Planck satellite details universe's 'oldest light in the sky'.

[Thropplenoggin]

I rather think "cul" in French means something else, Throppers - as in "Baisez my cul", which I have fond memories of.

Quelle horreur!

Of course, my point was that in 'cool' they do pronounce the 'l' but change the 'oo', whereas in 'cul', of course, they don't.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But the universe seems to be 60 million years older than we had previously thought it. So that would be about 13.76 billion years rather than 13.7 billion years. Wow!

[umslopogaas]

#13 Pabmusic "Its how science works - constant refining." Well, yes, up to a point, but there are also revolutions. You keep refining until either it works well, in which case you may have got it right, or all your refining fails to make it work well, in which case some bold soul will throw the whole lot out of the window and propose something new. For example, it became impossible to fit the ever increasing number of observed heavenly bodies into a geocentric model, so Copernicus threw it out and proposed a heliocentric one. I think, its a very long time since my university dabbling in history and philosophy of science. Other examples might be Einstein, Freud and Watson and Crick. We might be due for another one soon, if CERN turns up the goods.

[Ferretfancy]

I think the universe is infinitely old - it will never end so why should it have a beginning? And why should anyone equate the Big Bang with the beginning of the universe?

A lot of cosmologists don't, Pikala. One idea is that our universe was just one bubble appearing from a foam, rather like the bath in ass's milk I have on Fridays.

[amateur51]

A lot of cosmologists don't, Pikala. One idea is that our universe was just one bubble appearing from a foam, rather like the bath in ass's milk I have on Fridays.

Or one of Heston's savoury cappucinos perhaps?

[Thropplenoggin]

A lot of cosmologists don't, Pikala. One idea is that our universe was just one bubble appearing from a foam, rather like the bath in ass's milk I have on Fridays.

A lot of modern cosmology veers dangerous close to faith, in that a 'leap of faith' is required to believe in it because it is purely hypothetical and can never be known/proved. Take the Multiverse. Michio Kaku claims that there could be an infinity of universes, hence explaining the need for the 'fine-tuning' ours seems to have had (physical laws) for us to have been able to evolve in it...however, these universes exist side by side (as it were), and are conveniently unable to interact or be seen by one another.

My question: oh, so we just take it on faith because it's a convenient explanation. Is this even still science?

[Pikaia]

A lot of modern cosmology veers dangerous close to faith, in that a 'leap of faith' is required to believe in it because it is purely hypothetical and can never be known/proved. Take the Multiverse. Michio Kaku claims that there could be an infinity of universes, hence explaining the need for the 'fine-tuning' ours seems to have had (physical laws) for us to have been able to evolve in it...however, these universes exist side by side (as it were), and are able to interact or be seen by one another.

My question: oh, so we just take it on faith because it's a convenient explanation. Is this even still science?

The multiverse idea is purely a hypothesis, as you say, and I doubt if Kaku or any other scientists are certain that it is true so there is no leap of faith. The same goes for the fine-tuning argument, which has been discredited by scientists.

[Simon]

The same goes for the fine-tuning argument, which has been discredited by scientists.

No it hasn't. What is true is that some individuals, some of whom claim to be scientists, have attempted to argue against it. With varying degrees of logic, rationality and success.

[Vile Consort]

Cosmologists are on very dangerous ground when they talk of multiverses that can never be observed even in principle. If you can't observe it, it isn't science.

But on the Big Bang, cosmologists are on very firm ground, as the equations of quantum theory and general relativity explain extraordinarily well what we can observe. This wouldn't be very remarkable if the equations had been formulated to explain these particular observations; in fact, they were formulated to explain a whole lot of different observations. Actually, it's arguable that general relativity wasn't invented to explain any observations at all, but was an intellectual exercise to explore the relationship between acceleration and gravity.

Of course, the equations stop working as the size of the universe going right down to zero, and there are one or two other explanations on the table - for instance, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's cyclic model (known as the ekpyrotic universe). I know they had identified some differences in the structure of the cosmic microwave background between the big bang and ekpyrotic models that might be observable at the scales Planck was working at, although the differences were very slight.

[Pabmusic]

Cosmologists are on very dangerous ground when they talk of multiverses that can never be observed even in principle. If you can't observe it, it isn't science.

But on the Big Bang, cosmologists are on very firm ground, as the equations of quantum theory and general relativity explain extraordinarily well what we can observe. This wouldn't be very remarkable if the equations had been formulated to explain these particular observations; in fact, they were formulated to explain a whole lot of different observations. Actually, it's arguable that general relativity wasn't invented to explain any observations at all, but was an intellectual exercise to explore the relationship between acceleration and gravity.

Of course, the equations stop working as the size of the universe going right down to zero, and there are one or two other explanations on the table - for instance, Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's cyclic model (known as the ekpyrotic universe). I know they had identified some differences in the structure of the cosmic microwave background between the big bang and ekpyrotic models that might be observable at the scales Planck was working at, although the differences were very slight.

Excellent post. Slight quibble with the second sentence - you can observe and predict the effects of a phenomenon that you cannot observe directly, of course. We know that the orbit of Pluto is whatever it is (220 years or so) even though we've known about Pluto for only 80 (-ish) years.

[Pikaia]

No it hasn't. What is true is that some individuals, some of whom claim to be scientists, have attempted to argue against it. With varying degrees of logic, rationality and success.

There are several problems with the fine-tuning argument. One is that it is suffers from the Texas sharpshooter fallacy - from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints targets round the bullet holes. Make your prediction (life) AFTER you have made your theory, not before!

Another is that it assumes that the Universe has a purpose, to produce life, which is a childish kind of argument and with no supporting evidence. (Anyway, life seems to be quite rare in the universe, which is highly hostile to life, so if that is the purpose then the tuner didn't do a very good job!).

It also assumes that the parameters CAN be tuned, again, with no evidence. It also seems that the parameters can actually vary substantially and still allow life to exist.

So the fine tuning argument has a lot of problems to overcome before it can be taken seriously!