Is the Big Bang Theory Debunked?

[Ivan Seeking]

When I referred to the expected shift, what I meant was the red shift we would get were DE and DM not an influence.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ says this isn't the case but i strongly disagree, i could list 100's of people who've ideas have been rejected not because their ideas are not valid but simply because the ideas fly in the face of a great deal of 'accepted thought/scientific dogma'.

Start by listing one...

And please note: simply being "valid" isn't enough - Newton's gravity is valid in its domain of applicability, but it has still been replaced. These ideas must be at least as good as Relativity to be worthy of consideration.

 

[russ_watters]

Hehe, okay I'll admit I was taking things to extremities just as I thought you were but here is some stuff I picked up searching around. I don't vouch for validity...

I don't want to dwell on this too much (its a pet peve of mine), but from your info there, the plagarism controversy was the biggest I'd heard of, but even that was mostly fringe and even then that has nothing to do with the validity of the theory.

The two quotes are highly misleading: the keys to SR were found before SR was published. Also, GR wasn't mentioned in the nobel citation (which makes sense, since it had nothing to do with GR) - saying it was specifically excluded implies it said something like 'this Nobel prize isn't for GR' and that just isn't true.

Regarding his inability to find a teaching job (I'm not sure how hard he was looking in 1907), that doesn't necessarily imply a controversy.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Can you say more please? Certainly viewing an object through lots of 'space dust' makes the object look redder than it would if there were no dust.

OK, you've lost me here ... 'reddening' is a very different kettle of fish from 'redshift'; the former is simply a greater absorption of shorter wavelengths (any lines in the spectrum of a reddened object remain at the same wavelenghts they'd appear if there were no dust); the latter is the whole spectrum being moved to longer wavelengths. Are you confusing the two perhaps?

Okay,
Yes, reddening causes preferential scattering of shorter wavelengths and redshift shifts the whole spectrum. I am talking about redshift from the compton effect. I guess that it applies primarily to ionized particles but I'm just saying that I have no doubt that the plasma emissions from stars assure that some of the particles are ionized or that there are pockets of electron clouds out there in space and there are some electrons that can be smacked by the photons coming through. In this case it is redshifted across the spectrum because all the photons, regardless of wavelength will transfer some of their energy to the electrons they run into.

Google this:plasma redshift

That'll give you boatloads of links and many of them are regarding using it as an alternative to BBT. Somewhere in there you should be able to find the experimental evidence...

what?

Hehe, ignore me.. I was stating the obvious for some reason.
I guess I was reaffirming that redshifted light, regardless of the source of the shift is mathematically blueshifted for the purpose of matching up spectral lines, so the reason for the shift would be transparent.

No. First, you need to do the calculation; simply using words will lead you to all kinds of unresolvable puzzles.

I was using a gedanken experiment.
What I'm saying is that if something is consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last. Because it is experimentally re-producable, you would rely upon that falsehood.

It's like someone giving you a laser and saying it has a 600nm wavelength and when you test it with a spectrograph it does indeed have a 600nm wavelenth. What you don't know is that this manufacturer uses a corrective screen in front of the laser. You could still use it in all situations except one: When using some known quantities about the internals of lasers you try to determine what is inside this particular laser. You could test it a thousand times and do all the calculations a thousand times; experimentally you are right but factually you are wrong.

I'm not questioning the calculation, I'm questioning the thought process used when gathering the data to calculate. (which yes I know that may lead to questioning the validity of G)

Not that I think everything we know about starlight is wrong, I'm just saying that I never take anything for granted and would like to know what all is considered and how in the process to detemine these things. I'm skeptical of absolutely everything until I've thought it out from beginning to end myself.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

LOL! Over there in the cosmology forum they are talking about alternative causes of redshift, BBT and plasma redshift.

Here's the thread on Plasma redshift:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58166

 

[Nereid]

When I referred to the expected shift, what I meant was the red shift we would get were DE and DM not an influence.

