Quote:
Originally Posted by rcglinsk
I have come up with an excuse for my order. I scrolled up from the bottom of the page.
If all the "big bang theories" are not actually big bang theories, but really are children of it, "if there was a big bang and [theory] then..." I don't see why the idea of a big bang has any scientific merit.
|
I think others have addressed this already, but anyway ...
The terms "theory" and "hypothesis" have particular meanings in modern science, and these meanings are somewhat different than those found in everyday usage (especially for "theory"); also, the two words are not synonyms.
Part of the difficulty I'm having in responding to your posts is that you seem to not be aware of these distinctions; you conflate 'theory' and 'hypothesis', for example.
Here's the OP again:
Quote:
Hypothesis: the true story of the universe begins with a big bang, from there includes a non-stellar source of light and that the CMB was born of that source.
Questions:
What experiment do I conduct to try to disprove any or all of that hypothesis? What apparatus would I build? What would the experiment entail? How would I tell my results have disproved the hypothesis?
What prediction could I make about something people have yet to observe? That is, what could we do to check that hypothesis' predictions? Does it even make predictions that are checkable? If so, what are they, or what is one of them?
|
So here's yet another, highly simplified (possibly over-simplified) take:
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Assume General Relativity (GR).
Derive, from GR, solutions for a universe comprised of mass-energy.
Realise that the only two stable solutions are expansion and contraction.
Incorporate standard particle physics into GR-based models of an expanding universe.
Realise that there is a 'surface of last scattering' which would resemble an isotropic sea of photons whose energy distribution would be an almost perfect blackbody.
Give this 'sea of photons' the name 'CMB'.
From these GR-based models of an expanding universe incorporating standard particle physics, derive predictions of what we, here on Earth, should 'see', if the universe we live in were 'like' such a universe where GR rules.
From these predictions, formulate specific, testable hypotheses (for astronomers to sink their teeth into).
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
... and that brings us to my set of four
possible tests; note that I was very clear that there were only examples (the list was not intended to be either particularly precise or complete).
Quote:
So, you say that the CMB's polarization is a way to test the hypothesis. But can any particular polarization prove a big bang never happened? That's the key issue.
|
Despite many, many posts on this, it seems you cannot let go of the "proof" strawman!
Assume a set of hypotheses concerning the CMB's polarisation were soundly formed and properly tested; assume the result of the test is something like "the CMB is not polarised like that!".
From your legal background, and from the logic of my extremely simplified outline, you should be able to see the impact ... just go back up the chain, as far as necessary, and stop where this particular test makes no difference; in your paradigm, the test would then have "disproven" cosmological theory just below (further down the chain) there.
Do you follow all that? If not, I'll be happy to go through it more slowly.
Quote:
|
Your second example is strikingly similar to the answer an intelligent design advocate gave when asked "what experiment could I conduct to disprove the intelligent design hypothesis." The advocate said, basically, "Set a beaker with the 'building blocks of life' and some water on a shelf for fifty thousand years. When no life evolves, you'll have your proof." It did not fly as a reason to teach intelligent design in schools.
|
So what?
First, note that there are many tests, not just one.
Second, note that "basically" doesn't cut it ... hypotheses are not so lightly messed with ("Where were you at the time of the murder?" "I don't know, what was the time of the murder?" "The murder was sometime between 1990 and 2008").
Third, if you do a back-of-the-envelope estimate of a "Moore's law for CMB detectors", you might find that you could reasonably expect to get a clear signal from a "WMAP Mark 20", within three decades, bringing this second test within the lifetimes of a (possibly large) majority of readers of this post today.
(There are "fourth" and "fifth" and ... of course, but you get the idea, right?)
Quote:
|
The third and fourth example you give depend on assuming the big bang theory is true at the outset. You assume things far away were experiencing a higher temperature CMB and that the Hubble constant has some physical meaning.
|
Um ... er ... are you familiar with the word "gobsmacked"?
rcglinsk, that's what hypotheses are all about!
Quote:
Also, as for inconsistency. If we assume the big bang is true, we can look back in time to what things were like 13 billion years ago. At that time the big bang theory predicts two values for ratios of isotopes of lithium seven. One by inflation theory. The other by the look backwards theory. Is that not an inconsistency?
|
I don't understand this; would you mind clarifying?
Start with "
two values for ratios of isotopes of lithium seven" - what ratio(s)? And isn't "
lithium seven" an isotope?
Quote:
|
I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on my separation of church and state argument.
|
Whatever opinions on "
separation of church and state" I might have I shall be keeping entirely to myself, on this forum anyway.
However, if you are interested in discussing the nature of modern science, and the extent to which cosmology is science, I'll gladly join in.