{"id":66,"date":"2011-02-02T01:01:17","date_gmt":"2011-02-02T08:01:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/?p=66"},"modified":"2025-12-09T13:37:39","modified_gmt":"2025-12-09T21:37:39","slug":"iau-not-interested-in-big-bang","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/iau-not-interested-in-big-bang\/","title":{"rendered":"News: International Astronomical Union has no Definition for Big Bang"},"content":{"rendered":"

IAU has no Definition for Big Bang<\/strong><\/h2>\n

(c) copyright 2011 David Dilworth<\/p>\n

\"3<\/a>

3 Quarks Daily Semi-Finalist Logo<\/p><\/div>\n

“…the [Big Bang] definition is a mess.” – Prof. P. James E. Peebles<\/a>, Princeton University, Feb. 2011<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

News: (Carmel, California) The world’s most widely respected astrophysics organization, the <\/a>International Astronomical Union (or IAU)<\/a>, has affirmed that it has no definition for any Big Bang model.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\""IAU\"<\/a><\/p>\n

At the same time the world’s most cited cosmologist, Princeton’s Professor P. James E. Peebles<\/strong>, says that the Standard Cosmology Model’s “definition is a mess<\/em><\/strong>.”<\/p>\n

\"Prof

Prof P.J.E. Peebles<\/p><\/div>\n

Prof. P. James E. Peebles<\/strong>, Princeton University (Awarded 2019 Physics Nobel Prize for his cosmology work), recently wrote (1) —<\/p>\n

\u201cThe name Big Bang is a very poor choice because it suggests a moment of time \u2014 a bang \u2014 and maybe also a place \u2014 where the bang occurred. Neither is part of the reasonably well tested theory of the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state to what we see around us. But the name has stuck, so I have stopped boycotting it<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n

“As you see the definition is a mess. The connotation to me is the relativistic theory of the expansion of the universe.<\/strong>“<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Big Bang<\/a> was chastised recently for its lack of a complete, unambiguous definition by my paper “Ground Rules for Cosmological Physics<\/a>” (http:\/\/adsabs.harvard.edu\/abs\/2009ASPC..413..128D).<\/p>\n

(Lack of an adequate definition is a logical fallacy called an Exclusion or Ambiguity Fallacy when the definition can have multiple meanings. “Equivocation \/ Ambiguity: The fallacy of failing to define one’s terms.<\/a>“)<\/p>\n

“As of 2009 we have no agreed upon unambiguous<\/u>, testable definition of Big Bang or Inflation models.”<\/p>\n

“A related serious problem with the \u201cBig Bang\u201d claim is that there is no . . . one central repository for its definition.”<\/p>\n

“It would be a big improvement to Big Bang\u2019s credibility to have one official place where its definition is kept, similar to how NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)<\/a> is used for measurements.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So in search of a d<\/u>efinitive d<\/u>efinition of Big Bang<\/a> (2) and inspired by the thoughtful suggestion of San Diego State’s Andrew Young<\/a> that IAU is a reasonable place to maintain such a definition, I wrote to IAU’s Cosmology Commission<\/a> asking that they consider providing one. IAU confirmed that as of February 2011 they have no definition for Big Bang.<\/p>\n

“. . . the IAU has not provided a definition of the Big Bang.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

IAU’s Cosmology Commission<\/a> VP, Brian Schmidt, added his personal opinion<\/u> that it might stretch the Commission’s mission more than a bit to do so. He suggested that —<\/p>\n

“Big Bang is a broad concept under which many different ideas of the early Universe reside. It is not a physical object like a Planet, nor is it a constant of Nature”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

and that<\/p>\n

“there is no precedent for our commission defining broad theoretical concepts such as the Big Bang.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Commentary<\/strong>:<\/u><\/p>\n

I find IAU’s position eminently reasonable. It indicates, perhaps dramatizes, a fundamental problem Big Bang models<\/a> have with basic astrophysics science; that currently Big Bang is too ambiguous to be a scientific hypothesis.<\/a><\/p>\n

This does not necessarily mean that individual components of the standard model are inadequately defined. For example, the Spectral line Redshift-to-Distance correlation<\/a> claim does adequately meet all the criteria or conditions for a valid hypothesis<\/a>. However, it does mean that the overall “Big Bang<\/a>” concept does not yet meet scientific muster.<\/p>\n

An analogy I use to illustrate this problem is how getting a Driver’s License requires you to complete an application form<\/a> – before you can take the driving test.<\/p>\n

In my view, Big Bang<\/a> is just like an incomplete application — until the idea is adequately defined (until the form is filled in<\/a>), meeting the minimum for a scientific claim<\/a>, it simply cannot claim to hold the status of a scientific hypothesis or theory<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Cart<\/a>

Cart Before the Horse<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n

To debate evidence before a scientific concept has a clear, meaningful, unambiguous definition — is the equivalent of “putting the cart before the horse.<\/strong>”<\/p>\n

