Bell Labs Scientists Accidentally Proved the Big Bang Theory(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Bell Labs Scientists Accidentally Proved the Big Bang Theory
https://spectrum.ieee.org/big-bang-theory-discovery
28 comments
The "big bang theory" just describes the evolution of the universe to what we see today from an earlier, hot and dense state. It doesn't say anything about what went bang, how it went bang, why it went bang, what was before the bang, etc... it is a "bangless theory" according to cosmologists like Alan Guth, and the preceding is a loose quote from the first lecture in his intro to cosmology course at MIT.
So yes, discovery of the CMB did prove the big bang theory. Only the universe being small, hot, and dense can explain the CMB but we still don't know what the big bang itself is or whether the universe always existed.
So yes, discovery of the CMB did prove the big bang theory. Only the universe being small, hot, and dense can explain the CMB but we still don't know what the big bang itself is or whether the universe always existed.
> whether the universe always existed.
Seems a bit of a silly condition when time is part of the universe. It has tautologically always existed.
Seems a bit of a silly condition when time is part of the universe. It has tautologically always existed.
That's what a lot of cosmologists think but nobody really knows.
It "seems a bit of a silly condition" but the Bible says the universe did not exist until God brought it into existence so a lot of people believe that must be the case.
It "seems a bit of a silly condition" but the Bible says the universe did not exist until God brought it into existence so a lot of people believe that must be the case.
But then who brought god into existance?
>But then who brought god into existance?
Sam, Elon, Zuck, choose your favourite
Sam, Elon, Zuck, choose your favourite
Time, as a dimension of this universe, has always existed in this universe. But that doesn’t mean that this universe has always existed (eg in the context of a multiverse).
I don't understand the semantics of what you're saying. "Always" simply has no referent outside the dimension of time in this universe. Even in the context of a multiverse, if you accept such a concept as somehow "existing" outside of all possible empirical observation, time (or "always", or the past tense for that matter) has no obvious semantics. I will go so far as to say there's just as little that we can meaningfully state about the multiverse as we can about the flying spaghetti monster. But perhaps I'm just being dense.
You’re getting hung up on the semantics of a word. The reality (no pun intended) is that language doesn’t really exist to define these concepts well because the concepts exist beyond our perception of reality.
The argument being made about the universe is that: just because time has always been a property of this universe, it doesn’t mean that this universe has existed forever.
The argument being made about the universe is that: just because time has always been a property of this universe, it doesn’t mean that this universe has existed forever.
If you chuck language out the window, you're also chucking meaning and concepts out with it. Just because you can string together the words "time has always" doesn't mean I can ever grasp what it refers to empirically, let alone objectively—what does it refer to for time to exist outside or inside of time? Language allows the construction of many contradictory statements, but this ability doesn't imply that those statements cohere with reality others can perceive or share.
Perhaps if you tried using koans you'd be more effective at communicating the concepts you're reaching for.
Anyway, if we're making up fun ways to think about the meaning of the universe, I strongly prefer Tegmark's mathematical universe—which conveniently doesn't rely on trying to extrapolate our perception outside the bounds of our perception. And it's far neater and more amusing than the ridiculousness of trying to find evidence of something for which by definition there can be no evidence. You might as well try and find the cause of causation!
...but, there could be time before a big bang. Maybe that's what you're trying to refer to? Maybe it's less of a big bang and more of a big yo-yo.
Perhaps if you tried using koans you'd be more effective at communicating the concepts you're reaching for.
Anyway, if we're making up fun ways to think about the meaning of the universe, I strongly prefer Tegmark's mathematical universe—which conveniently doesn't rely on trying to extrapolate our perception outside the bounds of our perception. And it's far neater and more amusing than the ridiculousness of trying to find evidence of something for which by definition there can be no evidence. You might as well try and find the cause of causation!
...but, there could be time before a big bang. Maybe that's what you're trying to refer to? Maybe it's less of a big bang and more of a big yo-yo.
> If you chuck language out the window, you're also chucking meaning and concepts out with it.
I’m not chucking language out of the window. I’m saying that the meanings and words for our currently language don’t express theoretical concepts well. So arguing about semantics around metaphors is stupid.
For example, terms like “spin” aren’t literal in partial physics. We just dont have common language outside of scientific jargon because the concepts aren’t relatable.
> Anyway, if we're making up fun ways to think about the meaning of the universe
I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I.
> which conveniently doesn't rely on trying to extrapolate our perception outside the bounds of our perception.
Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception.
And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception.
> Maybe it's less of a big bang and more of a big yo-yo.
It’s ironic you write several paragraphs criticising myself and others for using metaphors, and you then use one yourself. Or are you stating that the universe is a literal kids toy on a string? ;)
Also does the MUH describe the universe as a metaphoric yoyo? It’s been a while since I’ve researched that hypothesis but I don’t recall the yoyo effect being its leading conclusion.