Hmm, perhaps a short course in modern cosmology would help? Ned Wright's tutorial is a good place to start.

wrt DE: AFAIK, there are only two sets of observations for which DE is introduced ... distance Ia SN, and the CMBR (esp the WMAP data). In the former, you can make a good case that it's still early days ... too many loose ends, systematic effects not well characterised, theoretical models not constrained enough (e.g. variations on WD detonation). In the latter, DE is like the icing on the cake - the concordance model fits the WMAP data pretty well without DE in the picture, but better with it in.

wrt DM: there are several types of independent observation - mutually consistent - which lead you to a 'there exists DM' conclusion; several of these involve your common garden variety redshift - doppler. The need for DM in cosmology is weaker than the need for DM in more 'local' astrophysics ... so if you choose to ditch DM in your cosmology, you have just added the headache of accounting for lots and lots more 'local' observations!

 

[Nereid]

Okay,
Yes, reddening causes preferential scattering of shorter wavelengths and redshift shifts the whole spectrum.

Ah, we have a terminology mismatch! I'm not familiar with 'reddening' being called 'redshift' - have you seen this in ApJ papers?

I am talking about redshift from the compton effect. I guess that it applies primarily to ionized particles but I'm just saying that I have no doubt that the plasma emissions from stars assure that some of the particles are ionized or that there are pockets of electron clouds out there in space and there are some electrons that can be smacked by the photons coming through. In this case it is redshifted across the spectrum because all the photons, regardless of wavelength will transfer some of their energy to the electrons they run into.

OK; so what's the size of this effect, for the nearest source of high intensity photons traveling through a plasma which has quite a range of temperatures and densities? What would be the size of the effect near a supernova?

Google this:plasma redshift

That'll give you boatloads of links and many of them are regarding using it as an alternative to BBT. Somewhere in there you should be able to find the experimental evidence...

I'm very familiar with this nonsense! From what I've read so far, the observational basis for these ideas is weak (and I'm being generous) ... further, if the hypothesised effect were to comprise a significant part of the observed quasar and galaxy and SN and novae (and some isolated stars!) redshifts, then the proponents of the idea have created for themselves a huge headache - what we all thought was a distant galaxy/supernova/nova/globular cluster/star/etc isn't any more ... why? because the distances we assumed are now all wrong, so the intrinsic luminosities (aka absolute magnitudes) will be all wrong too, and that means those objects can't possibly be similar to local galaxies/supernovae/novae/etc - despite the fact that everything else about them seems to be same (spectrum, metalicity, size, ...)! IOW, they have just given themselves the task of re-writing GR and QM.

I was using a gedanken experiment.
What I'm saying is that if something is consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last. Because it is experimentally re-producable, you would rely upon that falsehood.

And I'm saying that you are free to repeat all the observations and analyses which lead to the mainstream conclusions, and to point out exactly where - and what - the 'misrepresentations' are

But perhaps I misunderstand your point; what, specifically, do you feel has been 'consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last'?

I'm not questioning the calculation, I'm questioning the thought process used when gathering the data to calculate. (which yes I know that may lead to questioning the validity of G)

Worse, you have also likely thrown not only the Compton effect in the trash can, but also huge sections of QM and GR ... for example, what is a supernova? how does the Sun shine?

Not that I think everything we know about starlight is wrong, I'm just saying that I never take anything for granted and would like to know what all is considered and how in the process to detemine these things. I'm skeptical of absolutely everything until I've thought it out from beginning to end myself.

Good for you! If only there were more of this attitude!

But may I ask that you apply the same critical thinking to Reese/Talbott/Brynjolfsson et al? In particular, would you care to ask these folk what they think powers the Sun, causes a nova, leads to different types of supernova, the stars which the HST Key Project team thought were Cepheid variables in the Virgo galaxies are, ... ? If you do so care, let us know when you get answers to these questions, would you?

 

[TheAntiRelative]

- however, there is apparently little or no dust between galaxies

Oh one thing occurred to me. Why is it believed that there is little or no dust in the space between galaxies? I mean what data is that assumption based upon?

I know that radio galaxies are tooling along crapping out googles of tons of matter into the space between galaxies, so it seems kinda counter-intuitive to think there's nothing in between. So you've piqued my interest now.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Ah, we have a terminology mismatch! I'm not familiar with 'reddening' being called 'redshift' - have you seen this in ApJ papers?

Hurgh? I'm funcused now...

Okay I understand reddening as basically a sifting out of higher frequencies.
I understand redshift to be an entire shift of the spectrum toward the red end of the spectrum.

