Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Forbes’ physics columnist Ethan Siegel can’t wait to get beyond the Big Bang

arroba Email

But doesn’t seem to have a ticket. He seems to have always hated it but it bangs on anyway. How frustrating:

But the Universe as we see it has some properties — and some puzzles — that the Big Bang doesn’t explain. If everything began from a singular point a finite amount of time ago, you’d expect… But none of these things are true. The Universe has the same temperature properties everywhere, no leftover high-energy relics, and is perfectly spatially flat in all directions. …

Either the Universe was simply born with these properties for no foreseeable reason at all, or there is a scientific explanation: a mechanism that caused the Universe to come into existence with these properties already in place.

Ethan Siegel, “These 4 Pieces Of Evidence Have Already Taken Us Beyond The Big Bang” at Forbes

But then what caused that mechanism? If a mechanism caused that mechanism, what in turn caused the previous mechanism? Siegel obviously wants to get past the idea of an actual beginning but orthodox science does not seem to allow that. Some religious propositions might suffice, of course, but he does not want to go there. Advice from readers?

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply, the facts are wrong.

a mechanism that caused the Universe to come into existence with these properties already in place. I had to do a double take and then laugh. A "mechanism"? That can exist independent of nature? A mechanical metaphor for a possible reductionist view for something existing independent of space, time and humans and human derived metaphors? A non-mechanism existing non-in non-time and non-space non-when there non-were scientists to non-think. I think these people non-think we can't think. Because we don't, many of us, have that Ph.D. groovamos
The cosmo-wonks invoke "inflation" to "explain" the uniformity and flatness "problems" for the Universe. Of course, this "inflation" is just an unobservable hypothesis, which cannot even be described without resort to more fine tuning and arbitrary parameters. Siegel's either-or in the second paragraph above seems rather naïve, to put it mildly; either there is a scientific explanation, or else "no reason at all". Surely even Siegel can think of other options? Also, I'm not clear on how "foreseeable" fits in when discussing the birth of the Universe. Fasteddious
The lengths people go to delude themselves. The higher the IQ the bigger the fool, for those still living in denial. Also 'A' (ala SPIRAL) not 'The' (SCM-LCDM) big bang. a start yes from a hyper -dense size - yes a hyper cosmic expansion epoch - yes. result: not a flat universe, but the entire universe approximates the sphere that is the visible universe, no ongoing cosmic expansion, no deep-time.. so a max radius of 4B LY. Could be under 1B LY so use 2B LY as an average estimate. we are by the approximate center. - yes we have a vastly proffered view of the universe over any distant view point - yes. can/does align with ALL the empirical observations taken in max avail context - yes based on basic science and a light speed limit of standard light speed - yes should (once studied, fairly considered and disseminated) replace the flawed LCDM to become the new standard cosmological model - Yes see how SPIRAL and LCDM compare on several more issues here: www.academia.edu/36013854 Pearlman
don't know why, but somehow the word “crackpot” comes to mind, doesn’t it? :) However, “nonsense” is more appropriate. jawa

Leave a Reply