Slashdot Mirror
Exit Big Bang, Enter 5th Dimension?
The Fun Guy points to this snippet of this "story from the Philadelphia Inquirer: 'the new picture of creation does away with the notion -- now almost scientific gospel -- that all the billions of galaxies making up our universe sprang from a point smaller than an atom. Instead, the scientists say, the big bang stemmed from a collision of two universes that had been separated by a "fifth dimension."'"
A recent study show a dramatic increase of crack consumption in the scientific community.
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
IMHO, theory (b) is the simpler, meets the requirements, and is even verifiable. Theory (a) multiplies the entities involved, is extremely complex, cannot be tested, and cannot even be modelled.
Unfortunately, your humble opinion is wrong. Theory 'a' DOES make testable predictions, is NOT more complicated when stated with the technical rigor necessary to ask detailed questions, and can easily be modelled (although I don't know why you would want to model it if you can directly ask it questions). That's why a number of theorists are taking the time to subject it to tests.
As just one example, both theories make a prediction about the spectrum of relic background radiation of photons: theory 'a' predicts a nearly blackbody spectrum, and with deviations from that spectrum that have a specific form; static universes predict no such background, without supplementing them with additional, ad hoc, assumptions.
We know that there is relic background, and we know that it is nearly blackbody, and we even know roughly where the first accoustic peak appears. We also have ongoing experiments that will shortly give us even more information on the details of that peak, and perhaps even the second peak.
Occam's Razor is a principle that says: given two theories that make the same predictions, and those predictions agree with experiment, you should accept the simpler one until such time as it is falsified. It does not mean that you accept the simplest (pseudo-) theory that comes along, even if it explains the data ... you have to confront the theory with the data. As an example, suppose I have the following "theory" of the universe: It is the way it is because it is the way it is. Certainly simpler than quantum field theory and general relativity, but hardly a "better" theory, since it makes no predictions, and can not be tested.
There is no scientific gospel. Maybe there is, in a third-century "let's chuck out all the bits we don't agree with" way, but not in the sense the author implies.
The Big Bang theory has survived because it is better at explaining the observed universe than any other theory. It is very challengable, particularly if you have a better explanation of galaxy formation. I'm not sure that this theory is it, although I'm not particularly competent to judge. Where does the energy in the 'branes come from? Is it "'branes all the way down"?
--
Yes, the nick is flamebait