The Big Bang Vs. the Big Rumble

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.

Comments

You are academically retarded

[dangitman]

This is total nonsense. Every intelligent person knows that the universe was created in a TimeCube, not a bang or a rumble, however big deluded people may think they are. You were educated stupid.

Re:You are academically retarded

[eebra82]

"You maybe academically retarded."

Check.

Re:You are academically retarded

[iamdrscience]

Who's the real 7 billion ton robot monster here?

Not I, not I.

Re:You are academically retarded

[ControlAltDelete]

Seriously - what the hell is that website? Could anyone figure out what it was? It's so insane and creepily idiotic, that one almost can't believe it's just insane and idiotic, but rather that it must be some sort of cryptic signal to the KGB or CIA or something. Just to clarify his position, though, http://www.timecube.com/ is his source that he links to. Clearly you understand his point now that you've seen that and are no longer "ignorant of natures harmonic time cube creation".

Re:You are academically retarded

[Blakey Rat]

Plus we all know that all Turok does is wear psuedo-Native American garb and shoot dinosaurs with a crossbow. He's not exactly the type to theorize about the creation of the universe.

Re:You are academically retarded

[Smight]

Seriously - what the hell is that website? Could anyone figure out what it was? It's so insane and creepily idiotic, that one almost can't believe it's just insane and idiotic, but rather that it must be some sort of cryptic signal to the KGB or CIA or something. Just to clarify his position, though, http://www.timecube.com/ is his source that he links to. Clearly you understand his point now that you've seen that and are no longer "ignorant of natures harmonic time cube creation". It's a little hard to understand because english is obviously his fourth language, after wall language, tree language and the language of dance.

Apparently, since we think that 24 hours = 24 hours instead of 24 hours = 42 hours we are evil. Also, the earth has has 4 poles but not those crappy north and south poles these are poles of race, and if you should ever try mixing these races you are a racist and evil!

If the 4 racial components of 2 sex pole hemispheres agreed to a cubing of the sphere as a spiritual unity, heavenly music of cubed sphere could be audible on Earth simultaneously to every human ear, not discord, but harmony. The simultaneous 4 human races debunks a God for any race.

Human word is neither deed nor product, but a counterfeit representation of value. Humans are worshipers of fictitious word. Via invention of word, humans exist as WORD ANIMALS, invented a word god in their likeness, then created a Word World.

Obviously since we don't all hear heavenly music all the time there is no God. I see no flaws with this theory. I'd subscribe to his newsletter, but forcing him to write anymore than he has would just turn him back into a word animal. And words are evil?

Re:You are academically retarded

[Fordiman]

-.O

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:You are academically retarded

[aesdesdesdes]

Finally, it all makes sense to me now.

Re:You are academically retarded

[dangitman]

Seriously - what the hell is that website?

Love and tend to your TimeCube, and all will become clear.

Spaghetti

[Swizec]

Everybody knows the spaghetti monster create the universe, all this nonsense of bangs and rumbles is what happened in the postgenesis spaghetti fart.

Re:Spaghetti

[Lachlan Hunt]

Yes, and The Gospel of the Flying Spagetti Monster teaches that all the evidence was planted by the FSM in an effort to test the faith of Pastafarians.

Re:Spaghetti

[modmans2ndcoming]

Blasphemer!!!! Never incorrectly state the Flying Spaghetti Monster's name!! you shall be struck down by his long noodlie appendage!!

Re:Spaghetti

[ichigo 2.0]

Fundamentalist nonsense! The big rumble is perfectly compatible with the Pastafarian faith, the two branes that collided are of course his noodly appendages!

Link to MP3

[Anonymous Coward]

For the lazy

Neil Turok

[Anonymous Coward]

He looks a little wimpy to be a dinosaur hunter.. And "Neil" is a little improbable as a first name, too.

Re:Neil Turok

[CaffeineAddict2001]

Yeah and did you ever notice that wall of haze that follows 2 feet in front of him everywhere he goes? What the hell is up with that?