Am I misstating it?

OK; so what's the size of this effect, for the nearest source of high intensity photons traveling through a plasma which has quite a range of temperatures and densities? What would be the size of the effect near a supernova?

Hehe, Iamb not a physicist! I'm just a hobbyist. All I know is that the effect exists and behaves in a certain manner that has been documented and received as a part of accepted science.

I'm very familiar with this nonsense!

Oh, well you've read more about it than me then. My mistake.

And I'm saying that you are free to repeat all the observations and analyses which lead to the mainstream conclusions, and to point out exactly where - and what - the 'misrepresentations' are

But perhaps I misunderstand your point; what, specifically, do you feel has been 'consistantly misrepresented from the very first observation to the very last'?

I think you might misunderstand me. I'm saying that perhaps compton effect and gravitational redshift may be acting like that unknown screen in my analogy. I'd be glad to hear if that's something that's already been considered and proven not to be the case.
I was just making the point that even well meaning and hard working respectable scientist can be fooled by phenomena outside their control and knowledge because the phenomena consistently alters the data.

Worse, you have also likely thrown not only the Compton effect in the trash can, but also huge sections of QM and GR ... for example, what is a supernova? how does the Sun shine?

Well I think this is part of a misunderstanding but yes, I'm more than willing to throw out any number of things if evidence to the contrary rears its ugly head.

If you get to know me I'm very willing to spout all kinds of garbage and retract it later because regardless of how much I know, I put myself in the position of a perpetually a naive learner. With that thought I'm always more than willing to change my mind about anything at all. I never solidify anything in my mind beyond a variable percentage from like 3-97 based on evidence and that number can be easily swung a vast distance if the evidence is compelling enough.

I allow partial belief of even obsurd topics until I personally lay hands on all the evidence against it.

 

[Nereid]

Oh one thing occurred to me. Why is it believed that there is little or no dust in the space between galaxies? I mean what data is that assumption based upon?

I know that radio galaxies are tooling along crapping out googles of tons of matter into the space between galaxies, so it seems kinda counter-intuitive to think there's nothing in between. So you've piqued my interest now.

How would you tell if there were any dust?

The easiest test is 'reddening' ... if distant objects appeared redder than you'd expect, then you'd suspect dust. To test that hypothesis, you'd take detailed spectra, esp in the NIR ... if you found bands (PAHs, minerals), bingo!

In any case, if there were dust at a temperature anything other than the CMBR, you could 'see' it by its radiation in the FIR ... and IRAS (and later IR satellite obsevatories) didn't find any.

That leaves the question of whether there is IGM dust at a temperature of 2.7K ... there are many things that we should 'see' if this were the case (e.g. X-ray fluorescence around GRBs), but none (AFAIK) have been observed, so we conclude that the IGM has very little dust.

 

[Nereid]

Hurgh? I'm funcused now...

Okay I understand reddening as basically a sifting out of higher frequencies.
I understand redshift to be an entire shift of the spectrum toward the red end of the spectrum.

Am I misstating it?

Yes and no. Reddening changes the shape of the spectrum we see ... higher frequencies are diminished (the reverse of what you said); with redshift the whole spectrum is shifted 'red-ward'. Thus a look at the wavelengths of the lines quickly tells you what the effect is - if reddening, the lines are at the same wavelength; if redshift they are longer.

Hehe, Iamb not a physicist! I'm just a hobbyist. All I know is that the effect exists and behaves in a certain manner that has been documented and received as a part of accepted science.

OK. So let's ask that you extend your enthusiasm and curiosity a bit, and do some 'research' - please take the time to learn about the Compton effect wrt the Sun (the local source of high intensity EM, across the whole spectrum) ... what sort of redshift is expected (due to the Compton effect)? what is actually observed? to what extent have astronomers researched this, from the time the Compton effect was first published?

I think you might misunderstand me. I'm saying that perhaps compton effect and gravitational redshift may be acting like that unknown screen in my analogy. I'd be glad to hear if that's something that's already been considered and proven not to be the case.

