Physicist Brian Miller writes:
Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder recently posted a very informative video asking “Did the Big Bang happen?” She explains why alternative theories to the Big Bang model fail to better explain the cosmological data. She also unintentionally affirms the fine-tuning argument for design in the universe.
Success of the Big Bang Theory
Hossenfelder begins by summarizing the evidence for Big Bang cosmology based on Einstein’s theory of relativity and the observed expansion of space. She also explains why the exact details of the early universe remain a mystery. Cosmologists have a limited understanding of the physics of this time when the energy of particles exceeded what the Large Hadron Collider at CERN could generate. In addition, elucidating the dynamics of the universe’s earliest epoch requires a theory of quantum gravity, which does not currently exist.
Even given these limitations, the Big Bang theory represents the best model since it is founded on general relativity, and Einstein’s theory is supported by numerous pieces of observational evidence such as the bending of light around stars. In addition, the standard model (i.e., Big Bang model with a cosmological constant and cold dark matter) predicts many observations such as the Cosmic Microwave Background and the galactic filaments using simple initial conditions. The universe’s initial state is assumed to approximate a uniform distribution of mass-energy.
The standard model thus provides a “simple” explanation for the current state of the universe since it requires few variables. These include the variables in the relatively simple equations for the expansion of the universe, the initial mass-energy density, and the initial expansion rate.
Deficiency of Other Models
Hossenfelder then provides a deeply insightful exposition on the inferiority of other models. All other models rely on different equations for the dynamics of the early universe. But these equations can only generate our current state by choosing far more complex initial conditions:
…Einstein’s equations together with their initial values in the early universe provide a simple explanation for the observations we make today. When I say simple, I mean simple in a quantitative way you need few numbers to specify. If you used a different equation, then the initial state would be more difficult. You’d need to put in more numbers. And the theory wouldn’t explain as much.
The key problem is that nearly any set of equations could yield the current state of the universe with the right choice of initial conditions. But neither the theory’s underlying equations nor the initial conditions can be independently verified. And the alternative theories provide no additional knowledge. Hossenfelder summarizes as follows:
And then they also need a different initial state, so you might no longer find a Big Bang. As I said earlier, you can always do this, because for any evolution law there will be some initial state that will give you the right prediction for today. The problem is that this makes a simple explanation more complicated, so these theories are not scientifically justifiable. They don’t improve the explanatory power of the standard cosmological model. Another way to put it is that all those complicated ideas for how the universe began are unnecessary to explain what we observe.
The God Hypothesis
Hossenfelder lists several theories that fall under her critique including Penrose’s cyclic cosmology, the ekpyrotic universe that postulates colliding membranes, and the no-boundary proposal by Jim Hartle and Stephen Hawking. Stephen Meyer also critiqued these theories in his book Return of the God Hypothesis. But Meyer came to starkly different conclusions.
Hossenfelder concludes that “we are facing the limits of science itself.” And the question of the universe’s origin “we’ll never be able to answer.” In contrast, Meyer argues that the evidence for a beginning and the required fine tuning of the universe to support life point to a mind behind our world. The fact that all alternative cosmological theories require highly specific initial conditions to explain our present life-friendly universe only reinforces the fine-tuning argument and by extension the God Hypothesis.
Evolution News
The conclusion, “we are facing the limits of science itself,” is supportive of the thesis derived from scientific evidence presented in my book, Canceled Science, the idea that there are “boundaries of science”. We observe phenomena in this universe that are beyond the known constraints imposed by the laws of nature, implying that natural explanations are insufficient to explain their existence. The origin of this universe is one of those observed realities that transcend the abilities of nature. But it’s not the only one. The knife-edge fine-tuning of the laws and parameters of physics to support life, the origin of life on Earth, the multiplicity of finely-tuned conditions on Earth that allow millions of species to thrive, the origin of consciousness, the human mind, our sense of morality, and others all point beyond nature to a transcendent origin – what Meyer calls the God Hypothesis.
In 1897, the physicist William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, observed
Later the same year, Ernest Rutherford discovered the electron and opened a whole new chapter in the history of science.