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears the once famous Flying Spaghetti Monster was found eaten to death. Only a noodly appendage remains. No word on any *burp* suspects. *Takes Tums for heartburn*

Re:In other news

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Well but if the flying spaghetti monster ate himself, the *burp* would be revitalizing! Hence, I postulate a cyclical big *burp* flying spaghetti monster model :-)

Re:In other news

[Barryke]

It appears the once famous Flying Spaghetti Monster was found eaten to death. Only a noodly appendage remains. No word on any *burp* suspects. *Takes Tums for heartburn* In short, he assended and now exists in a form of pure (metabolic) energy.

Obviously

[eclectro]

initiation of the universe in the collision of two thee-dimensional "branes."

I believe that it's the King Jame's version.

Re:Obviously

[MortimerV]

initiation of the universe in the collision of two thee-dimensional "branes."

I'm more interested in this. Could we have been misunderstanding zombies all this time?

Re:Obviously

[Planesdragon]

Meh. It's not that archaic. "King James" is used as an adjective, not a noun.

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.)

Re:Obviously

[aminorex]

Maybe I can get some suggestions for the set-up on this q&a joke. The obvious set-up, "what do string theorists and zombies talk about during lunch?" (Mmmmm-brayns!) Is a bit weak. It needs some depth and resonance, and probably a secondary physics allusion as well.

Listen to it!

[massivefoot]

To anyone who's got this far without having downloaded the mp3, go listen to it! It is actually quite interesting. And to anyone who's ever been lectured by Turok, don't worry, he isn't that bad when he's actually interested in what he's talking about...

Re:Listen to it!

[jez9999]

And to anyone who's ever been lectured by Turok, don't worry, he isn't that bad when he's actually interested in what he's talking about...

I didn't get lectured him, but I did watch him hunting dinosaurs.

Re:Listen to it!

[bhiestand]

To anyone who's got this far without having downloaded the mp3, go listen to it! It is actually quite interesting.

And to anyone who's ever been lectured by Turok, don't worry, he isn't that bad when he's actually interested in what he's talking about... Seriously! We're not even asking people to RTFA here. All they have to do is listen to the damned thing. Is it just me or has /. turned into a collection of lame jokes where no one actually has any insight into the news items?

If I only had a brane...

[jpellino]

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Re:If I only had a brane...

[Z0mb1eman]

Get a brane, morans?

(also couldn't resist)

Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole "Ekpyrotic" idea was well and thoroughly proven wrong by Andrei Linde in his work entitled "Pyrotechnic Universe".
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

[dreamchaser]

Actually nothing has been 'proven' with regards to the beginning of the Universe. Everything is still theory, and while significant holes have been blown in the ekpyrotic model, I've no doubt that the 'real truth' if ever found will probably look significantly different from either the Big Bang or the Ekpyrotic model.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[Anonymous Coward]

What I mean by "proven wrong" is the prediction of a very well measured quantity, the spectral index of perturbations of the Cosmic Microwave Background. The WMAP satellite has taken data for about 6 years (and is still taking data) and the spectral index has been measured to be 0.951 + 0.015 - 0.019 : http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/pub_papers/threeyear .html

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 value of 1 for the spectral index, but their calculation was just plain wrong.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[kestasjk]

You have no doubt why? If you want to go against common scientific knowledge you need some very convincing evidence/reasoning.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[Seiruu]

Common scientific knowledge? The idea of the Big Bang being "the beginning" isn't scientific at all, unless a complete and utter lack of evidence is science nowadays.

So it's not that weird to assume that "the truth", whatever it is, is different from whatever the big bang hopes to theorize but, at the moment can't.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[amRadioHed]

The idea of the Big Bang being "the beginning" isn't scientific at all Why not? The idea was devised to fit the evidence of an expanding universe. Since everything is spreading apart, somewhat like an explosion, then if you rewind the clock everything will be coming together. Go back far enough and all the mass and energy is focused on one point. That's where the universe as we know it begins. You are free to disagree with the conclusions, but what do you find to be unscientific about it?

