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.
You are academically retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You are academically retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Check.
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo's Simultaneous 4-Player GameCube (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that almost broke my brain with the crazy.
No, seriously. I'm pretty sure that page was meant as an attempt to offend EVERY argument meme on every forum on the internet.
It's nifty.
Re: (Score:2)
Love and tend to your TimeCube, and all will become clear.
Spaghetti (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Link to MP3 (Score:5, Informative)
Neil Turok (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously (Score:3, Funny)
I believe that it's the King Jame's version.
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
I'm more interested in this. Could we have been misunderstanding zombies all this time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearest example: "Three day window." "one month notice." "superman complex."
(And, to the extent that it IS archaic, it's proper -- proper names of anything are always as they were when created.)
Listen to it! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't get lectured him, but I did watch him hunting dinosaurs.
If I only had a brane... (Score:3, Funny)
Here I am ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(also couldn't resist)
Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic (Score:4, Informative)
Ever since that happened (2001) Mr. Steinhardt cannot accept that he's wrong and he still tries to make the pig fly. Since he cannot convince anybody in the academic community that the pig does fly he tries to get around that with press releases and radio shows. Good way to do science for a Princeton professor.
Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Ekpyrotic model makes an actual prediction for the spectral index; the value is -3. Initially the authors of the ekpyrotic model have calculated a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To say that something must have triggered the big bang is to say that there was no beginning to the universe, as there must have been a trigger for that trigger, one before that, etc etc to infinity. But if the universe simply exists, and was not "created" at the big bang, but
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you mean "hypothesis". There has been precious little real testing of any of these supposed "theories", for fairly obvious reasons, and tests are usually required for something to be accepted as "theory" in scientific circles. They're all good for science-fiction writers, but I'd also guess that when we eventually find a way to test them systematically, we'll find that we need to think up
Spock's Brane (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spock's Brane (Score:5, Interesting)
You see theoretical scientists (you know the ones that have been working on stuff for decades and still don't have a single experimental piece of evidence) like to make up terminology and throw around big scary formulas to justify wasting time and money working on stuff that cannot even be proven experimentally. Sorry for the bitterness, but I wouldn't even call these people scientists. They might as well say that a giant spaghetti monster [wikipedia.org] flies around and his noodly appendages form tiny knots and those knots are the elementary particles....BUT...OMG! the appendages are so thin that we cannot experimentally detect their presence...but they are there, trust us, here is a big hairy formula (don't worry about the solutions for know) it proves everything -- Give us another PhD!
Re:Zombie Mathematicians and the FSM (Score:2)
C'mon. I can't be the only one here who was thinking this
As for the FSM reference, I think you just found a way to sneak religion into the schooling curriculum via the mathematics conduit. Well done. I look forward to the Kansas Board of Education mandating textbook updates. I wonder if there's a correlation between Cosmic Creation Brane Theory and species extinction. Perhaps th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all bitter yet I wouldn't call them scientists, due mainly to the fact they are talking about mathematics. Much the same way as Eienstien talked about spacetime as a mathematical curiosity until it's predictions were observed, or the fact that black holes were discovered by pencil and paper well before they were found with a telescope. Given the uncanny ability of maths to model the Universe I am inclined to say let t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Dutch, German and English, Dutch being my native language.
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, Dutch, German and English do have some common roots, that is true of course.
Your argument however is similar to saying that someone who speaks French and Italian speaks only one language since they are similar and come from the same roman origins.
Without actually learning German, a native Dutch speaker has a decent chance on understanding slowly spoken, simple German, but no chance whatsoever to under
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a 3rd language to understand the point, take portuguese for example.
The point is that eventho some languages are similar, they are not the same language, and speaking one doesn't mean you automatically speak or understand the other one (or ones), let alone use it correctly.
It's like this: when I brush up on my German I'm gonna take a trip to Amsterdam and then... WHAM
Re: (Score:2)
Three in both cases.
Then, what is the difference between understanding the language and using it correctly in the example of the Brazilian-Portuguese and Portuguese?
You could ask the same about say Dutch and Vlamish (which is by all definitions a member of the family of Dutch languages, and very similar tho not identical).
Re: (Score:2)
Which has absolutely nothing to do with if the languages spoken there are two variations of the same language or two different languages.
You could ask the same question with regards to Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands and on the Dutch Antiles.
Those, just like Portuguese and Brasilian-Portuguese are variations of languages.
This is not true for Dutch and German, neither is it true for Dutch and Englis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spock's Brane (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the host of this show needs to STFU (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Non-cosmological redshift (Score:3, Interesting)
The cosmologies described here are based on the inference that the universe is expanding in a manner proportional to the observed roughly constant redshift-to-distance ratio (Hubble constant). The idea is that as space is stretched, the wavelength of light is stretched along with it, as it transverses that space.
