Is the Big Bang Theory a Foolhardy Extrapolation?

[OOO]

Today I have been traveling across the night sky with Google Earth a bit. As always I'm surprised about how inspiring the cosmos is for thinking about physics. But I've always been quite skeptical about the big bang theory. Nowadays we're unable to simulate even a single hadron. And the observation of the sun seems to be a constant source of surprise about it's inner workings.

Yet people claim in detail about how the big bang took place and what happened when. I don't say the big bang is wrong because I'm not an expert in cosmology. But isnt't it a rather foolhardy extrapolation ? I have no philosophical (or whatever psychologically or religiously motivated) problem with a big bang apart from finding it a little strange that there should have been a singular event where such a huge amount of energy has been accidentally created from the vacuum. But if it was that way, well, okay.

What I do have a problem with is the assumption that the laws of physics have been the same for 13 billion years and/or over a distance of 13 billion lightyears. Who can say that ? Probably masses and coupling constants are just a matter of boundary conditions.

If I were to bet my son's life on the big bang, I would never ever do so.

So what makes you cosmologists so sure about that thing ?

 

[EL]

a little strange that there should have been a singular event where such a huge amount of energy has been accidentally created from the vacuum.

This is a common misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. We cannot extrapolate all the way back to the "beginning" since we do not know what physical laws to use in that extrapolation. We can "only" go about 13,7 billion years back until the temperature of the Universe corresponds to energies we have measured in accelerator experiments. Before that we just have some fair speculations of what happened. What the Big Bang theory says is that the Universe ones was in a much hotter and much denser state than it is today.

What I do have a problem with is the assumption that the laws of physics have been the same for 13 billion years and/or over a distance of 13 billion lightyears. Who can say that ?

Measurements indicates so. Maybe someone's got a good reference?

If I were to bet my son's life on the big bang, I would never ever do so.

Please don't bet your son's life om anything.

 

[OOO]

Please don't bet your son's life om anything.

Of course I won't. That was just a metaphor for how carelessly we take some things for granted.

 

[OOO]

We can "only" go about 13,7 billion years back until the temperature of the Universe corresponds to energies we have measured in accelerator experiments. Before that we just have some fair speculations of what happened. What the Big Bang theory says is that the Universe ones was in a much hotter and much denser state than it is today.

So big bang cosmology is all about thermodynamics in a gravitational background ?

 

[EL]

So big bang cosmology is all about thermodynamics in a gravitational background ?

Well, you need to add atomic, nuclear and particle physics as well.

 

[EL]

Of course I won't. That was just a metaphor for how carelessly we take some things for granted.

In know.
But seriously, the Big Bang theory is very well founded. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

 

[OOO]

But seriously, the Big Bang theory is very well founded. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

I bet there has gone a lot of energy into it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is well founded. Take this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis as an example:

"During the 1970s, there was a major puzzle in that the density of baryons as calculated by Big Bang nucleosynthesis was much less than the observed mass of the universe based on calculations of the expansion rate. This puzzle was resolved in large part by postulating the existence of dark matter."

Know what ? There is less money on my bank account than I expected. This puzzle was resolved by postulating a giant white money-eating rabbit.

 

[yogi]

That same rabbit has been munching in my bank account

 

[OOO]

That same rabbit has been munching in my bank account

Probably we should try to convince this silly animal of becoming a macrobiotic. I mean, who does he think he is ?

 

[marcus]

If I were to bet my son's life on the big bang, I would never ever do so.

What about $50? Would you be willing to bet fifty dollars that it's wrong?

I'm curious how you imagine the bet would work. How would we decide who wins?

Or if you wouldn't be willing to bet against, would you bet fifty bucks that something like that has happened? And how would we decide?

 

[OOO]

What about $50? Would you be willing to bet fifty dollars that it's wrong?

I'm curious how you imagine the bet would work. How would we decide who wins?

Or if you wouldn't be willing to bet against, would you bet fifty bucks that something like that has happened? And how would we decide?

That's precisely the point.

 

[marcus]

That's precisely the point.

then maybe we are in at least partial agreement. I still wish you would spell out what you think is precisely the point of what. But I imagine that what you mean is something professional cosmologists know extremely well. They are the toughest skeptics of their own models, and by far the best informed doubters. Professionals know very well that one cannot verify some particular version of early universe cosmology.

So it would be senseless to propose a bet like that.

All you can do is use the best most accurate theory of gravity we have, so far, and fit the data to it as closely as you can, making the fewest assumptions you can to get a close fit to observation, and see what that says.

You don't BELIEVE theories, you test them and use them (always provisionally in case a better theory comes along, and always skeptically.) Conclusions should always be qualified: "if suchandsuch model is correct, then..."

Yet people claim in detail about how the big bang ...
So what makes you cosmologists so sure about that thing ?

I am curious where you are getting your ideas about who these people are and what they claim. I hope you are not talking about popular journalism or pop-sci books. I'd like to have a link to somewhere a professional cosmologist makes some unqualified claim about events and conditions.

Assertions really ought to be qualified by reservations like "according to the usual LCDM model" or "according to GR"

GR is the most precise theory of gravity we have, it fits observations to many decimal places, but I think any working cosmologist would tell you that it can't be relied on in extreme situations. You don't believe GR, you apply it where it works and keep mental reservations about where it doesn't.

Conventional cosmology is, of course, entirely based on GR. So it is subject to the same reservations.
==================

 

[Wallace]

The issue, as marcus suggests, lies not with Big Bang theory but in understand the nature of scientific 'knowledge' in general. Modern Cosmology has a pretty detailed theory of how the Universe has evolved that is referred to commonly as 'the Big Bang', although the theory is much more complex than the simple name implies.

The point though is that your initial problem is a straw man argument, professional cosmologists do not hold the view that you are arguing against. Based on the best evidence we have we attempt to construct what appears to be the most likely explanation for what we observe, and that is about all we can ever say about a scientific theory, that it is supported by the evidence.

The evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming, but that doesn't mean that it is an unassailable truth in scientific cannon.

Pop-sci writers such as Richard Dawkins, or more relevant to cosmology, Simon Singh, sometimes, in my view, go a bit over the top in terms of the certainty of scientific knowledge. It's probably a forgivable sin, but it does lead to misunderstanding and confusing, such as that expressed by the OP.

 

[Dan Tee]

What the Big Bang theory says is that the Universe ones was in a much hotter and much denser state than it is today.

Would it be a stupid question to ask the size of the universe at this early stage?

 

[russ_watters]

Of course I won't. That was just a metaphor for how carelessly we take some things for granted.

The big bang is not taken for granted.

But evidence shows clearly that everything in the universe is flying apart. So what does that imply about the past...?

 

[russ_watters]

Would it be a stupid question to ask the size of the universe at this early stage?

That's a very difficult question. The best that can be said is it must have been very hot and very dense.

 

[pervect]

Would it be a stupid question to ask the size of the universe at this early stage?

We are pretty sure from the CMB readings that the entire observable universe originally occupied a very small size, because the temperature of the CMB appears to be the same in all directions.

However, the entire universe may be and probably is much bigger than the observable universe. For more on this, see for instance

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that.

 

[EL]

Would it be a stupid question to ask the size of the universe at this early stage?

I see you have already got some anwers to your question, but I'll just add some words.
No, it is not a stupid question, but mearly slightly unprecise. It depends on what you mean by "the universe". Usually in the scientific community "the universe" is a synonym to "the observable unvierse", that is the part of the universe from where light has had time to reach us. In that case "the universe" was very tiny at the moment the temperature corresponded to the energy scales we have been able to study in labs. In principle it should be possible to calculate the size of "the universe" at that moment. At least a rough estimate shouldn't be a problem, but I do not have the numbers in my head.
If by "the universe" you mean also the parts which are unobservable it gets more complicated, and more philosophical. See pervect's reply.

 

[OOO]

I still wish you would spell out what you think is precisely the point of what.

I was comparing cosmology with the ability to make long-term predictions in other branches of physics. Take the weather forecast as an example and compare it's time scale (days) with cosmology (13 billion years). Add to this the assumption that we don't even understand the standard model very well, let alone theories beyond the standard model.

They are the toughest skeptics of their own models, and by far the best informed doubters. Professionals know very well that one cannot verify some particular version of early universe cosmology.

That's fine, so maybe I just got the wrong impression of the whole thing.

I am curious where you are getting your ideas about who these people are and what they claim. I hope you are not talking about popular journalism or pop-sci books. I'd like to have a link to somewhere a professional cosmologist makes some unqualified claim about events and conditions.

Star Trek certainly is not one of my sources, although sometimes I think that it could be helpful...

I admit that to a large extent I'm referring to the view of popular science journalism. That's because I always avoided cosmology while learning GR (shouldn't have done this, I guess).

Maybe I just haven't found an adequate attitude towards pop journalism yet. It's the same with my own field, theoretical particle physics (in which I consider myself a novice): Everywhere the public is informed about how fantastic the standard model is and how cool physicists are. But if you look more closely it boils down to some highly accurate predictions, some quite reasonable ones, and the bloody rest.

 

[EL]

Add to this the assumption that we don't even understand the standard model very well

What do you mean? The standard model is extremely well tested!

 

[EL]

let alone theories beyond the standard model.

And that is why we can just speculate about what happened at temperatures corresponding to energies higher than what we have observed in experiments.

 

[OOO]

But evidence shows clearly that everything in the universe is flying apart. So what does that imply about the past...?

