Welcome
Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Hawking and Friends are not happy!

Hawking and Friends are not happy!

Postby wlminex » Fri May 12, 2017 9:07 pm

Scientific American's article (see ref link below) has kind of "P.O.'d" Hawking and his illlustrious kindred. They are up in arms over SA's article questioning the "inflation" mechanism in Cosmology.
This is what happens when lesser being buck the Standard Model mantra!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog ... li=BBnb7Kz.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

 

Re: Hawking and Friends are not happy!

Postby inertron » Thu May 18, 2017 7:36 pm

wlminex wrote:Scientific American's article (see ref link below) has kind of "P.O.'d" Hawking and his illlustrious kindred. They are up in arms over SA's article questioning the "inflation" mechanism in Cosmology.
This is what happens when lesser being buck the Standard Model mantra!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolog ... li=BBnb7Kz.

I don't understand the resistance to the new theory, especially considering it sounds like little more than a slight modification of the inflation theory to change it from a big-bang to a big-bounce. The basic principle that red-shift represents expansionary motion remains intact. Personally, I am waiting for some theory/theories that find new ways to account for redshift without invoking physical motion. I think red-shift could be caused by some other phenomenon, such as neutrinos permeating and causing weak gravitational effects over extremely long distances of light travel.

Hawking et al. mention the large amount of work done on the big-bang premise, but there's no reason all that work would be invalidated by new theoretical ideas. After all, even if expansion was merely an apparent phenomenon due to redshift and not an actual one, research on it would still make sense according the image of expansion. Just as the recording of an ambulance approaching at one pitch and then passing by and driving away at a lower pitch will contain both pitches in the recording, giving the appearance of direction-change within the recording, a redshifting universe can be studied as if it was expanding, even if the expansion is nothing more than an expansion-like effect caused by neutrinos or some other large-scale photo-gravitational effect.
inertron
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:10 am

Re: Hawking and Friends are not happy!

Postby wlminex » Thu May 18, 2017 9:56 pm

I agree! . . . re: gravitational effects on photons over great distances (tired light hypothesis?) - the farther light travels, the more inclined photons are to lose energy via gravity (and other) interactions with lots of stuff out there, IMO!.

I also agree that Hawking, et. al are professionally remiss in casting-out new theoretical apprroaches challenging existing theories. SA article is just 'adding to/refining' existing theory . . . isn't that what the Scientific Method is all about? Maybe too much of lives invested in current theories to yield easily to new ideas! Tough, isn't it boys . . . . man-up!
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
wlminex
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:50 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Hawking and Friends are not happy!

Postby inertron » Thu May 18, 2017 10:19 pm

wlminex wrote:I agree! . . . re: gravitational effects on photons over great distances (tired light hypothesis?) - the farther light travels, the more inclined photons are to lose energy via gravity (and other) interactions with lots of stuff out there, IMO!.

'Tired light' is a well-known theory that's been rejected, so if you wanted to revive it, you'd have to carefully study the reasoning behind its rejection and come up with new, better reasoning to re-open the case. I don't think of apparent redshift as being so much due to the gravitation of visible matter as much as being due to the gravitation that builds up from all the neutrinos and photons that have been emitted. If photons redshift a little each time they pass a neutrino, they could gradually shift by observable amounts over the huge distances over which expansion is thought to be occurring. I'm not sure, however, whether the issue of how much slower (or faster?) neutrinos travel than photons. I think the speed is similar, but I imagine you'd have to create a model where the photons are passing both 1) the neutrinos emitted together with them from the same star and 2) the neutrinos they encounter that have been emitted by other stars. I suppose if neutrinos are slower than light, there could be stellar and galactic sources of neutrinos that are no longer visible, but whose neutrinos are still reaching us. E.g. a supernova produces a lot of neutrinos, so maybe the neutrinos could reach us long after the supernova appears to have dissipated.

I also agree that Hawking, et. al are professionally remiss in casting-out new theoretical apprroaches challenging existing theories. SA article is just 'adding to/refining' existing theory . . . isn't that what the Scientific Method is all about? Maybe too much of lives invested in current theories to yield easily to new ideas! Tough, isn't it boys . . . . man-up!

I wouldn't say "adding to or refining existing theory" is what the scientific method is about. Ultimately the scientific method is freeer than that, because if you induce or deduce some theory that doesn't add to or refine existing theories, that's no reason to avoid or suppress it. Science is about being true to empiricism, so if you come up with some theory that fits empirical observation better than some other, for whatever reason, you wouldn't avoid pursuing it because it is too different from established ideas. This doesn't mean the social world of science isn't fraught with authoritarians more interested in forcing everyone into camps than in independent scientific thought. Remember these are people with careers, prestige, etc. with an interest in not having their work upended, not because it is true but because it is what their reputation is based on. I would not personally view any big-bangists any differently if some other theory turned out to be more salient, but maybe some people would, idk. Science is about the process of developing and refining models and knowledge, not whether your model or knowledge lasts forever unaltered. If you do a rigorous job working on the theories you've worked on, you've done good science regardless of the ultimate outcome.
inertron
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:10 am


Return to Cosmology and the Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred