0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"The findings may also imply the Universe is infinite.
We have already replaced Newtonian mechanics with relativity and continuum models with quantum mechanics. And now we can see bits of the universe like black holes and dark energy for which we have no adequate model. No big deal. Whether the universe behaves consistently over time is actually a meaningless question - consistency is in the timescale of the beholder.
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space
Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?
Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’QuoteThe Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019 [nofollow]Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossibleQuoteAstronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space [nofollow]
When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?
Quote from: cleanair on 26/09/2019 19:24:52Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?Maybe you should find some actually evidence for that conspiracy first.
In 1929, Hubble published a paper in which he established that not only were galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, but that more-distant galaxies were also receding more quickly. That is, the universe was not static. It was expanding. This observation (and those preceding Hubble's paper) led Belgian priest Georges Lemaître to propose in 1931 that the universe originated from a small and compact state, what he called a "Cosmic Egg" and what is now called the Big Bang.With the realization that his earlier prejudice for an unchanging cosmos was wrong, Einstein embraced the Cosmic Egg theory and removed the cosmological constant from his equations. He called the Cosmic Egg theory the most beautiful creation story that he ever heard.Einstein: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened," he said, and called his own theory the biggest blunder of his career.
Firstly, Express is a sensationalist website. Everything there should be taken with a large grain of salt.
The new study was published last month in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Secondly, there is no problem with that star's age. The uncertainty of its age is large enough to be consistent with the Big Bang.
The black hole thing has also been addressed using a "direct collapse" model (as opposed to the idea that it formed from a collapsing star that then consumed matter to become larger).
Quote from: cleanair on 26/09/2019 19:24:52When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?Just as likely as they are now. Evolution is separate from the Big Bang. Evolution was already widely-accepted when the eternal, steady state model of the Universe was also accepted. Neither requires the other.
A journalist recounts the epic story of modern challenges to evolutionary dogma
- formulate a theory for a infinite Universe that is proven accurate today
- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and instead, choose the theory of a catholic priest that states that the Universe started in a "Cosmic Egg".
In general people may feel obligated to believe the story that has been presented to them but if there was something else that motivated Albert Einstein to make his choice, what could that have been?
That's not correct. The first stars presumably formed 200 million years after the Big Bang. At it's lowest uncertainty estimate it's still 100 million years to old and the second argument is that the star is just 200 light years away in the Milky Way.
There are more stars found that appear to be older than the Universe.
That's backwards reasoning just to make the Big Bang plausible again. It isn't a theory that you would naturally use to explain the observed black hole.
Darwin's ideas were proven wrong.
It may have been intended as a lie for the better.
With regard to it being no big deal, my question was also related to potential societal implications, and for 'thinking' in general.
Quote from: cleanair on 26/09/2019 23:26:47- formulate a theory for a infinite Universe that is proven accurate todayWhen was it proven that the Universe is infinite?
But it’s interesting to note that creation myths across cultures tell the opposite story. Traditions of Chinese, Indian, pre-Colombian, and African cultures, as well as the biblical book of Genesis, all describe (clearly in allegorical terms) a distinct beginning to the universe—whether it’s the “creation in six days” of Genesis or the “Cosmic Egg” of the ancient Indian text the Rig Veda.
Quote from: cleanair on 26/09/2019 23:26:47- call that theory his "biggest blunder" and instead, choose the theory of a catholic priest that states that the Universe started in a "Cosmic Egg".Because of the evidence.
Why Einstein was wrong about being wrongThe only explanation that made sense: Einstein's "greatest blunder" was actually one of his greatest predictions. There really is a mysterious antigravity force. Einstein's only mistake was in rejecting it.
You could speculate endlessly about anyone having ulterior motives for doing anything at all.
There are an awful lot of things that "may" be true.
If a creation story was chosen for societal interests, why do people in general need such a story? Are there alternatives while maintaining an accurate search for truth?
It is not plausible that a scientist [Einstein] all of the sudden tosses his work away and invests considerable time to promote a contradicting theory.
Recent studies have shown that Albert Einstein's original theory is correct. That may implicate that the Universe is infinite. Without a beginning, there cannot be a end.
It’s interesting that Einstein repeatedly misspells the name of Edwin Hubble (“Hubbel”). Had he not yet met Hubble in person? We don’t know. The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.April 4, 1931: Over the next few months he reviewed the published literature on the expanding universe problem. His opinion continued to evolve and in mid-March he sat down and started writing a paper for the Prussian Academy of Sciences where he finally renounced the cosmological constant. In putting it together he only made oblique referenced the works of Hubble and whose last name he habitually misspelled as "Hubbel," indicating that he may not have read any of Hubble's papers.
1) The Monopole Problem2) The Flatness Problem3) The Horizon ProblemYou will find the above three problems religiously repeated as a motivation for inflation, in lectures and textbooks and popular science pages all over the place.Source: Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea. But practically no one else is following him. Is he right?I was dismayed to see that the criticism by Steinhardt, Ijas, and Loeb that inflation is not a scientific theory, was dismissed so quickly by a community which has become too comfortable with itself.There’s no warning sign you when you cross the border between science and blabla-land. But inflationary model building left behind reasonable scientific speculation long ago. I, for one, am glad that at least some people are speaking out about it. And that’s why I approve of the Steinhardt et al. criticism.
The spelling error does hint at the fact that he didn't take Hubble’s discovery serious.
There is obvious some sort of force at play that pushes the scientific establishment to hold on to the Big Bang theory.
Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?Only if they have a calendar to tell them what they should currently be.To me, that seems unlikely
Other researchers involved in the research are Professor Victor Flambaum and PhD student Matthew Bainbridge from the University of New South Wales, and Professor Bob Carswell at the University of Cambridge (UK).
It's called evidence.
"we are here to test physics, not to assume it" "The evidence for changing constants is piling up. We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,”