KaiserScience

Home » skeptic

Category Archives: skeptic

How science works – examples

Science is a process used to approach claims. We approach claims skeptically: That doesn’t mean that that we don’t believe anything. Rather, it means we don’t accept a claim unless we are given compelling evidence. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims.

skeptic no amount of belief

In 1976 during the Viking missions, NASA scientists found a pattern of chemical reactions that indicated some form of bacterial life may be living in the martian soil.

In the late 1990s, studies of a Martian meteorite provided evidence that microscopic, bacteria-like life on Mars may have existed. Did simple forms of life once lived on Mars? Does bacterial life live in the Martian soil today?

If this interests you, look up Viking lander biological experiments, and the meteorite Allan Hills 84001 (ALH84001) 

mars-life-new-look-old-data_51551_990x742

Many people in Scotland reported a creature swimming in Loch Ness (a large freshwater lake in the Scottish Highlands.) A few blurry photographs have been taken of an object in the water. Newspapers named this supposed creature “the Loch Ness Monster”. Are there unknown, large sea monsters living in this lake?

If this interests you look up Loch Ness “monster”

Hoaxed_photo_of_the_Loch_Ness_monster

In the 1970’s doctors created an oral pill, Loniten, to control high blood pressure. It works by dilating the blood vessels, so blood can flow better. One of the side effects that patients reported was excess body hair growth. Could this be the first drug to regrow more hair? If this interests you look up the discovery of Minoxidil.

Male pattern baldness minoxidilMinoxidil molcule

Charles Darwin (1809 –1882) was an English naturalist. He discovered evidence that today’s animals are modified versions of animals that lived in the past; he discovered that many forms of life have descended over time from common ancestors. Has life on Earth evolved from earlier forms of life? If this interests you look up the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

Charles Darwin quote

 

How can we tell which claims are true?

Use the scientific method to investigate such claims. 

 

Learning Objectives

2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Standards
Students will be able to:
* plan and conduct an investigation, including deciding on the types, amount, and accuracy of data needed to produce reliable measurements, and consider limitations on the precision of the data
* apply scientific reasoning, theory, and/or models to link evidence to the claims and assess the extent to which the reasoning and data support the explanation or conclusion;
* respectfully provide and/or receive critiques on scientific arguments by probing reasoning and evidence and challenging ideas and conclusions, and determining what additional information is required to solve contradictions
* evaluate the validity and reliability of and/or synthesize multiple claims, methods, and/or designs that appear in scientific and technical texts or media, verifying the data when possible.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
“Through discussion and reflection, students can come to realize that scientific inquiry embodies a set of values. These values include respect for the importance of logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, and a requirement for transparent research procedures and honest reporting of findings.”

Next Generation Science Standards: Science & Engineering Practices
● Ask questions that arise from careful observation of phenomena, or unexpected results, to clarify and/or seek additional information.
● Ask questions that arise from examining models or a theory, to clarify and/or seek additional information and relationships.
● Ask questions to determine relationships, including quantitative relationships, between independent and dependent variables.
● Ask questions to clarify and refine a model, an explanation, or an engineering problem.
● Evaluate a question to determine if it is testable and relevant.
● Ask questions that can be investigated within the scope of the school laboratory, research facilities, or field (e.g., outdoor environment) with available resources and, when appropriate, frame a hypothesis based on a model or theory.
● Ask and/or evaluate questions that challenge the premise(s) of an argument, the interpretation of a data set, or the suitability of the design

MA 2016 Science and technology

Appendix I Science and Engineering Practices Progression Matrix

Science and engineering practices include the skills necessary to engage in scientific inquiry and engineering design. It is necessary to teach these so students develop an understanding and facility with the practices in appropriate contexts. The Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC, 2012) identifies eight essential science and engineering practices:

1. Asking questions (for science) and defining problems (for engineering).
2. Developing and using models.
3. Planning and carrying out investigations.
4. Analyzing and interpreting data.
5. Using mathematics and computational thinking.
6. Constructing explanations (for science) and designing solutions (for engineering).
7. Engaging in argument from evidence.
8. Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information.

Scientific inquiry and engineering design are dynamic and complex processes. Each requires engaging in a range of science and engineering practices to analyze and understand the natural and designed world. They are not defined by a linear, step-by-step approach. While students may learn and engage in distinct practices through their education, they should have periodic opportunities at each grade level to experience the holistic and dynamic processes represented below and described in the subsequent two pages… http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/2016-04.pdf

Advertisements

Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

Excerpted from an article by Mick West

A classic experiment to demonstrate the curvature of a body of water is to place markers (like flags) a fixed distance above the water in a straight line, and then view them along that line in a telescope. If the water surface is flat then the markers will appear also in a straight line. If the surface of the water is curved (as it is here on Earth) then the markers in the middle will appear higher than the markers at the ends.

Here’s a highly exaggerated diagram of the effect by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1870, superimposed over an actual photograph.

