Martin Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Chuck Lineweaver and his student Tammy Davis did everybody a big service by publishing a SciAm article covering the most common popular misconceptions about Expansion Cosmology (misnamed "Big Bang" Cosmology by someone who didn't like it.) the article is used for the Princeton basic course, so it is online at the Princeton.edu site, and also in a slightly tattered version it is still online at the SciAm site. To avoid making the worst fallacies, and wasting everyone's time, please please pretty please everybody who wants to discuss Cosmology make sure they either have read the article or already avoid making these very common naive mistakes. If somebody keeps posting claims in Astro/Cosmo which show a lack of awareness of the most basic stuff, we will have the option to move them here so that we can deal with them efficiently. It can be like a holding tank, or a remedial room. I am going to tack up on the wall some of the Lineweaver stuff, to learn from: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384716#post384716 Lineweaver and Davis' Scientific American article Misconceptions about the big bang March 2005. AS LONG AS THIS PRINCETON LINK WORKS IT IS BETTER THAN THE OTHERS http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf Here are the links to the same article at the SciAm website. But these links have been going dead or else the GRAPHICS that you used to get have been disappearing. So these SciAm links may not be as good as the Princeton one http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147 The Lineweaver Davis article had some very useful SIDEBARS giving pictorial diagrams with a question together with right and wrong answers explained. For easier access, here are links to individual sidebars. http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p39.gif What kind of explosion was the big bang? http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p40.gif Can galaxies recede faster than light? http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p42.gif Can we see galaxies receding faster than light? http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p43.gif Why is there a cosmic redshift? http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p44.gif How large is the observable universe? http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p45.gif Do objects inside the universe expand, too? ______________ maybe this thread will never get used, that would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Very cool. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I think I fixed all of the links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 thanks for fixing the links. I just checked and they all seem to work fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Just a thought here -- I know that the title is the article's title too, but every time I see the Big Bang expressed as "Explosion" (instead of "expansion" / "rapid expansion") I cringe a bit... [[ btw -- clarification -- this is a malcontent with this specific scientific american article.. not with your effort, Martin ]] Aren't we confusing people with this, with all the confusion that already exists in the public misconception? Other than that this is AWESOME Martin, long due -- GREAT job ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Thanks for the approval, mooey! The "something-from-nothing" fallacy has come up quite a bit recently. So I'll try to add something about it here. BB theory is a family of mathematical models. Good discussion of this at Einstein Online (link in my sig) especially A Tale of Two Big Bangs which helps settle confusion arising from scientists' use of terminology. Basically one mathematical model but it comes in several versions. In no case I know that is currently being seriously considered is there a pre-BB state called "Nothing":D Any math model has what is called its domain of applicability. One knows the limitations, if the model is not applicable past some point one knows not to apply it. Outside its domain the model just doesn't say anything. Period. The classical BB model was not applicable closer than Planck range from the t=0 blow-up which came to be used as a kind of time-marker. One doesn't expect the blow-up to be real but it is a useful time-mark. Einstein Online explains this very well. So everybody realized the classical BB model was incomplete. In that model there is no t=0 state and of course no t<0 state (no "pre-BB" state) either! The model broke down as it approached, and simply stopped computing. There are also quantum BB models. Nonsingular cosmology has become an active research area, lots of computer modeling, equation models, ferment. In these versions of the BB theory, there is a pre-BB evolution and it is not "Nothing" . There is spacetime, energy, matter and so forth. A smooth causal evolution. Many versions of this have been run by different researchers and the basic features seem pretty robust. Testable predictions will hopefully be forthcoming before too long. The point is, none of the currently studied BB models whether classical or quantum have this mysterious "something from Nothing" feature! When someone comes to SFN and starts talking about that I just assume they are trolling, or have been misled and confused by some other deluded person. Edited January 12, 2009 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear's Key Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The point is, none of the currently studied BB models whether classical or quantum have this mysterious "something from Nothing" feature! When someone comes to SFN and starts talking about that I just assume they are trolling, or have been misled and confused by some other deluded person. No, I just think the misconceptions about it have been spread far and wide. And if a person who disliked the BB misnamed it, keep in mind that one way to discredit a concept among a political base is to squeeze every ounce you can from any related misconception, especially if the confusion mostly originates in the name itself. Thus, the guy who misnamed it probably didn't intend this end result, but the politicians whose twisting of religion was endangered by the Big Bang concept might have jumped at the opportunity. Stir in enough doubt, and mission accomplished. Like global warming, strong evidence can be weakened by muddying the big picture with doubt. Science needs to take charge and rename the Big Bang, make it their own, and remove from it the politician's strongest leverage for intended confusion. Of course, it's possible for human error to be solely responsible for the misconceptions, and political trickery might actually have a minor role. But whatever the case, the science establishment isn't helpless. It's able to make the necessary changes to lessen the misconceptions, the easiest being a name change that's more accurate, with lesser chance of being inaccuracy-friendly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Science needs to take charge and rename the Big Bang, make it their own, and remove from it the politician's strongest leverage for intended confusion. ...the science establishment isn't helpless. It's able to make the necessary changes to lessen the misconceptions, the easiest being a name change that's more accurate, with lesser chance of being inaccuracy-friendly. I agree. If astronomers can get together to decide Pluto is no longer a planet, but rather a "dwarf planet" then why can't cosmologists get together and rename the Big Bang? It would be a newsworthy story. I don't know a more appropriate term, but how about "Cosmic Expansion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I agree. If astronomers can get together to decide Pluto is no longer a planet, but rather a "dwarf planet" then why can't cosmologists get together and rename the Big Bang? It would be a newsworthy story. I don't know a more appropriate term, but how about "Cosmic Expansion"? Scientists don't have total control over what popular terms will catch on. There a number of just awful pop-science terms (some coined by scientists but not always) that mislead the public and are repeated by a credulous press that doesn't understand the meaning. In my area of atomic physics there's "quantum teleportation" and "stopped light," to name just two. There's the "god particle" for the Higgs. And many others. "Catchy" seems to be more important than "correct." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feign_ignorence Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Thank you for enlightening me with this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 Thank you for enlightening me with this thread You are most heartily welcome, but in truth I think sincere (not feigned) thanks are due to Chuck Lineweaver and Tammy Davis. They did a great job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liarliarpof Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Martin, Perhaps you should add "with sugar on top" to your plea for 'good measure'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 Martin, Perhaps you should add "with sugar on top" to your plea for 'good measure'. Heh heh. Absolutely. Please understand what the standard cosmo model says---get familiar with it---before you start criticising or making up your own. Pretty pretty please with LOTS of sugar on it Everybody who posts in Astro/Cosmo should have tried out the Ned Wright calculator: google "Wright calculator" and watched Wright's balloon model animation: google "Wright balloon model" Calculators like that and like Morgan's "cosmos calculator" I link to in my sig---calculators like that embody the equations of the standard model. You dont know the model if you just know some words. Basic shared cultural experience. A first exposure just takes 15-20 minutes. And there's the Lineweaver Davis SciAm article. Generally recommended by many of us at SFN over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 *censured* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear's Key Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Chuck Lineweaver and his student Tammy Davis did everybody a big service by publishing a SciAm article covering the most common popular misconceptions about Expansion Cosmology... "Catchy" seems to be more important than "correct." Martin's got it (perhaps unwittingly? ).* I think "Expansion Cosmology" is a really great name, maybe even perfect. Light on the confusion. *(Not quite you sly dog ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 So it is time to correct the thread's title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now