The evidence you speak of is an indirect one. Nobody has ever seen a galaxy fly away. And what's more, we can't do experiments with galaxies in their natural environment. So we have to rely on the assumption that physics is everywhere the same in the universe like in that part where we live in and which we can explore by experiments. And even the theories we design to explain these experiments change on a timescale that's infinitesimal compared to the timescale of the universe.

So even without knowing in detail about how the direct evidence is gained, I think there is much to be careful about. But, as marcus has already affirmed, cosmologists are well aware of the critical role of assumptions in their models.

 

[OOO]

What do you mean? The standard model is extremely well tested!

Yeah sure, that's the reason why theorists sit around, yawning and waiting for something exciting to happen...

 

[EL]

Yeah sure, that's the reason why theorists sit around, yawning and waiting for something exciting to happen...

I do not get what you mean?

 

[OOO]

I do not get what you mean?

Can you name an example of an "extremely well tested" prediction of the standard model that is more or less directly responsible for a corresponding prediction of cosmology ?

 

[EL]

Can you name an example of an "extremely well tested" prediction of the standard model that is more or less directly responsible for a corresponding prediction of cosmology ?

You should turn it the other way around: Our knowledge of the laws of physics up to temperatures (energies) of around 100 GeV enables us to extrapolate the history of the Universe back to that temperature scale.
The predictions of the standard model are extremely well tested in accelerator experiments.

 

[OOO]

You should turn it the other way around: Our knowledge of the laws of physics up to temperatures (energies) of around 100 GeV enables us to extrapolate the history of the Universe back to that temperature scale.
The predictions of the standard model are extremely well tested in accelerator experiments.

The universe is not an accelerator. I think we agree that most matter in the universe we see today consists of hadrons. The extrapolation you refer to reaches up to a point when there were no hadrons. What about the step inbetween ? Can you explain the formation of hadrons with the standard model ? If you can, I'll buy that extrapolation.

 

[EL]

The universe is not an accelerator. I think we agree that most matter in the universe we see today consists of hadrons. The extrapolation you refer to reaches up to a point when there were no hadrons. What about the step inbetween ? Can you explain the formation of hadrons with the standard model ? If you can, I'll buy that extrapolation.

Yes the point is of course that we also know about what physical laws hold at energies lower than 100 GeV. The quark-hadron transition is described by QCD (but I don't know to what detail). Note also that we need not know exactly every detail of every possible reaction that may occur, since we can treat the story statistically.

 

[OOO]

Note also that we need not know exactly every detail of every possible reaction that may occur, since we can treat the story statistically.

Yes, of course, like we can treat the weather forcast statistically...

 

[EL]

Yes, of course, like we can treat the weather forcast statistically...

Except that the "prediction" is backwards, and the weather we are "predicting" is the mean weather of the whole Universe, and not just some local fluctuation.
What is crusial though is that the Big Bang theory predicts a lot of stuff we can go on and controll. For example the now measured CMB and helium over hydrogene ratio was predicted long before it was confirmed. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

 

[marcus]

I admit that to a large extent I'm referring to the view of popular science journalism. That's because I always avoided cosmology while learning GR (shouldn't have done this, I guess).

Maybe I just haven't found an adequate attitude towards pop journalism yet. It's the same with my own field, theoretical particle physics (in which I consider myself a novice): Everywhere the public is informed about how fantastic the standard model is and how cool physicists are. But if you look more closely it boils down to some highly accurate predictions, some quite reasonable ones, and the bloody rest.

It sounds like part of the problem for you is the HYPE.

That is a separate issue which I don't know how to resolve, or even to begin discussion. Should the books of Stephen H. and Brian G. be burned? Should science journalists be forced to adhere to standards? Should gee-whiz science series be banned from TV? But who would pay scientist's bills if public enthusiasm were not regularly whipped up? It is all bewildering. I don't know what to think. There is a hype problem and a general science in the media problem.

The REAL SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES of how reliable and accurate models are and what their range of applicability, where they break down, and what a more fundamental theory might look like that they might emerge from...that's different.

That needs to be discussed in an entirely different context. It consists of hundreds of different questions that fit together-----patches of clarity, patches of uncertainty. You need calm surroundings, clear of hype. You need a community of other minds trying to do the same thing.

A sample question: why do you think the redshift of the CMB is 1100?
There are a lot of reasons that fit together, you could spend part of an afternoon talking that over, reading sources, talking about it again. I remember doing that one afternoon years ago, with some grad students in the astronomy building.

Part of what you are doing is you ABSORB an intuitive feel from the others (your advisor, other students)-----what they are more skeptical about, what areas of precision they admire, what they feel dubious, where they feel more confident. There are many interlocking parts of the picture. And of course the prevailing theoretical picture is always changing! Some piece is being adjusted and refitted into the picture all the time.

And you never believe.
You try to use the best model available, and you keep testing and checking.

I think that's how it works. And there are some fields where the style or ethos probably isn't what I'm talking about, at least judging from external appearance, but that's a separate issue.

 

[OOO]

It sounds like part of the problem for you is the HYPE.

That is a separate issue which I don't know how to resolve, or even to begin discussion. Should the books of Stephen H. and Brian G. be burned? Should science journalists be forced to adhere to standards? Should gee-whiz science series be banned from TV? But who would pay scientist's bills if public enthusiasm were not regularly whipped up? It is all bewildering. I don't know what to think. There is a hype problem and a general science in the media problem.

That's an all irritating facet of science to me. On the one hand I probably wouldn't have come to physics if I had not read popular books about the Big Bang, the lifecycle of stars and black holes during my childhood. On the other hand I haven't fully realized that some things are a little more uncertain before starting my PhD last year.

It's a bit like when you first notice that Santa doesn't exist. So maybe at the moment I'm on a mission to tell the world that Santa doesn't exist, but everybody seems to know that already...

But you're right, it probably wouldn't be so good if there were no popular science books. It's not that I suppose politicians to read such books, but rather the public opinion would be less in favor of the necessity of science.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Please write more carefully

So big bang cosmology is all about thermodynamics in a gravitational background ?

No-one said that! Thermodynamical considerations play an important role, but obviously there are other elements in play. See any good cosmology textbook.

On the other hand I haven't fully realized that some things are a little more uncertain before starting my PhD last year.

In what subject? If astrophysics, what uni, may I ask?

OOO, you suggested that the Big Bang is not well a well-founded theory, arguing:

Take this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis as an example:
"During the 1970s, there was a major puzzle in that the density of baryons as calculated by Big Bang nucleosynthesis was much less than the observed mass of the universe based on calculations of the expansion rate. This puzzle was resolved in large part by postulating the existence of dark matter."

This is one argument used by many "creationists", but it fails to take account of something which good physics students recognize, perhaps without really thinking of it, but which laypersons almost never recognize. Namely, cosmology consists of an intricate and tightly interwoven network of observations glued together by a hierarchy of more or less well established theories. At anyone stage in the development of cosmology, there have been various mysteries such as the "missing neutrinos" or the "missing matter". The observations which gave rise to these problems didn't destroy the network but enriched it, however much they might have strained some of the existing theories used to tie the thing together. History suggests that each of these problems is eventually resolved, sometimes in ways which can be regarded as resulting in "revolutionary reinterpretations" but which in another sense change less than laypersons might expect. IOW, cosmology is above the cosmological evidence, and this is more solid and more solidly interconnected than you might yet appreciate. Similarly, the edice of mainstream physical theory is hierarchical, and the foundations are much more solid than you might yet appreciate from reading popular science descriptions of speculations about traversable wormholes, colliding branes (to mention two random examples of hypothetical creatures which are not currently supported by evidence, and which may turn out to be another pink unicorn, or just possibly, the next kha-nyou ).

 

[OOO]

I think my initial question has been answered satisfactorily. I acknowledge now that the majority of cosmologists seems to be much more careful about their models than any popular account might make us believe. Taking the Big Bang theory as the hypothesis that currently explains the history of our universe better than any alternative is a tenable scientific position.

Thank you all for this insightful discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

The evidence you speak of is an indirect one. Nobody has ever seen a galaxy fly away.

We see 10,000 of them in the HUDF.

And what's more, we can't do experiments with galaxies in their natural environment.

That's a red herring: Experiments and observations are the same thing. The universe is doing the experiments for us - we just need to watch.

So we have to rely on the assumption that physics is everywhere the same in the universe...

Yes, that is a fundamental requirement of science. What's the problem with it? (If it is wrong, it is still pointless to debate this because it means no other theory could ever be right either - scientists should just pack up their telescopes and go home.)

And even the theories we design to explain these experiments change on a timescale that's infinitesimal compared to the timescale of the universe.

I'm not sure what you mean by that - scientists constantly refine theories. That's what science is about. But you are also using the same red herrring 'it-can't-be-tested' argument as anti-evolution crackpots say. Don't be that guy.

 

[russ_watters]

I acknowledge now that the majority of cosmologists seems to be much more careful about their models than any popular account might make us believe.

I find it very odd that you'd take what you see in popular accounts to be a complete treatment of the theory. People spend their entire lives studying this stuff and they aren't complete idiots. You should assume there is more to it than you can learn in a 10 minute read of a popular science article. It is naive and/or arrogant to believe otherwise.

Taking the Big Bang theory as the hypothesis that currently explains the history of our universe better than any alternative is a tenable scientific position.

Please don't call it an hypothesis. It makes it sound like you are putting it down.

But yeah, it explains things better than any other theory.

Again - why would you assume otherwise? Why assume scientists are, as a group, blind, drunken rats running randomly through a maze?

C'mon - be reasonable and give scientists the benefit of the doubt they deserve.

 

[OOO]

That's a red herring:

First of all, insinuating that I tried to baffle someone is a little bit paranoid, isn't it. In my experience if somebody mentions "red herrings" he usually tries to throw in a red herring himself. So let's stick to the facts.