Lake Pontchartrain power lines demonstrating the curvature Metabunk

This is a difficult experiment to do as you need a few miles for the curvature to be apparent. You also need the markers to be quite high above the surface of the water, as temperature differences between the water and the air tend to create significant refraction effects close to the water.

However Youtuber Soundly has found a spot where there’s a very long line of markers permanently fixed at constant heights above the water line, clearly demonstrating the curve. It’s a line of power transmission towers at Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans, Louisiana.

The line of power lines is straight, and they are all the same size, and the same height above the water. They are also very tall, and form a straight line nearly 16 miles long. Far better than any experiment one could set up on a canal or a lake. You just need to get into a position where you can see along the line of towers, and then use a powerful zoom lense to look along the line to make any curve apparent

One can see quite clearly in the video and photos that there’s a curve. Soundly has gone to great lengths to provide multiple videos and photos of the curve from multiple perspectives. They all show the same thing: a curve.

Lake Pontchartrain curve around Earth

One objection you might make is that the towers could be curving to the right. However the same curve is apparent from both sides, so it can only be curving over the horizon.

c

20170722-105907-h6wr6

People have asked why the curve is so apparent in one direction, but not in the other. The answer is compressed perspective. Here’s a physical example:

c

Compressed perspective on a car

That’s my car, the roof of which is slightly curved both front to back and left to right. I’ve put some equal sized chess pawns on it in two straight lines. If we step back a bit and zoom in we get:

Compressed perspective on a car II

Notice a very distinct curve from the white pieces, but the “horizon” seems to barely curve at all.

Similarly in the front-back direction, where there’s an even greater curve:

Compressed perspective on a car III

There’s a lot more discussion with photos here Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

 

 

Fuses

Fuses

You can use adapters to turn one outlet into two… two outlets into four, and so on. What happens if you turn on all the devices connected to all these cords at once? They draw a lot of current through the wires to that outlet – and those wires can overheat, and start an electrical fire.

Electrical fire

Electrical fire outlet

This is why we need something in the house which can detect abnormally high electrical currents – and cut them off.

Circuit breakers and fuse boxes.

Here we see what could be a potentially fatal accident – a wet electrical appliance could conduct enough electricity to kill a person.  How can we avoid this?

hair dryer in water safety

“A ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) or Residual Current Device (RCD) is a device that shuts off an electric power circuit when it detects that current is flowing along an unintended path, such as through water or a person.”- Simple Wikipedia

ground fault circuit interrupters

A GFCI on a hair dryer.

ground fault circuit interrupter hair dryer

Lab Measuring Voltage Current DC circuits

  • Learn how to build a simple circuit, measure voltage, and current
  • Build a DC series circuit and DC parallel circuit

==========================

The fuse

The fuse breaks the circuit if a fault in an appliance causes too much current flow. This protects the wiring and the appliance if something goes wrong. The fuse contains a piece of wire that melts easily. If the current going through the fuse is too great, the wire heats up until it melts and breaks the circuit.

Fuses in plugs are made in standard ratings. The most common are 3A, 5A and 13A. The fuse should be rated at a slightly higher current than the device needs:

  • if the device works at 3A, use a 5A fuse
  • if the device works at 10A, use a 13A fuse
A 13A fuse with a low melting point wire
13 amp fuse

Cars also have fuses. An electrical fault in a car could start a fire, so all the circuits have to be protected by fuses.

The circuit breaker

The circuit breaker does the same job as the fuse, but it works in a different way. A spring-loaded push switch is held in the closed position by a spring-loaded soft iron bolt. An electromagnet is arranged so that it can pull the bolt away from the switch. If the current increases beyond a set limit, the electromagnet pulls the bolt towards itself, which releases the push switch into the open position.

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/edexcel_pre_2011/electricityworld/mainselectricityrev3.shtml

 

======================

Additional resources

How does a Residual Current Circuit Breaker Work?

circuit breaker

 External resources

http://www.electronicsteacher.com/direct-current/physics-conductors-insulators/fuses.php

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-12/fuses/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_management_(electronics)

https://www.howequipmentworks.com/electrical_safety/

https://www.howequipmentworks.com/electricity_basics/

GIF circuit breaker

GIF melted fuse

===========================================

Learning Standards

Massachusetts 2016 Science and Technology/Engineering (STE) Standards

HS-PS2-9(MA). Evaluate simple series and parallel circuits to predict changes to voltage, current, or resistance when simple changes are made to a circuit
HS-PS3-1. Use algebraic expressions and the principle of energy conservation to calculate the change in energy of one component of a system… Identify any transformations from one form of energy to another, including thermal, kinetic, gravitational, magnetic, or electrical energy. {voltage drops shown as an analogy to water pressure drops.}
HS-PS3-2. Develop and use a model to illustrate that energy at the macroscopic scale can be accounted for as either motions of particles and objects or energy stored in fields [e.g. electric fields.]
HS-PS3-3. Design and evaluate a device that works within given constraints to convert one form of energy into another form of energy.{e.g. chemical energy in battery used to create KE of electrons flowing in a circuit, used to create light and heat from a bulb, or charging a capacitor.}

Power (electrical)

If you look carefully at a stereo, hair dryer, or other household appliance, you find that most devices list a “power rating” that tells how many watts the appliance uses. In this section you will learn what these power ratings mean, and how to figure out the electricity costs of using various appliances.

