6 ms·

George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, and the great Big Bang debate

21 points by benbreen 5y ago

spatley 5y ago
aargh, the confusion presented by this headline is infuriating and is a continues problem in how we present science to the general populace. "just a theory" is imply meaningless in the scientific method. What is the theory of gravitation just a theory?
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't react to the most objectionable aspect of a title. We can always change the title. I've done so now. What we want are reflective responses to content, not reflexive reactions to surface bits.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    But it was the headline of the NYT article. While the history presented in the book review is interesting, it also seems relevant that a headline in the "paper of record" mischaracterizes what a theory is. Which is relevant in this case because "It's just a theory" trivializes that theory in a lot of popular discourse.
    - dang 5y ago
      You're giving the headline writers too much credit. They want clicks. It's their job to sex up the titles, our job to deflate them, and commenters' job not to take the bait. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22sex%20up%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... A large part of what HN is about is training ourselves as a community to respond to the interesting bits in a story and leave the provocative bits. That's a fancier way of saying what I just said about not taking bait. If you think about it, it's really a multi-year—or rather multi-decade—community project, for us to learn together not to be driven crazy by gimmicky shit. No doubt gimmicky shit has always been with us, but the quantity of it that we all encounter in the internet era is orders of magnitude greater, so if we want to have a culture of interesting conversation, we don't really have a choice.
- Kranar 5y ago
  I think the whole argument over the definition of theory is overblown. Sure there's a group of people who use "theory" to mean some unconfirmed hypothesis as a way to discredit the theory of natural selection in favor of creationism. This is hardly a matter of confusion for the general public nor is it a particularly big deal. There is no singular "theory of gravitation", there are multiple theories of gravitation and they are just that, theories. Some are meaningless (like the theory that gravity is due to the earth and every physical object growing in size), some are useful for every day uses, like gravity is some kind of force whose charge is mass and whose strength decreases with the square of the distance, and some theories are very accurate but very hard or impractical to work with, like gravity is due to some sort of 4 dimensional space-time curvature. All of those are just theories, they have various pros and cons and use cases and problems to varying degrees. I don't think this is a problem for most people to understand.
mjh2539 5y ago
There is no mention of Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest and physicist who first proposed the theory. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/ https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expa...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  It's also interesting to note that Hoyle's objection to the Big Bang was basically philosophical, and his steady-state theory had more to do with how he thought the universe "should be" than anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Brian Keating, in his book Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor: > Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility. * https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_against_religion_prevented_scientists_from_accepting_the_big_bang.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_ag... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The same excessive Copernicanism can be seen in the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences should be common in the universe. One even sees the argument made that if you think humanity is unique it must be because of religious sentiment.
    - France_is_bacon 5y ago
      Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists. I tend to doubt most atheist scientist didn't accept the big bank because it was too close to genesis. However, in any case, it doesn't matter. That is one of the absolute strengths of science over religion. Scientific method explicitly takes human biases into account. Publishing, peer review, reproducability - all foundations of science. There are a lot of examples of the majority of scientists rejecting an idea. For example, the washing of the hands by doctors. Everyone rejected this, but in good time, it was accepted by all. On the other hand, we have religion. It brooks no argument. There is no disagreeing or finding a different way to truth. People may do it, but the religion sure doesn't allow it, mostly.
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/CwYg8 https://archive.is/CwYg8
JohnClark1337 5y ago
Oh look, clickbait
advisedwang 5y ago
My favorite related anecode: when Alpher and Gamow released a paper about big bang photosynthesis Gamow added Bethe to the paper to make the author list "Alpher, Beth & Gamow" (ie Alpha Beta Gamma!)
- gidorah 5y ago
  Bethe wasn't too happy as he was the junior and Gamow was pretty senior and unrelated, so Bethe didn't get the credit he deserved iirc.
  - adharmad 5y ago
    Alpher was the most junior of the three and Bethe was a big gun even at that time. Bethe went along with the joke when Gamow added his name to the paper. But the actual loser in the deal was Alpher because most scientists, upon reading the author's names simply assumed that Bethe and Gamow had come up with the main ideas.
    - gidorah 5y ago
      Oops. I guess I misremebered.
SeanLuke 5y ago
> "When the Big Bang Was Just a Theory" Pretty sure the Big Bang is still "just a theory". I think the headline should have said "When the Big Bang Was Just a Hypothesis". Bad NYT.
Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago
T.I.L on HN. I though that the Big Bang Theory was exactly that - a Theory - yet the NYT assures me that it was (past tense) Just a Theory. Full (obvious) Disclaimer - IAMNAC (I am not a cosmologist)
- ghaff 5y ago
  I think you're reading a headline written by an editor who is conflating widely-accepted theory that beat out other competing theories which had heavyweight adherents with not-a-theory anymore.
- dekken_ 5y ago
  it is a theory, it cannot be replicated.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  The title of the article contributes to the unfortunate but common confusion between the scientific and colloquial meanings of the word "theory".
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't react to the most objectionable aspect of a title. We can always change the title. I've done so now. What we want are reflective responses to content, not reflexive reactions to surface bits.