Experiments and observations are the same thing.

Of course not. One can always take all ones observations and create fanciful theories around them which nobody can falsify. That's usually the reason why people get into arguments about nothing. If the alleged equivalence between experiment and observation is your preferred interpretation of the role of physics then continuing this discussion is futile.

Yes, that is a fundamental requirement of science. What's the problem with it? (If it is wrong, it is still pointless to debate this because it means no other theory could ever be right either - scientists should just pack up their telescopes and go home.)

You're getting a little emotional now. Whether scientists should pack their telescopes and go home is beyond the scope of this discussion. But I need not remind you that if Johannes Kepler had packed his telescope and gone home he would not have noticed that the apparent movement of the sun around the Earth is the result of anthropocentric thinking.

Is it really so far fetched that the assumption of our current physics laws being everywhere the same in the universe could one day be recognized as a result of anthropocentricity again ?

But you are also using the same red herrring 'it-can't-be-tested' argument as anti-evolution crackpots say. Don't be that guy.

No, I think I'm not a crackpot. But thanks for your concern.

I find it very odd that you'd take what you see in popular accounts to be a complete treatment of the theory.

Sounds interesting, but did I really say that ? Didn't I rather express my skepticism here in this forum and ask the experts about what makes them so sure about the Big Bang theory ?

Please don't call it an hypothesis. It makes it sound like you are putting it down.

If it makes you nervous, I won't.

Again - why would you assume otherwise? Why assume scientists are, as a group, blind, drunken rats running randomly through a maze?

As you say it this way... I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for this group I thought I belonged to.

 

[pervect]

Of course not. One can always take all ones observations and create fanciful theories around them which nobody can falsify.

Is it really so far fetched that the assumption of our current physics laws being everywhere the same in the universe could one day be recognized as a result of anthropocentricity again ?

I think this is probably the wrong question. A better question is: is there any evidence that "the laws of physics" are changing? Is there any way to test this notion that "the laws of physics are changing", or is it one of those "fanciful theories that nobody can falsify"?

 

[OOO]

I think this is probably the wrong question. A better question is: is there any evidence that "the laws of physics" are changing? Is there any way to test this notion that "the laws of physics are changing", or is it one of those "fanciful theories that nobody can falsify"?

One of the criteria (besides being experimentally testable) for a theory to be better than another is whether it makes descriptions simpler. We all know the standard examples:

Example 1: The heliocentric theory was better than the geocentric because in the geocentric one the description of planetary orbits is utterly complicated
Example 2: Formulating physical laws (in the absence of gravity) in terms of Lorentz transformation is better than Galilean because the laws get simpler

Thus there would be "evidence" (in the above sense) that the "laws of physics" are changing if this leads to a simpler description of what we see (the apparent Big Bang, which immediately brings up the question, what was before it ?), than the assumption that the laws are invariable. And if this happens to be related with the question about how gravity and the standard model fit together it might also be testable with our experimental methods here on earth.

Whether a yet to propose theory is actually either falsifiable or fanciful I cannot answer, because I don't have any such theory and I am not inclined to work on cosmology.

But If nobody considers the possibility of a sort of scale-invariant (just to say something wannabe educated... ) theory, then we will never know if this provides a better description.

 

[BoomBoom]

I am curious where you are getting your ideas about who these people are and what they claim. I hope you are not talking about popular journalism or pop-sci books. I'd like to have a link to somewhere a professional cosmologist makes some unqualified claim about events and conditions.

Assertions really ought to be qualified by reservations like "according to the usual LCDM model" or "according to GR"

One of "these people" that you can't seem to get away from (at least on TV) is Dr. Neal Tyson or whatever his name is. I swear this guy is not only on EVERY space related documentary, I also see him doing the talk show circuits. It bugs me how he states as a "matter of fact" not only how our universe began, but how it will end. I'm not sure I've ever heard him utter the word "theory".

 

[BoomBoom]

That's a red herring: Experiments and observations are the same thing. The universe is doing the experiments for us - we just need to watch.

The same thing?? :O

I wonder where the world of Biology would be if we could only observe and not actually conduct experiments? We would be eons behind where we are now...

Not only are astronomical observations unrelated to any experimental perturbation with controls and such, they also are observations of the PAST. There is no possible way to observe what the distant universe is doing in real-time, which in itself can introduce a possible error in observational conclusions.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Still urging more careful expression of ideas

Example 2: Formulating physical laws (in the absence of gravity) in terms of Lorentz transformation is better than Galilean because the laws get simpler

This could easily be read as the claim that the Lorentz transformation is "simpler than" the Galilei transformation and thus "preferred by an application Occam's razor". If so, two comments:

• the Galilei transformation (for one dimensional motion) is
  t^\prime = t, \; x^\prime = x + v \, t[/itex]<br /> while the Lorentz transformations are<br /> &lt;br /&gt; t^\prime = \frac{t + v \, x}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}, \; x^\prime = \frac{x + v \, t}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},&lt;br /&gt; \; -1 &amp;lt; v &amp;lt; 1 &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Counting characters or considering radicals casts doubt on any claim that the Galilei transformation is the simpler of the two. Incidently, these are two from the triple of transformations which arise respectively from elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic trigonometry. The analogous &quot;slope form&quot; of the familiar transformatons of elliptic trig are of course<br /> &lt;br /&gt; y^\prime = \frac{y + v \, x}{\sqrt{1+v^2}}, \; x^\prime = \frac{x - v \, y}{\sqrt{1+v^2}} &lt;br /&gt;<br /> [*]The Galilei transformation has been ruled out because it disagrees with experiment, not by any appeal to &quot;Occams&#039; razor&quot;.<br />

<br /> <br /> [EDIT: as I suspected might prove to be the case, I seem to have misunderstood what OOO meant by the quoted statements; see below]<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="OOO" data-source="post: 1490474" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> OOO said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> Thus there would be &quot;evidence&quot; (in the above sense) that the &quot;laws of physics&quot; are changing if this leads to a simpler description of what we see (the apparent Big Bang, which immediately brings up the question, what was before it ?), than the assumption that the laws are invariable. </div> </div> </blockquote>Presumably you intend to suggest, not simply that some &quot;law of physics&quot; is changing over time, but that the alleged change is occurring in a lawful manner. In fact, most likely you have in mind some law in which a parameter appears which you imagine to be changing over time, in fact, to be some simple function of time, perhaps even an affine function of time.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="BoomBoom" data-source="post: 1490534" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> BoomBoom said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> The same thing??...<br /> Not only are astronomical observations unrelated to any experimental perturbation with controls and such, they also are observations of the PAST. There is no possible way to observe what the distant universe is doing in real-time, which in itself can introduce a possible error in observational conclusions. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> I agree that there is an important distinction between observation and experiment; only the latter is under our control, can be readily repeated under slightly different conditions, and so on. I am pretty confident that Russ appreciates this and was simply writing a bit hastily. <br /> <br /> I think we all agree that cosmology is complicated, and that weaving observations into a coherent picture glued together by myriads of insights from various theories in the hierarchy of theoretical physics is a difficult and very tricky business. However, IMO it would be misleading to claim that modern cosmology is merely fanciful house of cards. The truth is that the structure is far more robust than amateur critics tend to appreciate. Like engineering structures, the existence of a certain flexibility and &quot;room for play&quot; in the edifice of science is an essential part of its robustness.<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="BoomBoom" data-source="post: 1490524" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> BoomBoom said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> One of &quot;these people&quot; that you can&#039;t seem to get away from (at least on TV) is Dr. Neal Tyson or whatever his name is... It bugs me how he states as a &quot;matter of fact&quot; not only how our universe began, but how it will end. I&#039;m not sure I&#039;ve ever heard him utter the word &quot;theory&quot;. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> Neal Degrasse Tyson runs the Hayden Planetarium in NYC and performs other duties, including http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/ at the American Museum of Natural History. (Not every visitor realizes the top floors of this vast building are a fully functioning and active and prestigious research institution.) He has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">wikibio</a> which at a glance looks pretty decent at the time of my visit, but the usual caveats apply.<br /> <br /> I happen to really like the PBS shows Tyson is making, but it might help to think of PF as a place you can go for more depth.

 

[OOO]

Counting characters casts doubt on any claim that the Galilei transformation is the simpler of the two.

I have implicitely assumed that this forum isn't kindergarten level. Lorentz invariance originally stems from Maxwell's equation. You can also Galilei transform Maxwell's equations, but then you get a different set of equations for every frame. Is that complicated enough to state that Lorentz transforms are simpler ?

[*]The Galilei transformation has been ruled out because it disagrees with experiment, not by any appeal to "Occams' razor".
[/list]

You can even Galilei transform the Lorentz force, or quantum field theory, or whatever you want. The fact that you normally don't do this is because you have finite mental energy and you'd like to achieve infinitely many results and so this is in fact a representation of an economic principle.

What you seem to be referring to is the actual form of the law that doesn't follow from Occam, but well, I know that of course.

Presumably you intend to suggest, not simply that some "law of physics" is changing over time, but that the alleged change is occurring in a lawful manner. In fact, most likely you have in mind some law in which a parameter appears which you imagine to be changing over time, in fact, to be some simple function of time, perhaps even an affine function of time.

I think what I had in mind is irrelevant because it would be mere conjecture. Moreover it should only serve as an example for the fact that there could always be alternative explanations, some of which might probably less straining to the mind than a universe that began as a hard cut 13 billion years ago. Whether we expect it to be found in a cosmological term, or conformal field theory or whatever, doesn't matter.

