4 ms·

The Trouble with “The Big Bang”

20 points by WithinReason 4y ago

tromp 4y ago
Is it just me, or does the Brave Browser (Version 1.40.113 Chromium: 103.0.5060.114 (Official Build) (x86_64) on macOS Catalina 10.15.7) have trouble showing this web page, constantly trying to show a subscribe message and having it blocked causing lots of flickering?
- rzzzwilson 4y ago
  I have no problems with the latest Brave app for Android on a Samsung Galaxy S6 lite tablet.
tacass 4y ago
More clearly: the trouble with the phrase “The Big Bang”
puffoflogic 4y ago
> The reader is misled to think that evidence for the expansion of the universe is evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang Event, which is incorrect. "Incorrect" is a needlessly violent word to use here when motte-and-bailey arguments are the heart and soul of popsci in $current_year.
jbotz 4y ago
Sabine tries to clarify the various meanings of "Big Bang" here, but one thing confused me more in her explanation... she says, that Einstein's theory "breaks down 10^-43 seconds before the mathematical singularity" and later "until we reach an energy density that roughly corresponds to that which the Large Hadron Collider probes, which brings us to about 10^-12 seconds before the hypothetical Big Bang Event". Given that she defines the "hypothetical Big Bang Event" as the mathematical singularity, shouldn't that be "after" rather than "before" in both cases?
- ccvannorman 4y ago
  it is my understanding that Sabine's intention is to say "as you go further back in time, approaching some singularity, Thing Happens at N seconds before you get all the way back to the singularity". So, I think you are correct, and her phrasing has caused this confusion around "before" and "after" terms.
8bitsrule 4y ago
"13.7 billion years in the past, both density and temperature become infinite." This seems like an article of faith. In mathematics, I guess. At any rate, I see a lack of anything resembling evidence that such a state is even possible. Let alone that everything we do observe is the inevitable result of it. Infinite "density and temperature"? We've not seen or measured anything like this. Nor will we, ever. Why have we 'bet the farm' on it? The BB solved some problems when it was proposed, IIRC. Worth following up on. But if it's getting in the way of a better hypothesis, then I'd like to hear about that.

20 points by WithinReason 4y ago

Is it just me, or does the Brave Browser (Version 1.40.113 Chromium: 103.0.5060.114 (Official Build) (x86_64) on macOS Catalina 10.15.7) have trouble showing this web page, constantly trying to show a subscribe message and having it blocked causing lots of flickering?

rzzzwilson 4y ago
I have no problems with the latest Brave app for Android on a Samsung Galaxy S6 lite tablet.

tacass 4y ago

More clearly: the trouble with the phrase “The Big Bang”

puffoflogic 4y ago

> The reader is misled to think that evidence for the expansion of the universe is evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang Event, which is incorrect. "Incorrect" is a needlessly violent word to use here when motte-and-bailey arguments are the heart and soul of popsci in $current_year.

jbotz 4y ago

Sabine tries to clarify the various meanings of "Big Bang" here, but one thing confused me more in her explanation... she says, that Einstein's theory "breaks down 10^-43 seconds before the mathematical singularity" and later "until we reach an energy density that roughly corresponds to that which the Large Hadron Collider probes, which brings us to about 10^-12 seconds before the hypothetical Big Bang Event". Given that she defines the "hypothetical Big Bang Event" as the mathematical singularity, shouldn't that be "after" rather than "before" in both cases?

ccvannorman 4y ago
it is my understanding that Sabine's intention is to say "as you go further back in time, approaching some singularity, Thing Happens at N seconds before you get all the way back to the singularity". So, I think you are correct, and her phrasing has caused this confusion around "before" and "after" terms.

8bitsrule 4y ago

"13.7 billion years in the past, both density and temperature become infinite." This seems like an article of faith. In mathematics, I guess. At any rate, I see a lack of anything resembling evidence that such a state is even possible. Let alone that everything we do observe is the inevitable result of it. Infinite "density and temperature"? We've not seen or measured anything like this. Nor will we, ever. Why have we 'bet the farm' on it? The BB solved some problems when it was proposed, IIRC. Worth following up on. But if it's getting in the way of a better hypothesis, then I'd like to hear about that.