Burbidge's Cosmology: Overcoming Inertia in Science

  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Cosmology
In summary: Summary: In summary, G. Burbidge and others are starting to realize that the BB theory is not a theory which meets the test required by the scientific method, is not empirically verified, and should be called the Grand Cosmic Emergence Speculation. They also believe that the universe underwent an incredible amount of supraliminal expansion at the instant of its birth and that theories based on reverse engineering and which do not serve to predict any future observations are basically worthless.
  • #1
turbo
Gold Member
3,165
56
I do not subscribe to all of his ideas, nor Arp's, but I wholeheartedly encourage the epistemology that is sorely lacking in today's physics. We had to wait a LONG time before Einstein's model of gravitation overtook Newton's (and still NASA can do a pretty nice job using Newtonian gravitation).

http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/burbidge.pdf [Broken]

Note: Inertia is not just a hard-to-describe physical property associated with matter, it also a really powerful property infesting academia. How many decades or centuries of scientific progress have we stifled by establishing educational standards that demand the acceptance of "known truths" in science education before the student can be allowed to discover advanced knowledge, while epistemology is disparaged? Can you say "tunnel vision"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
All valid points, turbo. We have mostly been boxed in by observational constraints that say model A and model B cannot both be true. After a large number of such observations, the probability that model A is more likely true than model B has become overwhelming. But only a few bones of model A [mainstream] are so compelling that few seriously consider any alternatives. There is still a lot of wiggle room. And there are still a lot of model A claims that are no better supported than model B. We do get stuck 'inside the box' at times. It's the human condition. Mavericks advance science, conservatives slowly roast them to golden perfection. All in all, I think it's a good combination of checks and balances. It's easy to get impatient [I know I am] because acceptance of new ideas in such a process is inherently slow. At least we don't condone burning people at the stake anymore... albeit they are still popular at barbeque parties.
 
  • #3
It seems that G. Burbidge, like many others, is starting to realize that--not only does the emperor have no clothes--there really is not even an emperor. The BB theory is not even a theory which meets the test required by the scientific method. It can never be empirically verified. It should be called the Grand Cosmic Emergence Speculation or some similar nomenclature. But wait, it is not even good speculation. If everywhere one looks, in every direction, as far as one can detect, one finds matter/energy, with new stars and galaxies being formed and matter/energy being redistributed by gigantic gamma bursts found in ever-increasing numbers, then one might better speculate the Universe is too Grand and too Powerful to ever have existed as some bogus quantum bubble or perhaps a Higgs field (if there even is such a thing). The Universe should not be trivialized by a so-called theory which predicts nothing and requires constant changes.
 
  • #4
sd01g said:
It seems that G. Burbidge, like many others, is starting to realize that--not only does the emperor have no clothes--there really is not even an emperor. The BB theory is not even a theory which meets the test required by the scientific method. It can never be empirically verified. It should be called the Grand Cosmic Emergence Speculation or some similar nomenclature. But wait, it is not even good speculation. If everywhere one looks, in every direction, as far as one can detect, one finds matter/energy, with new stars and galaxies being formed and matter/energy being redistributed by gigantic gamma bursts found in ever-increasing numbers, then one might better speculate the Universe is too Grand and too Powerful to ever have existed as some bogus quantum bubble or perhaps a Higgs field (if there even is such a thing). The Universe should not be trivialized by a so-called theory which predicts nothing and requires constant changes.
It is amazing how so many apparently brilliant people can be deluded by a concept so patently unsupported by observational evidence.
 
  • #5
Chronos said:
It is amazing how so many apparently brilliant people can be deluded by a concept so patently unsupported by observational evidence.

Equally amazing is how so many apparently brilliant people disregard observational evidence and replace it with the concept of Inflation: The theory which states (with no scientific evidence whatsoever) that the universe underwent an incredible amount of supraliminal expansion at the instant of its birth. Theories based on reverse engineering and which do not serve to predict any future observations are basically worthless.
 

What is Burbidge's Cosmology and why is it significant?

Burbidge's Cosmology is a theory proposed by British astrophysicist Margaret Burbidge in the 1970s. It presents an alternative view to the widely accepted Big Bang theory and suggests that the universe is in a steady state, with no beginning or end. This theory is significant because it challenges the traditional understanding of the origins and evolution of the universe.

How does Burbidge's Cosmology explain the expansion of the universe?

Burbidge's Cosmology proposes that the expansion of the universe is due to the continuous creation of matter. As new matter is constantly being formed, it pushes existing matter apart, causing the expansion of the universe. This is in contrast to the Big Bang theory, which suggests that the universe expanded rapidly from a singular point in the past.

What evidence supports Burbidge's Cosmology?

One of the main pieces of evidence for Burbidge's Cosmology is the observed cosmic microwave background radiation, which is thought to be leftover radiation from the Big Bang. However, this radiation also supports the steady-state model by suggesting that the universe has always been in a state of expansion. Other evidence includes the observed distribution of galaxies and the lack of evidence for a singularity in the early universe.

What challenges does Burbidge's Cosmology face?

One of the main challenges for Burbidge's Cosmology is explaining the observed abundance of light elements in the universe, such as hydrogen and helium. The Big Bang theory offers a clear explanation for this, but Burbidge's theory does not. Additionally, the continuous creation of matter proposed by Burbidge's theory has not been observed or understood by modern physics.

How does Burbidge's Cosmology impact our understanding of the universe?

Burbidge's Cosmology presents an alternative perspective on the origins and evolution of the universe, challenging long-held beliefs in the scientific community. Whether or not this theory is ultimately proven to be correct, it encourages scientists to continuously question and test established theories, leading to a deeper understanding of the complex nature of the universe.

Back
Top