I thought this recent Nature article was interesting:
I don't know if you know, but I've always bridled at the multiverse. And after BICEP2 and the associated "multiverse proven" hype, I've found myself thinking more about inflation. And the more I thought about it, the more unnecessary it seems to be. I've been making a few comments on the internet about that, see for example Sean Carroll's blog or Alexander Unzicker's blog. It's to do with understanding gravity and black holes, wherein the original "frozen star" interpretation has to be the one that's right. Then you use a flipped-round version of this in lieu of the Big Bang point singularity, and voila, who needs inflation? Especially since it's used to justify the homogeneity of the universe, and the non-homogeneity. Duh! Anyway, I was interested to read stuff like this:
So, the charge is this: inflation is pseudoscience, just like the multiverse. It was always quackery, but people believed in it with Emperor's New Clothes credulity. Even though there was no evidence for it. And now at last it's a dead man walking. It's not long for this world. It's going to go the way of the flat Earth and geocentrism. And not before time too, because it always was woo.
Discuss!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe, argues Paul Steinhardt... |
I don't know if you know, but I've always bridled at the multiverse. And after BICEP2 and the associated "multiverse proven" hype, I've found myself thinking more about inflation. And the more I thought about it, the more unnecessary it seems to be. I've been making a few comments on the internet about that, see for example Sean Carroll's blog or Alexander Unzicker's blog. It's to do with understanding gravity and black holes, wherein the original "frozen star" interpretation has to be the one that's right. Then you use a flipped-round version of this in lieu of the Big Bang point singularity, and voila, who needs inflation? Especially since it's used to justify the homogeneity of the universe, and the non-homogeneity. Duh! Anyway, I was interested to read stuff like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, every*thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable... |
So, the charge is this: inflation is pseudoscience, just like the multiverse. It was always quackery, but people believed in it with Emperor's New Clothes credulity. Even though there was no evidence for it. And now at last it's a dead man walking. It's not long for this world. It's going to go the way of the flat Earth and geocentrism. And not before time too, because it always was woo.
Discuss!
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1n4lELM
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire