|
Science Based Cosmology Overview (c) Copyright 2008-2010 David Dilworth Science Based Cosmology is limited to ideas which meet the minimum criteria for a scientific claim. |
||
|
Cosmology is the study of the largest scale structures and dynamics of our universe.
|
Our universe's largest known structures are called Filaments, Supercluster complexes, Lyman Alpha (gas) Blobs, Voids, Walls, and Bubbles. Some of them appear as large as 3.5 billion light years across. That's about a quarter of the distance to the farthest objects we can see and some 35,000 times larger than our Milky Way galaxy. How these structures move and change shape are some of the dynamics. Cosmology involves the study of phenomena including redshifts, galaxy surface brightness to distance ratios, diffuse millimeter radiation, supernova rise and decay curves, gamma ray burst dilation, galaxy rotation curves, Olbers paradox, and light element abundances. As of today these are measured only by observing the wavelengths, brightness, location and polarization of their "light" and how these change over time. Cosmology includes the study of ideas, models and theories which do not have a beginning as well as those that do. |
|
|
"Science based Cosmology" is limited to ideas which meet the minimum criteria for a scientific claim -
|
While ordinary conversations can use the words "theory" and "hypothesis" nonchalantly, science has strict limits on the use of those terms.
This does not mean we cannot imagine, speculate or suggest new ideas, only that if we want those ideas to be evaluated as scientific, they must meet the minimums required for a scientific claim. We can refer to ideas which do not meet these simple criteria as "models," conjectures, concepts or stories. The "Big Bang" concept, often called "the Standard Model 1," does not yet meet the minimum threshold for a scientific claim. |
|
|
The Burden of Proof is on the proponent of a claim (such as the Big Bang model) - not on a skeptic. |
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence." - Carl Sagan While this is not strictly correct (all scientific claims require the same threshold amount and quality of repeatable evidence from testing), it nevertheless dramatizes that in science the proponent of an idea, not a skeptic, is responsible for providing clear, unambiguous claims for the idea, all necessary definitions, the evidence and rationale. |
|
|
Definitions |
Superclusters are a concentration of galaxies; large groups of smaller galaxy groups. The Shapley Supercluster is the largest one we recognize situated about 600-650 million light years from us. Filaments are paths of galaxies forming the boundary between two voids. They are the largest known structures and contain almost all the galaxies. Voids (and Supervoids) are large volumes of space with very few or no galaxies. The largest known void is about 3.5 billion light years across. Lyman Alpha Blobs are huge volumes of gas as large as 400,000 light years across. Walls are filaments which are significantly (that's ambiguous) larger along their largest axis than their second largest axis. The largest reported is the "Great Wall" at about 750 million light years long. |
|
|
Cosmology fascinates me because of the many amazing natural phenomena beyond our planet. The Geller and Huchra video showing 3D structure of bubbles, voids and filaments captivated my curiosity. So when invited to take a 4000 level Cosmology physics class at the Naval Postgraduate school - I jumped at the chance. While I can crawl through a fair bit of math, I am not one of the handful who can claim complete command of all the higher level math used by Cosmology Theorists. However, after studying more than a hundred Cosmology books and many hundreds of papers I believe I have a pretty good grasp of most cosmology dynamics and principles and whether they meet the minimum thresholds for a scientific claim. You will be the judge of whether I can clearly explain all this for the heart of this website -- the (almost math-free) non-superficial science-based Cosmology Glossary that is intended to demystify Cosmology principles (and jargon) and give you references for further information. * Fully appreciating how some might consider this blasphemy ;-) it is this author's opinion -- that in the same way that you can successfully drive a car without needing to understand the math of vehicle dynamics, it is similarly not necessary to understand the many fields of higher mathematics to understand Cosmology's principles, dynamics, and physics. It is not difficult to appreciate how some cosmological ideas are way outside the scientific method's clear and widely agreed upon boundaries, sometimes contradicting fundamental physics or "prematurely" reversing the Burden of Proof away from their own claims before providing a complete (clear and unambiguous) hypothesis. It still stuns me when cosmologists (on both sides of the Big Bang debate) argue that, instead of examining alternatives to their own ideas, the boundaries of science should be "loosened up" or that fundamental physics don't apply to their ideas. I was chosen to give a talk on this website's subject at a 2008 conference and the associated paper was published in 2009. In part, this website is intended to give you a look at what parts of cosmology are reasonably categorized as science, and to unemotionally separate them from the science-fiction claims. The second list is uncomfortably long. People often ask - How did cosmology get so far off track? I don't know, but here is a clue that guides my guess. In spite of being widely despised, the US legal profession has a surprisingly good process to insure its students get critical thinking training and testing - yet I am ashamed to report that my chosen field of science does not. If you are familiar with the LSAT (Law School Admission Test) which really does require critical thinking, and then realize there is nothing remotely resembling this for science - you might understand. Reflect back on your own schooling. Did you ever have a formal class that covered why math must not be confused with physical reality; or the dramatic difference between a hypothesis (or theory) and a conjecture; how one test is worth 1,000 expert opinions; that a model should not be confused with a hypothesis; or just the mere outline of the scientific method? An overwhelming number of scientists answer "no." Perhaps this is why so many Astrophysicists agree with the observation I call (with tongue firmly in cheek) Dilworth's Hyper-Certainty Principle (the less data - the stronger the advocacy). This is a gentle way of leading up to a big "opportunity," of saying that in the US we really don't teach the scientific method or the criteria for a hypothesis. Richard Feynman once gave a Brazilian University commencement talk with the theme "No science is being taught in Brazil." I believe the problem is more widespread and far deeper than that - yet is easily fixed. Using the LSAT as a model for a standardized Science test is a good start. We can, we should and we must work to have all students, particularly students of science, understand the scientific method and why it is valuable to their lives and our futures. -David Dilworth PS I welcome corrections and suggestions for improvements for this website, and of course - science humor. |
||
|
References and Notes 1. The most cited author of Big Bang concepts, Princeton's P.J. Peebles does not refer to the "Big Bang" as a "theory," he correctly calls it a "model." Many popular authors ignore this important distinction. _________ |
||
|
This website and its contents are © Copyright 2008-2010 David j Dilworth. All rights are reserved worldwide (and throughout our Milky Way Galaxy). David Dilworth is one of only a handful of lifetime members of the organization Committee for Scientific Inquiry (formerly known as CSICOP). David occasionally provides Science repair services as a Quantum Mechanic. His 2009 paper "Ground Rules for Cosmological Physics" was published by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in the 2008 Cosmology Conference "CCC2" Proceedings. | Home | References | Glossary | News | 831 / 624-6500 – P.O. Box 100, Carmel, California 93921 |
||