The problem with all these mainstream cosmologies is that observations have been made that require rather different (non-cosmological) mechanisms for redshift to exist. Halton Arp has made and detailed these observations, and the surrounding controversy http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmolo gy-Academic/dp/0968368905 [amazon.com]. Paul Mermet is another astrophysicist that has studied the matter http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html [newtonphysics.on.ca].
Essentially, current mainstream cosmology is likely to be complete bunk, because it is predicated on one particular ill-founded interpretation of redshift.
Re: (Score:2)
Although, it's necessary to point out that there's literally only a handful of people who believe redshifts are intrinsic to a source, and not due to expansion.
So the intrinsic redshift argument could very likely end up in the same bin as thinking andromeda was a nebula inside our galaxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between the "rules" of physics and assuming that these do not change and some so called "constants", such as the speed of light being invariant over long periods of time. It is an experimentally established fact that the speed of light varies according to the medium in traverses. If the nature of the medium of space changes, and there is evidence that it has, then the speed of light and associat
Are their views really in conflict? (Score:2)
elucidated (Score:2)
They should've had the Uni of Kansas... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a rest. The various state Universities in Kansas had nothing to do with the state School Board's shenanigans. Even most of the private colleges and universities were of the same opinion (some of the smaller heavily religious institutions might not have been).
We were as aghast at the issue as anyone else, no one I know of at the Universities supported the School Board's position, and we're glad that the offending (and offensive) board members have been ousted.
String theory... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that mostly you are just whining because, omg, they haven't solved it yet. I mean, really, you are complaining that it's been 15 to 20 years. The LHC _alone_ has taken 16 years to build, and it will take several more years to get the first
Re: (Score:2)
But still, you can't disprove a theory that makes no observable predictions. I know, I know, we can't reach the energies where it would make a differen
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, that is one real prediction which no other theory is able to match.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, if your french-fry theory is one which was completely designed in a robust (and with very few variables) mathematical framework, with no intention of predicting ketchup, and if it predicts ketchup, it does mean that existence of ketchup does validate this theory.
Similarly, string theory was not expected to predict gravity.
It was just another theory, albeit a very
Mmmmm....fresh BRANES.... (Score:2)
Must have BRANES... Must have FRESH BRANES.... Feed me BRANES... FRESH BRANES!!!
RS
Alan Guth (Score:3, Funny)
WBUR promised him a free lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
WBUR promised Guth the ultimate free lunch.
There, now that's much better.
You see, when Guth started to attract media attention back in the mid-eighties, he was already displaying a penchant for nice and quick soundbites to get his point across. The man said that with 28 pounds of matter at just the right conditions (density and temperature), you could create a Big Bang that would open a rift in our universe, eject itself into
missing element (Score:2)
Lay off the booze (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Inside/outside (USA?) (Score:2)
Re:Inside/outside (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed now.
"If you jump right to Theory, then you are obviously adjusting data to match your theory, instead of the other way around."
Black holes and spacetime (just two examples) were discovered with a pencil and paper well before anyone knew how to collect data about them or even test for their existance.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Indeed that is true. The God who exists, as revealed to us in the Bible is the One who is outside of, apart from our time-space universe. Outside revelation, there is no way for any man to find out anything about how we got here and about the God who put us here. That is why all human speculations about origins, whether called science or religion are entertaining fiction. Now everyone has the ch
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are no LOGICAL reasons to BELIEVE the Bible. But then there are no logical reasons for any of the other beliefs either. Giving those or any beliefs a mathematical formula or calling them "science" doesn't change the fact that they are still only beliefs. There are very few so called "scientific" journals or articles that do NOT contain faith words. All of science, just like any other human activity is colored by our beliefs
Re: (Score:2)
Positing a creator answers no questions at all. It is unimportant whether or not there is a creator. If it was important for me to know, the creator could have let me know in a manner that a human couldn't fake.
Re: (Score:2)
Belief in God is more than mental assent that He exists. We read in scripture that the demons believe that and tremble.
Belief includes complete implicit trust, as a little child who trusts his/her daddy and tries to please him at heart. The child is reassured of the fathers love even if he/she screws up and may need to feel the pain of discipline at times. We read that even Jesus, as the son of God had to, as a man learn submission and obedience to God the father by
Re: (Score:2)
Now Buddha, on the other hand, when asked definitely showed me some signs, sent me a teacher, and set me up wit
Re: (Score:2)
If you would read the Bible you would learn of many statements by or about God that are much better than "I am a nice guy". I'll only give one quote and a few references you can look up if you wish.