OK, so I, Nereid am telling you this has been exhaustively researched and shown - within the limits of observational and experimental capability (note that nothing can be 'proven' in science; please read some of the threads in Philosophy if you'd like to know more) - that it's not the case. Now, if I take you at your word, you won't accept what I say (after all, who is Nereid?), but will take the time and effort to research this ... when you've done so, please let us know what you found.

I was just making the point that even well meaning and hard working respectable scientist can be fooled by phenomena outside their control and knowledge because the phenomena consistently alters the data.

Indeed. If you have a chance, please have a long chat with a 'real' scientist (you could read ZapperZ's journal - he of the 'physics guru 2004' award here at PF) about this topic. Let us know what you find.

Well I think this is part of a misunderstanding but yes, I'm more than willing to throw out any number of things if evidence to the contrary rears its ugly head.

{this is wrt the extent to which good observational data are inconsistent with QM & GR; specifically, whether what's presented on Reese's website provides a good basis for claiming that there is such good observational data}. So, can you summarise what you think are the good observational results which would lead you to consider throwing out QM and GR (and the Compton effect)? Please be as specific as you can; and anything concrete that you can find on Reese's website that helps you reach your conclusion ... please be sure to let us know what it is.

 

[Overdose]

OK, please do so. Pay particular attention to showing us that the ideas which were rejected were, in fact, 'valid'.

Nope haven't got time, and it would be a pointless exercise, it's self evident, id say in the next year you'll stumble across a couple of cases yourself, its not that uncommon.

Hmm, maybe you need to devote some of your spare energy to the study of what science actually is! For a start, the idea that you can 'prove' something in science is of historical interest only ... in maths maybe you can 'prove' something; you can't in science. So we're left with theories, hypotheses, models etc ... yep, that's ALL there is! (Oh, and PB of good experimental and observational results).

Great well pat yourself on the back for understanding what science is!
I never doubted that scientists don't understand what science is, on a conscious level they clearly do, but the point is we offen don't think about things rationally and objectively, its far easier to catagorize something as a 'belief' somewhere in the back of your mind than it is to know things that 'are probably true but could possibly not' The human mind just isn't acustomed to that way of thinking all the time.

Could I suggest that you attend a scientific convention? The annual meeting of the AAS perhaps? Or read ApJ? When you've done that, please get back to us with details of how those actively involved in doing science in the field 'treat theories [sic] ... as absolute thruths in an almost quasi-religious mindset'

Why would i need to do that? just use your eyes and ears man, dogmatic defense of theories is everywhere to be seen.
And you've kind of proven my point by getting so worked up over my little bit of arm-chair psychology, you're defending a paradigm as if you're ready to die for it, like some kind of crazed fundamentalist.

 

[poolwin2001]

Wasn't there a Quasi Steady State theory propounded by some physicits including Narliker,Hoyle etc for the origin of the universe?

 

[Overdose]

Start by listing one...

And please note: simply being "valid" isn't enough - Newton's gravity is valid in its domain of applicability, but it has still been replaced. These ideas must be at least as good as Relativity to be worthy of consideration.

Good old russ calling people's bluff with demands of unattainable proof..
why must they be 'as good as relativity to be worthy of consideration" ??
thats either an off hand tactic to shut me up, or you're...

 

[Nereid]

Nope haven't got time, and it would be a pointless exercise, it's self evident, id say in the next year you'll stumble across a couple of cases yourself, its not that uncommon.

So, just so that I don't misunderstand ... you make a claim ("i could list 100's of people who've ideas have been rejected not because their ideas are not valid but simply because the ideas fly in the face of a great deal of 'accepted thought/scientific dogma'[/color]"), but when challenged to provide support for it, you say you're too busy?

Great well pat yourself on the back for understanding what science is!
I never doubted that scientists don't understand what science is, on a conscious level they clearly do, but the point is we offen don't think about things rationally and objectively, its far easier to catagorize something as a 'belief' somewhere in the back of your mind than it is to know things that 'are probably true but could possibly not' The human mind just isn't acustomed to that way of thinking all the time.

Hmm, unless I'm mistaken, this is another claim - which I may or may not be interested to discuss with you - but should I challenge your 'dogma', I would be wasting my time because you're too busy? Please note that this is a question.

