation excuse this sumner - so I will use that and not feel guilty about my lack of learning mew things of late.

[beam me up scottie]

37. I just had to decide I hated Bill Gates enough

to want to kick every bit of his greedy ass out of my computer.

So I started with Explorer.

Mozilla's a breeze if you want to try it.

We use it at work and it's very user friendly and much more secure than Explorer.

[papau]

40. I am feeling guilty - and jealous - and tired. I need more energy!

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

42. You're not alone.

My dad puts me to shame.
He's in his 70's and a cancer surviver but is still a techie and a genius.
I'm lazy.

[papau]

53. I think I'd like your dad! - being around someone with energy helps

me at least/

And I long ago learned I was not the smartest guy in the room! So hearing a techie and a genius would be pure pleasure.

:-)

[Zenlitened]

24. "God-fetish." Even a thoughtful and thought-provoking article in SA...

... gets reduced instantly to a "praise the lord" sermon.

As if the ongoing process of scientific inquiry, debate and discovery instantly equates to "God did it! God did it!"

Tiresome. :eyes:

[papau]

30. better is "we don't know a great deal" and perhaps "it is fun to put down

wild and crazy ideas that have no foundation" - all the while admiring the math and creativity that developed the wild and crazy idea.

But "God did it" does not fit a science forum, so I was surprised that a sourcing of a list of sources was called into question so as to put down the idea that "God did it" when the put down of the Big Bang is a put down of a theory that fits the Bible quite well.

I expect better logic in the science forum.

[Zenlitened]

32. I'd appreciate better logic in your post, because I'm not at all sure...

... I know what the heck you're saying there. :shrug:

[papau]

43. "praise the lord" sermon ???? - I am not sure I understand how that

thought fits a dump on the big bang.

No matter -

tis late - and past my bedtime/

peace

:-)

[Zenlitened]

47. Please see comment on post 10

Also, didn't you get yourself banned over your religious zealotry once? :shrug:

[beam me up scottie]

50. I thought I remembered that.

What a coincidence...

[beam me up scottie]

31. Revolting, isn't it?

This is how they are getting ID into the schools.

They add a few opinions from whack job scientists to dress it up all nice and purdy, put lipstick on it and then pretend it's science and figure the believers are too ignorant to know any better.

[papau]

36. What the hell is ID - saying things are complicated and we do not know the

answers?

[beam me up scottie]

38. ID is putting lipstick on a pig.

And the pig is creationism.

[papau]

41. Creationism is not science - and ID says nothing of interest n/t

n/t

[beam me up scottie]

44. I thought you were a proponent.

Couldn't tell from your post.
Most IDers describe it as you did and try to pretend that it's just a way of looking for answers.

[papau]

52. I am a proponent of an open mind - and that is all - except I am

a Christian - but that is a faith, not a science, thing.

I am as amused by those that try to "prove" faith via science as I am by those that try to disprove faith via science.

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

15. but but but...

:evilgrin:

[papau]

18. Please see comment on post 17

:-)

[papau]

17. Sorry about the sourcing - but the site had some of the most fun quotes -

although I can't for the life of me understand why someone things they support creationscience. Heck the Big Bang is a nice fit for Bible and creation - so why dump on it? In any case Science Digest and Discover Mag is not creation science biased (albeit they are a bit light) last I looked.

And as for the question
“How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific" - well is that an unfair question?

Indeed as the book review Martin's Astronomy on Trial says http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/bookrec.html "OK, so this book is neither well-written, nor scholarly, in the sense that Martin does not cite really professional journals in physics or cosmology. That said, he really gives Big Bang fans something to think about, so from a philosopher’s perspective (namely, mine, given that I do not have a degree in physics …), this is one interesting book! I would really like to hear from some physicists or cosmologists as to the arguments and objections that Martin makes here. It will be interesting to see if and how they can be answered ... if they can be.

Or is a discussion ended by pointing out that a source library has many crazy books, so questions raised by any book from that library should be ignored?

[salvorhardin]

21. This discussion is pointless

You used a headline and the first paragraph and a half from an article that is not available without a subscription to Scientific American Digital, or a printed copy of the August 2005 Scientific American. Neither the headline or the quoted paragraphs allow for any discussion informed by science as there isn't any there. The overall premise of the article is not even stated within the portion of that article viewable by the public.

Then you follow that up by a block of cherry picked quotes from a creationist website. Excuse me, but I see this as a thinly veiled attempt at promoting creationism.

