When some people wrote privately to protest that this ET>Big Bang stuff is all just one space bunny too far down the cosmic path, I (O’Leary for News) pointed out in response that Neil deGrasse Tyson (here), Martin Rees (here), and Elon Musk (here) have also suggested that very thing. Well, now theoretical physicist Rob Sheldon writes to offer some thoughts on the new-found popularity.
Avi Loeb writes in Scientific American that when we humans are sufficiently advanced, we will create other universes as well.
Miller: Sutter asserts that Bento and Zalel’s article offers a credible response against the evidence for a cosmic beginning. Yet this claim is only based on what might be possible in the realm of the imagination.
Now that Miller mentions it, several other anti-Big Bang tales have appeared recently. Perhaps the reason that all these stories seem extra-silly is that the authors are rattled.
Bento’s theory sounds convincing — compared to the Easter Bunny. The question we should be asking is, why is the Big Bang so unpopular with these people?
Is the Big Bang the least popular widely accepted science theory? Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wishes it out of existence by positing a cosmic inflation that wipes out all possibility of knowledge.
Along the way, Meyer addresses the ideas of Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Edwin Hubble, Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll, and more.
Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?
Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-
Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …
[Things became quite heated at this point.]
Hossenfelder: There are two warnings I have to add when it comes to the “Big Bang”. First, I don’t know anybody who actually believes that this singularity is physically real. It probably just means that Einstein’s equations break down and must be replaced by something else.
Klinghoffer: In some ways, this is a quick take on the most novel arguments in Stephen Meyer’s recent book, The Return of the God Hypothesis , but presented in a very different way.
Dinesh D’Souza: Here I respond to a question from my audience about whether the Big Bang theory about the origin of the universe confirms or contradicts the biblical account of creation given in the first book of Genesis. Buckle your seatbelt!
Egnor explains why not and goes on to cite the Big Bang, singularities in black holes, and the field equations of curved space-time, quantum entanglement, and — of course — the immaterial mind.
Did “nothing” create the universe? Could it?
David Papineau: I am not claiming that every physical event has a physical cause, because I think the Big Bang doesn’t have a cause. I think there’s some physical events that don’t have physical causes.
What happened before anything happened? It’s a meaningless question within itself unless one posits a First Cause or God. Science, like an afghan, tends to fray at the edges.