 

The three electrical quantities

Amps Volts Ohms CPO

We have now learned three important electrical quantities:

Paying for electricity

Electric bills sent out by utility companies don’t charge by the volt, the amp, or the ohm. You may have noticed that electrical appliances in your home usually include another unit – the watt. Most appliances have a label that lists the number of watts or kilowatts. You may have purchased 60-watt light bulbs, or a 900-watt hair dryer, or a 1500-watt toaster oven. Electric companies charge for the energy you use, which depends on how many watts each appliance consumes in a given month.
A watt is a unit of power

The watt (W) is a unit of power. Power, in the scientific sense, has a precise meaning. Power is the rate at which energy is flowing. Energy is measured in joules. Power is measured in joules per second. One joule per second is equal to one watt. A 100-watt light bulb uses 100 joules of energy every second. Where does the electrical power go?

Electrical power can be easily transformed into many different forms. An electric
motor takes electrical power and makes mechanical power. A light bulb turns electrical power into light and a toaster oven turns the power into heat. The same unit (watts) applies to all forms of energy flow, including light, motion, electrical, thermal, or many others.

Power in a circuit can be measured using the tools we already have. Remember
that one watt equals an energy flow of one joule per second.

Amps = flow of 1 coulomb of charge per second

Volts = an energy of 1 joule of energy / coulomb of charge

If these two quantities are multiplied together, you will find that the units of
coulombs cancel out, leaving the equation we want for power.

voltage current power conversion CPO

 

Watts equal joules/second, so we can calculate electrical power in a circuit by
multiplying voltage times current.

P = VI

power measured in watts; voltage in volts; current in amps

 

A larger unit of power is sometimes needed.

A 1500-watt toaster oven may be labeled 1.5 kW.

kilowatt (kW) is equal to 1000 watts, or 1000 joules per second.

Horsepower – another common unit of power often seen on electric motors

horsecart1

 

1 horsepower = 746 watts.

Electric motors you find around the house range in
size from 1/25th of a horsepower (30 watts) for a small electric fan to 2 horsepower (1492 watts) for an electric saw.

 

 

Virtual lab: Series and Parallel circuits

Learn about electrical circuits with the PhET Circuit construction kit

* Briefly play with the app, learning the drag-and-drop components
* Follow the instructions. Carefully write answers in your notebook.
* Accurately answer questions in complete sentences, at a high school level.
This must be completed in class to get credit. Unless you have an excused absence, you can’t make up the lab.

Learning Goals:

Develop a general rule regarding how resistance affects current flow,
when the voltage is constant.
Learn how changing resistance values affect current flow in both series and parallel circuits.

Series Circuit A

PhET Series Circuit A

Right click on the resistor, change the value of the resistor and observe what happens to the rate that the electrons move through it. The rate at which the electrons move is called current. Current is measure in Amps

(A) Make a general rule about the relationship between current and resistance.
– 10 points for circuit and accurate answer.

——————-

Parallel Circuit B

PhET Parallel Circuit B
Make observations & draw conclusions. – By right clicking on the resistors, change the values of the resistors, making one very high and one very low and visa versa.
Look for what happens to the current flow through the different resistors.

With regards to circuit B:
(a) Describe current at different locations in the circuit, esp. rate of the current and the value of the resistors.
(b) Explain your observations of the current flow in terms of the water tank model of electricity given to you in class
(c) Describe how your general rule from step 2 relates to your observations
– 20 points for circuit and accurate answer.

______________________________

Circuit C

PhET Series Circuit C 2 resistors

Change the values of the resistors, making one very high and one very low, and visa versa.
(a) Look for what happens to the current flow through the different resistors.
(b) Describe current at different locations in the circuit.
(c) Explain observations of the current flow in terms of the water-flow analogy.
(d) Describe how your general rule from the beginning relates to your observations.

Water flow analogies for electrical current
– 20 points for circuit and accurate answer.

=============================================================

Circuit D: voltage in a series circuit

Build the series circuit shown below. On the left-hand menu, click voltmeter. You can drag-and-drop the red and black leads.

In your notebook, add the following definitions:

A lead is an electrical connection that comes from some device. Some are used to transfer power; ours are used to probe circuits.

