[Marxism] The Big Bang Theory

chegitz guevara absynthe at gmail.com
Sat Jun 28 10:51:58 MDT 2008

> chegitz guevara wrote re/ the colliding branes thing:
>> That only makes sense *if* string theory is valid, and so far, string
>> theory is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis. It may be what
>> actually happened, but right now, the evidence isn't there.
> the evidence isnt there to distinguish between the two theories, i
> heartily agree. my point was there is more than one *theory* that can
> account for large scale observational features. things have changed
> since Big Bang was the only thing one could talk about.

The difference between Big Bang Theory and String Theory is, the
former is testable, the latter is not. Thus, the former is science,
the latter is not. Brane Theory is not seperate from ST, it is an
extrapolation of it. If ST is false, BT is false as well. However, if
BT is true, that doesn't mean that BBT is false, since BT merely
explains a mechanism by which the BB occurred.

> but if you take your argument one step further, we need not accept the
> Big Bang as proven, because a key ingredient --  inflation -- is an
> unproven  hypothesis. i am ok with that too. yes, talking about vacuum
> energy is a lot more solid at this point than talking about branes. but
> i don't see your razor as that sharp.

Inflation is not an unproven hypothesis. It is demonstrable fact. The
universe is larger than it could possibly be *if* we understand the
age of the universe correctly, unless space is inflating. What is
causing that inflation is up for discussion, and I won't weigh in
here. Dark matter and dark energy are unproven hypotheses (although
there is evidence for both), but inflation is a proven fact.

> the point is, things are a wee bit more open than chegitz lets on, So i
> find chegitz's take a little too bombastic. but i side with him over
> Yossi's view.
> Les

Perhaps, but you can find scientists who disagree that cigarettes
cause cancer and that there is no such thing as global warming. I do
understand that it is entirely possible that our current models as to
how the universe could be wrong (and in fact, probably are), but at a
certain point, science becomes too hard for the average layman to
understand, even for ones who've a love of science and have spent
years studying it on their own. The scientific consensus is on Big
Bang and a run away inflationary universe. I certainly don't like the
idea of eternal expansion, but the universe isn't required to order
itself according to my sensibilities.

your comrade,

chegitz guevara

More information about the Marxism mailing list