i cannot understand everything (far from it) but here is the part where I believe is an alternative explanation for the CMB :
Equations (2.38), (2.39), (2.40), and (2.53) all illustrate that the creation rate of particles with energies larger than the inverse expansion time, ρ, is exponentially suppressed. Parker [11] has noted that these exponential factor are similar to those which appear in thermal spectrum at finite temperature.
So unfortunately the article they reference by Parker is paywalled. I have access but can’t share it easily. The article is essentially the foundation of quantum field theory in curved space time - in other words the genesis of the standard cosmological model. Cosmological particle production in an expanding universe isn’t an alternative to the Big Bang, it’s an essential part of it.
May I take another route and ask you what you know about the history of science … about paradigm shifts … and about how people very knowledgeable on the current paradigm cannot see (most of times historicaly) that a paradigm shift is about to happen ?
how people very knowledgeable on the current paradigm cannot see (most of times historicaly) that a paradigm shift is about to happen ?
I’m not sure I’d agree with that assessment. Generally a new model or understanding of physics arises because of known shortcomings in the current model. Quantum physics is the classic example that resolved a number of open problems at the time: the ultraviolet catastrophe in black body radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the interference pattern of the double slit experiment, among others. In the years leading up to the development of quantum theory, it was clear to everyone active in physics that something was missing from the current understanding of Newtonian/classical physics. Obviously it wasn’t clear what the solution was until it came about, but it was obvious that a shift was coming.
The same thing happened again with electroweak unification%20and%20the%20weak%20interaction.) and the standard model of particle physics. There were known problems with the previous standard model Lagrangian, but it took a unique mathematical approach to resolve many of them.
Generally research focuses on things that are unknown or can’t be explained by our current understanding of physics. The review article you linked, for example, details open questions and contradictory observations/predictions in the state of the art.
We are discussing here in a community dedicated to science and clearly I have to acknowledge that your arguments here are much better than mine 😆 and that you are very knowledgeable in the current paradigm of science.
Unfortunately for me, there is no community at Lemmy dedicated to the history of science where “very knowledgeable on the current paradigm” would be so telling for historians knowledgeable in this field.
Unfortunately for me, there is no community at Lemmy dedicated to the history of science
I agree! The history of science is often even more interesting since you get both the science and the personalities of all the people involved, plus the occasional world war in the mix. It’s a shame there isn’t an “askhistorians” type community here.
There isn’t a link in your post, but it looks like you’re referring to this preprint. The article has been published in a peer reviewed journal paywall warning.
This is a review article, so it isn’t proposing anything new and is instead giving a summary of the current state of the field. These sorts of articles are typically written by someone who is deeply familiar with the subject. They’re also super useful if you’re learning about a new area - think of them as a short, relatively up-to-date textbook.
I’m not sure how you’re interpreting this review as an alternative to the standard model of cosmology and the Big Bang. Everything is pretty standard quantum field theory. The only mention of the CMB is in regards to the possibility that gravitons in the early universe would leave detectable signatures (anisotropies and polarization). They aren’t proposing an alternative production mechanism for the CMB.
Haha it’s in the title: “Cosmological Particle Production: A Review”. Also the journal it was published in is for review articles: Reports on Progress in Physics. Mostly though the abstract promises to give a review of the subject.
Another indication is its lengthy (28 pages) with tons of citations throughout. If someone is doing new work, citations will mostly be in the introduction and discussion sections.
It is important to remember that, unless accompanied by convincing evidence for selective advantage, any single inheritable trait is more likely to have arisen from genetic drift, not from natural selection! There is, in my opinion, too much focus on conversation about superficial phenotypic traits like “shape of the nose” this and “angle of the eye” that, all the arguments about how one is better than another. Could the asiatic epicanthic fold give advantage against icy winds? Maaaybe… But it doesn’t even have to. What about the asiatic dry earwax gene? You’d struggle to even come up with a story of how dry earwax or wet earwax is actually better under certain conditions, or you could just say “it’s a single nucleotide polymorphism that could have spread by genetic drift” and be done.
Very few human traits have definitely been naturally selected for: light skin in non-sunny climates for better vitamin D production, sickle cell gene for malaria resistance, lactase persistence for animal milk consumption. Even there, the estimated selective advantage is actually much smaller than you’d expect: lactose tolerance confers only something like 1% advantage! There are many more possible neutral mutations than advantageous ones, and each one has a chance to be fixed in the entire population by genetic drift, meaning that any widespread human trait that is less clearly advantageous than lactose tolerance is more likely to be neutral than advantageous at all.
Even mildly disadvantageous mutations can be fixed by genetic drift, especially in humans since we have had many bottlenecks and founder effects. There was an area in Appalachia populated by blue-skinned people due to founder effect. No one is going to try to argue how having blue skin was actually advantageous for them to blend into their environment! There is an area in Dominican Republic with a very high rate of children born intersex, again due to a founder effect mutation. They are not considered exceptional and live normal lives as their culture has adapted to treat them as routine, as a kind of third gender. But they are not some kind of new level of human evolution, an adaptation for an intersectional era!
The only mutations that definitely cannot spread by genetic drift are those that definitely kill you.
askscience
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.