Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Not Even Wrong author on gravitational waves controversy



It sounds like this issue is not going to get resolved until there is something more substantial from Planck about this than a slide suitable for data scraping. In the meantime, blogs are your best source of information. Or maybe Twitter, where Erik Verlinde tweets from the Princeton PCTS workshop Searching for Simplicity that:

News from Princeton: BICEP2 polarization data are due to dust foreground and not caused by primordial gravity waves.

See also: Was that big gravity wave find just dust?Not a multiverse?

Well. Sure wouldn’t be the first time the multiverse was almost found. And never the last.

Also, “blogs are your best source of information”? See Connecting. Don’t buy the Times. It just won’t do that for you any more.

Speaking of materialism, what's the difference between ideology and philosophy? Is materialism one, the other, or both? VunderGuy
I do not understand in great depth the science behind much of physics and how cosmology is approached, it is quite specialised and complex. It is not something easily self-taught in a short space of time. However one thing I always find odd with these things. They are always solely favoured model and theory driven, without building in (testing) other potential interpretations. When I design an experiment, I think "what will this tell me?". The easiest experiments are yes/no outcomes, clear outcomes. That, perhaps is quite difficult on this scale. However I am led to ponder - it appears that the thinking goes: - If the Big Bang happened, we might expect to find these ripples in the CMB - Let's look for ripples - We found ripples therefore the Big Bang happened Where in that mode of thinking is the truly scientific endeavour that asks the question: - Can these findings be explained by something else? Sure if these findings are true, they may offer great support as a model made a prediction and it was true. However one must always in science, come up with alternative hypotheses. That is the best science - do the experiments that could disprove your theory, come up with alternative hypotheses and design experiments that test those hypotheses in a manner that can rule them out and hence lend support to your own. It seems when it comes to things with such implications for materialistic viewpoints that those sorts of experiments are often ignored, or more easily ignored. Dr JDD
IMO, the interpretation of the measurements leaves a lot to be desired. Even assuming that the screen scraping data is acceptable, why should gravity waves from the big bang leave ripples in the cosmic microwave background? And why would the ripples still be detectable after so many billions of years? Cosmology is a house of cards: weak assumptions piled on top of even weaker assumptions. Mapou

Leave a Reply