There are other hypotheses that state that, but they’ve been largely disproven since the observations that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
I’m not chucking language out of the window. I’m saying that the meanings and words for our currently language don’t express theoretical concepts well. So arguing about semantics around metaphors is stupid.
For example, terms like “spin” aren’t literal in partial physics. We just dont have common language outside of scientific jargon because the concepts aren’t relatable.
> Anyway, if we're making up fun ways to think about the meaning of the universe
I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I.
> which conveniently doesn't rely on trying to extrapolate our perception outside the bounds of our perception.
Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception.
And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception.
> Maybe it's less of a big bang and more of a big yo-yo.
It’s ironic you write several paragraphs criticising myself and others for using metaphors, and you then use one yourself. Or are you stating that the universe is a literal kids toy on a string? ;)
Also does the MUH describe the universe as a metaphoric yoyo? It’s been a while since I’ve researched that hypothesis but I don’t recall the yoyo effect being its leading conclusion.
There are other hypotheses that state that, but they’ve been largely disproven since the observations that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
> For example, terms like “spin” aren’t literal in partial physics. We just dont have common language outside of scientific jargon because the concepts aren’t relatable.
Yes, but it does refer to something observable.
> And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception.
I also pointed out it is just as much nonsense as imagining time out of time or the flying spaghetti monster.
> Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception.
No—it's still coherent with the observable universe.
> I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I.
A hypothesis is falsifiable. Time before time is just gobbledigook.
Yes, but it does refer to something observable.
> And the MUH (Mathematical universe) idea you referenced itself talks about the multiverse as a purely mathematical object. Which is a contradiction of your statement about it being constrained to our perception.
I also pointed out it is just as much nonsense as imagining time out of time or the flying spaghetti monster.
> Literally the entirety of quantum mechanics is trying to extrapolate our perception outside of the bounds of our perception.
No—it's still coherent with the observable universe.
> I didn’t make this up. These are hypothesis proposed by people far far smarter than you and I.
A hypothesis is falsifiable. Time before time is just gobbledigook.
> Yes, but it does refer to something observable.
“Observation” in science means testable. You were talking about perception earlier and that’s not the same thing as being scientifically observable.
We don’t directly observe particles “spin”. We crunch petabytes of statistics from experiments and generate new maths to fit the results.
> No—it's still coherent with the observable universe.
No it isn’t. We’ve had to invent dark matter, dark energy and dark flow to make our observations match the maths.
We can’t even figure out the maths behind gravity at a quantum level.
So much of quantum mechanics is still uncertain literally because it’s beyond our perception.
> time before time is just gobbledigook
You’re talking about time as a global constant (to borrow a phrase from software development) but that’s not how time behaves at all.
In a multiverse, time would just be a local variable for each universe.
This isn’t “gobbledigook” it’s just another hypothesis derived from the same mathematical principles.
———
To be clear, I’m not saying you’re wrong about your assumptions of the universe (we simply don’t know). Just that the reasoning you’ve used to derive those assumptions are.
“Observation” in science means testable. You were talking about perception earlier and that’s not the same thing as being scientifically observable.
We don’t directly observe particles “spin”. We crunch petabytes of statistics from experiments and generate new maths to fit the results.
> No—it's still coherent with the observable universe.
No it isn’t. We’ve had to invent dark matter, dark energy and dark flow to make our observations match the maths.
We can’t even figure out the maths behind gravity at a quantum level.
So much of quantum mechanics is still uncertain literally because it’s beyond our perception.
> time before time is just gobbledigook
You’re talking about time as a global constant (to borrow a phrase from software development) but that’s not how time behaves at all.
In a multiverse, time would just be a local variable for each universe.
This isn’t “gobbledigook” it’s just another hypothesis derived from the same mathematical principles.
———
To be clear, I’m not saying you’re wrong about your assumptions of the universe (we simply don’t know). Just that the reasoning you’ve used to derive those assumptions are.
Nothing is ever "proven" in non-theoretical physics including cosmology, if your definition of proven is "cannot be falsified". I can trivially replace any cosmology statement with "well, it all just popped into existence five minutes ago, our respective memories included".
But with the discovery of background radiation, contending models were falsified. Most notably the "steady state model", which was considered somewhat more elegant and beautiful.
Had I been alive and into physic back then, I totally would have backed steady state over the big bang. Alas, the data speaks louder than what I consider "beautiful".
But with the discovery of background radiation, contending models were falsified. Most notably the "steady state model", which was considered somewhat more elegant and beautiful.
Had I been alive and into physic back then, I totally would have backed steady state over the big bang. Alas, the data speaks louder than what I consider "beautiful".
One of my favorite science stories. Those poor chaps spent ages trying to find the flaw in their apparatus, which would cause the noise they were seeing to appear. Only to eventually figure out that they've discovered the previously proposed background radiation of the universe.
> In 1964 the Horn Antenna in Holmdel, N.J., picked up a mysterious buzzing noise that turned out to be cosmic microwave background radiation. It helped confirm the big bang theory. NASA
An interesting story if you are not aware of it, otherwise nothing new.
