Antarctic Detectors Provide Evidence For Big Bang 22
Joshua Strzalko writes: "Aparently, the match, so to speak, that lit the big bang has been discovered by some detectors down in Antarctica. What would be the megatonage of that explosion? Full story can be viewed here." As always, working hypotheses are just that, of course. Update: 04/30 07:12 PM by T : CodeWheeney writes: "The home page for the instrument that was used is located here."
Re:Supporting evidence (Score:1)
Nobody is claiming proof of anything.
Did you read the title of the story on slashdot? 'Antarctic Detectors Provide Evidence For Big Bang'
The actual story correctly stated that it was not a proof.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Re:Proof? (Score:1)
The article merely provides evidence that the theory is correct, but it will never be possible to prove the theory.
You mean that it was not incorrect. Anyway, that is not the point. I am just amazed at the excitement over the possibility of a proof which seems to be rather unwarranted.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Re:Proof? (Score:1)
Do you mean to say that if a hypothesis is contrary to an interpretation of a religious tradition, it shouldn't be investigated at all, whether or not the hypothesis is true?
No, I was just wondering what all the excitement was about. Especially why the story on slashdot had the title indicating that it was proof as opposed to the actual title which mentioned the possibility of proof. My opinion is that the need to elevate things to the level of proof was as you mentioned. I am not against any story being published, or any belief being pursued.
If an experiment gave reason to doubt a major theory like the Big Bang, it would be written up and sent to Nature or Science as fast as possible.
Could be. I just wonder sometimes.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Proof? (Score:2)
The title is "Possible traces of Big Bang discovered". Note the word possible. If I have a theory and I find some circumstantial evidence, which by itself would prove nothing, but fits in with the theory, that is proof? If anything, this has not disproven the theory.
Why get so excited over such a little thing? I would presume that people need to prove the theory so as to disprove other theories based in theology. If that is the case, I find the reporting of this proof quite pedantic.
I wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it. Would it have been reported as well?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Re:Supporting evidence (Score:2)
Uh... "provides evidence for" != proof.
I mean no disrespect to you. I thought evidence means proof. I checked http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?evidence [m-w.com] and found "b : something that furnishes proof". If the title of the story used another meaning, then I misread it and my comment was unwarrented..
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Re:Proof? (Score:2)
It definitely would. Publishing interesting results brings visibility and prestige to your lab thus raising the chances that your grant proposals will get funded and increasing the number of people interested in collaborating with you, post-docs who want to work in your lab, etc. If a person had a major personal stake in a particular theory because they were the originator of it, then their ego might get in the way, but if its an interesting problem, then some one else will do a similar experiment and publish their results.
Re:Proof? (Score:3)
Well, you can never really prove a hypothesis, but you can disprove one by providing evidence contrary to its predictions. However, you can provide evidence that is strong enough to establish the hypothesis as the only one worth believing. Even if the evidence isn't strong enough to establish a hypothesis as true, it still provides a useful heuristic for deciding what to study. Just like everyone else, scientists have only a limited amount of time and so it makes sense to concentrate your work on areas that are likely to be fruitful, rather than considering every possible hypothesis as equally worthwhile
Why get so excited over such a little thing? I would presume that people need to prove the theory so as to disprove other theories based in theology. If that is the case, I find the reporting of this proof quite pedantic.
Big Bang theory is one of the fundamental areas of cosmology, so it merits a lot of attention. I don't see how theology is involved here at all. Do you mean to say that if a hypothesis is contrary to an interpretation of a religious tradition, it shouldn't be investigated at all, whether or not the hypothesis is true?
I wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it. Would it have been reported as well?
If an experiment gave reason to doubt a major theory like the Big Bang, it would be written up and sent to Nature or Science as fast as possible.
On the other hand, if a study did not show effects supporting the Big Bang model, but also did not contradict it might languish forever. This seems like a minor distinction but its very important. Evidence like this, called "negative data", is difficult to interpret because ultimately its hard to tell if you don't see what you're looking for because its not there, or because your experiment isn't designed correctly, or some unknown reason masking the effect. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack. You don't know if you haven't found the needle because there is no needle, or because you aren't trying hard enough. The non-reporting of negative evidence and experimental protocols that don't work is a problem in science since it causes scientists to pursue research that they would not have had they known that others had tried and failed. It tends not to get reported because its not terribly fun to write up a paper saying that your hard work failed.
The results of this experiment apparently supported the Big Bang theory, so this isn't a worry in this case.
So, ah... how does a theory get to die, ever? (Score:2)
Some of Velikovsky's ideas seem to be classed as ``bad theories'' despite being rather good predictors of observation. Is this a matter of politics or sociology rather than science?
Some of the plasma cosmologies also seem to be excellent predictors of observation, and in some cases the only sane explanation of observations, yet they are still not treated as a ``good theory'' - so what needs to happen in order for them to be considered ``good?''
