Hacker News Reader

Comment by absurdo | Hacker News Reader

I am going to nitpick this but I’ve come to expect this kind of posting style from medium, substack and others.

It has no coherent thesis, it throws way too many links, it uses meta titles that reference memes. The SNR is incredibly low for what should be a technical synopsis because the words get in the way of information.

What I want to see: I don’t care what you call it, “blowtorch” is meaningless. Tell me concretely what is it, what does it address, and how does the current widely accepted theory fail to account for certain things. I don’t need detours into minutae so the author can have their r/iamverysmart moment. I want to see the list of experiments with data points that validate hunches and disprove others. We can reduce it down to simpler terms for laymen if we start with good information. As it stands, it’s noise.

View on HN

It also made predictions about the early universe, in advance of the James Webb space telescope sending back any data:

https://theeggandtherock.substack.com/p/predictions-what-the...

And those predictions were later confirmed by the James Webb:

Https://theeggandtherock.com/p/killer-new-evidence-that-supermassive

Which is a data point worth pondering.

I'm not sure I agree. The first few sections are clear, concise, supported by links to observations you expect, and cover exactly what you say is missing:

> THE PROBLEM

> THE CURRENT, PASSIVE, ANSWER

> AN ALTERNATIVE, ACTIVE, ANSWER

> A MORE FRUGAL ANSWER

> SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE

Here's a direct link to that last section:

https://theeggandtherock.com/i/158515951/supportive-evidence

Edit: Alright, as I get further into the article I see more and more what you're mentioning...

> Edit: Alright, as I get further into the article I see more and more what you're mentioning...

I was waiting for this edit but didn’t want to be mean about it :-)

Appreciate your patience! :-)

This doesn't feel like a good faith engagement with the ideas presented in the theory.

> It has no coherent thesis

It's literally in the subtitle: How early, sustained, supermassive black hole jets carved out cosmic voids, shaped filaments, and generated magnetic fields

> it throws way too many links

It cites its sources and provides links to the referenced research or other writings on the subjects. I suspect if it didn't do this, that might be a criticism as well?

> it uses meta titles that reference memes

Alternatively, it could've been written in the jargon of a specific subfield of science that very few people understand, but that doesn't seem like the most effective way of sharing ideas across broad audiences.

Everything you've asked for in the last paragraph is provided in the article you're discrediting, which makes it clear you didn't read it. Ostensibly, this is because the "words get in the way of information," but I'm not sure how the ideas being explored here could be expressed using only pictures and mathematical formulas.

Perhaps you could explain why you feel alternatives to the "widely accepted" theory that fails to accurately model cosmology as we're observing it aren't worth being explored? Or maybe what specific format those ideas should be expressed that don't involve too many words for people to have to read?

>aren't worth being explored

There is no math in this article. In the fields of physics, how else do you explore an idea other than building models to test if those ideas hold any water?

I missed the part where Gough claimed to be a mathematician.

How do you propose we get to a mathematical model or testable simulation without considering the theory first? Must all theories be mathematically complete before they're presented to the world?

Without math, a physical theory is not a theory, it's just a story, a speculative hypothesis at best.

Okay, let's call it a speculative hypothesis. What do you think of it? Or each part separately, if you prefer. Could it be something worth pursuing to see if the math works out?

I think if someone thinks it’s interesting they can throw money at it to hire physicists to explore the idea properly. Everyone has a substack. I’m not even saying that there needs to be a peer reviewed article. But if you could build a simulation that could be used to test the hypothesis and throw that on GitHub then others could play around with the ideas. Currently that’s not possible but seems like an obvious next step when trying to convince others of the idea. It would also allow you to explore the failure modes in the theory because that’s something that’s hard to do when you are constructing thought experiments of your pet theory. Because that’s all this really is, there’s no application [1] to cosmology except our understanding of large scale evolution of the universe. So it’s just bragging rights that others accept your explanation.

1. I suppose there could be some kind of high concept sci-fi rigmarole that could be arrived at via cosmology or perhaps it could inform exotic material construction in particle accelerators or something like that. I suppose by “application” I mean something more down to earth like building a new kind of computer, solving climate change, producing a fusion reactor, etc.

