3 ms·
There is nothing to agree on. You make measurements, see what model fits best, and then ask the model what will happen as time goes to infinity. And we did hav
by mr_mitm 2y ago
There is nothing to agree on. You make measurements, see what model fits best, and then ask the model what will happen as time goes to infinity.
And we did have a consensus: the standard model of cosmology. It fits the data best, that's how it became the standard model. Many cosmologists don't like the standard model, because it has some theoretical deficiencies. One example: The value of the dark energy density seems highly tuned. Its value is unnatural and there is no known mechanism that could produce such a finely tuned parameter. But what can you do if all observations agree with the standard model?
I've been in cosmology grad school ten years ago and would listen to a visiting scientist presenting a novel model that might explain the standard model's shortcomings practically once a week. There is no shortage of speculative models. And as I said, science doesn't work by finding an agreement. You devise experiments that can show that your model explains more than the standard model and let nature find the agreement for you. If there are a few stubborn scientists left that cling to ruled out ideas (Fred Hoyle comes to mind), experience shows that they will die out over time.
Euclid is one such experiment my group studied a lot, and it's finally collecting data. Hopefully it helps us find a better model than the standard model, and with all the news in the past few years, it's looking good.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoIt seems wrong-headed that even the hint of a Creator requires turning theories into pretzels to remove that hint even when it's not proof. The "problem" of fine-tuning isn't really a problem. Why that value? We just don't know yet. Maybe God set it. Maybe we're part of an infinitely large cosmos where our false vacuum has these parameters, and others don't (statistical multiverse / baby universe models). We just don't know, and sometimes it's enough to know that we don't know.
- karmakurtisaani 2y agoYou do realize that a creator hypothesis turns all theories to quite a bit more than just pretzels, and raises a lot more questions than it answers?
- slowmovintarget 2y agoI made no argument in favor of the creator hypothesis. I'm making an argument against fearing it. The creator hypothesis will take care of itself if we just attend to the science and not to "taste."
- karmakurtisaani 2y agoI'm fairly sure the creator hypothesis has been taken care of by science already. There's very few things less "sciency" than giving up and declaring a mysterious creator. The problem is you can invoke the creator at any point you wish, and it doesn't explain anything. Can't make any useful predictions based on assuming a creator.
- mr_mitm 2y ago> Maybe we're part of an infinitely large cosmos where our false vacuum has these parameters, and others don't (statistical multiverse / baby universe models). You'd be in good company with that approach. Ironically, it becomes easier to explain if dark energy wasn't constant (see: TFA), because then you can make an anthropic argument, that only this part of the universe leads to complex structure and thus life. But for that you have study alternative models which might just be right. >We just don't know, and sometimes it's enough to know that we don't know. That is a very anti-science take that I find problematic. Curiosity is a very human trait and has been proven to be fruitful.
- slowmovintarget 2y agoHeh... Yeah, I'm against the "shut up and calculate" mentality of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Perhaps it's a problem with the science communication and less with the scientific community, but it seems like an often cited impetus for the science is supposed to be this overweening need to eliminate a negative association instead of to explain or satisfy curiosity.