Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rethinking the origins of the universe

unc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#131

Post by lutusp »

dhimes wrote: post #127
lutusp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even though the "Big Bang Theory" isn't generally believed any longer. Really? Given that science doesn't turn on belief but evidence, still, the Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence. It's the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe' beginnings. Like all scientific theories, it's subject to replacement as new evidence appears and as new theories are crafted, but it's a good match at th…

Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence No. The universe is too smooth for the Big Bang theory. It has been supplanted by the Inflationary theory.

Big Bang and Inflation are't alternatives, they're part of the same theory. Inflation followed the Big Bang. In fact, recent studies of the CMB provide evidence for both the Big Bang and inflation.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#132

Post by lutusp »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #128
lutusp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's a bit naive to say that science doesn't turn on belief. That depends entirely on what we mean when we say "science". If by "science" we mean as defined and as practiced when it's done right, then no, belief plays no part -- it can't. If it did, it wouldn't be science. > Scientist aren't robots, mechanically and dispassionately ingesting evidence and spitting out theory. Scientists aren't robots, but th…

I'm not confusing science with religion. You might be describing something close to science in some ideal but certainly not what it looks like in reality. In reality, we don't have perfect experiments or evidence, and scientists have to draw conclusions based on interpretations of data. Like it or not, a lot of human factors come into play there. Even more so when the subjects themselves are human. If you want to rul…

> You might be describing something close to science in some ideal but certainly not what it looks like in reality.

Wait, are we discussing science or the problems science is designed to solve? You could make your remarks just as well about law, arguing that, because laws are broken, therefore they shouldn't exist, or they don't really mean what they say. You could also say this about mathematics, which only rarely exactly agrees with experience, but is still extremely useful in making predictions about an imperfect world.

Science is meant to be an ideal, that's its purpose.

> If you want to rule out everything where there's a strong human, non-mechanical element from the world of science, then there's very little science going on to talk about.

How are you missing the point that science is supposed to represent an alternative to everyday human affairs? And how are you missing the fact that, no matter how emotionally attached to a particular outcome, no matter how driven, a person still has to toe the science line in order to accomplish anything useful?

> ... I don't think it serves any useful purpose to pretend that science actually happens in a clean room.

True -- only good science, memorable science, happens in a clean room.

I can't believe you haven't figured out that science exists precisely because people are the way they are. If this were not the case, if people could divorce themselves from passion and perceptual distortions when circumstances required it, there would be no science -- what we call science would be one variety of normal human behavior and no one would think about it.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#133

Post by lutusp »

cruisername wrote: post #125
lutusp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The weight lying on "science" does form a conceptual framework that completely ignores the notion of something beyond our reach, although it inarguably is the driving force behind science. Yes, but an idea doesn't become a matter of interest to science until it comes within our reach, in the sense of being observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific…

I agree with your co-commentator, everything is subjective and we just take some things for granted so much that we take them as truth. Seems i was wrong calling it inarguable, in fact i like to argue back and forth a lot. > observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective"). no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal po…

> ... no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal post. That kind of subjectivity might be your threshold for accepting some cognition as close enough to your supposition of objectivity, but it still requires trust on an individual level.

You're making the post-modern argument. Are you aware of this? Everything is subjective, there are no objective shared truths, it's all a matter of opinion. But you haven't thought this viewpoint through to its logical conclusion, which is that, if it's true, then it applies first to the argument itself, fatally undermining it.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#134

Post by cruisername »

lutusp wrote: post #133
cruisername wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your co-commentator, everything is subjective and we just take some things for granted so much that we take them as truth. Seems i was wrong calling it inarguable, in fact i like to argue back and forth a lot. > observable in a way that forces different, similarly equipped observers to the same conclusion (the scientific meaning of "objective"). no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal po…

> ... no, that's still subjectivity, you just shifted the goal post. That kind of subjectivity might be your threshold for accepting some cognition as close enough to your supposition of objectivity, but it still requires trust on an individual level. You're making the post-modern argument. Are you aware of this? Everything is subjective, there are no objective shared truths, it's all a matter of opinion. But you hav…

I am aware of that, but I didn't think it through far enough to conclude that it's really undermined. I dunno, say, It only makes predictions about subjects, no the bigger picture, where a god-device would come in. It doesn't really explain away your stand point either. Good talk :)

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#135

Post by dhimes »

lutusp wrote: post #131
dhimes wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Bang remains the best explanation for existing evidence No. The universe is too smooth for the Big Bang theory. It has been supplanted by the Inflationary theory.

Big Bang and Inflation are't alternatives, they're part of the same theory. Inflation followed the Big Bang. In fact, recent studies of the CMB provide evidence for both the Big Bang and inflation.

That's incorrect- and your use of it is exactly my point. The Big Bang Theory did not have an inflationary component. The Inflationary Theory (a new set of physical behaviors) came about to explain the smoothness that the Big Bang Theory could not explain.

As is typical when this happens, parts of the original theory remained. For example, the "big bang" event- the idea that everything started from an initial 'explosion' of space-time- remained. And the term is still used.

My understand is that this is also true with Darwin's Theory of Evolution- I am not a biologist however so I may be off-base here. The concept of evolution- specifically survival of the fittest and speciation- remain in the current theories. And people still speak of 'evolution.' But the accepted/currently debated theories differ in some fundamental aspects, notably the gradualness of the process.

So my point was that we will be speaking of 'black holes' for a long time even if the current 'Black Holes' as we think of them today are shown to not actually exist.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#136

Post by guscost »

lutusp wrote: post #77
guscost wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with any of that, but the evidence in question still depends on several big assumptions.

It's the other way around. The evidence doesn't depend on the assumptions, the assumptions depend on the evidence. The observations are very good and offer little latitude for interpretation -- there is a very massive, very dense object at the focus of multiple stellar orbits near the center of our galaxy, and both the mass and the density of the object are easily and unambiguously derived from the orbits. It's the s…

Maybe it could be worded better. In order to say that gathering this evidence is the same as directly observing a black hole, we have to make several big assumptions.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#137

Post by Ono-Sendai »

dhimes wrote: post #126
Ono-Sendai wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, the big bang theory is still the best theory for the history of the universe.

No- it was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. They are different. You've kind of proved my point.

As I understand it, inflation usually applies shortly after the big bang.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#138

Post by dhimes »

Ono-Sendai wrote: post #137
dhimes wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No- it was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. They are different. You've kind of proved my point.

As I understand it, inflation usually applies shortly after the big bang.

My point is that the Big Bang Theory preceded the Inflationary Theory by decades. Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. We now still, however, refer to the big bang- as I am suggesting will happen with Black Holes even if the original Black Hole theories are replaced by something else.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#139

Post by lutusp »

dhimes wrote: post #126
Ono-Sendai wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, the big bang theory is still the best theory for the history of the universe.

No- it was replace by the inflationary theory long ago. They are different. You've kind of proved my point.

No- it [the Big Bang theory] was replace by the inflationary theory long ago.

This is false -- inflationary theory complements Big Bang theory, it does not replace it, as you claim. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.

Re: Rethinking the origins of the universe

#140

Post by lutusp »

dhimes wrote: post #138
Ono-Sendai wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, inflation usually applies shortly after the big bang.

My point is that the Big Bang Theory preceded the Inflationary Theory by decades. Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not. We now still, however, refer to the big bang- as I am suggesting will happen with Black Holes even if the original Black Hole theories are replaced by something else. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8372341

> Inflation came along to explain things that the original theory did not.

Again, inflation does not replace the Big Bang theory, it complements it. Big Bang and inflation are both parts of our current understanding of the early universe.

Post reply on HN