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[jc42]

Actually nothing has been 'proven' with regards to the beginning of the Universe. Everything is still theory, ...

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 a few more hypotheses to explain all the resulting data. This discussion seems like the bare beginning of real scientific work.

I heard the article when NPR first broadcast it last week, and the main thing I noticed was that both speakers were fairly reasonable about acknowledging the others' point, and admitting that much more research is needed before we can claim we actually know anything. They both seemed to view it as more of a fun game than a real scientific topic.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[Seiruu]

No, I agree that that part is scientific, but the BB assumes a state in which something (dense and hot mass?) exists and somehow triggered the expansion.

So at best, the BB can be seen as the gun with the bullet, but not the trigger. By definition, it can not be the beginning, as it assumes something was already there to trigger it. And since science currently theorizes the BB somehow created everything; energy, mass, time etc, which btw is somewhat contradicting with the existence of the dense and hot mass, we are unable to look "further back" than BB, ie further back than which science believes is the origin of time, and observe what triggered it.

Hence, while we argue that there was in fact something that triggered BB, e.g. dense and hot mass, we can never go that far back (and perhaps further, if possible) in time and confirm. Which is why BB as the "beginning" is not scientific.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[dreamchaser]

I should have said I have little doubt, mainly because of history. I'm fairly certain that future models will make our current understanding of cosmology seem feeble and even wrong, because time and again advances in our understanding of the cosmos have revealed to us how little we really know.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually, as I recall the discussion, both sides indicate that time didn't start with the big bang.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[Seiruu]

If time (and whatever else) didn't start with the big bang, which would be consistent with the theory that it was hot and dense mass that triggered the big bang in the first place, then it's one more reason to believe that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe at all but whatever came before it.

And thus we're back at the whole "we don't know how it all began" thing. But whatever it is, according to our current theories and known data: it ain't the big bang.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[LionKimbro]

OK, but the predictions about what the CMBR would like were dead on.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[x2A]

If we lie a pen along a ruler, say between the 5cm mark and 20cm mark, do we say that the pen is being created at 5cm, and destroyed at 20cm? Did something trigger its creation at 5cm? Or does it mearly exist between those two points?

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 the big bang is simply the furthest point in the past that the universes existance reaches, then the big bang is the beginning of causality, and doesn't have to have been caused by anything. The universe wasn't created, it simply exists from that point.

Remember our brains are built around being able to find reasons for things, to link cause and effect, so that we can recognise/predict patterns and control the world around us to survive. This can make the idea of something that simply exists, without having been created by something, totally counterintuitive to the point where you can fail to recognise that you're looking for the cause of something, simply because that's what we're used to doing, used to finding, not because a cause is actually required for the universe to exist.

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[Seiruu]

But if the universe simply exists, and was not "created" at the big bang, but the big bang is simply the furthest point in the past that the universes existance reaches, then the big bang is the beginning of causality, and doesn't have to have been caused by anything. The universe wasn't created, it simply exists from that point.

Except for the part where a dense and hot mass is apparently needed for having the big bang in the first place.

This can make the idea of something that simply exists, without having been created by something, totally counterintuitive to the point where you can fail to recognise that you're looking for the cause of something, simply because that's what we're used to doing, used to finding, not because a cause is actually required for the universe to exist.

That may be so, but how will you falsify something that apparently doesn't have or need a trigger?

Which brings us back to the point that, so far, there's absolutely nothing scientific about anything related to "the beginning".

Re:Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic

[GoldenPhi]

I believe the problem with trying to understand the universe is our inability to come up with an accurate understanding of what time actually is.

Nintendo's Simultaneous 4-Player GameCube

[tepples]

Every intelligent person knows that the universe was created in a TimeCube I prefer Game Cube.

Re:Nintendo's Simultaneous 4-Player GameCube

[maxwell demon]

Anyway, it's still a Cube.

Spock's Brane

[jpatters]

"Brane and brane, what is brane?

Re:Spock's Brane

[drgonzo59]

brane comes from membrane. You got your 1-branes which are the "classic" cosmic strings. But of course they say that there are n-branes (0-branes, 2-branes etc.)

