3 ms·

The Big Bang Theory is not "proved"... From the Nobel Prize press release linked in the article: > it is thus tempting to assume that the universe was created

by j2kun 1y ago

The Big Bang Theory is not "proved"... From the Nobel Prize press release linked in the article: > it is thus tempting to assume that the universe was created by a cosmic explosion, or ‘big bang’, although other explanations are possible.

anyfoo 1y ago
Nothing is ever "proven" in non-theoretical physics including cosmology, if your definition of proven is "cannot be falsified". I can trivially replace any cosmology statement with "well, it all just popped into existence five minutes ago, our respective memories included". But with the discovery of background radiation, contending models were falsified. Most notably the "steady state model", which was considered somewhat more elegant and beautiful. Had I been alive and into physic back then, I totally would have backed steady state over the big bang. Alas, the data speaks louder than what I consider "beautiful".
hackingonempty 1y ago
The "big bang theory" just describes the evolution of the universe to what we see today from an earlier, hot and dense state. It doesn't say anything about what went bang, how it went bang, why it went bang, what was before the bang, etc... it is a "bangless theory" according to cosmologists like Alan Guth, and the preceding is a loose quote from the first lecture in his intro to cosmology course at MIT. So yes, discovery of the CMB did prove the big bang theory. Only the universe being small, hot, and dense can explain the CMB but we still don't know what the big bang itself is or whether the universe always existed.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  > whether the universe always existed. Seems a bit of a silly condition when time is part of the universe. It has tautologically always existed.
  - edoceo 1y ago
    Maybe time has always existed; matter and energy are new? And the universe is just the product of time&energy (where matter and energy are interchangeable and fungible)
    - thro1 1y ago
      - but isn't the universe converting time into space ? (we don't see the speed of light as changing ?)
  - hnlmorg 1y ago
    Time, as a dimension of this universe, has always existed in this universe. But that doesn’t mean that this universe has always existed (eg in the context of a multiverse).
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      I don't understand the semantics of what you're saying. "Always" simply has no referent outside the dimension of time in this universe. Even in the context of a multiverse, if you accept such a concept as somehow "existing" outside of all possible empirical observation, time (or "always", or the past tense for that matter) has no obvious semantics. I will go so far as to say there's just as little that we can meaningfully state about the multiverse as we can about the flying spaghetti monster. But perhaps I'm just being dense.
      - hnlmorg 1y ago
        You’re getting hung up on the semantics of a word. The reality (no pun intended) is that language doesn’t really exist to define these concepts well because the concepts exist beyond our perception of reality. The argument being made about the universe is that: just because time has always been a property of this universe, it doesn’t mean that this universe has existed forever.
        MangoToupe 1y ago

by j2kun 1y ago

anyfoo 1y ago

Nothing is ever "proven" in non-theoretical physics including cosmology, if your definition of proven is "cannot be falsified". I can trivially replace any cosmology statement with "well, it all just popped into existence five minutes ago, our respective memories included". But with the discovery of background radiation, contending models were falsified. Most notably the "steady state model", which was considered somewhat more elegant and beautiful. Had I been alive and into physic back then, I totally would have backed steady state over the big bang. Alas, the data speaks louder than what I consider "beautiful".

hackingonempty 1y ago

The "big bang theory" just describes the evolution of the universe to what we see today from an earlier, hot and dense state. It doesn't say anything about what went bang, how it went bang, why it went bang, what was before the bang, etc... it is a "bangless theory" according to cosmologists like Alan Guth, and the preceding is a loose quote from the first lecture in his intro to cosmology course at MIT. So yes, discovery of the CMB did prove the big bang theory. Only the universe being small, hot, and dense can explain the CMB but we still don't know what the big bang itself is or whether the universe always existed.

MangoToupe 1y ago
> whether the universe always existed. Seems a bit of a silly condition when time is part of the universe. It has tautologically always existed.
- edoceo 1y ago
  Maybe time has always existed; matter and energy are new? And the universe is just the product of time&energy (where matter and energy are interchangeable and fungible)
  - thro1 1y ago
    - but isn't the universe converting time into space ? (we don't see the speed of light as changing ?)
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  Time, as a dimension of this universe, has always existed in this universe. But that doesn’t mean that this universe has always existed (eg in the context of a multiverse).
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    I don't understand the semantics of what you're saying. "Always" simply has no referent outside the dimension of time in this universe. Even in the context of a multiverse, if you accept such a concept as somehow "existing" outside of all possible empirical observation, time (or "always", or the past tense for that matter) has no obvious semantics. I will go so far as to say there's just as little that we can meaningfully state about the multiverse as we can about the flying spaghetti monster. But perhaps I'm just being dense.
    - hnlmorg 1y ago
      You’re getting hung up on the semantics of a word. The reality (no pun intended) is that language doesn’t really exist to define these concepts well because the concepts exist beyond our perception of reality. The argument being made about the universe is that: just because time has always been a property of this universe, it doesn’t mean that this universe has existed forever.
      - MangoToupe 1y ago