Could I suggest that you attend a scientific convention? The annual meeting of the AAS perhaps? Or read ApJ? When you've done that, please get back to us with details of how those actively involved in doing science in the field 'treat theories [sic] ... as absolute thruths in an almost quasi-religious mindset'

Why would i need to do that? just use your eyes and ears man, dogmatic defense of theories is everywhere to be seen.

I must be in the slow class today ... I thought I'd suggested that you collect some specific, concrete, objective data - based on your direct experience with real scientists and how they work - and present those to us so we can better understand the validity of your claim. In response to my suggestion, you ask me to 'use [my] eyes and ears' and state that 'dogmatic defense of theories is everywhere to be seen.' Looking out my window, I cannot see any 'dogmatic defence', so am I entitled to conclude that you are exaggerating?

Seriously, if you aren't interested in applying the scientific method to studying this topic (and I'm not saying that you aren't; I don't know yet), then why are you here? PF is a site for a discussion of science, not a place to spout unsubstantiated nonsense (that's just MHO, of course).

And you've kind of proven my point by getting so worked up over my little bit of arm-chair psychology, you're defending a paradigm as if you're ready to die for it, like some kind of crazed fundamentalist.

Now you've totally lost me ... are you saying that asking questions and wanting to have things spelt out, chapter and verse, is fundamentalism? Are you claiming that proposals should be accepted without requiring their proponents to provide support for those ideas? For the avoidance of doubt, I have formed the impression that you are uncomfortable with being asked to defend your ideas ... kinda like the pot calling the kettle black? But to be sure I've not misunderstood, would you mind telling us how - in some detail - you feel science should be done?

 

[russ_watters]

Good old russ calling people's bluff with demands of unattainable proof..

Well, what you said to Nereid was The Cop-Out of the Century - but all I asked was for an example. I didn't even ask for proof.

But see, this is what I love so much about science: science demands accountability. By refusing to support your claim, you invalidated it yourself! Thanks for saving me the trouble!

why must they be 'as good as relativity to be worthy of consideration" ??
thats either an off hand tactic to shut me up, or you're...

After what you so arrogantly and condescendingly said to Nereid about understanding science, I'm surprised you would ask such a rediculously basic question. But I'll deign to answer it: if two theories cover the same ground, the one that covers it better is adopted. Why? Because its more useful - more accurate - more correct - quite simply, better. If a theory that is proposed to replace Relativity doesn't do as much as Relativity, that would quite obviously be a step backwards in our understanding of the way the universe works.

 

[Overdose]

I won't 'defend' my beliefs, or give examples because the same thing will happen that happened with the ESP thread, the thread got huge and out of control, and while i used all my spare time during the week gathering evidence, i come back online to find the thread has been closed. So to be blunt..whats the point?
I also think it would be absurd to build up a dosier or evidence on really what was little more than a passing social comment on the nature of science.
science is not perfect and doesn't always follow its self-applied rules, and can indeed be dogmatic, if you want to believe otherwise I am cool with that. Its new year's soon and I am ready to get my swerve on..

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Yes and no. Reddening changes the shape of the spectrum we see ... higher frequencies are diminished (the reverse of what you said); with redshift the whole spectrum is shifted 'red-ward'. Thus a look at the wavelengths of the lines quickly tells you what the effect is - if reddening, the lines are at the same wavelength; if redshift they are longer.

Lol, we are definitely speaking a different language or something. "Higher frequencies (blue) are deminished." That's sifting out higher frequencies to me. Perhaps you are thinking of keeping what is "Sifted-out" instead of throwing it away. :)

OK. So let's ask that you extend your enthusiasm and curiosity a bit, and do some 'research' - please take the time to learn about the Compton effect wrt the Sun (the local source of high intensity EM, across the whole spectrum) ... what sort of redshift is expected (due to the Compton effect)? what is actually observed? to what extent have astronomers researched this, from the time the Compton effect was first published?

Do you already know the answer? If so can you give me a link?

OK, so I, Nereid am telling you this has been exhaustively researched and shown - within the limits of observational and experimental capability (note that nothing can be 'proven' in science; please read some of the threads in Philosophy if you'd like to know more) - that it's not the case. Now, if I take you at your word, you won't accept what I say (after all, who is Nereid?), but will take the time and effort to research this ... when you've done so, please let us know what you found.