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 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:Spock's Brane

[drgonzo59]

Sorry, English is my third language. How many languages do you speak?

Re:Spock's Brane

[Anonymous Coward]

English is my third language too. But I can't speak any others unfortunately and I suck at math as well.

Re:Spock's Brane

[TapeCutter]

"Sorry for the bitterness, but I wouldn't even call these people scientists."

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 the maths wizzes have their big hairy formulas, on the rare occasions when they do find a basic truth it always has spectacular consequences for science.

Re:Spock's Brane

[SillyNickName4me]

Sorry, English is my third language. How many languages do you speak?

Dutch, German and English, Dutch being my native language.

Re:Spock's Brane

[DeadChobi]

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

[drgonzo59]

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.

Re:Spock's Brane

[DeadChobi]

Indeed we did.

Re:Spock's Brane

[bhiestand]

As someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between 'now' and 'to know', you give quite an impression of lacking the required education for saying anything meaningfull about this. As someone who doesn't seem to know the difference between 'meaningfull' and 'meaningful, you give quite an impression of lacking the required education for saying anything meaningful about this.

Re:Spock's Brane

[bhiestand]

Maybe, but it's easy enough to forget that there's a silent "k" in "know". I would understand if it wasn't his third language, but it's like accusing Einstein of not knowing physics because his English skills weren't perfect. I've made similar mistakes due to inebriation, sleep deprivation, and broken keyboarditis. Hopefully people don't judge my actual knowledge of my field based on occasional relatively simple mistakes.

Re:Spock's Brane

[servognome]

How many languages do you speak?

I am fluent in over 6 million forms of communication

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Sorry, English is my third language. How many languages do you speak? Dutch, German and English, Dutch being my native language. How many languages is that? I mean, Dutch being a mixture of English and German as some say...

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

I am not quite getting what are you bitter about? I mean, this is pretty much how things work in physics: coming up with some formulas that cannot "even be proven experimentally", and these brane-theorists are just working within the same framework...

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Given the uncanny ability of maths to model the Universe I am inclined to say let the maths wizzes have their big hairy formulas, on the rare occasions when they do find a basic truth it always has spectacular consequences for science. The question then is where/when/how does the basic truth come out of this process? Here is another one for you: why is this uncanny ability of maths given? Or, to get it more to the topic of the article: the circular vs linear universe debate is very old, very non-mathematical...

Re:Spock's Brane

[SillyNickName4me]

How many languages is that? I mean, Dutch being a mixture of English and German as some say...

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 understand more then a fraction of a normal conversation, and the same is true the other way around (again, this is without actually learning the language).

Re:Spock's Brane

[raddan]

Einstein didn't exactly do a lot of experimentation. But I understand your point.

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

How many languages is that? I mean, Dutch being a mixture of English and German as some say... 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. I don't quite get what similarity to what I'm talking about you're talking about: French and Italian and...? Which other language?

It's like this: when I brush up on my German I'm gonna take a trip to Amsterdam and then... WHAM! Friends with the knowledge of both English and German but no knowledge of Dutch tell me it's a very trippy experience to talk Dutch!

Re:Spock's Brane

[SillyNickName4me]

I don't quite get what similarity to what I'm talking about you're talking about: French and Italian and...? Which other language?

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! Friends with the knowledge of both English and German but no knowledge of Dutch tell me it's a very trippy experience to talk Dutch!

Amsterdam eh? tell them to stop smoking and try again.

Re:Spock's Brane

[aminorex]

Perhaps you meant to ask, "Mmmmm, Brane, what are we going to do tomorrow?" To which the reply is obvious: "Same thing we do every day, Pinky -- try to create the universe!"

Re:Spock's Brane

[Crazy Eight]

IIRC, Dirac, while a young student, was "playing around with pretty mathematics" when he came up with a function that prelucidated (look it up) quantum mechanics.

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

I don't quite get what similarity to what I'm talking about you're talking about: French and Italian and...? Which other language? If you need a 3rd language to understand the point, take portuguese for example.

