Science is about discoveries, not speculative games. Forbes’s Siegel seems to agree. Hey, deal, guys: Find us fossil bacteria on Mars and we’ll think it’s science. Talk about space aliens and …
Tag: Ethan Siegel
At Forbes: Is there now evidence for a parallel universe?
Some scientists are claiming so, based on an odd finding from Antarctica. Ethan Siegel isn’t isn’t taking the bait.
At Forbes: The Universe is not purely mathematical
Maybe a universe that was completely explainable and provable couldn’t exist.
At Forbes: Wolfram’s new theory “isn’t even science” yet. But wait…
We can tell what’s wrong with science today when we try to take Siegel’s dead-serious explanation of what he thinks a theory in science is and apply it to: Darwinian evolution theory
A symmetry the universe “must never violate”?
Sounds like a designed system all right. Too bad that’s a problem for many physicists.
String theory as both “dream” and “nightmare”
Ethan Siegel has a genius for encapsulating what is wrong in science today.
Forbes’ physics columnist Ethan Siegel can’t wait to get beyond the Big Bang
But doesn’t seem to have a ticket. So a mechanism that caused the Universe to come into existence with these properties already in place? 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?
Ethan Siegel warns us against five myths about the Big Bang
Siegel doesn’t really explain why we can be sure that space, time, and the laws of physics preexisted the Big Bang; the idea that they pre-existed has the effect of untethering them from the tiresome demand for evidence. But might that be part of the charm of the idea?
Ethan Siegel asks at Forbes, Did God create the universe?
Siegel makes an interesting comparison with, say, Sabine Hossenfelder. He does great graphics but to say that he is not a deep thinker is to shower him with imprudent praise. By contrast, we go on listening to Hossenfelder with great interest, whether the graphics are good or not.
Ethan Siegel’s claim at Forbes: Why we’ll never exactly solve general relativity. Rob Sheldon responds
Not only is Ethan’s profession about to get a major readjustment, but his attitude needs a readjustment as well. No longer can he and his colleagues hide in their ivory tower telling the world that we must leave the hard thinking to them. As many have already commented, the woke mobs are already at the gates.
In case you wondered why dark energy is “the biggest unsolved problem in the universe”
Ethan Siegel: Why does empty space have the properties that it does? Why is the zero-point energy of the fabric of the Universe a positive, non-zero value? And why does dark energy have the behavior we observe it to have, rather than any other?
Ethan Siegel: How we can get a universe from nothing?
Siegel: In order for inflation to end, that energy has to get converted into matter and radiation. The evidence strongly points to that happening some 13.8 billion years ago.
What elements of fine-tuning of our universe (vs. the multiverse) would pass this test of science truth?
Ethan Siegel: Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable will, by their very nature, have a limited range of validity. But we can theorize whatever we like, and when a new theory meets the following three criteria…
New Scientist: Our understanding of the cosmos is “seriously wrong”
But don’t fret that a better understanding of the universe will leave entertaining crackpots out in the cold. Won’t happen. Can’t. Ethan Siegel explains why, in part.
Continuing efforts to erase the beginning of time
It’s quite clear that Siegel’s objection to the idea of a beginning to the universe is philosophical. Most of the nonsense one hears, generally, can be traced to unwillingness to admit that.