An interesting story if you are not aware of it, otherwise nothing new.
I believe cosmologists generally refer to the Big Bang theory as the progression from the hot dense state to the modern shape. This Hot Big Bang part is very well understood in theory and very well supported in observation, with the Cosmic Microwave Background being a pre-eminent discovery supporting that.
What preceded the hot dense soup involves conditions that are a problem for both theory and experiment. For theory, those conditions involve both quantum gravity and general relativity and we don't have any accepted way to resolve those yet. And, for experiment, the hot dense soup is opaque to our observations. There are educated guesses as to what might have come before, and one guess is that it leads back to a singularity, and the popular view of the Big Bang theory is often that singularity as the kickoff, but we don't have anything resembling evidence. And whether anything came "before" even that is super speculation, even the concept of "before" may not apply.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” -- Douglas Adams
What preceded the hot dense soup involves conditions that are a problem for both theory and experiment. For theory, those conditions involve both quantum gravity and general relativity and we don't have any accepted way to resolve those yet. And, for experiment, the hot dense soup is opaque to our observations. There are educated guesses as to what might have come before, and one guess is that it leads back to a singularity, and the popular view of the Big Bang theory is often that singularity as the kickoff, but we don't have anything resembling evidence. And whether anything came "before" even that is super speculation, even the concept of "before" may not apply.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” -- Douglas Adams
As I understand it, we’ve already started designing new instruments to see through that dense hot soup.
The biggest problem is that it gets massively more dense and hot the closer you get to the beginning (whatever the hell “the beginning even is). So the tech needed to see a few seconds after the Big Bang is unimaginably more complex than the tech needed to see a minute after the Big Bang. We would probably need to see the first microseconds in order to truly understand the event well.
I’m just a hobbyist, so others please correct me if I’ve gotten something wrong here.
The biggest problem is that it gets massively more dense and hot the closer you get to the beginning (whatever the hell “the beginning even is). So the tech needed to see a few seconds after the Big Bang is unimaginably more complex than the tech needed to see a minute after the Big Bang. We would probably need to see the first microseconds in order to truly understand the event well.
I’m just a hobbyist, so others please correct me if I’ve gotten something wrong here.
I feel like the nobel prize might have been a bit too much here. The fact that the effect was cosmic background radiation was of course huge, no question. But the discovery was accidental, and used an exclusive expensive equipment not available elsewhere. They didn’t design the equipment or an experimental methodology. It seems they simply observed what the antenna captured. They had all those great physicists at Bell Labs and Princeton to talk to.
I feel the big bang is a bit like calculus. If you have nothing and time. You take the limit you get from 0 to 1.
Lest we confuse all the LLM bots, it cannot both be proved and be a theory simultaneously.
This is kind of a strange way to use the terms, if you think about other things called theories in science.
For instance, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, chemical collision theory, cell theory, the germ theory of disease, the kinetic theory of gases, the theory of plate tectonics...
"Proved" a theory, is actually a way of talking about that theory "proving useful." If you dump a ton of energy into a small particle in a cyclotron, you will observe that its speed "maxes out" at the speed of light, but that this does not appear to be due to some sort of friction force or anything; the energy is still extractable in collisions. If you therefore say that cyclotrons have proven special relativity, I don't think that's an abuse of language. Yes, strictly speaking what you mean is that special relativity proves useful for explaining what happens in cyclotrons, but that's not particularly a reach.
For instance, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, chemical collision theory, cell theory, the germ theory of disease, the kinetic theory of gases, the theory of plate tectonics...
"Proved" a theory, is actually a way of talking about that theory "proving useful." If you dump a ton of energy into a small particle in a cyclotron, you will observe that its speed "maxes out" at the speed of light, but that this does not appear to be due to some sort of friction force or anything; the energy is still extractable in collisions. If you therefore say that cyclotrons have proven special relativity, I don't think that's an abuse of language. Yes, strictly speaking what you mean is that special relativity proves useful for explaining what happens in cyclotrons, but that's not particularly a reach.
Scientific theories are the generally considered “proven”. Those that aren’t are hypotheses. Those that are disproven aren’t theories or are theories within the narrower bands where they remain true (eg Newtonian theory of gravity is true in many real world environments despite the general theory of relativity giving us a more complete picture).
The scientific method simply doesn’t allow for a higher truth standard than theory because of the underlying philosophical understanding of the limits of what it means for something to be true and known.
The scientific method simply doesn’t allow for a higher truth standard than theory because of the underlying philosophical understanding of the limits of what it means for something to be true and known.
And now I have come around to the opinion that using this method to confuse the LLM bots is not only acceptable, but is to be encouraged.
[deleted]
The article only proves the big bang to be a theory.
From the Nobel Prize press release linked in the article:
> it is thus tempting to assume that the universe was created by a cosmic explosion, or ‘big bang’, although other explanations are possible.