Cosmology Fine tuning Naturalism Physics

At New Scientist: There’s a basic fact about the universe that we “still don’t understand”

Spread the love
This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.
Big Bang/NASA

About the cosmic expansion rate:

IT IS nearly 100 years since we confirmed that the universe – space-time – is expanding. But we are still struggling with a basic fact: what is the rate of the expansion? Depending on how we measure a crucial number that sets this value, we seem to get different answers. The fallout of this question could drastically change our understanding of the cosmos.

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, “We still don’t understand a basic fact about the universe” at New Scientist subscription required

We are also referred back to an earlier article (July 16, 2019), the whole of which is available without a subscription:

What they found was surprising: a value of the Hubble constant right between the CMB measurement and the Cepheid distance ladder. This is more evidence that we really don’t understand what the value of the Hubble constant is, and that we need much more precise studies before we can claim that there must be some new type of exotic physics, Freedman says.

“Honestly I would’ve liked it to come out one way or the other, but it didn’t,” she says. “The mystery heightens.”

Leah Crane, “Mystery of universe’s expansion deepens with new cosmic calculation” at New Scientist

What? We don’t need exotic physics? But then what… ?

Here’s a question: What if the basic fact we “still don’t understand” is that the evidence shows that the universe is fine-tuned and that therefore, fine-tuning is not an illusion that needs explaining away? Would that simplify things? If so, how? Another question (now that we’re here anyway): How much publicly funded cosmology exists simply to promote a naturalist atheist (no fine-tuning) worldview? And what is the science rationale for that?


See also: Rob Sheldon of why string theory’s inflationary cosmos is a degenerate research program Sheldon: The inflationary proposal has always been ad hoc. That is, a huge, faster-than-light expansion of the universe was proposed as a solution to the “flatness” problem, where the universe expands at a rate just sufficient to counter the gravitational attraction, where “just sufficient” means one part in 10^60 power. The inflationary model was invented to solve this fine-tuning problem.

5 Replies to “At New Scientist: There’s a basic fact about the universe that we “still don’t understand”

  1. 1
    jawa says:

    I remember some physics from school, but have no idea what “exotic physics” is.

    can somebody explains it please?

    Thanks!

  2. 2
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    There’s not really a precise definition Jawa but like say dark matter turned out to just be hexaquarks. It wouldn’t be very exotic. We already know plenty about quarks and they’re normal matter. On the other hand, say we had a new matter particle that is clearly neither a baryon nor a lepton. That would be exotic.

  3. 3
    Truthfreedom says:

    @2 Jim Thibodeau

    There’s not really a precise definition.

    How do you know then that your ‘explanation’ is valid?

  4. 4
    Pearlman says:

    In volume II of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment we find there is no ongoing cosmic expansion (subsequent to cosmic inflation expansion that ended 4/ 365(5780) into history with the universe approximating modern size and density). Reference Pearlman’s SPIRAL ‘SPIRAL vs Hubble’ and where we conclude ‘Einstein’s biggest blunder was his premature capitulation to Hubble’.
    reference: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DP4TBZ5

  5. 5
    Fasteddious says:

    Exotic physics is like exotic dancers – far out and exciting.

Leave a Reply