Inflation Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

[rhutchin]

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

"He also takes the occasion to note the odd fact that while BICEP2 results have been claimed to be proof of inflation and the multiverse, if they turn out to be wrong, that’s fine too:

'The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

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 multi*verse, 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…

Taking this into account, it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.'"​

 

[GenesisNemesis]

MY WORLDVIEW. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

So, rhutchin, you know what the scientist does not assume? They don't automatically assume that 'god did it', they work with other models. That's how science works.

 

[rhutchin]

So, rhutchin, you know what the scientist does not assume? They don't automatically assume that 'god did it', they work with other models. That's how science works.

So, where did that inflationary paradigm come from?

"...it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless."

Not from the creationists.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This doesn't make Creationism more plausible so I'm not sure what your point is in the first place.

 

[rhutchin]

This doesn't make Creationism more plausible so I'm not sure what your point is in the first place.

When you said, "That's how science works," I think there may have been an underlying assumption that that scientists behind the science are free of bias. Obviously they are not. Thus, the things they will conjure up to avoid saying, "god did it."

Here is the article from "Nature."

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang...iverse-bubble-1.15346?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

"Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe, argues Paul Steinhardt.

...

The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

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, everything 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.

This may seem confusing given the hundreds of theoretical papers on the predictions of this or that inflationary model. What these papers typically fail to acknowledge is that they ignore the multiverse and that, even with this unjustified choice, there exists a spectrum of other models which produce all manner of diverse cosmological outcomes. Taking this into account, it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless."

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If by "conjure up" you mean "explore other possibilities", then yes, they do "conjure up" things.

 

[Jokodo]

One doesn't have to conjure up anything to avoid saying "god did it". Absent any evidence for god's existence, let alone his involvement in the origins of the universe, even a plain "I don't know" is a much better answer than "god did it".

The Nature article? Using that as an argument for creationism is like a convicted murderer saying "don't trust this guy, he is guilty of at least one parking violation; trust me instead."

 

[rhutchin]

One doesn't have to conjure up anything to avoid saying "god did it". Absent any evidence for god's existence, let alone his involvement in the origins of the universe, even a plain "I don't know" is a much better answer than "god did it".

The Nature article? Using that as an argument for creationism is like a convicted murderer saying "don't trust this guy, he is guilty of at least one parking violation; trust me instead."

The Nature article shows the difficulty in getting a universe from nothing. It's easy to get a universe if you have God; otherwise, it seems pretty much impossible to do.

 

[Jokodo]

One doesn't have to conjure up anything to avoid saying "god did it". Absent any evidence for god's existence, let alone his involvement in the origins of the universe, even a plain "I don't know" is a much better answer than "god did it".

The Nature article? Using that as an argument for creationism is like a convicted murderer saying "don't trust this guy, he is guilty of at least one parking violation; trust me instead."

The Nature article shows the difficulty in getting a universe from nothing. It's easy to get a universe if you have God; otherwise, it seems pretty much impossible to do.

No, it doesn't. It show, at most, the difficulties arising with one specific set of hypotheses, or, more realistically, it shows that its proponents have let their enthusiasm get the better of them and let scientific accuracy slip a bit. They've been doing poor science, for some values of "poor".

And yet, their science is still orders of magnitude ahead of anything creatinists have ever produced.

 

[rhutchin]

One doesn't have to conjure up anything to avoid saying "god did it". Absent any evidence for god's existence, let alone his involvement in the origins of the universe, even a plain "I don't know" is a much better answer than "god did it".

The Nature article? Using that as an argument for creationism is like a convicted murderer saying "don't trust this guy, he is guilty of at least one parking violation; trust me instead."

The Nature article shows the difficulty in getting a universe from nothing. It's easy to get a universe if you have God; otherwise, it seems pretty much impossible to do.

No, it doesn't. It show, at most, the difficulties arising with one specific set of hypotheses, or, more realistically, it shows that its proponents have let their enthusiasm get the better of them and let scientific accuracy slip a bit. They've been doing poor science, for some values of "poor".

Yeah. Just like the evolutionists.

And yet, their science is still orders of magnitude ahead of anything creationists have ever produced.

Everyone does the same science.

 

[rhutchin]

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

"He also takes the occasion to note the odd fact that while BICEP2 results have been claimed to be proof of inflation and the multiverse, if they turn out to be wrong, that’s fine too:

'The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?

