Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Youdontknowmypickles t1_j4bz3t6 wrote

Reply to comment by ferrel_hadley in The multiverse by Manureofhistory

Nope. The advent of the Big Bang theory stemmed from Hubble work. He saw a receding universe from our perspective, then it was postulated that the universe must have been small at some point logically. It wasn’t philosophical, it was data driven.

22

ferrel_hadley t1_j4c0olv wrote

> The advent of the Big Bang theory stemmed from Hubble work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

But Cosmology as a philosophy goes back to Aristotle and thinking about it led to ideas like Oblers Paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

This was a step towards it being a scientific question. It is a process from abstract musings to solid physics.

41

Youdontknowmypickles t1_j4c1an7 wrote

I disagree intuitively but let me actually think about this for a bit and come back to it. You might have a good point, I just haven’t ever thought of it

27

jinqsi t1_j4crw1t wrote

Luckily we’re on the internet so you can just come back to it without announcing your intentions to come back to it.

−12

CheeseItTed t1_j4cspks wrote

Personally, I appreciate someone saying out loud, "I have a kneejerk reaction but let me examine it." Reinforces good thinking habits for me. So maybe let people write how they want?

43

jinqsi t1_j4cyvnc wrote

Imagine the forum where everyone informs the rest that they have thoughts and opinions but are taking into account other people’s thoughts and opinions? It would be mostly that, wouldn’t it?

−10

Youdontknowmypickles t1_j4cuiaj wrote

Ok I’m back lol. And I do agree: the night sky should be bright if the universe was static, as was assumed in 1900. But we looked for explanations and stumbled upon the expanding universe, which then led to the creation of the Big Bang hypothesis. I don’t know if we can say that philosophy drove the gear for the explanation, but it certainly set about something that then had to be explained, so I see where you’re coming from

13

InterminableAnalysis t1_j4czh60 wrote

I think there's a good sense in which philosophy drives the gear for the explanation, in that the big bang theory eventually comes, at least partly, from a metaphysical consideration of the universe (e.g., importantly, a consideration of the nature of space).

4

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4c37f1 wrote

Then again I think there as many abstract ideas that never go anywhere. I don’t know what makes the multiverse more credible than anything like, say, panspermia

2

danielravennest t1_j4dqdfe wrote

There are way more theories than experiments, because theory only needs a blackboard, or a pad and pencil, while experiments cost real money. Science makes progress when experiments invalidate theories until there can be only one.

5

Mespirit t1_j4elht6 wrote

The theoratical background for the big bang was published by Lemaître before Hubble's meassurements, people just didn't take it seriously until Hubble published his findings.

3

Whatmeworry4 t1_j4cfift wrote

What is it that implies that the Big Bang created a universe as opposed to a big bang in an already existing universe?

2

danielravennest t1_j4drjzx wrote

Nothing. The Big Bang explains features of the "observable universe", like the cosmic background radiation and the original elemental abundances. It says nothing about what what is beyond our range of observation.

If there were an already existing universe within our range of observation, we would expect to see stars older than the ones we see. The age of the ones we see max out at a bit after the Big Bang.

4

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4clkde wrote

Nothing. There is no way for us to know what was befote the big bang as of yet.

So its "the beginning"

Just how they have an age in the universe. That is the age because that is what data told us. When we got ol james up there, we had begger data and the age 'increased'

3