The fact that your "library" has many crazy books or the proposition that one out of those many books may have some merit is beside the point. This is the science forum. It is for discussions regarding science and not religion.

[papau]

23. You need only ask and it will be explained to you but your complaint is

is bull as you reflect on sourcing and not the question.

Please reread the post - BIG BANG FITS CREATION BY GOD

So to dump on BIG BANG advances creationism HOW??????

More important, the science is in the questions - not who asked.

And even more important the background radiation should have a range - a musical range if you will - and the low notes are missing unless we go the route of saying that variables that would seem to have ranges are really very specific constants - sort of a QM approach but with no experimental evidence to justify our choice.

Besides - of you want to hang in the science forum perhaps buying SA now and then - or at least reading it -might be a good investment (The issue/Article was at the local public library ;ast week - so you do not even have to buy anything).

[Maple]

27. 'Birth cry' of the cosmos heard

"Mark Whittle of the University of Virginia has analysed the so-called background radiation that was born 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

Ripples in the radiation are like sound waves bouncing through the cosmos.

Over the first million years the music of the cosmos changed from a bright major chord to a sombre minor one."

-snip-

"Listening to it I have to say that the Universe is a lousy musical instrument," says Professor Whittle."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3832711.stm

[papau]

35. I like it - now where can we get the CD?

:-)

[bemildred]

33. All reductive descriptions of the universe are inadequate.

This story, while a bit interesting, does not impress me much.

Cosmology is a lot of fun, but it has always suffered from a lack of direct access to it's subject matter. The whole song and dance about "dark matter" has a similar feel of adding a fudge factor to make things fit.

[papau]

39. I agree - when I was coming through a fellow was working on the math

to explain elliptical galaxies - and of course got into some amazing integrals that could not be solved - so he spend a year on trying to find mins and maxes to those integrals.

I knew then I was not smart enough for that kind of work - plus I did not understand the point of the effort. But mostly I knew I was not smart enough to make a career of that kind of work.

[bemildred]

45. Sometimes there is no simple closed form solution.

The universe does not reduce to a deductive system. Cellular automata and recursive systems widen the discussion a good bit and provide fascinating results, but just don't offer that know-it-all feel that the Newtonian clockwork world did.

I bailed out on graduate level math for the same sort of reasons. It was interesting, but I could see it was a game one must play for it's own sake, like chess say, and not because one wants to obtain answers to the ultimate questions, and there was a lot of other stuff to look into and do, and life is short; but I still respect those that take up the torch and pass it on.

[papau]

54. I also respect those that take up the torch - but found being an actuary

and solving problems in the real world a great deal more to my taste.

:toast:

:-)

[Celebration]

46. Not getting it either

The advent (haha get the lingo) of the big bang theory was when all the creationists sort of came out of the woodwork and started equating that with some sort of biblical Beginning. So saying the big bang may not be so is actually throwing water on the creationist type thinking. Somehow it seems a few here might be getting things mixed up--say, if you question some theory that is mostly accepted, then you must be a creationist. The logic doesn't follow. Work it out.

[beam me up scottie]

49. Really?

Maybe if you actually read the posts it would help.
If you had, the facts that the op's quotes came from this site:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes56.html

and that it was no coincidence since he admitted it wouldn't have eluded you.

Tricky, isn't it?

[papau]

55. Sourcing a source list has to be at least a one off crime! I think

"itsjustme" understands the basic point very well -

sometimes we do not know what we say we know as well as we thought!

[Bill McBlueState]

51. I'm not sure what your point is.

You have a lot of quotes from creationist sources, which have been shown to say whatever they need to say to advance their agendas.

I can say that if "inflation is getting into a major jam," nobody's going to be too upset. Inflation is a relatively new addition to the big bang theory, and if it falls out of favor, the idea that the universe expanded from a singularity will still be standing. The evidence for that is strong, and not entirely dependent on observations of multipoles in the CMB.

[papau]

56. George Garmov's 1940's book was clear - I agree that the expanding

Universe has a lot of "big bang" logic in it -

but the CMB problem seems to say we know only the outline.

[Mike03]

57. Curious: Inflation Question

If Inflation theory is shot down, does that jeopardize String Theory? So often in the popular literature these two concepts seem to be linked.

I accept the Big Bang theory but it is so hard to grasp the concept that all of this could have emerged from a point. I read about these Plank distances and it simply boggles the mind.

[Skinner]

58. Locking

The article from Scientific American would have been permitted in the Science forum. But the list of out-of-context, cherry-picked quotes from a creationist website is totally inappropriate. The lack of a source for those quotes is also extremely problematic.