Pre-Big Bang??? Roger Penrose causing trouble again

kennyc · 11-28-2010, 11:39 AM

Here he goes again

Cosmic rebirth
Circular patterns in the universe's pervasive background radiation suggest the Big Bang was only the latest of many.....

Here is the Science News version:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...Cosmic_rebirth

BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869

and the actual published paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

I've never had much faith in him since he attacked the Cognitive Science community with his Emperor's New Mind. He was totally out of his area and it caused all kinds of problems. While this is more in his realm (he's actually more of a mathematician than anything) I suspect he's probably off base here as well and is just grappling for some publicity.

My (total non-scientific) take on this is that if these circular anomalies exist as described they are likely due to some measurement or instrument error. The Science News article in particular takes a very "arms-length" position.

v1k1ng1001 · 12-03-2010, 05:52 PM

There is a creative dimension to the abductive logic that drives scientific inquiry. If we don't have folks cooking up crazy hypotheses every now and then we might as well give up on the idea of scientific revolution. If I am remembering correctly, Kepler himself parsed through 22 hypotheses--some of them completely insane--over 20 years in an attempt to explain Tycho Brahe's meticulously kept data. Abduction often calls for moments of irrational transition between two paradigms. It is only after a paradigm shift that successful science entrenches itself, in part, by retrospectively concealing the irrational moment in a narrative that makes it seem as if the progressive shift between paradigms was completely rational.

I suppose what I'm saying is that, in order to harbor a Galileo, Newton or Einstein, we must also be prepared to harbor all the relative failures of their generation. In other words, theoretical diversity in science should be encouraged no matter how insane it seems!

kennyc · 12-03-2010, 05:55 PM

Oh absolutely there is a creative aspect to science -- in the creation of the hypothesis -- but then it falls to the scientific method to evaluate. This "Paper" of Penrose's has not been through the peer review much less the scientific process.

pholy · 12-03-2010, 10:45 PM

Come, now! Does Penrose have any peers?

11-28-2010, 11:39 AM	#1
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,891 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	Pre-Big Bang??? Roger Penrose causing trouble again Here he goes again Cosmic rebirth Circular patterns in the universe's pervasive background radiation suggest the Big Bang was only the latest of many..... Here is the Science News version: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...Cosmic_rebirth BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869 and the actual published paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706 I've never had much faith in him since he attacked the Cognitive Science community with his Emperor's New Mind. He was totally out of his area and it caused all kinds of problems. While this is more in his realm (he's actually more of a mathematician than anything) I suspect he's probably off base here as well and is just grappling for some publicity. My (total non-scientific) take on this is that if these circular anomalies exist as described they are likely due to some measurement or instrument error. The Science News article in particular takes a very "arms-length" position. Last edited by kennyc; 11-28-2010 at 11:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mini big bang created in LHC	ShortNCuddlyAm	Lounge	4	11-12-2010 09:13 PM
Mini Big Bang at LHC --	kennyc	Lounge	3	11-12-2010 09:00 PM
Mystery and Crime Freeman, R Austin: The Penrose Mystery V1.1 2007-06-19	JSWolf	BBeB/LRF Books	8	10-09-2009 05:43 PM
Road to Reality by Roger Penrose	JRAWKER	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	13	02-27-2007 12:25 AM
big trouble. iLiad doesn't start	Mike Kostousov	iRex	6	01-20-2007 09:27 AM

12-03-2010, 05:52 PM	#2
v1k1ng1001 Addict Posts: 378 Karma: 1624276 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South, South Texas Device: Pocketbook 620	There is a creative dimension to the abductive logic that drives scientific inquiry. If we don't have folks cooking up crazy hypotheses every now and then we might as well give up on the idea of scientific revolution. If I am remembering correctly, Kepler himself parsed through 22 hypotheses--some of them completely insane--over 20 years in an attempt to explain Tycho Brahe's meticulously kept data. Abduction often calls for moments of irrational transition between two paradigms. It is only after a paradigm shift that successful science entrenches itself, in part, by retrospectively concealing the irrational moment in a narrative that makes it seem as if the progressive shift between paradigms was completely rational. I suppose what I'm saying is that, in order to harbor a Galileo, Newton or Einstein, we must also be prepared to harbor all the relative failures of their generation. In other words, theoretical diversity in science should be encouraged no matter how insane it seems!

12-03-2010, 05:55 PM	#3
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,891 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	Oh absolutely there is a creative aspect to science -- in the creation of the hypothesis -- but then it falls to the scientific method to evaluate. This "Paper" of Penrose's has not been through the peer review much less the scientific process.

12-03-2010, 10:45 PM	#4
pholy Booklegger Posts: 1,801 Karma: 7999816 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Device: BeBook(1 & 2010), PEZ, PRS-505, Kobo BT, PRS-T1, Playbook, Kobo Touch	Come, now! Does Penrose have any peers?

Advert