I see what you're saying, and I appreciate your thoughtful response.

I'll admit, I tend to get excited by things and lean into them harder than what most people do. However, I've taken time to consider WHY I'm so excited by this theory, and I believe it's because it has the feel to me of a solid idea that just needs the weight of the scientific community behind it.

String theory is some impressive math, and it's usefulness for practical applications really only extends as much as to say that "math is useful." If it offers predictive or explanatory powers, they're far beyond my layperson's understanding, as I can't conceptualize any part of it in a way that I apply to the world I observe. I'm not saying we don't need string theory by any means, but I do feel that CNS (and Gough's additions to it) offer more in that regard, and the postulates of the theory should be examined and tested thoroughly as a result.

I guess what I'm saying is it's not some crazy idea a wacky writer had while working on a sci-fi book. It's not some CTMU nonsense that requires its own language and mental gymnastics to process. It's applying principles we've learned in other sciences to cosmology in an attempt to understand the structure we see at all levels and to explain why the fundamental constants are what they are. Smolin presents the idea within the framework of science and society in a fascinating way, while Gough presents it the way you'd expect a writer to, so it's got even more human scent all over it, but I don't believe that should be discrediting in any way.

In your opinion, what would be the best way for Gough -- as a novelist -- to get enough experts onboard with the idea to put in the requisite research and development of the idea so that it can be improved to the level this audience is suggesting it should be? And how should he do that in a way that doesn't draw the immediate and reflexive derisive snort we've seen from this crowd?

Thanks again for responding! I really do appreciate the opposing perspective!

Today's theories are constrained by so much observational data that an idea sounding "solid" or plausible at first glance just isn't enough. There are many plausible ideas that have been and are being tried all the time. The proof is in the pudding, however, which is the math. You have to show that the physical model actually predicts what we observe in quantitative terms, and is in better accordance with the observational data than the existing established theories. If you can do that, great. Otherwise, mere ideas don't yet amount to much.

See, I think that's where things just need to be cleaned up and pieced together here. Dr. Priyamvada Natarajan (https://physics.yale.edu/people/priyamvada-natarajan) proved mathematically that direct-collapse SMBH in the early cosmos is possible, which Gough mentions and links to. But I agree that these elements need to be assembled into a larger, cohesive model that can be studied and ran through simulations.

However, the question remains as to how to gather experts and convince them to work towards this without some sort of ideation phase, which is, to my understanding, the phase this work is currently being presented as. A "Hey Science, come look at this, please!" invitation.

The way you convince scientists to work on something is to convince them they can get grant money to do it. fyi calling scientists Dr. Is weird. I have a PhD but If someone called me Dr. mnky9800n I would tell them to stop. Honorifics don’t respect me they alienate me and I prefer to feel like everyone is colleagues and equals.

I find it strange that an account created 21 hours ago and which has seemingly only commented on this post is so adamantly defending the author and their work. It's almost like someone created a second account to help shush naysayers?

I follow Julian on substack and found out about this discussion from there. I read this post months ago and have been itching to discuss it with people since, so I jumped at this chance. I didn't have an account yet, so I had to make one to comment. I do think it's strange that adamant defense draws suspicion, but adamant criticism does not.

I have no idea if this theory (or fun idea or whatever people want to derisively call it) is correct, but it's wild how unwilling people are to even consider alternative ideas when there are unquestionably issues with the current prevailing theory.

I've read a great deal of Julian's substack, watched a few interviews, and I find him to be deeply thoughtful and quite entertaining, and I'll admit I do find it frustrating to see people dismiss or berate him as just a crazy idea guy without having a good sense of how much has actually gone into this. It's seriously the same thing that happened to Smolin when Susskind brought his weak arguments against CNS and the theory just gathered dust.

Anyway, feel free to write me off as a bot, alt, or some rabid idiot fanboy. As a cosmology enthusiast (but certainly not a scientist by any definition) I was hoping for a discussion of the ideas in the post, but this has been enlightening in other ways, which is not without value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com