Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 5-30-2017 | Jake Hebert, Ph.D.

[fishtank]

Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American

by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *

The February 2017 issue of Scientific American contains an article by three prominent theoretical physicists from Princeton and Harvard who strongly question the validity of cosmic inflation, an important part of the modern Big Bang theory.1 They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.

Inflation theory was proposed by physicist Alan Guth to solve a number of serious problems in early versions of the Big Bang model. Supposedly, the universe underwent an extremely short period of accelerated expansion right after the Big Bang.

However, physicists later realized this version of inflation theory was too simplistic.

[Hugh the Scot]

You sir, are an abrupt idiot.

Contrary to the nonsense you spewed AND your condescending demeanor, the current condition of the universe came from outside of the theory.

Self-referential is the assumption that the current condition of the universe provides evidence of the theory based on observation of the current condition of the universe, which provides evidence... blah, blah, blah

It is not my intention to disprove your religious beliefs. I only take issue with the idea that

"The Big Bang theory cannot seriously be questioned, due to the enormous volume of evidence".

Clear, as that's what I replied to.

As to laughable baloney, you've certainly contributed your share.

[meyer]

Knock knock knock “Penny”
knock knock knock “Penny”
knock knock knock “Penny”

Oh, THAT Big Bang...

[Hugh the Scot]

I’m in agreement. It’s a theory... A well supported one, in fact, but not beyond question by reasonable and intelligent people.

[HLPhat]

>>If you're a believer in Genesis; 

Which, per the religious, should we interpret literally:

Ezek 28:11-13

11 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

"'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
NIV

Or:

Gen 3:23-24

23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east sidee of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
NIV

?

After the religious chew on that - they can chew on how E=MC^2 relates, in both a General and Special sense, to the length of a day:

Time being a derivative function of state-change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed.

And finally - perhaps they can tell us all what the length of a day was in the context of the inertial frame occupied by a Creator by whom all the E in the Universe was breathed into existence in a single moment?

[5th MEB]

I believe that what I call “A BINGO”.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

"They argued that inflation can never be shown to be wrong—it cannot be falsified—and therefore inflation isn’t even a scientific hypothesis."

One can say the same thing about Darwinian evolution.

You make an interesting extrapolation.

[Telepathic Intruder]

In science nothing really progresses beyond a theory, even something as basic as gravity. Some think they become "laws", but laws are just mathematical relationships that themselves aren't really proven. A theory contains laws but theories don't become laws.

We're reasonably certain that the universe is expanding, and predictions generally match what we see today, but no one knows how the universe originally started. There are competing alternative theories to the standard model, such as the Brane concept, but we don't have the physics or the observational data to say what really happened at "the beginning". It's anyone's guess, basically.

[Hugh the Scot]

It must be an agonizing burden to operate under the assumption that such basic tenets of science are unfamiliar to anyone who may disagree with you.

" we don't have the physics or the observational data to say what really happened at "the beginning".

Seriously, you must be exhausted. :-)
-Hugh

[HLPhat]

>>In science nothing really progresses beyond a theory,

Got Practical Application?

Observe the self-evident application of math associated with QED etc that’s engineered into the various processes involved in storing and transmitting bits of information - culminating with the photons that are streaming off the screen and into your eyeballs, right now!

[cbvanb]

I appreciate your reasoned response. I believe that God is the author of all things, but there is no sin in trying to understand how he did it. The answers may well be beyond our reach, but it is fun to try to figure out how it all happened.

[backwoods-engineer]

Oh, no! A scientific theory grounded in decades of observational evidence is going to have to be adjusted! The young Earthers must have been right all along!

Give me a break.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Yes, and I don’t believe that God and science are in any mutually exclusive. God made a universe that behaves according to physical laws. The ones making trouble are the ones trying to misuse science to disprove God, which is impossible. God is above science, not opposed to it.

[Telepathic Intruder]

I’m not really saying there is a beginning either. Just that our knowledge of physics or ability to see back that far are limited. From a science perspective, purely.

[HLPhat]

>> I believe that God is the author of all things, but there is no sin in trying to understand how he did it

Yep.

Seems to me that if there's a sin in the context of this debate - it's in the arrogant pride of the fallible and uninspired whose OPINIONS have assumed dominion over the faith of others - culminating in multiple generations of children who've been driven into rejecting religion, and their own redemption, because they've been told to disbelieve what they see with their own eyes and free minds.

Furthermore, having driven those children into an insane wilderness of self-worshipping OPINION; the religious have given over those children to predators who would further confound things until significant numbers can't even apply the meager logic, reason, and common sense to know what sex they are.

Luke 17:1-3

17 Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. 2 It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. 3

NIV

[Hugh the Scot]

Again, we are in agreement. I’m not a theorist, I’m an engineer, and as such I frequently work with mathematical models post-failure, to try and understand why some component didn’t work as expected. This is also why I distrust this method.

I apologize for jabbing at you.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Funny, I didn’t feel jabbed. Skepticism is an important ingredient. It beats groupthink in a lot of cases.

[Charles Martel]

Big Bang Blowup at Scientific American

So this "blowup" doesn't involve a Kaley Cuoco lookalike sex doll, then. Well, that we know of.

[spirited irish]

I won’t bother drawing that line-—>You Will. If the Big Bang, the so-called engine of matter has nothing to do with ‘speciation,’ then what does? If matter didn’t come into existence when the Big Bang (pagan Cosmic Egg) exploded, then Nature’s (capital N for nature worship) primary creative energy, evolution, had nothing to work on. So once again, if the Big Bang has nothing to do with speciation, then what does? The magical, mythological energy called evolution?!?

[AndyTheBear]

Indeed, Ezekiel must have meant it as literal since its in the Bible, and as we know, the Bible doesn't contain metaphors or analogies or idioms in any of its prophecies or creation narratives.</sarcasm>

[Keflavik76]

“Science isn’t perfect, but what are the alternatives?”

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.