A multimeter is a measuring instrument that combines multiple meters (measuring devices) into one Typical multimeters include

ammeter = measures I (current)
metric unit of current is amperes (A)

ohmmeter = measures r (resistance)
metric unit of resistance is ohms (Ω)
Ω is the Greek letter omega.

voltmeter = measures v (voltage) in a battery,
or the voltage drop across a part of a circuit.
metric unit of voltage is the volt (v).

PhET measure voltage drops Series

With the knife-switch closed, what is the voltage drop across:

  1. the battery
  2. the light bulb
  3. the knife-switch
  4. the resistor

With the knife-switch open, what is the voltage drop across:

  1. the battery
  2. the light bulb
  3. the knife-switch
  4. the resistor

____________________________

Circuit E: voltage in a parallel circuit

Build the series circuit shown below. On the left-hand menu, click voltmeter.
You can drag-and-drop the red and black leads.
What is the voltage drop across:

  1. the 2 batteries
  2. the resistor in the middle
  3. the light-bulb
  4. Points A and B on the wires.

PhET measure voltage drops Parallel

=============================================================

Circuit F: Measuring both I and V

Build the circuit shown here. Use the voltmeter to measure voltage, and the ammeter to measure current. Carefully fill in the 2 data tables. After you have taken the data, answer

(a) Compare the voltage numbers before you changed the resistance, to after you changed the resistance.

(b) Look just at the left column (default values) for current. Compare your numbers, to their locations on the circuit: What’s the relationship between the amount of current in one part of the circuit, to another? (Thinking of the water-flow analogy may be helpful.)

(c) Look at the right column for current. How did changing the value of one resistor affect the circuit (if at all?)

PhET circuit F

Circuit Table 1

PhET circuit F measuring current

 

Circuit Table 2

Learning Standards

Massachusetts 2016 Science and Technology/Engineering (STE) Standards
HS-PS2-9(MA). Evaluate simple series and parallel circuits to predict changes to voltage, current, or resistance when simple changes are made to a circuit.
Technology/Engineering Progression Grades 9-10
The use of electrical circuits and electricity is critical to most technological systems in society. Electrical systems can be AC or DC, rely on a variety of key components, and are designed for specific voltage, current, and/or power.

PhET Electric circuit lab

An electronics kit in your computer! Build circuits with resistors, light bulbs, batteries, and switches. Take measurements with the realistic ammeter and voltmeter. View the circuit as a schematic diagram, or switch to a life-like view.

Learning Goals

  • Discuss basic electricity relationships.
  • Build circuits from schematic drawings.
  • Use an ammeter and voltmeter to take readings in circuits.
  • Provide reasoning to explain the measurements and relationships in circuits.
  • Discuss basic electricity relationships in series and parallel circuits.
  • Provide reasoning to explain the measurements in circuits.
  • Determine the resistance of common objects in the “Grab Bag.”

PhET circuit construction

PhET Circuit construction kit lab!

Start with “grab a wire” – Pull a “wire” onto the screen.

Add resistors, at least one battery, a lightbulb and a switch.

Move the elements close together, so they connect.

If you need to break 2 pieces apart, right click at the location, and choose ‘split junction’

a) Create a series circuit with one light bulb that you can turn on/off.

Click ‘voltmeter’ and a virtual voltmeter appears on the screen. Move the voltmeter’s leads.

When the switch is off

  1) measure the voltage across the bulb : _____

  2) measure the voltage across the battery: _____

Then with the switch on, do this again.

b) Create a parallel circuit with 2 bulbs that you can turn on/off

Click ‘voltmeter’ and a virtual voltmeter appears on the screen. Move the voltmeter’s leads.

When the switch is off

  1) measure the voltage across bulb A : _____

  2) measure the voltage across bulb B : _____

  3) measure the voltage across the battery: _____

Then with the switch on, do this again.

I Was a Big Bang Skeptic

Also see: Evidence for the Big Bang FAQs

This essay is by Richard Carrier.

For years I argued that there might not have been a Big Bang, since the evidence for it was rather poor. I encountered as a result a sea of snobbery and condescension from physicists. I encountered bias and closed-mindedness, and this was all the more reason to go on record against it. I found my experience was not unique: even some professional astronomers had been pressured to advocate the Big Bang in order to get telescope time, which makes or breaks every astronomer’s career.[1]. This kind of arrogance was appalling.

 

…. I always kept an open mind and continued my investigations. And over the past two years enough evidence has arisen, and two physicists (Victor Stenger and Bjoern Feuerbacher) took enough trouble to patiently persuade me with genuine facts and argument, that I have “seen the light” so to speak, and changed my mind. Equally important was my careful reading of the  works of Barry Parker and Joseph Silk. I now conclude that the Big Bang Theory, in some formulation, is probably true. The odds are well in its favor. Why and how this is so I explain in this essay.

My Position Now

The current Big Bang Theory should be thought of as having two distinct elements.

The first part is a theory about the origin (or at least the early evolution) of the observed universe.

The second part is a theory about how that came about.