It may be Hossenfelder is right. It may be there is a huge, unbridgeable chasm of the unknowable in the path of science, a gap more than large enough for Meyer’s God to find a home.
Or maybe science is just waiting for another flash of insight to light the way forward. All we can do is keep trying rather than simply settling for Meyer’s non-explanation.
Hossenfelder is the same lady who is pretty sure that “something” can come from “nothing” because the more we think about “nothing” the more we imagine that “nothing” really is “something”.
This kind of thinking is the bedrock of literal insanity.
As for the question of the universe’s origin, she says again, “we’ll never be able to answer [that question]”.
By “we” she means she and anyone who without evidence rule out pre-space/time creative intelligence.
It is the non-sequitur of all non-sequiturs: “We have no idea how the universe came to be, but we’re certain ‘God’ didn’t do it.”
Kinda fun watching you two sputter
This is an admission that science as we know it doesn’t explain a myriad of things.
So there isn’t a scientific explanation that explains
1) the universe
2) Earth and Earth’s solar system
3) life
4) complex life
5) consciousness
The above are mainly about origins especially about tendencies and information.
Welcome to ID!
We cannot resist the temptation to say too much.
This may not be relevant to this OP but it is convenient to post it here. It applies to a lot of commenters. I graduated from Stanford and routinely received emails from them. Most I ignore since the university has gotten very woke like most. But the following came through yesterday and may be very appropriate for those who post here.
I was also in advertising and once went to a session by some of the top people in advertising on how to communicate. One focused on the irresistible impulse to say too much in a communication. Here is his example as best as I can remember it several years later.
Very often brevity communicates much more effectively than quantity.
it’s the soul of wit……
Alternative theories of the origin of the universe don’t help atheists at all. Regardless of how the universe came into existence, it did come into existence with just the perfect conditions to make life possible. Just one simple example is the expansion rate of the universe. If it had expanded faster by even a miniscule amount, the universe would be too diffuse and cold for stars to form. If it expanded slower, gravity would cause the universe to collapse on itself. The expansion rate had to balance to 20 significant digits or life would not be possible. This is one of dozens of examples of fine tuning that we know about in regards to the properties of the universe that are required to support life.
Jerry at 5,
The opposite of my experience.
“I was also in advertising and once went to a session by some of the top people in advertising on how to communicate. One focused on the irresistible impulse to say too much in a communication. Here is his example as best as I can remember it several years later.
A young man was getting married the next day and was deeply in love with his future bride. He decided to send her a telegram the night before to express what he felt.
He wrote “I love you, I love you, I love you” on the telegram. The telegram clerk said he was paying for 10 words and he only used 9. The man thought and thought and wrote
“I love you, I love you, I love you, regards”
Very often brevity communicates much more effectively than quantity.”
There is no “one size fits all” in advertising. The important thing is to understand how people actually react and then choose short and brief or the longer version.
Seversky @1,
Yes, in the past, some scientists have prematurely declared that science already has the answers. Some things are firmly established (such as, systems of particles tend towards thermodynamic equilibrium, and mass/energy is conserved, every cell comes from a pre-existing cell, etc.). Other topics do not have the validation of consistent and uniform observation (how planets acquire their moons or ring systems, how different species of organisms came into being, etc.). If there are boundaries of science (or limitations of natural forces) that have never been violated in any observation, then to say, we don’t know, something remarkable could happen, is not really a rational, scientific conclusion.
In the late 1800s, the head of the U.S. Patent Office suggested closing it. He decided that everything worth patenting had been made, and apparently, anything else would just be trivial versions/modifications of existing items.
“In 1889, Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office. He is widely quoted as having stated that the patent office would soon shrink in size, and eventually close, because… “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
Caspian at 9,
I study the history of invention.
“… then to say, we don’t know, something remarkable could happen, is not really a rational, scientific conclusion.”
You are wrong to call that a conclusion. Actual science never concludes. It continues to do original research and solve problems. Prior to 1990, if anyone told you that you could own a computer and use it to communicate with others, what would you say?
In the 1970s, a one megabyte chip was the size of a U.S. 25 cent piece. Today, I can buy a 4 Terabyte memory chip for $50.