Slashdot Mirror
Antarctic Detectors Provide Evidence For Big Bang
Joshua Strzalko writes: "Aparently, the match, so to speak, that lit the big bang has been discovered by some detectors down in Antarctica. What would be the megatonage of that explosion? Full story can be viewed here." As always, working hypotheses are just that, of course. Update: 04/30 07:12 PM by T : CodeWheeney writes: "The home page for the instrument that was used is located here."
Well, you can never really prove a hypothesis, but you can disprove one by providing evidence contrary to its predictions. However, you can provide evidence that is strong enough to establish the hypothesis as the only one worth believing. Even if the evidence isn't strong enough to establish a hypothesis as true, it still provides a useful heuristic for deciding what to study. Just like everyone else, scientists have only a limited amount of time and so it makes sense to concentrate your work on areas that are likely to be fruitful, rather than considering every possible hypothesis as equally worthwhile
Why get so excited over such a little thing? I would presume that people need to prove the theory so as to disprove other theories based in theology. If that is the case, I find the reporting of this proof quite pedantic.
Big Bang theory is one of the fundamental areas of cosmology, so it merits a lot of attention. I don't see how theology is involved here at all. Do you mean to say that if a hypothesis is contrary to an interpretation of a religious tradition, it shouldn't be investigated at all, whether or not the hypothesis is true?
I wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it. Would it have been reported as well?
If an experiment gave reason to doubt a major theory like the Big Bang, it would be written up and sent to Nature or Science as fast as possible.
On the other hand, if a study did not show effects supporting the Big Bang model, but also did not contradict it might languish forever. This seems like a minor distinction but its very important. Evidence like this, called "negative data", is difficult to interpret because ultimately its hard to tell if you don't see what you're looking for because its not there, or because your experiment isn't designed correctly, or some unknown reason masking the effect. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack. You don't know if you haven't found the needle because there is no needle, or because you aren't trying hard enough. The non-reporting of negative evidence and experimental protocols that don't work is a problem in science since it causes scientists to pursue research that they would not have had they known that others had tried and failed. It tends not to get reported because its not terribly fun to write up a paper saying that your hard work failed.
The results of this experiment apparently supported the Big Bang theory, so this isn't a worry in this case.
A gigantic explosion of matter and/or energy that creates an entire universe...and they call it the "Big Bang".
I agree with Calvin/Bill Watterson - "The Horrendous Space Kablooie" has a much nicer ring to it...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
From reading the NYTimes version, it appears that they've seen fluctuations in the microwave background that they are attributing to quantum fluctuations in the pre-inflated universe. The original microwave observations could not detect fluctuations in the intensity of the radiation. It appeared uniform to a very high precision. COBE was able to detect fluctuation these only within the last decade but by operating outside the atmosphere. To be able to do it from the Earth's surface is a significant development.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This experiment confirms the results of previous experiements carried out in ground observations, balloons, high altitude aircraft, and the COBE satellite experiment. It is one of the most carefully verified, and NEVER reputed pieces of research ever done. The initial work was done by a team led by George Smoot. There is now more than 30 years of experimental data that all point at the same answer. No, this is not "just another experiment with questionable results".
I think a lot of people misunderstand the nature of scientific enquiry. It isn't possible to prove a theory by experiment. All you can do is continue to amass experimental evidence. If that evidence remains consistent with the theory, then we consider it a good theory. If it doesn't, we might still consider it a good theory, but work on it some more.
Scientists are often more interested in discrepancies with currently accepted theory than confirmation, as this is where greater insight arises. Consider the amount of money being spent on particle accelerators that will hopefully see effects inconsistent with the Standard Model of particle physics.
Science isn't about bracing up an old stone temple.