 

[pervect]

One of the criteria (besides being experimentally testable) for a theory to be better than another is whether it makes descriptions simpler. We all know the standard examples:

Example 1: The heliocentric theory was better than the geocentric because in the geocentric one the description of planetary orbits is utterly complicated
Example 2: Formulating physical laws (in the absence of gravity) in terms of Lorentz transformation is better than Galilean because the laws get simpler

Thus there would be "evidence" (in the above sense) that the "laws of physics" are changing if this leads to a simpler description of what we see (the apparent Big Bang, which immediately brings up the question, what was before it ?), than the assumption that the laws are invariable. And if this happens to be related with the question about how gravity and the standard model fit together it might also be testable with our experimental methods here on earth.

Whether a yet to propose theory is actually either falsifiable or fanciful I cannot answer, because I don't have any such theory and I am not inclined to work on cosmology.

But If nobody considers the possibility of a sort of scale-invariant (just to say something wannabe educated... ) theory, then we will never know if this provides a better description.

You might want to look up J Magueijo. While I"m personally not particularly impressed by his theories, he has come up with a theory that actually makes testable predictions along those lines, if you consider "varying speed of light" to be "varying physics".

I think of it as a bit of a "dancing bear" theory, where the point is not that the theory is very elegant,the amazing thing is that it dances at all. YMMV, but it's published (in peer reviewed journals) and it makes actual predictions. However, AFAIK there isn't a shred of evidence that suggests this theory is actually true. It's mostly useful IMO as a testbed to compare with more viable theories.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0703/0703751v1.pdf by Ellis has some references to Jagueijo and some comments on VSL.

There's also a rather controversial paper by Duffy about VSL that's worth reading even if it may not be totally correct, unfortunately I don't remember where it was and couldn't find it with a quick search.

If you don't consider VSL to be "varrying physics", I've guess I've just wasted a few minutes of both of our time, I suppose :-).

 

[Chris Hillman]

Musings on the "Appropriate Level" for PF posting

I have implicitely assumed that this forum isn't kindergarten level. Lorentz invariance originally stems from Maxwell's equation. You can also Galilei transform Maxwell's equations, but then you get a different set of equations for every frame. Is that complicated enough to state that Lorentz transforms are simpler ?

OK, OOO, to be fair to you, I agree that I appear to have misunderstood what you had in mind in the comment I objected to, but to be fair to myself, you should acknowledge that your intent was not clearly expressed.

As you probably realize, PF is a public forum which attracts posters with a huge variety of backgrounds, from junior high schoolers to a handful of professional researchers with more or less expert knowledge of the subjects they post about here. It can be almost impossible to judge someone's background on the basis of having seen just a few posts, and inevitably jaded participants like myself do tend to reduce to a lowest common denominator in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Don't take it personally if I have misjudged your background and knowledge; once you have established a longer posting history and "regulars" have had a chance to see you exhibit some good knowledge or insight, we will probably come to recognize your "handle". You'll be glad to know that some of us prefer to talk to posters with a graduate knowledge or beyond!

(Hmm... if you ever said whether you are a Ph.D. student in astrophysics or some other subject, I missed that. FWIW I am trained as a mathematician and am entirely self-taught in physics, but seem to have somehow acquired a reasonable working knowledge of gtr, something I have to repeat from time to time because posters often assume I must be a physicist! Welcome to the InterNet, land of self-appointed experts )

I think what I had in mind is irrelevant because it would be mere conjecture.

Are you saying that you have a particular conjecture in mind, which you don't yet wish to share? Fair enough, but to be fair to myself, you should recognize that tossing out hints could lead to further misunderstandings.

 

[OOO]

OK, OOO, to be fair to you, I agree that I appear to have misunderstood what you had in mind in the comment I objected to, but to be fair to myself, you should acknowledge that your intent was not clearly expressed.

Sorry for having appeared a little harsh. I thought I had expressed my thoughts in as natural and generally intelligible language as possible. I certainly didn't want to come to technical details because me being not a cosmologist I couldn't defend any position.

To repeat, I'm finding it odd that the universe should have begun at a singular instant in time with a huge amount of energy coming from nothing. I feel this should bring up a lot of questions even if it's possible to reconcile the Big Bang with the standard model up to the first microseconds or nanoseconds or whatever the state-of-the-art may be. In this respect I asked the expert cosmologists what makes them sure about it, and I got the answer that they are not absolutely sure but rather comparatively sure, which is OK for me.

Hmm... if you ever said whether you are a Ph.D. student in astrophysics or some other subject, I missed that.

Yes, I prefer to remain anonymous. That allows me to utter stupid things from time to time, without damaging my reputation, a prerequisite for discussing freely. Especially as I'm coming from theoretical particle physics, where you should continue to feel like a complete moron even after 20 years of experience.

