[HN Gopher] George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, and the great Big Bang debate
___________________________________________________________________
George Gamow, Fred Hoyle, and the great Big Bang debate
Author : benbreen
Score : 17 points
Date : 2021-08-24 20:24 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| Pick-A-Hill2019 wrote:
| T.I.L on HN.
|
| I though that the Big Bang Theory was exactly that - a Theory -
| yet the NYT assures me that it was (past tense) Just a Theory.
|
| Full (obvious) Disclaimer - IAMNAC (I am not a cosmologist)
| dang wrote:
| Please don't react to the most objectionable aspect of a title.
| We can always change the title. I've done so now.
|
| What we want are reflective responses to content, not reflexive
| reactions to surface bits.
| ghaff wrote:
| I think you're reading a headline written by an editor who is
| conflating widely-accepted theory that beat out other competing
| theories which had heavyweight adherents with not-a-theory
| anymore.
| dekken_ wrote:
| it is a theory, it cannot be replicated.
| technothrasher wrote:
| The title of the article contributes to the unfortunate but
| common confusion between the scientific and colloquial meanings
| of the word "theory".
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/CwYg8
| advisedwang wrote:
| My favorite related anecode: when Alpher and Gamow released a
| paper about big bang photosynthesis Gamow added Bethe to the
| paper to make the author list "Alpher, Beth & Gamow" (ie Alpha
| Beta Gamma!)
| JohnClark1337 wrote:
| Oh look, clickbait
| SeanLuke wrote:
| > "When the Big Bang Was Just a Theory"
|
| Pretty sure the Big Bang is still just a theory.
| spatley wrote:
| aargh, the confusion presented by this headline is infuriating
| and is a continues problem in how we present science to the
| general populace.
|
| "just a theory" is imply meaningless in the scientific method.
| What is the theory of gravitation just a theory?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't react to the most objectionable aspect of a title.
| We can always change the title. I've done so now.
|
| What we want are reflective responses to content, not reflexive
| reactions to surface bits.
| ghaff wrote:
| But it was the headline of the NYT article. While the history
| presented in the book review is interesting, it also seems
| relevant that a headline in the "paper of record"
| mischaracterizes what a theory is. Which is relevant in this
| case because "It's just a theory" trivializes that theory in
| a lot of popular discourse.
| Kranar wrote:
| I think the whole argument over the definition of theory is
| overblown. Sure there's a group of people who use "theory" to
| mean some unconfirmed hypothesis as a way to discredit the
| theory of natural selection in favor of creationism. This is
| hardly a matter of confusion for the general public nor is it a
| particularly big deal.
|
| There is no singular "theory of gravitation", there are
| multiple theories of gravitation and they are just that,
| theories. Some are meaningless (like the theory that gravity is
| due to the earth and every physical object growing in size),
| some are useful for every day uses, like gravity is some kind
| of force whose charge is mass and whose strength decreases with
| the square of the distance, and some theories are very accurate
| but very hard or impractical to work with, like gravity is due
| to some sort of 4 dimensional space-time curvature.
|
| All of those are just theories, they have various pros and cons
| and use cases and problems to varying degrees. I don't think
| this is a problem for most people to understand.
| mjh2539 wrote:
| There is no mention of Georges Lemaitre, the Catholic priest and
| physicist who first proposed the theory.
|
| https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/faith-and-the-expa...
| mannykannot wrote:
| Nor is there any mention of Ralph Alpher, who predicted the
| cosmic microwave background as a consequence of the big bang,
| well before it was accidentally discovered, and also showed
| that the cosmic abundances of hydrogen and helium can be
| predicted from the big bang - two results important to the
| theory's acceptance.
|
| Alpher was a doctoral student of Gamow's.
|
| To be fair, we can't expect a book review to be a comprehensive
| review article on a big topic.
| [deleted]
| labster wrote:
| Nor is there a mention of Hans Bethe, who contributed his
| name (only) to the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. Pronounce it
| aloud if you don't get their joke.
| tablespoon wrote:
| It's also interesting to note that Hoyle's objection to the Big
| Bang was basically philosophical, and his steady-state theory
| had more to do with how he thought the universe "should be"
| than anything else.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Bi...
| throw0101a wrote:
| Brian Keating, in his book _Losing the Nobel Prize: A Story
| of Cosmology, Ambition, and the Perils of Science 's Highest
| Honor_:
|
| > _Many atheist scientists were repulsed by the Big Bang 's
| creationist overtones. According to Hoyle, it was cosmic
| chutzpah of the worst kind: "The reason why scientists like
| the 'big bang' is because they are overshadowed by the Book
| of Genesis." In contrast, the Steady State model was the
| rightful heir to the Copernican principle. It combined the
| banality of space with humanity's mediocrity in time. Thanks
| to Hoyle, humanity had humility._
|
| * https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/05/14/how_bias_a
| g...
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Keating
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-26 23:01 UTC)