Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?

In article <opednf5kMu8aDhXZRVnysg@xxxxxxxxx>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149801042.551033.199720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yup, hope Feddifizzx get's a view of Weinbergs
pg 523. After-all the speed of the Solar System
(Eq.(15.5.27) is only 300 km/sec, wrt the CMBR
placing us back in the middle again.
My thrust is to call a conjecture a conjecture,
it's not promoted to a theory until it's based
on testable and well defined postulates, and
NO MIRACLES!!!!.

Ok, I think I can see where you are coming from. Is it worth getting hung up
on the term "Big Bang Theory?" (which isn't what it was called when I was at
university)

By and large, the name is something applied to the idea by others not its
proponents (with the exception of using it to establish common understanding
with others).

Now, I suspect the crux of the argument will be whether or not the "idea" of
a t=0 event _has_ been supported by experimentally valid predictions. So far
I haven't seen any miracles supporting the concept, but I cant speak for
anyone else.



Since we can't really look at any meaningful discussion of the universe
before around 10^-34 secs, the discussion (as T Wake points out) really
depends on what you think this means. You could argue that the universe
existed for a long time and then inflation kicked in - I suppose.

I can understand a lot of the controversy round the BB - from a
non-physics point of view - its easy to try and define point A as the
origin and then ask "well whats before it?" It depends whether or not
your are comfortable with an event of creation - and whether you are
happy to ascribe religous overtones to it.

--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast