Big Bang seems wrong, computers to blame

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

That is real easy to hear wrong, it gives fodder to anti-BB types for no good reason. First of all, inadequate computers may be a reason that accurate simulations are currently impossible, but it's not the reason for the headline-- it's not the reason that current computer simulations give inconsistent results. That can't be the computers' fault, it must be the fault of the human-designed simulations. So the real question is, what are the simplifying assumptions in place to make those simulations feasible, and what is wrong with those assumptions?

It does seem unfair.

This sounds a lot like weather. Do the weather models predict your rain chances accurately a week from now? Can they predict last weeks weather accurately? How about a million years ago?

Solar system models aren't so easy either.

If these aren't so easy, no reason to be hard on BBT number crunching.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

Do the weather models predict your rain chances accurately a week from now?

They have trouble getting it right for tomorrow

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Oh, you just know the woo-woo's are going to run with this!

__________________
Gimme a minute to read through Jay's latest observations...

Can anyone show me the phrase that actually says "Wrong"? All I see is indications of not accurate ENOUGH. Limitations.

But does that mean "wrong"? I think in the context of a theory it's not. It's a step.

If I want to measure the thickness of my brake pad, my ruler is not "Wrong" (although it's not the right tool) It's just not accurate enough. But; It still gets me somewhere... I measure it at 3mm when it's actually 2.9mm. Am I wrong? It depends on why I need the measure.

How would anyone be able to simulate anything that is 96 percent unknown?

With 96 educated guesses. It may be unkown, but the theories for the 96% are there. And if those guesses are right, then the simulation should match the real world.

Yes, but the issue is confidence. We have great confidence in how brakes work, but many could become more dubious about BB Theroy - "its just another theory and, now, one without a working computer model" may be their cry. Its a credibility issue.

They will ignore the wonderful concordance discovered for BBT and ignore the difficulty involved in producing a computer model for the entire universe. They do, however, know about the weather and our limitations to model it.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

But; does that mean it's "wrong" or just not yet working. I guess I'm stuck on the word itself.

Yes, good point. If they don't get past the title, then some will claim it must be "wrong" based on advance computer calculations.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

This whole issue speaks to what is the purpose of a simulation. Observations generate the need for a theory to explain them. The theory comes along, and simulations try to check the full ramifications of the theory. When the simulations are difficult, it is not at all uncommon for the simulations to fail to completely link the theory to the observations. Sometimes it means the theory is missing a key element, other times it means the simulations are not reliable. Supernova simulations were carried out for a very long time before they could actually get stars to supernova, and still have problems with it, but no one says that the theory that massive stars go supernova is "wrong". It just means that there must be some aspect of what is happening that is not properly accounted for in the simulations, either because of numerical problems or due to improper simplifying assumptions. It's not unusual.

I've about given up on popular science magazines. The quality of writing has just become too poor to bother with them.

The computers can't get the BB quite right. I wonder how long before the creationists jump on this?

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

Strike-five for the BB theory...or is anyone even counting anymore?

So, it has a few strikes against it. But it still has a pretty good batting average.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

Very true, it just means that simulations should never be mistaken for physical reality; even if the results are "right" it doen't mean the theory is neccesarily true or correct.

Cheers.

I believe we are inside a body,not a universe as suggested.If this is the case,is it possible dark matter is actually the rest of the internal systems we cant see because we are so microscopic?

No.

Well, there was that couch gag on "The Simpson's" a couple of seasons ago. The camera pulls back to reveal that the universe is just a strand of DNA in one of the few hairs on the head of a giant Homer in another universe.

One of my favorite couch gags, but I don't believe it became a leading theory.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org