By confusing these two aspects of the theory I and others were easily led astray in our assessments of the evidence. The first element of the Big Bang theory now has about as firm an evidential foundation as anyone could reasonably expect of it. There is no good reason to doubt that the observable universe had its origin in a small, superheated state about 14 billion years ago, from which it expanded and cooled, condensing into the cosmos we now see.

The second element of the Big Bang Theory is another story. Hardly anyone can agree on the details, and evidence for or against any particular position is scarce and indecisive. But even if we had no clue at all as to why the universe began in a small, superheated state, this would not detract from the evidence that it did. And as it happens, we have more than a clue about the why. The basic outlines of Inflation theory account for the Big Bang and other observations fairly well. They do not have enough specifics to fit or explain all the facts that we observe, and both are largely undetailed and untested as far as theories go. So this element remains highly contentious and speculative, and much in need of more fact-finding. But it is the best game in town, and it makes a lot of sense.

e Evidence

(1) General Relativity and Vacuum Energy Imply a Big Bang Inflation Event

When Einstein applied the equations of General Relativity to the entire universe, rather than just the solar system, he found they predicted either that the universe must expand from or collapse to a singularity. Einstein eliminated this result by arbitrarily adding a “cosmological constant” that balanced everything out. As Parker notes, “Einstein was reluctant to add the term. It destroyed the simplicity and beauty of his equations” (p. 51). As Einstein himself said, “If Hubble’s expansion had been discovered at the time of the creation of the general theory of relativity, the cosmological member would never have been introduced. It seems now so much less justified to introduce such a member into the field equations” (Letter of 1932, quoted by Parker, p. 59).

When later scientists worked out all the possible solutions to this problem, it was found that the entire universe would inevitably have one of several particular shapes. Some of those shapes included a singularity at the beginning of time followed by an expansion: a Big Bang. As it happens, the known properties of the universe as presently observed entail that only one of those descriptions can be correct. So the universe had to have begun as a singularity. The only way this could not be correct is if General Relativity is false (and that is unlikely: it is very well corroborated) or if some as-yet unknown force or factor prevented it. As it happens, Stephen Hawking proved quantum mechanics is such a factor, since quantum uncertainty makes a singularity impossible (see “The Truth about Singularities“). So contemporary Big Bang theory no longer involves a singularity at all. Instead, scientists do not yet know what the shape and content of the universe was prior to the Planck time, a tiny fraction of a second. But on present theory the observable universe still begins very, very small.

Much later it was noticed that such a Big Bang event would experience a very brief period of “supercooling” which would cause a rapid but brief period of “inflation,” at least if we are right about currently-accepted physics. This in turn predicts many peculiar observations, like the near-perfect density, smootheness and flatness of the universe. Though Inflation Theory does not explain everything or fit all the facts, it has two things going for it: it appears to be independently predicted by other physical laws, and it explains a lot that otherwise would remain a mystery. Still, many physicists remain skeptical of Inflation Theory, even as they agree that the Big Bang theory is probably true.

(2) Expansion is Confirmed by Multiple Lines of Evidence.

There are five independent lines of evidence that all converge on a common conclusion: the universe began between 14 and 15 billion years ago in a superheated state where even atoms could not form, and has rapidly expanded and cooled ever since.[5]

The first and most important piece of evidence is the observation of redshifts, which can only be explained by assuming that every galaxy cluster in the universe is moving away from every other: the more distant, the greater the speed. Though many scientists have shown or argued that some redshift has other causes, these explanations do not account for even a significant fraction of the observed objects, or of the observed redshift overall, which is simply too enormous to be accounted for by any other known means. The most obvious contrary explanation is that something to do with the space the light passes through causes the frequency to decay, but this has been soundly refuted by two observations. First, the expansion rate is accelerating, which only a change in velocity can explain (since the rate of a space-caused decay could not change but would have to be constant).[6] Second, many observations of redshifted objects have been made whose light is split by a gravitational lens. These studies show that even when light coming from the same object traverses different distances, the redshift remains the same.[7] So light is not decaying as it passes through space. The redshift must originate with the object, and only velocity can explain that.

The five independent lines of evidence for the universe’s age are as follows:

  • First, taking into account all known factors, including the recently-confirmed acceleration of the cosmic expansion rate, scientists have shown that if you rewind the observed behavior of the known universe, it all comes together in a tiny, superheated state about 14.5 billion years ago.
  • Second, we have confirmed that the oldest stars in our own galaxy are between 12 and 13 billion years old. Though Pickrell (cf. n. 5) notes that these “were probably not among the universe’s very first stars,” they would have formed no more than a billion years after the cosmos itself began to form. Though this only proves an age for our galaxy, not necessarily the universe, the result of 14 billion years perfectly matches the most recent calculation of the projected start-point for the universe’s observed expansion.
  • Third, the most distant galaxy yet observed, based on the most precise and accurate observations to date, lies between 12 and 13 billion lightyears away, and thus is just as old as ours.
  • Fourth, the observed interstellar abundance of certain radioactive elements, calculating backwards from their known rate of decay, entails that they must have been produced at least 12 to 13 billion years ago, about the time we would expect them to have formed if the universe began about 15 billion years ago.
  • Fifth, the current calculated age of various globular clusters beyond our galaxy is no more than 15 billion years. This corroborates an age of the universe of about 15 billion years.

