Hi,

I found this scientific paper that I believe is very well supported and is for me the most satisfying new cosmological development I ever read.

Cosmological Particle Production: A Review
(2021 December 7 // @ arXiv…)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.02444.pdf

… the way I read it, it provides an alternative explanation for the cosmological microwave background (CMB) and an alternative for the Big Bang.

  • A_A@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Thanks for your input.

    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 ?

    • count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • A_A@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Thanks again for your time and consideration.

        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.

        • count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 days ago

          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.