The point is that even though 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. Which reminds me of my initial question: when one speaks English, German and Dutch, how many languages one speaks? Is this the same number as when one speaks English, Dutch and Portuguese?

Then, what is the difference between understanding the language and using it correctly in the example of the Brazilian-Portuguese and Portuguese?

Amsterdam eh? tell them to stop smoking and try again. Try again what? Etc: Questions pile ohne Ende...

Re:Spock's Brane

[SillyNickName4me]

Which reminds me of my initial question: when one speaks English, German and Dutch, how many languages one speaks? Is this the same number as when one speaks English, Dutch and Portuguese?

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). Its not the same as asking the same question about say Dutch and German, or French and Italian.

Try again what?

Next time when in Amsterdam, try not being stoned all the time like the typical visitor, and you might notice that since most Dutchies understand English pretty well and will at least understand some German, they will also understand your 'Dutch' as a result.

Questions pile ohne Ende...

Which of course doesn't contain a single word of Dutch, but will be understood by many Dutch people regardless.

Most of us here get more then a few years of foreign language education, starting in primary school, and actually get to practise what they learn. That is why you are understood here regardless of speaking German, English or Dutch, or whatever silly mix of those you might come up with.

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

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). Its not the same as asking the same question about say Dutch and German, or French and Italian. I very much doubt that one could ask the same, because, well, Brasil is across the seven seas from Portugal.

Most of us here get more then a few years of foreign language education, starting in primary school, and actually get to practise what they learn. That is why you are understood here regardless of speaking German, English or Dutch, or whatever silly mix of those you might come up with. Yes, I enjoy speaking English with people in Europa. They, depending on country, do develop their own dialects and subdialects and versions of English, and I've no doubt that education has great deal to do with it, as well as practice in talking with people like... um... me and my friends I wrote about.

For example, when you write:

Next time when in Amsterdam, try not being stoned all the time like the typical visitor, and you might notice that since most Dutchies understand English pretty well and will at least understand some German, they will also understand your 'Dutch' as a result. after I wrote what I wrote in my previous posts, I feel almost guilty: have I provided enough practice of English language for this guy (as you know, although 3rd person singular, it is referring to you) so that he, apart from using English correctly, can also understand the written English, and, more importantly, understand what I've been writing? Should I tell him simply that I have never been in Amsterdam except at the airport while waiting for another plain? But was this sentence simple enough? He might just read it as a logical fallacy, who knows? Or should I be just educational, like by trying to tell him that he does not need first to reduce Amsterdam and its foreign visitors to standard cultural stereotypes in order to say something, presumably other than smoking. Did I induce him to start writing about smoking marijuana when I was merely talking about the trippy feeling of some people when (trying to) speak Dutch having only some knowledge of English and German? Maybe I am just too hard on him, for when he talks about "silly mixes" of languages that are nonetheless understood by people, is it not that integer numbers of languages are becoming more like rational, or even real numbers, like in "speaking 4/3 languages"?

Re:Spock's Brane

[SillyNickName4me]

I very much doubt that one could ask the same, because, well, Brasil is across the seven seas from Portugal.

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 English or German and English.

At any rate, you have confirmed a few times too often that you are either extremely dense, or you want to act as if you are.
I'll leave the rest of your rant for what it is. Please go grow some brain or something.

Re:Spock's Brane

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

I very much doubt that one could ask the same, because, well, Brasil is across the seven seas from Portugal. Which has absolutely nothing to do with if the languages spoken there are two variations of the same language or two different languages.

This is not true for Dutch and German, neither is it true for Dutch and English or German and English. Ok, so my example has absolutely nothing to do with it, but nonetheless can be translated into an example that in some sense could have something to do with it:

You could ask the same question with regards to Dutch as spoken in the Netherlands and on the Dutch Antiles. I had to consult Wikipedia about this one: it says "Official languages [of The Netherlands Antilles (Dutch: Nederlandse Antillen), previously known as the Netherlands West Indies or Dutch Antilles/West Indies are:] Dutch, English, Papiamento.