These five facts, especially in combination with all the other “evidences” ennumerated in this essay, would be a remarkable coincidence if the universe didn’t in fact originate between 14 and 15 billion years ago. So it probably did.

It must be noted that Lerner discusses experimental evidence that the pressure-action of light itself, upon galactic or stellar magnetic fields, would inevitably accelerate all objects away from each other: in other words, there is a possible explanation of expansion other than a Big Bang, indeed, an explanation of accelerating expansion. And despite critics who originally attacked this suggestion, intergalactic magnetic fields have recently been demonstrated to exist on a vast scale.[8] Many other theories could perhaps account for it, too. However, all the other evidence concurs with a Big Bang event, not any of these other theories.

Likewise, M-Theory has recently provided an alternative that is just as successful as Inflation Theory without any Big Bang as ordinarily conceived. Called the ekpyriotic or “brane” theory, developed by Dr. Paul Steinhardt and others, this theorizes a “Big Collision” instead of a Big Bang.[9] Or, as Boslough puts it, “Maybe the big bang was just a big bang, an explosion in our little neighborhood of the universe that was neither the beginning of time nor the creation of the cosmos. Nobody knows.”[10] This fact should be kept in mind throughout this paper: Big Bang theory is consistent with many different interpretations of the originating event. It is no longer tied to Singularity Theory nor does it logically require Inflation Theory, nor does it entail that nothing else exists apart from what we observe: there may be other universes, and even this universe is probably much larger than we will ever see.

(3) The Microwave Background Radiation is Consistent with a Big Bang Event

Not only did Big Bang Theory predict a microwave background glow, it exactly predicted its temperature. Though there are problems with the exact pattern of that radiation, and though there may yet be other causes for it,[11] no one has demonstrated any better explanation to be correct.

In contrast, analysis of the microwave background as observed by numerous independent instruments confirms certain features that suggest the universe was indeed in a superheated state (indeed, the very state that “Inflation” would have ended with) about 14 billion years ago.

The evidence is of sound waves that passed through the early superheated universe, in such a way that predicts the current existence of roughly 4.5% “baryonic matter,” based on experimentally proven ratios in particle accelerators, which is almost exactly what we observe.[12] This is not a slam dunk proof, but it is very strong evidence that the universe was once in a superheated state 14 billion years ago, again corroborating the basic elements of the Big Bang Theory.

No other theory can explain this acoustic peak, except theories already resembling the Big Bang, like Brane Theory.

(4) There are Too Many Light Elements to be Explained Any Other Way

I originally saw this as a failed evidence because we know too little to get anything like a precise ratio of light to heavy elements and thus could not base any argument on what that ratio was. However, on closer examination I found that this ambiguity does not matter so much.

Even though a lot of matter remains unobserved, and the time and rate of star formation is not securely known so the actual ratio today is not securely known,[13] the vast quantity of key light elements that we do observe is far too great to be accounted for in any other way than by something like a Big Bang. Alternative theories are at present entirely speculative, while Big Bang theory has experimental basis in particle physics.

This is most clear in the case of the verified presence of natural deuterium. Its quantity is not even important: its mere existence is inexplicable–except, so far, by the Big Bang theory. There is no other natural process known that can create stable deuterium. In fact, stars destroy this element.

But the evidence doesn’t end there: beginning at a superheated state entails a vast abundance of light elements over heavy, with more light elements in older epochs. Both observations are confirmed. The exact ratios are unknown, but everywhere (even in our own galaxy) older stars are comprised of more light elements than newer stars, and the vast scale of light elements is undeniable. There is simply way too much helium, for example, to explain by any other means.

And no other theory can account for the precise kinds of light elements we observe in superabundance: not just any helium, for example, but only helium-3 and helium-4; not just any lithium, but lithium-7; and so on. Other light elements exist in only trace amounts. This is exactly what would be predicted if the universe began as a superheated mass of superhot protons and neutrons which then cooled, according to the experimental results of atomic physics.

Evidence Against

Those are the four lines of evidence for the Big Bang that carry convincing weight. Other evidence might be uncertain (such as that for epochal change on a galactic scale, cf. n. 13), or equally predicted by other theories (such as that the universe is very nearly flat, a finding now well confirmed [15]).

