- Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:18 pm
#87770
angels,
Sure!
From the start, the author talks about the fact that the Big Bang is the theory of physicists that accounts for the origins of the universe. It looks as if the author agrees that that's right, and nothing later in the passage contradicts it, so I'd say that's a pretty established fact from the author's perspective.
Then we get viewpoints - Carroll and Chen are engaged in some speculation. Note the way the author presents their views: "according to" (line 6), "argue that" (line 37), "take" (line 47), "On this view" (line 49). The author isn't presenting the info from Carroll and Chen as if it's mistaken, but also doesn't necessarily fully subscribe to it. Overall, it looks like the author thinks they have a good idea without being 100% convinced.
Getting more into the details, it looks like there's a puzzle in physics - the Big Bang probably accounts for the origin of the universe, but the low-entropy nature of the initial conditions of the Big Bang would make it seem like an unlikely event. The solution is to think that the Big Bang is not a unique event.
Garriga and Vilenkin's research seems consistent with Carroll and Chen's and further supports that point.
I think that would definitely help with question 22, where the author's constantly presenting Carroll and Chen's views as their own, while still seeming to think they've hit on a pretty good idea, would help avoid the more extreme answer choice.
Robert Carroll