21 points by benbreen 5y ago

aargh, the confusion presented by this headline is infuriating and is a continues problem in how we present science to the general populace. "just a theory" is imply meaningless in the scientific method. What is the theory of gravitation just a theory?

dang 5y ago
Please don't react to the most objectionable aspect of a title. We can always change the title. I've done so now. What we want are reflective responses to content, not reflexive reactions to surface bits.
- ghaff 5y ago
  But it was the headline of the NYT article. While the history presented in the book review is interesting, it also seems relevant that a headline in the "paper of record" mischaracterizes what a theory is. Which is relevant in this case because "It's just a theory" trivializes that theory in a lot of popular discourse.
  - dang 5y ago
    You're giving the headline writers too much credit. They want clicks. It's their job to sex up the titles, our job to deflate them, and commenters' job not to take the bait. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22sex%20up%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... A large part of what HN is about is training ourselves as a community to respond to the interesting bits in a story and leave the provocative bits. That's a fancier way of saying what I just said about not taking bait. If you think about it, it's really a multi-year—or rather multi-decade—community project, for us to learn together not to be driven crazy by gimmicky shit. No doubt gimmicky shit has always been with us, but the quantity of it that we all encounter in the internet era is orders of magnitude greater, so if we want to have a culture of interesting conversation, we don't really have a choice.
Kranar 5y ago
I think the whole argument over the definition of theory is overblown. Sure there's a group of people who use "theory" to mean some unconfirmed hypothesis as a way to discredit the theory of natural selection in favor of creationism. This is hardly a matter of confusion for the general public nor is it a particularly big deal. There is no singular "theory of gravitation", there are multiple theories of gravitation and they are just that, theories. Some are meaningless (like the theory that gravity is due to the earth and every physical object growing in size), some are useful for every day uses, like gravity is some kind of force whose charge is mass and whose strength decreases with the square of the distance, and some theories are very accurate but very hard or impractical to work with, like gravity is due to some sort of 4 dimensional space-time curvature. All of those are just theories, they have various pros and cons and use cases and problems to varying degrees. I don't think this is a problem for most people to understand.

mjh2539 5y ago

There is no mention of Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest and physicist who first proposed the theory. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expanding-universe-of-georges-lemaitre/ https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expa...

tablespoon 5y ago
It's also interesting to note that Hoyle's objection to the Big Bang was basically philosophical, and his steady-state theory had more to do with how he thought the universe "should be" than anything else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Brian Keating, in his book Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science's Highest Honor: > Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang's creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks to Hoyle, humanity had humility. * https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_against_religion_prevented_scientists_from_accepting_the_big_bang.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_ag... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    The same excessive Copernicanism can be seen in the notion that extraterrestrial intelligences should be common in the universe. One even sees the argument made that if you think humanity is unique it must be because of religious sentiment.
  - France_is_bacon 5y ago
    Hmm, I'd really like to know exactly who these atheists supposedly were. And what percentage of the atheist scientists they were. But I'm not going to buy the book in the slim hope that he will actually name these atheists. I tend to doubt most atheist scientist didn't accept the big bank because it was too close to genesis. However, in any case, it doesn't matter. That is one of the absolute strengths of science over religion. Scientific method explicitly takes human biases into account. Publishing, peer review, reproducability - all foundations of science. There are a lot of examples of the majority of scientists rejecting an idea. For example, the washing of the hands by doctors. Everyone rejected this, but in good time, it was accepted by all. On the other hand, we have religion. It brooks no argument. There is no disagreeing or finding a different way to truth. People may do it, but the religion sure doesn't allow it, mostly.

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/CwYg8 https://archive.is/CwYg8

JohnClark1337 5y ago

Oh look, clickbait

advisedwang 5y ago

My favorite related anecode: when Alpher and Gamow released a paper about big bang photosynthesis Gamow added Bethe to the paper to make the author list "Alpher, Beth & Gamow" (ie Alpha Beta Gamma!)

gidorah 5y ago
Bethe wasn't too happy as he was the junior and Gamow was pretty senior and unrelated, so Bethe didn't get the credit he deserved iirc.
- adharmad 5y ago
  Alpher was the most junior of the three and Bethe was a big gun even at that time. Bethe went along with the joke when Gamow added his name to the paper. But the actual loser in the deal was Alpher because most scientists, upon reading the author's names simply assumed that Bethe and Gamow had come up with the main ideas.
  - gidorah 5y ago
    Oops. I guess I misremebered.

SeanLuke 5y ago

> "When the Big Bang Was Just a Theory" Pretty sure the Big Bang is still "just a theory". I think the headline should have said "When the Big Bang Was Just a Hypothesis". Bad NYT.

Pick-A-Hill2019 5y ago

T.I.L on HN. I though that the Big Bang Theory was exactly that - a Theory - yet the NYT assures me that it was (past tense) Just a Theory. Full (obvious) Disclaimer - IAMNAC (I am not a cosmologist)

ghaff 5y ago
I think you're reading a headline written by an editor who is conflating widely-accepted theory that beat out other competing theories which had heavyweight adherents with not-a-theory anymore.
dekken_ 5y ago
it is a theory, it cannot be replicated.
technothrasher 5y ago
The title of the article contributes to the unfortunate but common confusion between the scientific and colloquial meanings of the word "theory".
dang 5y ago
Please don't react to the most objectionable aspect of a title. We can always change the title. I've done so now. What we want are reflective responses to content, not reflexive reactions to surface bits.