But when we examine the evidence above, there really is no better theory than the Big Bang: all lines of evidence point there. Inflation Theory could be false, yet even then some form of the original Big Bang theory might still be true (i.e. Lamaître’s theory that the cosmos began as a spherical superheated mass a few lightyears across). However, Inflation explains, even predicts, so much of the evidence we do have, and is predicted by well-tested theories like the Standard Model of Particle Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and General Relativity, that it is probably approximately true, at least in some fashion. But even if that is false, the Big Bang theory in some form is still probably true.

This remains so even despite problems. Indeed, some problems have been removed: for instance, more accurate measurements with higher resolution have resolved any doubts about the existence of observable objects more distant than 13 or 14 billion lightyears. None have been observed. Though some still might, current observation remains consistent with the Big Bang.

Note that it is only the observable objects that matter–the universe may easily be larger than 14 billion lightyears on any Big Bang theory, we just shouldn’t yet be able to see farther than that if the theory is true, and so far it seems we can’t. Likewise, though a value for the Hubble Constant had been confirmed that caused problems with earlier theories, the discovery of accelerating expansion has resolved that issue.[16]

Likewise, while there has been trepidation over inconsistencies in observed vs. required mass, gravity observations have confirmed the existence of 30% of this missing mass (in some form as yet unobservable to current instruments),[17] and much has been accounted for by the expected volume of neutrinos in the universe, according to the recently-confirmed neutrino mass.[18] The number of observed kinds of neutrinos is also partly predicted by the Big Bang theory, so neutrinos are starting to provide an additional line of evidence for the Big Bang. Though this proof is less secure than the others, it is impressive that it happens to match and corroborate the same result as the stronger proofs (cf. Parker, pp. 105-111).

But some problems remain. Primarily, no version of the Big Bang theory yet explains supercosmic structure. As Peter Coles puts it, some scientists “argue, controversially, that the Universe is not uniform at all, but has a never-ending hierarchical structure in which galaxies group together in clusters which, in turn, group together in superclusters, and so on. These claims are completely at odds with the Cosmological Principle and therefore with the Friedmann models and the entire Big Bang theory.”[19]

Certainly, the observation of very large-scale structure going very far back in time is as yet not entirely explained. Yet Wane Hu notes that evidence of supercosmic structure in the most accurate microwave background data so far (retrieved by BOOMERANG) shows such structure “on the largest scales at the earliest times.”[20] But the incorporation of heavy neutrinos into cosmological models may be changing that.[21]

Conclusion

Still, this is simply a mystery that remains to be solved. The evidence for the Big Bang theory is simply too strong to dismiss on this account. All we can be sure of is that we don’t know exactly how or why the universe existed in a superheated state about 14 billion years ago, though it seems to have had something to do with singularities and inflation. But the basic fact, that the universe existed in a superheated state about 14 billion years ago, now seems hard to dispute. I, for one, believe it.

Related resources

https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/earth-science/astronomy/the-big-bang-theory/

https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/big-bang-nucleosynthesis/

 

Copyright 2002 by Richard Carrier. Copying of this material is permitted provided credit is given to the author and no material herein is sold for profit.

[1] “Heaven’s Gatekeepers: the Galactic Battle for Telescope Time,”Lingua Franca, September, 1999, pp. 56-61.

[2] Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang: Breakthroughs and Barriers, 1993. This is out of print, but I found it an excellent lay summary of the evidence by a bona fide expert and well worth acquiring. Though some of his facts (particularly concerning chronology) are out of date, recent advancements have made his case stronger, not weaker. He also summarizes quite fairly many problems with the Big Bang theory (pp. 159-208, 231-2, 281-300; but compare pp. 233-57 and 305-12), and several alternatives to it that were proposed before 1993 (pp. 302-04, 313-36). All the same is true of the very up-to-date work of Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, 3rd ed., 2000. Far less useful but still in the same genre lies the relevant chapter in Robert Ehrlich’s Nine Crazy Ideas in Science (2001) and of course Fox, op. cit. n. 9.

[5] The first three “proofs” are reported by J. Pickrell, “Faded Stars Get New Role: Hubble Takes a Long Look” and R. Cowen, “Sharper Images: New Hubble Camera Goes the Distance,” Science News 161 (May 4, 2002), pp. 277-78. The other facts are described by Parker, op. cit., n. 2, pp. 96-101.

[6] e.g. J. Glanz, in Science, vol. 282, 1998, pp. 2156-7; Idit Zehavi and Avishai Dekel, in Nature, no. 6750, 1999, pp. 252-4.

[7] e.g. G. Goldhaber, et al. Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-band Light Curves (2001).

[8] cf. Science News, May 6, 2000, p. 294.

[9] See Karen Fox, The Big Bang Theory: What It Is, Where It Came From, and Why it Works, 2002, pp. 152-7. Brane theory fits superstring theory better than Inflation, and makes all the same predictions but one: different features in the gravity wave background, which we will probably not be able to measure for decades. See: J.R. Minkel & George Musser, “A Recycled Universe: Crashing branes and cosmic acceleration may power an infinite cycle in which our universe is but a phase,” Scientific American (March 2002), pp. 25-26. See also: “When Branes Collide: Stringing together a new theory for the origin of the universe,” Science News 160:12 (Sept. 22, 2001), pp. 184-5.