Well, that may be true since I'll still want more than one guy's word but if you have some reference links it'd make my life easier! :)

{this is wrt the extent to which good observational data are inconsistent with QM & GR; specifically, whether what's presented on Reese's website provides a good basis for claiming that there is such good observational data}. So, can you summarise what you think are the good observational results which would lead you to consider throwing out QM and GR (and the Compton effect)? Please be as specific as you can; and anything concrete that you can find on Reese's website that helps you reach your conclusion ... please be sure to let us know what it is.

Okay, I'm no proponent of Reese's site so I'm not sure if we aren't misunderstanding each other again.
I'm just saying that if significant observational results that were contrary to QM and GR I would have no qualms about throwing out QM and GR for the new model that would have to be constructed...

One thing I would add is that results like that (if they exist) would not all appear at once against such tested and so far reliable theories. They would trickle in one small item at a time. My question is this. If small contrary results begin to trickle in, will they be labeled correctly or will they be brushed off as small anamolies that are more than likely just experimenter effect or other false data? I believe human nature will lead to the more arrogant approach.

However, I'm sure that you will argue that the scientific method and scientists themselves are always looking for the truth and accept evidence as it comes. You'll also argue that any scientist would leap at the opportunity to make a name for themself by disproving a "pillar of science" theory.

I will then counter that few and far between are those willing to gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence. Most humans will doubt themselves when faced with: If this is true then everyone other than me is wrong and I'm the only one that is right.

You will then say that just posing a theory that is counter to mainstream will not cause a respected scientist to suddenly be labeled a quack. Just look at Einstein.

And I'll say, just look at Nikola Tesla. (to which you'll think... He wasn't really a scientist though, he's just an inventor that went off the deep end)
And then I'll run out of references even though I've watched the same behavior happen in every group of humans from all walks of life about a variety of subjects.

And we'll eventually come the the point at which I believe we just have completely different views of human nature and you believe that I could use a few visits with a qualified professional to deal with my paraniod delusions.

 

[Nereid]

I think you'll find we may be much closer than that 'we just have completely different views ...'

The ways in which established theories in science get overtaken are many and varied. Just about the most difficult is the one you described ... a small, hard to observe and verify anomaly ... and that's it! Fortunately, my own reading of the history of science leads me to think that these are pretty rare ... much more often the 'overthrow' comes when a good test shows 'reality' is inconsistent with the theory, and that sets off a flurry of activity - how, precisely, is it inconsistent; under what conditions; ...

Of course, I suspect that we have a very different view of the 'characteristic timescale' on which science operates ... in a thread somewhere in physics, several of us agreed that a decade is just about the shortest possible time for anything significant to happen, and that the average working lifetime of a scientist is more typical (say, 30 years). There are well known examples in science of programmes that took considerably longer ... just look how long it took for the basic mechanics of evolution to be uncovered, from the time of publication of Darwin's theory ('genes' was but a stepping stone; IMHO, it was only with the unravelling of the nature of DNA that this mechanism was determined).

As to the Compton effect ... I'll politely decline your kind invitation; if others would like to give you something to go study, that'd be good. However, if I did, Overdose (and even you?) could say that I'd be presenting you only 'the dogma', and hiding closets chock-a-block full of skeletons.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

As to the Compton effect ... I'll politely decline your kind invitation; if others would like to give you something to go study, that'd be good. However, if I did, Overdose (and even you?) could say that I'd be presenting you only 'the dogma', and hiding closets chock-a-block full of skeletons.

heheh

Even if I believe something to be dogma I study it carefully otherwise I'm only ascribing validity to my own dogma. So in short, I value all info regardless of my pre-conceived notions about it.

For example, I recently read "The Final Theory" and though I couldn't buy into the expansion theory for a number of reasons but I continued to read it. Finally, I set the bar at the explanation of a fully circular orbit since that seemed to be the most critical problem IMO. Once that was woefully ineffectively explained, I finally gave up.

 

[Nereid]

Lol, we are definitely speaking a different language or something. "Higher frequencies (blue) are deminished." That's sifting out higher frequencies to me. Perhaps you are thinking of keeping what is "Sifted-out" instead of throwing it away. :)

Well, then you'll be in for a most disconcerting ride if you choose to study physics in any depth at all . For example, what does the 'colour' force have to do with colour? Why is Pluto called a planet and not just the largest plutino?