Just look the density of languages that we mention: starting with Dutch, English and German, then extending it to Portugese, Brasilian-Portugese, Vlamish, and eventually Dutch Antiles-Dutch and Papiamento (about which Wikipedia says: "Papiamento is a language that has been evolving through the centuries and absorbed many words from other languages like Spanish, Dutch, English, African dialects, and Portuguese.")... If we were to continue this for a year or so into the future we would have encountered the Wikipedia's:

The Netherlands Antilles is to be disbanded on December 15, 2008. The idea of the Netherlands Antilles as a state never enjoyed full support of all islands. Political relations between islands were often strained. After a long struggle, Aruba seceded from the Netherlands Antilles in 1986, to form its own state within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The desire for secession has also been strong in Sint Maarten.

Re:Spock's Brane

[SillyNickName4me]

Ok, so my example has absolutely nothing to do with it, but nonetheless can be translated into an example that in some sense could have something to do with it:

Your example of Portuguese and Brasilian portuguse did. Your argument that there is a lot of distance between Portugal and Brazil, while there isn't between the Netherlands and Germany however has nothing to do with if what is spoken in all those places are mere variations of the same language, or different languages.

I had to consult Wikipedia about this one: it says "Official languages [of The Netherlands Antilles (Dutch: Nederlandse Antillen), previously known as the Netherlands West Indies or Dutch Antilles/West Indies are:] Dutch, English, Papiamento.

And the first of those is a variation on the Dutch language, one that is distinctively different from what is spoken in the Netherlands, but not so different that people speaking those two variations will have trouble understanding eachother beyond the scope of very simple things, without having to learn eachothers 'language' first.

And that is unlike for example a Dutch and a German speaking person trying to have any kind of conversation that isn't limited to very basic things.

Just look the density of languages that we mention: starting with Dutch, English and German, then extending it to Portugese, Brasilian-Portugese, Vlamish, and eventually Dutch Antiles-Dutch and Papiamento (about which Wikipedia says: "Papiamento is a language that has been evolving through the centuries and absorbed many words from other languages like Spanish, Dutch, English, African dialects, and Portuguese.")... If we were to continue this for a year or so into the future we would have encountered the Wikipedia's:

I happen to understand Papiamento somewhat because.. I understand Dutch and English very well, and can make educated guesses at quite a few Spanish and Portuguese words. Yet, that is enough to understand what is being talked about, but by far not enough to understand many of the details, and it in no way means I can speak it.

To bring yet another language into the discussion, it occured to me you might be confusing Dutch and what is called Pennsylvania Dutch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Dutch

That language is closely related to German, not to Dutch. That it is called Dutch has a lot to do with how we came to this discussion to begin with, my comment on the improper use of the word know.

If you'd want to have a 'modern' version of that word, it would be Pennsylvanian Deutsch.

Deutch is the German word for German
Dutch is the English word for the people of the Netherlands, and the family of languages spoken in the Netherlands and a number of its current and former colonies.

Most of the time, spelling mistakes are utterly irrelevant for the meaning of what is being written, but sometimes they are not.

Lay off the booze

[MrBoombasticfantasti]

If you don't understand the current theories, don't worry about it. But please refrain from posting while obviously drunk, 'mkay?

Re:Lay off the booze

[Sqreater]

I'm perfectly sober thank you "MrBoombasticfantasti." hahaha.

the host of this show needs to STFU

[Adult film producer]

just for a second and let these guys talk.. stop injecting himself into the conversation and stop trying to cast doubt on science with the stupid comments like, "Oh look, scientists are flip-flopping on the big bang.. are you freaked out? is science supposed to work this way? some folk in the heartland will be skeptical of this."

Re:the host of this show needs to STFU

[lawpoop]

some folk in the heartland will be skeptical of this. Yeah, and some tribe in the middle of the amazon might not understand or care about it at all! Who the fuck cares?

So let me get this straight...

[cralewyth]

These two scientists. Knocked heads, their branes collided....And the universe was born?