1John 4:8 "The one who does not love has not known God. For God is love"
Romans 5:8, 1John 4:12, 1John 4:16, Deuteronomy 7:7-8
Science is not illogical, but limited. It is confined to exploring only the prese
Re: (Score:2)
Philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Just as there is no time without motion and no motion without time, information does not exists without matter to contain it or energy to transfer it.
The material realm can contain and manipulate existing information, but only a mind can create it.
Minds don't "create information" they si
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly do. An idea, totally new springs into some mind. The works of great composers, playwrights and other artists certainly are information that did not exist previously. Society has even developed a whole body of law concerning INTELLECTUAL property. The nature of IP is very different from physical things. The technology we have today ALL arose in the minds of countless individuals over time. Maybe YOU can tell me one or more examples how information a
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed He does and rightly so. I do not want this to turn into a long religious discussion.
Briefly, however, God is perfect and just. He is the Creator and as such He has the right to rule over His creation. For example, he condemns all breakers of His laws to death. One of these is telling lies, deliberate deception
Re: The cosmology controversy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So now I'm supposed to conclude that not only is the mainstream interpretation wrong, but that its supporters are conspiring to keep its problems out of the literature.
Anything else I should know?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A few more things, by the sound of it. The first thing you should note is that the peer review system is very effective at filtering information. This makes it suited to both its official intent, which is to improve the quality of discourse, as well as to censorship. You seem to assume it is the former, but that is just an assumption about the intent and integrity of those holding editorial positions and key chairs.
Secondly, editorial systems have been thoroughly corrupted be
Re: (Score:2)
Anything else I should know?
A few more things, by the sound of it. The first thing you should note is that the peer review system is very effective at filtering information. This makes it suited to both its official intent, which is to improve the quality of discourse, as well as to censorship. You seem to assume it is the former, but that is just an assumption about the intent and integrity of those holding editorial positions and key chairs.
And you seem unaware that controversial views make it into the peer reviewed literature all the frikken time.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. This has the people being censored bemused as well. They mostly think the vested interest being defended is the large amount of prestige and funding tied up in current the positions that the mainstream have staked out and their research programs. I think the problem is more fundamental: cosmology may not be that relevant, but it is based on physics which cer
Eukariote is not a troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: A Steady State Universe, Instead (Score:2)
If indeed these observations are accurate (statistically they have a very low probability of being errors) then it's impossible to use red-shift as a metric for the "age" of the universe. And the rest of conventional cosmology also falls away. What do you get? No Big Bang, faster than light travel for rocket-ship sized objects, and other neat results.
FTL travel is forbidden by general relativity, not the big bang.
Dr. Halton C. Arp used to be one of the premiere U.S. astrophysicists (assistant to Hubble, winner of many awards in his own right, including "best young American astronomer", plenty of publications, etc.), but after 28 years as a staff astronomer at Mount Palomar was kicked off the telescope for his heretical views about red-shift.
Can you document that?
Now he's in a self-imposed sort of exile at the Max Planck Institut fur Astrophysik in Germany
That's a rather prestigious place to spend your exile.
but continues to believe that his many observations are valid.
IOW, he's sticking to his ideas that were tenable 40 years ago, even though they haven't been for the past 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Man can misinterpret.
Re:A Steady State Universe, Instead (Score:5, Informative)
Halton Arp's idea that "many high-energy, high-redshift quasars appear to be located in close proximity to, and interacting with, low-redshift, low-energy galaxies" has been proven incorrect.
1) Its impossible to explain quasar absorption lines, which must be due to foreground objects
2) Magification due to gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies neatly explains any excess of quasars near galaxies as seen on the sky and requires them to be at high redshift. See e.g. Detection of Cosmic Magnification with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [arxiv.org]
Unfortunately, Arp and few others conveniently ignore the irrefutable evidence against their ideas. Luckily the rest of the astrophysical community understands scientific evidence. That's the reason that no one pays attention to Arp and colleagues.
Equally unfortunately there is always a group of people (especially on Slashdot) quick to embrace the romantic notion of the outsider "kicked off the telescope for his heretical views". After all, in the movies that's the guy that turns out to be right in the end ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mt Palomar?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which NPR station are you listening to? All of the ones I've listened to have been pretty balanced, with a slight liberal bias. At least its this way on Minnesota Public Radio (KNOW) and WGBH Boston, which are two of the larger public radio outfits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean... hey, what's it doi*thunk*
Sorry to anyone who doesn't get these jokes. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Science and religion are a subset of philosophy. They are ways to organize thoughts and have a frame of reference for discussions.
Such subsets are useful in creating an environment of learning in a specific area. For example science allows meaningful disc