I'm just saying that if significant observational results that were contrary to QM and GR I would have no qualms about throwing out QM and GR for the new model that would have to be constructed...

And neither would I, ZapperZ, Russ, ... or Einstein, Feynman, Bohr, ... if they were alive!

One thing I would add is that results like that (if they exist) would not all appear at once against such tested and so far reliable theories. They would trickle in one small item at a time. My question is this. If small contrary results begin to trickle in, will they be labeled correctly or will they be brushed off as small anamolies that are more than likely just experimenter effect or other false data? I believe human nature will lead to the more arrogant approach.

And I think you have a far too narrow view of both scientists and human nature. For starters, AFAIK, physicists have the same range of personalities as Joe Sixpack and Joan G&T - some are arrogant, some humble; some courageous, some timid; some foolhardy, some cautious; goodness, some may even be saints, and some knaves! Perhaps if you got out more, and actually went to *meet* some of these folk, you might be a little more, shall we say, mature.

Also, you might like to read some real papers ... they're full of gaps, unknowns, questions, ... I think you'll find the certainty reserved for nonsense - lots of scientists do not suffer crackpot fools gladly.

However, I'm sure that you will argue that the scientific method and scientists themselves are always looking for the truth and accept evidence as it comes. You'll also argue that any scientist would leap at the opportunity to make a name for themself by disproving a "pillar of science" theory.

Yes ... and no. As I said above, scientists are human, just like you and me - some have been known to stoop to quite underhand and dishonest means to maintain the positions of power and authority; but equally, some have been known to stick tenaciously to their guns, even dig in further despite (because of?) derision and rejection. However, I think you'll find - overwhelmingly (but NOT absolutely) - that good experimental or observational results are held in respect.

I will then counter that few and far between are those willing to gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence. Most humans will doubt themselves when faced with: If this is true then everyone other than me is wrong and I'm the only one that is right.

So, what of the 40-year history of hunting down the 'solar neutrino problem'? It was certainly an anomaly, it was most definitely a very small signal, and some scientists did 'gamble their entire career on some small anomalous evidence' . Also, what of the iconoclasts who have made it to the top? What of those who are at the top who are genuinely delighted to foster new ideas and new ways of looking at old things? You might want to read some biographies ... you could be in for quite a shock (of course, we both know that Overdose wouldn't even consider doing such a thing - he might find his dogma severely challenged).

You will then say that just posing a theory that is counter to mainstream will not cause a respected scientist to suddenly be labeled a quack. Just look at Einstein.

Again, you're making it far too black & white ... the circumstances and individuals have far, far more diversity and richness than your narrow caricature.

And I'll say, just look at Nikola Tesla. (to which you'll think... He wasn't really a scientist though, he's just an inventor that went off the deep end)
And then I'll run out of references even though I've watched the same behavior happen in every group of humans from all walks of life about a variety of subjects.

Well, I'll give you a better one - Wegener; and closer to physics, Chandrasekhar (hint: read up on the limit named after him, and his teacher). But so what? Were you expecting that scientists suddenly became angels when they got their PhDs? And as for your human behaviour, I could ask you to take a look at any large observatory - ground or space-based. You'll find most have something called 'Director's discretionary time' - the Director has a certain amount of time for observations using these immensely expensive instruments, to use as (s)he sees fit, no questions asked. Now, what the Directors actually *do* with that time is almost always described in the annual reports of those observatories - take a look sometime, it makes of interesting reading.

And we'll eventually come the the point at which I believe we just have completely different views of human nature and you believe that I could use a few visits with a qualified professional to deal with my paraniod delusions.

Well it seems that we do If I may generalise, you expect all scientists to be saints and not human (or completely cynical and hypocritical), and I claim that a detailed examination of what scientists (collectively and individually) actually *do* shows them to be neither angels nor lying politicians.

 

[TheAntiRelative]

Well, then you'll be in for a most disconcerting ride if you choose to study physics in any depth at all . For example, what does the 'colour' force have to do with colour? Why is Pluto called a planet and not just the largest plutino?

Never said that I had the right side of the interpretation. Just said we were interpretting expressions differently while both saying the same thing.

