Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Math Science

The Big Bang Vs. the Big Rumble 220

WBUR radio in Boston hosts a talk with two physicists, Alan Guth and Neil Turok, who represent, respectively, the consensus theory of the inflationary Big Bang and an upstart theory of the initiation of the universe in the collision of two three-dimensional "branes." Turok and Paul Steinhardt developed their "Ekpyrotic proposal" out of the mathematics behind string theory. In the audio the two physicists are perhaps more respectful of one another's views than the host wishes them to be. If you ignore the "let's you and him fight" framing of the debate, you will hear some interesting physics elucidated.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Big Bang Vs. the Big Rumble

Comments Filter:
  • String theory... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeffasselin ( 566598 ) <cormacolinde@gma ... com minus author> on Sunday June 03, 2007 @10:20AM (#19370999) Journal
    I used to like the ideas of string theory, but after what, 15-20 years of work, not a single observable prediction has been made by the theory. Heck, we don't even have a theory has such yet, more like a plethora of them, and a few that suggest they're all correct!

    Anyone making suggestions opposing the current cosmological framework using string theory had better have something more than vague mathematical foundations if they want to convince anyone. They sure won't convince me anytime soon.
  • Re:Inside/outside (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Sunday June 03, 2007 @10:49AM (#19371201) Journal
    "Much of science is becoming mere entertainment. Strings and branes. hahah. Good."

    Until someone thinks of a way to test for the existence of strings and/or branes they are not part of science, they are at best mathematical curiosities.
  • Re:Spock's Brane (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DeadChobi ( 740395 ) <DeadChobi@gmIIIail.com minus threevowels> on Sunday June 03, 2007 @12:47PM (#19372017)
    Yeah, because linguistic acumen is such an excellent measure of scientific prowess that we should ignore the inherient ad hominem argument.
  • Re:Spock's Brane (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drgonzo59 ( 747139 ) on Sunday June 03, 2007 @10:20PM (#19376573)
    I was merely speaking 'the language' of the grandparent post. They used an ad-hominem attack because I wrote 'know' instead of 'now' => I am a not a credible source and not a good scientists or not ... (insert whatever). So assuming that ad-hominem attacks work great in arguments, I mentioned that English is my third language to make myself look better. But I have miserably failed as it turns out they speak Dutch and German. (Don't you like the ad nauseam details?) I was just hoping they would be an American and only speak English. What did we learn today kids? -- We learned that ad hominem attacks do not work and are silly.
  • by crolix ( 833807 ) on Tuesday June 05, 2007 @11:26AM (#19397173)
    Why was every post of Eukariote modded troll? He is just presenting his views on the subject. If you don't agree with his views, just state your counterarguments and explain exactly where the poster is wrong. Censoring information is never a good way of educating people, even if the information you are censoring is incorrect.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...