Re:Speaking of "science"

[maxwell demon]

BTW, what was there before the branes "crashed"?

The Flying Tagliatelle Monster? :-)

Non-cosmological redshift

[Eukariote]

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. Paul Mermet is another astrophysicist that has studied the matter http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html.

Essentially, current mainstream cosmology is likely to be complete bunk, because it is predicated on one particular ill-founded interpretation of redshift.

Re:Non-cosmological redshift

[neurostar]

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:Non-cosmological redshift

[Attila Dimedici]

The "ill-founded interpretation of redshift" has been demonstrated by experimentation. That is scientists have taken objects emitting light and accelerated them away from a recording source and discovered that the frequency of the light recorded changes in proportion to the acceleration. Whether this observation extends to interstellar distances or not is a matter of assumption. However, if we do not assume that the rules of physics are essentially constant (with the understanding that the rules of physics state that under certain conditions they change) we have no way to make any prediction about what the Universe outside of our solar system is like (and very limited ability to make predictions off of the planet Earth). The current understanding of redshift is based on the theories of physics until someone comes up with a theory that explains both the experimentally demonstrated red shift and the supposed anomalies(I say supposed because I don't feel like taking the time to examine the credibility of your sources, they may be perfectly legitimate, but I don't know that) you are referencing cosmologists will continue to work with current theory. They may be wrong, but you can't come up with a cosmological theory based on those observations without of theory of physics that explains that behavior.

Re:Non-cosmological redshift

[grikdog]

"...as space is stretched, the wavelength of light is stretched along with it, as it transverses that space..." Which is why maths are more interesting than werbils. DOPPLER effects happen against a steady frame, otherwise they do not "dopple" since, given a concertina yardstick tacked to space itself, there's nothing to measure them WITH.

Re:Non-cosmological redshift

[arminw]

.....However, if we do not assume that the rules of physics are essentially constant........

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 associated constants governing the way light is emitted by atoms, will also change. The fact that the red shift is "QUANTIZED" is evidence against the doppler interpretation. Postulating that the redshift is NOT due to doppler removes the necessity for fictional constructs such as dark matter and energy to explain the motions of galaxies.

Re:Non-cosmological redshift

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"one should also point out that if a scientist happens to think that red-shift is not always a measure of recessional velocity"...you mean like the red-shift coming up out of a gravity well?

Re:Non-cosmological redshift

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Nonsense. The universe wsas created in a big bang, in what we call today a singularity, with all matter collapsed in the center of a black hole. So how does it scape the black hole? The big bang is so big that matter travels faster than light.

How does it travel faster than light? The universe expands.

THE UNIVERSE EXPANDS!!!

What does that really mean? I don't know, I suppose people think the universe is like a giant carpet, so even if you don't move, you move, because the carpet in which you are moves, and therefore Einstein was wrong and we can travel faster than light. Come on!

The whole theory of relativity was to refute the idea of the ether, supposedly the light was a wave in the ether. Now we camoe back to the idea of ether again (the carpet).

Everyone knows that time does not flow on the event horizon of the black hole. This means that if you fall into a black hole you would pass the event horizon in less than a second, but people would see you falling for eons and you would seem to have frozen. You would see the universe move faster and faster and you would see the end of it.

If time flows continuosly it means that inside the black hole the time flows in the opposite direction. This means time flows backwards, so if you could see inside a black hole, you would see things going into the center, but inside the black hole things move in the opposite direction.

That's why we see the universe expand.

Are their views really in conflict?

[Black Parrot]

I thought branes (hypothetically) caused the big bang, and inflation is something that happened after the big bang.

Re:Are their views really in conflict?

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

I thought branes (hypothetically) caused the big bang, and inflation is something that happened after the big bang. There are indeed two questions involved, that of the "beginning" and that of the large-scale uniformity of the universe. From what I could decipher from the interview, both theories differ in answers to both questions: the "new" theory claims that the big bang is the collision of two (mem)branes, everything expands uniformly because there is no point-like singularity and everything is smooth and uniform because that is just an (observed) property. As the universe expands, the dark energy is like a potential energy of a spring between two membranes that gets more and more stretched and eventually takes over and starts bringing membranes back together and their collision repeats. Inflation fits observations very well, including the amount of observed dark energy, but has no answers about the origin of dark energy, and everything expands forever, the new theory is not yet worked out mathematically.