If the answer is ``a quorum of acceptance'' can you then go on to explain how that is science and not politics? (-:
To be sure, to be sure, to be sure (Score:2)
Because a lot of people (and with good reason) aren't entirely sure about the Big Bang (-: or as another poster phrased it, ``the Horrendous Space Kablooie''
For another example of this effect in science, consider the number of ``birdosaurs'' or of ``pre-humans'' that have been discovered, proclaimed at full volume, and then quietly denied in small print as every single one is discovered to be a furphy of one kind or another. Some people have a need to believe that a dinosaur is where we got birds from, so anything that threatens this belief becomes a target for their zealotry. If someone convincingly ``proved'' that birds evolved from amphibians, and this ``proof'' was widely proclaimed and accepted as true, these zealots would be at a total loss for words.
Supporting evidence (Score:2)
This information is particularly apropos given the alternative theory of "colliding universes" [cnn.com] very recently proposed.
I have to agree with Calvin on this one (Score:3)
A gigantic explosion of matter and/or energy that creates an entire universe...and they call it the "Big Bang".
I agree with Calvin/Bill Watterson - "The Horrendous Space Kablooie" has a much nicer ring to it...
---
Re:Is this new? (Score:3)
De-coupling mixup and why the observations were im (Score:1)
The anisotropies are important since they lead to structure formation, since if the universe were truly homogeneous and isotropic (FRW cosmology), structure wouldn't form, and we wouldn't have Stallman bashing M$FT.
The breakthrough in these observations is that the experiments measured the higher acoustic 'peaks' in the CMB, allowing for tighter bounds to be placed on various cosmological parameters (like the density of baryons, dark matter, etc.)
Re:Proof? (Score:2)
You could use a refresher in inductive reasoning. A theory is a model. It cannot ever be proven. The only way to test it is to use its underpinnings to make a prediction of a phenomenon that is not currently observed, and then find a way to observe that phenomenon. A theory derived from theological meanderings, on the other hand, has no testable consequences, and therefore is not even a theory, just a highly speculative story that doesn't mean anything.
wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it.
If a specific prediction of the Big Bang theory had fallen down completely on its face, someone certainly would have announced it. If not on CNN, somewhere else. There are all sorts of people (who the mainstream establishment no doubt refers to as crackpots) who would jump on an issue like that, and run out and do their own exhaustive experiments to add volume to the disproof.
some theory... (Score:2)
The fluctuations in the CMBR, first discovered in the COBE experiment, are manly a clue to the small-scale anisotropy in the early universe, which led to de-coupling of mass & radiation (it has more implications also). They are *not* what *ignited* the Big Bang. That would more have to do with the initial *matter* content.
Similarly "Drawing of the theoretical Big Bang" is not very intelligent, since 1.) it looks like a hot galaxy 2.) until quite late (10^4 yrs) the big-bang is opaque, you cannot "see it" 3.) space was expanding, so you can't "zoom out" and watch it froma distance.
I'm not sure whether this is any use, but I'll post it anyhow.
--
Chicken Feather Voodoo Physics (Score:1)
I agree with Mr. Einstein on his characterization of spacetime as a structural quality of something else (the field). This 'something else' is what researchers should be concentrating on. Spacetime should not be the target and source of mindless extrapolations. Spacetime itself is an abstract construct deduced from measurements that are the result of that something else. Unless we understand exactly what that something else is and what its physical constituents, processes and interactions are, all spacetime extrapolations (big bangs, black holes, wormholes, time travel, etc...) are just cheesy Star-Trek physics. Chicken feather voodoo physics is what I like to call it.
This is not a "new" effort. (Score:4)
Re:Supporting evidence (Score:2)
Uh... "provides evidence for" != proof.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Supporting evidence (Score:2)
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Too often people assume the dictionary is the end-all and be-all of word meanings. It isn't. The dictionary gives popular definitions, but when it comes to specific jargon, it is often plain wrong.
In philosophy of science, "evidence" has a specific meaning, and "proof" has a specific meaning, and evidence != proof.
Even funnier is the fact that you're gettting karma for being, well, just plain wrong. Oh well.
Ryan T. Sammartino
Re:Proof? (Score:1)
Is this new? (Score:2)
In this article [tripod.com], there is a good discussion on the big bang theory and it's origins.
The discovery of background radiation is described well in this article [pbs.org]. The work was done by Penzias and Wilson in 1965. As for the CNN article referring to this as the "cosmic match that ignited the big bang," classical theories break down at the singularity which we presume the universe began from. Because space and time break down at this singularity, how can we identify a cause? The only events in space and time that matter are the ones after the big bang. The article isn't well written and with what's written about it, it seems to be the same work done 36 years ago that I cited above. I'm sure there's a reason it's making the news now, but whatever the discovery is, the article doesn't do it justice.
Nature of science (Score:3)
Scientists are often more interested in discrepancies with currently accepted theory than confirmation, as this is where greater insight arises. Consider the amount of money being spent on particle accelerators that will hopefully see effects inconsistent with the Standard Model of particle physics.
Science isn't about bracing up an old stone temple.