Are you saying that you have a particular conjecture in mind, which you don't yet wish to share? Fair enough, but to be fair to myself, you should recognize that tossing out hints could lead to further misunderstandings.

My own (diffusely expressed) conjecture that the universe could probably be somehow eternal so that what we extrapolate as 13 billion years is actually negative temporal infinity, was just a dumb example of an explanation that calls for less trouble, in my opinion.

I have no theory fragment that expresses this view, so I have nothing to share in this respect. However it seems natural to me, that combining a theory like general relativity (in which you could well choose a coordinate system where t=-13000000000yr is mapped to t=-infinity) with the standard model (where there are natural timescales because there are fixed masses and couplings) could easily lead to such conclusions as the apparent Big Bang. My feeling is that this will be happily resolved as soon as there is a unified theory, because then it will probably be possible to simply choose a coordinate system where no singularity occurs.

But I can already hear people barking at me for saying the above, so I better shut up now.

 

[EL]

OOO, if I interpret you right, you are saying something like you find it strange to say that the universe is 13,7 billion years old when we don't know what laws of physics to use above 100 GeV?
In that case I am willing to agree with you.
I think we have a good model of what happened from the 100 GeV scale until now, and we know with rather high precision that this journey took 13,7 billion years. Before that, it of course gets more speculative, but we have (a more or less) promising (but speculative) rough model which takes us all the way back to the proposed period of inflation. A short time before this inflation started the energy scales are huge and we (who are not doing stuff like string theory) have basically no idea what happened. Maybe you can squeeze in your infinite period of time here?

 

[OOO]

Maybe you can squeeze in your infinite period of time here?

Instead of squeezing something into that period we probably ought to squeeze something out of our brains.

I think it can't be just a question of temperature but rather a question of boundary conditions. Thermodynamics is used for cooking pea soup.

If you have a balloon which you let burst and afterwards you ask your naive friend to measure the velocity field of the expanding gas then he will come to the conclusion that the gas originated from a single point. He will tell you that there must have been a "Big Bang" some time ago and he proudly presents his calculation of the first millisecond where the temperature was 1000 degrees centigrade and there was nitrogen oxide and ozone and all that. (just for the minutes: naaah, I don't believe the universe was once packed into a giant balloon, that was just a parable )

To unveil the truth, your friend will have to learn about balloons. Before he hasn't got a "balloon theory" he may engage in various speculations. Likewise we can tell each other our wild guesses here. But in the end the (experimentally verified) theoretical tools of our time will decide what we are able to understand and what we don't.

PS: I know that the gas molecules from the balloon wouldn't match in a single point, but without that it wouldn't be such nice story...
PPS: But now I'll button my lips. Really.

 

[EL]

If you have a balloon which you let burst and afterwards you ask your naive friend to measure the velocity field of the expanding gas then he will come to the conclusion that the gas originated from a single point. He will tell you that there must have been a "Big Bang" some time ago and he proudly presents his calculation of the first millisecond where the temperature was 1000 degrees centigrade and there was nitrogen oxide and ozone and all that. (just for the minutes: naaah, I don't believe the universe was once packed into a giant balloon, that was just a parable )

Ok, I think I'm getting closer to get what you mean.
You are saying something like the universe at some point, say X billion years ago, was in a state (however it got there) which, using the physical laws as we know them, looked exactly like it was originating from a big bang, right? (This corresponds to your balloon before it bursts.)
First of all, this could actually be more of a philosophical question. How do you know the universe didn't come into existence just a second ago, with all memories planted in your brain, and everything looking just like it was created 13,7 billion years ago just because it was finely tune to look like that? These kind of claims are of course not scientifically testable.
On the other hand, in order for "your" model to be scientific, it need to produce new predictions that can be observed and be used to discriminate it from the Big Bang model.
Remember also that the Big Bang theory predicts a number of observations which are set up from physical processes before "your balloon bursted". In the Big Bang model the CMB originates from (13700000000 - 300000) years ago, while the hydrogen/helium abundances were synthesised (13700000000 - 0.000003) years ago. The alternative model of course also needs to reproduce the prediction of a CMB and the same relative abundances of light elements.

 

[Garth]

ABB (Before Balloon Burst) and ABB (After Balloon Burst)..

Could not these eras of 000 correspond to the pre and post Inflation era? After all a balloon burst would represent Inflation pretty well! (In the crudest sense of course)

One question to ask is: "What is preserved as standards of mass length and time through the Inflation era?"

If the Higgs field suddenly 'bombs' and deposits a load of mass-energy into the universe what happens to the standard mass kilogramme?

Of course there were no atoms around at that time, so atomic methods and standards of measurement pre, during and post Inflation are anachronistic, and that fact raises a question in itself. (What is a second in that era when there were no clocks to measure it?)

However, if particle inertial masses suddenly increased then that would speed up the rate of atomic clocks, so reversing the process might well map the instant of the BB back to t = - \infty!

Just a thought.

Garth