[10] John Boslough, Masters of Time, 1992, p. 223.

[11] e.g. Hoyle and Burbidge, “A Different Approach to Cosmology,” Physics Today, April 1999, pp. 38, 41. Their theory predicts a blackbody metallic dust as the source of the microwave background, and unexpected metallic dust has indeed been found in intergalactic voids (J. Michael Shull, “Intergalactic Pollution,” Nature, 2 July, 1998, p.17-19; Lennox Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, “Heavy-element enrichment in low-density regions of the intergalactic medium,” ibid., pp. 44-6). Another theory is Hannes Alfvén’s “plasma theory,” which is given at least a nod of respect by the science community: cf. Boslough, op. cit., n. 10, and Anthony Peratt, “Not with a Bang,” The Sciences, January/February, 1990. Fox also agrees that this makes all the same predictions as Big Bang theory with fewer difficulties, and has yet to be falsified by experiment or observation (op. cit., n. 9, pp. 133-4). Her one objection (“we must be at the very center of a matter…region of the universe”) operates on the mistaken assumption that such a region would be exactly as small as the visible universe: if these regions are trillions of lightyears across, we need be nowhere near the center of ours. It is also a known fact that such a glow would be created by, as Boslough puts it, “the continuous emission and absorption of electrons by the strong magnetic fields” of galaxies and their intergalactic filaments–fields and filaments recently proved to exist. However, as intriguing as these theories are, all the evidence taken together still more strongly supports the Big Bang interpretation.

[12] cf. Fox, op. cit., n. 9, pp. 150-2.

[13] Science News, July 25, 1998, p. 55 (cf. also January 10, 1998, p. 20): “maps of the far-infrared background glow had already demonstrated that visible-light images drastically underestimate the amount of star formation,” and based on submillimeter photography, “at early times in the universe, stars were born at a rate five times higher than visible-light studies have indicated,” etc. Also: J.K Webb, et al., “A High Deuterium Abundance at Redshift z=0.7,” Nature, 17 July, 1997, pp. 250-2: finds far more hydrogen isotopes than there should be; and J. Michael Shull, Lennox Cowie and Antoinette Songaila show there are far more heavy elements strewn throughout the intergalactic voids than anyone thought (Shull, op. cit. n. 11); and Ron Cowen, “All Aglow in the Early Universe,” Science News, May 27, 2000, pp. 348-50: “most of the light emitted by the very first galaxies in the cosmos is much too dim to be seen today. Objects that were bright long ago appear faint now, and less brilliant objects are entirely invisible,” p. 349.

[15] P.  de Bernardis, et al., “A Flat Universe from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation,” Nature, 27 April, 2000, pp.  955-9.  These results (from BOOMERANG) have been confirmed by a second balloon probe (MAXIMA), cf. Science News, June 3, 2000, p. 363.

[16] Riccardo Giovanelli, “Less Expansion, More Agreement,” Nature, 8 July, 1999, pp. 111-2. The “constant” lies in the range of 66-70 km/sMpc, which was not good news, for “values…above 60 have the embarrassing feature of yielding an age for the Universe since the Big Bang that is exceeded by the oldest stars in our Galaxy” unless the expansion is accelerating, and as it happens, it is. Further research has made both observations indisputable: cf. “Age of the Universe: A New Determination” Science News 160:17 (October 27, 2001), p. 261. It is 95% certain that the universe cannot be more than 14.5 billion years old (and that is the uppermost limit–its probable age is only 14 billion). This research also demonstrated that the hubble constant cannot be less than 55 and is probably around 72. See L. Knox, N. Christensen, & C. Skordis, “The Age of the Universe and the Cosmological Constant Determined from Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurements,” updated Feb. 2002.

[17] This is the firm result of the Two Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey, cf. Science News, June 10, 2000, p. 374.

[18] “Physics Bedrock Cracks, Sun Shines In,” Science News 159:25 (23 June 2001). See also n. 21 and: “Laboratory measurements and limits for neutrino properties“; Super-Kamiokande at UC Irvine and New Results from Neutrino Oscillations Experiment.

[19] Peter Coles, “Cosmology–An unprincipled Universe?” Nature 391: 120-121 (8 Jan. 1998).

[20] Wane Hu, Nature, 17 April, 2000, pp. 939-40. Cf. also, Ron Cowen, “A Cosmic Crisis? Dark Doings in the Universe,” Science News 160:15 (Oct. 13, 2001), pp. 234-6). Cf. also Science News, June 7, 1997, pp. 354-5.

[21] Peter Weiss, “Double or Nothing: Physicists bet the neutrino’s its own eerie twin,” Science News 162:1 (6 July 2002), pp. 10-12.

originally found at https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html