Burden on Inventor – Not on Skeptic<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As I also try to point out in the paper — the responsibility of defining a scientific claim is on the proponent – not on the skeptics. This means the burden of defining Big Bang is on its supporters.<\/a> Once a scientific hypothesis<\/a> is adequately defined, then the burden of dispute is properly placed on a skeptic.<\/p>\n

Reversing the burden to a skeptic, without a complete definition, is another logical fallacy called Shifting the Burden of Proof. “A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his\/her own argument.<\/a>”<\/p>\n

Hypothesis and Definitions Needed – Not History<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

A simple web search echoes the inescapable notion reached by my years of reviewing more than a hundred Cosmology books and hundreds of cosmology papers — that most Big Bang “definitions” are in reality almost exclusively a history<\/strong><\/em> of the idea rather than a scientific definition for a hypothesis<\/a>; the Wikipedia entry<\/a> is an example.<\/p>\n

So, until a credible body or a paper provides a complete definitive definition of Big Bang — here are some resources that could help. Yet even when combined these remain incomplete as a scientific hypothesis<\/a>:<\/p>\n

1. Prof. P. James E. Peebles provides what is probably considered the best available narrative description of the science of facets of the standard model in his 1993 book “Principles of Physical Cosmology.”<\/a> It provides a coherent, internally consistent description with abundant detail (and all the necessary math), but does not include a complete concise high level definition.<\/p>\n

2. “The Standard Model” also by Prof. Peebles (1998)<\/a><\/p>\n

3. “The Future of the Universe” by Fred Adams and Gregory Laughlin (Sky and Telescope Oct., 2000) is an excellent timeline<\/strong><\/em> of one<\/u> of the many Big Bang models, but does not really provide a definition.<\/p>\n

4. I provide an overview (math-free) definition of the many Big Bang models here — Big Bang definition<\/a>, but it is also incomplete – because I can’t find the needed answers for all the parameters – and I’ve looked hard and long.<\/p>\n

Mistaken for Hypothesis: While some have suggested LCDM models (Lambda Cold Dark Matter models – adjustable versions of Big Bang)<\/a> are complete scientific hypotheses, even if they were, those same advocates acknowledge that no LCDM model is a complete definition for Big Bang<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, LCDM models have fundamental definition problems of their own<\/a>, explained in my paper “Ground Rules for Cosmological Physics<\/a>” and the article “Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

LCDM model problems include a failure to define “space<\/a>” or even estimate the number of intergalactic photon-matter interactions per year (PMIY).<\/p>\n

Part 2 of this article is the new (Feb 24, 2011) “Physical Cosmology Hypothesis Application Form<\/a>“.<\/p>\n

I welcome your suggestions for how to come up with a definitive definition of Big Bang.<\/p>\n

Best wishes,
\n-David Dilworth
\nCosmologyScience.com<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

Notes and References:<\/p>\n

1. Personal communication (Feb 2011)
\n2. “Definitive Definition for Big Bang” could be abbreviated to D2<\/sup>B2<\/sup>.
\n3. “Poof, There It Is Theory<\/a>”<\/p>\n

Further reading:<\/p>\n

The Burden of Skepticism by Carl Sagan<\/a><\/p>\n

The Scientific Method, A helpful guide by Science Made Simple<\/a><\/p>\n

How to Write a Science Fair Hypothesis<\/a><\/p>\n

Hypothesis<\/a><\/p>\n

Learn More About the Scientific Method<\/a><\/p>\n

Update 1 (June 2011): This article was just nominated for the “3 Quarks Daily 2011 Science Article Prize” ! (What an honor – because there are some really fascinating articles nominated<\/u>.) If you would like to review the whole set of nominated articles click here : http:\/\/www.3quarksdaily.com\/3quarksdaily\/the-nominees-for-the-2011-3qd-prize-in-science-are-.html<\/a><\/p>\n

\"3<\/a>

3 Quarks Daily Semi-Finalist Logo<\/p><\/div>\n

Update 2 (June 10, 2011): I am delighted and honored to report that this article was voted the 3rd most popular science article making it a semi-finalist in the “3 Quarks Daily Prize” contest<\/a> on June 10, 2011. Only three of the 87 (fabulous) science articles received 100 or more votes. Thanks to you readers, colleagues and friends this article was one of those three.<\/p>\n

Update 3 (June 10, 2011): Due to another article incorrectly describing and disputing this one I’m providing “Article on Big Bang\u2019s Inadequate Definition Disputed \u2013 But Article Emerges Unscathed”<\/a> to correct that other article’s errors.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IAU has no Definition for Big Bang (c) copyright 2011 David Dilworth “…the [Big Bang] definition is a mess.” – Prof. P. James E. Peebles, Princeton University, Feb. 2011 News: (Carmel, California) The world’s most widely respected astrophysics organization, the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":3,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[13,4,16,15],"tags":[67,133,132,134,131],"class_list":["post-66","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-basic-science","category-big-bang","category-contest","category-education","tag-big-bang","tag-definitions","tag-iau","tag-international-astronomical-union","tag-lcdm"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7688,"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66\/revisions\/7688"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmologyscience.com\/cosblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}