TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Filmed interview with Georges Lemaître, 'father of the Big Bang,' rediscovered

110 点作者 jhncls大约 2 年前

6 条评论

xyzelement大约 2 年前
I was just thinking about Lemaitre as an example of the power of combining religious and scientific approaches.<p>As a scientist, he was undoubtedly educated on the idea that the universe had no beginning. But as a Catholic priest, he must have deeply believed in the moment of Creation as described in Genesis.<p>Perhaps, without his faith he would not have been &quot;looking&quot; for the moment of creation in the data, and would not have conceptualized the Big Bang. An atheist scientist may have missed this.<p>It&#x27;s interesting to consider this in context of many scientists to whom we owe our understanding of the universe having been deeply religious (beyond what was normal during their eras.) An obvious another example is Newton, who probed theology deeply enough to arrive at what may even have been considered heretical views at the time.<p>My theory is that Religion is about the deep desire to understand and connect with the Creator, and at its truest, so is Science.
评论 #35067779 未加载
评论 #35065005 未加载
评论 #35064627 未加载
photochemsyn大约 2 年前
nutshell:<p>&gt; &quot;Lemaître talks in great length about his rival Sir Fred Hoyle, an English physicist who was one of the best-known and fierce proponents of the Steady State model but who also accidentally coined the term &quot;Big Bang.&quot; Although he repeatedly calls out Hoyle for being wrong during the interview, Lemaître remarks that he has the &quot;greatest admiration&quot; for his colleague&#x27;s work.<p>&gt; Lemaître explains that the Steady State model could work only if the hydrogen required to make stars appeared &quot;like a ghost&quot; from nowhere, which he argued would go against the principle of conservation of energy, the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed from one type to another, which he described as &quot;basically the most secure and solid thing in physics.&quot;<p>&gt; &quot;Instead, Lemaître argues in the video, the expansion could be traced back to the &quot;disintegration of all existing matter into an atom,&quot; which created &quot;an expanding space filled by a plasma&quot; via a &quot;process that we can vaguely imagine.&quot;<p>I like the image presented by Iain M. Banks in Excession of &#x27;cosmic fireballs&#x27; generating successive Big Bangs one after the other in an infinite series to be kind of interesting, each one expanding outwards like concentric shells of an onion (in a sort of 2D model), resulting in a succession of stacked universes, not sure if that&#x27;s at all valid or plausible (timing seems to be an issue).
评论 #35065869 未加载
bugbuddy大约 2 年前
&gt; Lemaître explains that the Steady State model could work only if the hydrogen required to make stars appeared &quot;like a ghost&quot; from nowhere, which he argued would go against the principle of conservation of energy, the idea that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed from one type to another, which he described as &quot;basically the most secure and solid thing in physics.&quot;<p>Let’s assume that the premise of this rebuttal of Steady State is correct. So, let’s assume that Steady State is true if and only if hydrogen in the stars appear out of no where and thus breaking conservative of mass&#x2F;energy. Then, why should we accept the metaphysical explanations of the Big Bang’s source of energy and mass? Where did all the mass and energy for the Big Bang come from? Was it always there to begin with?<p>The Big Bang theory itself has many other problems that the mainstream scientific community continue to ignore and paper over. The latest evidence from the latest deep space telescope do not sit well with established science. They will not be able the hide the non-cosmological redshift skeleton for much longer.
评论 #35067529 未加载
评论 #35067750 未加载
superb-owl大约 2 年前
I wrote a bit about the competition between Lemaitre’s Big Bang and the (much more popular at the time) steady state model here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;superbowl.substack.com&#x2F;i&#x2F;89208051&#x2F;the-physics-of-time" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;superbowl.substack.com&#x2F;i&#x2F;89208051&#x2F;the-physics-of-tim...</a>
评论 #35065580 未加载
评论 #35064782 未加载
dmix大约 2 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;O4toGaR1CuI" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;O4toGaR1CuI</a>
Vecr大约 2 年前
Pretty great, I read the translation on arxiv.org[0] and he said that at the start of the universe there was only one or a few quanta. I&#x27;m not sure how much information you can encode in that, probably not much, I would guess a couple kilobytes max? What I think he&#x27;s saying about God is that any initial &quot;push&quot; or change he did to the quanta can&#x27;t really control anything, so he would have to be in the universe in some other way or be able to control it from outside. I think I&#x27;m correct that all large structures in the universe came from when the universe was really hot&#x2F;high energy and small enough that quantum fluctuations in that state could expand with the universe to become very large. Even with the best possible predictions, a theoretical &quot;before universe&quot; (not that it makes sense) God probably could not do much of anything with control of those couple kilobytes of information. To clarify, earlier in the universe quantum fluctuations could cause bigger changes relative to the size of the universe because the universe and everything inside it gets bigger&#x2F;further apart as time goes on.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2301.07198.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2301.07198.pdf</a>