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 multi*verse, 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…

Taking this into account, it is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.'"​

This has become an opportunity for the creation community to make gains. This from the institute for Creation Research:

"Because inflation is a component of the Big Bang model,...ICR urged readers to resist the temptation to embrace such secular origins stories, which are constantly changing. Likewise, we pointed out a number of serious scientific problems with this claim.

However, even we could perhaps be excused for being surprised at just how quickly this claim began to fall apart. Only two months after this announcement, a number of secular scientists have become increasingly skeptical about the validity of this claimed discovery. A recent analysis is suggesting that this polarization pattern—rather than being caused by inflation—could actually be caused by something much more mundane: dust within our own galaxy.

...

Inflation expert Paul Steinhardt (who has himself become increasingly critical of the inflation theory) said, “At this time, I think the fair thing to say is that you cannot claim detection [of the ‘inflation’ signal] – period.” This should serve as a reminder to Christians of the dangers in embracing secular origins stories. Dramatic “proofs” of the evolutionary story that are trumpeted in the media will eventually be shown to be false, and sometimes this happens much sooner than later."

http://www.icr.org/article/8177/

Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Poor science promotes the creationist cause.

I thought we all did the same science. Doesn't that mean creation science is poor science too?

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. Not quite understanding how the universe originated 14 billion years ago is not a challenge to the established fact that it did, and does help promote the cause of those who insist against all evidence that it originated halfway through the holocene.

 

[rhutchin]

<snip>Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. Not quite understanding how the universe originated 14 billion years ago is not a challenge to the established fact that it did, and does help promote the cause of those who insist against all evidence that it originated halfway through the holocene.

Established fact?? The age of the universe is an estimate derived by certain methods.

Estimates are not established facts unless you really meant to say that it is an established fact that people have estimated the age of the universe.

 

[rhutchin]

Poor science promotes the creationist cause.

I thought we all did the same science. Doesn't that mean creation science is poor science too?

All people do the same science. Some do it well and some do it poorly. Poor science done by non-creationists does not help their cause.

Of course, the good science being done by non-creationists, especially in genetics, is helping the creationist position.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. Not quite understanding how the universe originated 14 billion years ago is not a challenge to the established fact that it did, and does help promote the cause of those who insist against all evidence that it originated halfway through the holocene.

Established fact?? The age of the universe is an estimate derived by certain methods.

Estimates are not established facts unless you really meant to say that it is an established fact that people have estimated the age of the universe.

It is an established fact that the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies. The estimates are about whether it's closer to 13.7 or 13.9 (yes, that's how much we've narrowed it down by now) billion years, not whether it's billions or thousands.

 

[rhutchin]

<snip>Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. Not quite understanding how the universe originated 14 billion years ago is not a challenge to the established fact that it did, and does help promote the cause of those who insist against all evidence that it originated halfway through the holocene.

Established fact?? The age of the universe is an estimate derived by certain methods.

Estimates are not established facts unless you really meant to say that it is an established fact that people have estimated the age of the universe.

It is an established fact that the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies. The estimates are about whether it's closer to 13.7 or 13.9 (yes, that's how much we've narrowed it down by now) billion years, not whether it's billions or thousands.

To make your statement true, it will have to be:

It is an established fact that the estimated age of the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies.

 

[PyramidHead]

<snip>Poor science promotes the creationist cause. Unfortunately, even good science will probably not be able to rescue the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. Not quite understanding how the universe originated 14 billion years ago is not a challenge to the established fact that it did, and does help promote the cause of those who insist against all evidence that it originated halfway through the holocene.

Established fact?? The age of the universe is an estimate derived by certain methods.

Estimates are not established facts unless you really meant to say that it is an established fact that people have estimated the age of the universe.

It is an established fact that the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies. The estimates are about whether it's closer to 13.7 or 13.9 (yes, that's how much we've narrowed it down by now) billion years, not whether it's billions or thousands.

To make your statement true, it will have to be:

It is an established fact that the estimated age of the universe is 6 orders of magnitude older than what you've you'd accept as the most generous interpretation of its age according to Biblical genealogies.

Rhutchin, the oldest dildo is older than the Biblical universe. Just give up the ghost, man.

 

[rhutchin]

Rhutchin, the oldest dildo is older than the Biblical universe. Just give up the ghost, man.

I wonder who did the research on that? Got a citation?