Or perhaps I still don't understand?

Reddening = removal of higher frequencies from the mix. (analogous to sifting AFAIK) leaving many frequencies alone to finally arrive unchanged.
Red shift = lowering all frequencies by an equal amount.


As for the rest of what you said. All very good points which I can't really argue with if I had the inclination. (Sometimes I do play devil's advocate)

 

[Overdose]

Ok, so i wasnt going to provide a response to the call to provide an instance of perfectly good and credible science being rejected and scorned out of nothing more than scientific dogmatism. But i today came across some experiments, independantly replicated that were largley rejected by the scientfic community, from what i can work out simply because they mirrored some claims made by homeopaths.

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THIS RESEARCH
Dr. Jacques Benveniste is Doctor of Medicine, former Resident of the Paris Hospital System, Research Director at the French National Institute for Medical Research, known worldwide as a specialist in the mechanisms of allergy and inflammation, he distinguished himself in 1971 by his discovery of Paf (Platelet Activating Factor), a mediator implicated in the mechanisms involved in these pathologies (for example, asthma).
In 1984, while working on hypersensitive (allergic) systems, by chance he brought to light so-called high dilution phenomena, which were picked up by the media and labeled «the memory of water».
The phenomenon referred to involves diluting a substance in water to a degree where the final solution contains only water molecules. With the hypersensitive systems he was using, however, he observed that this highly diluted solution initiated a reaction, as if the initial molecules were still present in the water: water kept a trace of the molecules present at the beginning of the dilutions.

Benveniste's finding were published in nature but an apendeum to the article stated that there was no physical basis for Benveniste's results and that they would arrange for independent investigators to observe repetitions of the experiment.
4 days after publication a sicentific 'fraud squad' arrived at the labs consisting of Walter Stewart, and James Rhandi (you just knew hed have something to do with this didnt you) and John Maddox.
Benveniste repeated the experiments in front of the group 4 times, one blinded, and got the same results that had been published.
However the team of 'fraud busters' still disputed the findings and decided to change the experiment protocol and design. The group of men, none of which were qualified to implement the experiments, finally received the negative results they were looking for and left. Nature published that 'high dilution experiments a delusion'. Even going as far as to dismiss supporting results that other labs had found.
Several years after the nature episode, scientific teams continued to atempt to prove Benveniste wrong. Consisting of a consortium of four independent laboratories in Italy, France, Belgium and Holland led by M.Roberfroid of the university of Louvain.
Their experiments were incredibly tight, none of the researchers knew which was the 'homeopathic' solution and which one was pure water. All solutions had all been prepared by labs which had nothing further to do with the trial. Results were also coded and decoded and tabulated by an independent researcher unconnected with the study.
In the end 3 of the 4 labs got statistically significant results with the 'homeopathic' solutions. The results were put down to human error, to eliminate this an automated counting protocol was applied to the figures. But even after this the results were still the same; the high dilutions of active ingredient worked, wether the active ingredient was present or it was water so dilute that none of the original substance remained. To one of the scientist's credit, they remarked that 'The results compel me to suspend my disbelief and start searching for rational explanations for our findings.'

However despite the number of labs that had replicated Benveniste's work, which consisted of double blind placebo-controlled trials. Nature refused to publish the positive findings and the results were rejected by the larger scientific community.

 

[Physics-Learner]

You don't see any contradictions in that post, do you...? How about:

-"the big bang theory should have never attained the status and credibility it did"
is contradictory to:
-"But as useall the majority are more interested in preserving their sacred doctrines"
and:
-"Here's to preserving the status quo"

So I ask: how did the BBT attain status and credibility if the scientific community likes to preserve the status quo? How did Relativity become the 'dogma' some people call it today, if in 1900, pretty much every scientist supported ether theory?

The science-is-dogma opinion is self-contradictory at face value.

hi russ,

this is not a good argument. what one needs to consider is how fast things change. from my observation, the scientific community does indeed like to preserve the status quo WHEN POSSIBLE.

but this is true of human beings as a general rule. we generally need to be pushed some to accept change.

 

[Evo]

Physics-Learner, do you realize that this thread has been dead for almost 6 years?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, this is no longer appropriate for the forum.