Re: The cosmology controversy

[Black Parrot]

Current cosmology is anything but settled. The following interesting documentary shows the perspective of astrophysicists and cosmologists that believe the mainstream view is flawedhttp://www.mininova.org/tor/360930. There definitely are quite a few observations that do not fit the mainstream cosmology. Well hidden from university students and the general public? Is there some reason I shouldn't immediately dismiss this as more crackpottery?

String theory ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but this always leaves me tied up in knots.

elucidated

[eclectic4]

How many people right clicked that one?

A Steady State Universe, Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to get away from blackboard theory and consider what people actually see through telescopes, there is a strong case to be made, with many photographs of the objects in question, that many high-energy, high-redshift quasars appear to be located in close proximity to, and interacting with, low-redshift, low-energy galaxies. 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.

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. Now he's in a self-imposed sort of exile at the Max Planck Institut fur Astrophysik in Germany, but continues to believe that his many observations are valid.

For a recent podcast interview (posted June 1) with Dr. Arp at Electric Politics, see here:

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2007/06/a_ stellar_heresy.html

And for Dr. Arp's personal website which has quite a bit of his research online, see here:

http://www.haltonarp.com/

Re: A Steady State Universe, Instead

[Black Parrot]

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: A Steady State Universe, Instead

[Eukariote]

IOW, he's sticking to his ideas that were tenable 40 years ago, even though they haven't been for the past 20 years.

Now now, Arp is basing his view on observation. Nature does not lie. That the consensus is still otherwise does not mean his views are untenable. In the end, experiment and observation will win out, but it can take a while just like it took a while for the heliocentric model to be accepted.

Re:A Steady State Universe, Instead

[boot_img]

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

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:A Steady State Universe, Instead

[Bozdune]

Thank you, it is quality comments like this that keep me reading slashdot.

Re: A Steady State Universe, Instead

[qeveren]

Nature does not lie.

But Man can misinterpret.

Re: A Steady State Universe, Instead

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

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. Or maybe this is just a corner in the far end of the universe? Maybe this was the perfect spot for him to observe It.

Re:A Steady State Universe, Instead

[aminorex]

Disregard the norm for a moment. There is at least one case of a Quasar with a redshift two orders of magnitude greater than that of the galaxy which it occludes, NGC 7319. (Link is an article of Pasquale Galianni, E.M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti.) The conclusion being obvious, I eagerly await your refutation, which is not.

Re: The cosmology controversy

[Black Parrot]

The problem is the peer review system: they have trouble getting their observations and views published. That too is a favorite argument of cracked pots.

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?

Here I am ...

[Hektor_Troy]

Brane the size of a universe and they tell me to get ready to rumble...

Re:Zombie Mathematicians and the FSM

[Migraineman]

Maybe all mathematicians are actually zombies. That'd explain their relentless need for "Braaaaannessssss ..."

C'mon. I can't be the only one here who was thinking this ... right?

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 the dinosaurs discovered The One Grand Unified Brane Theorem, and were so enlightened that they all had seizures and died. Damn. That's halfway plausible. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Re: The cosmology controversy

[Eukariote]

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.

Secondly, editorial systems have been thoroughly corrupted before. For an example, read this book http://www.amazon.com/Into-Buzzsaw-Leading-Journal ists-Expose/dp/1591022304.

Re: Inside/outside (USA?)

[Black Parrot]

You need an outside view to determine how the Universe started, and, last I checked, we're all inside. You could always look out the port hole.

Re: The cosmology controversy

[Black Parrot]

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: The cosmology controversy

[Eukariote]

And you seem unaware that controversial views make it into the peer reviewed literature all the frikken time.

I am fully aware of that. It is not the controversial views that get blocked, but rather the views that endanger a large vested interest.

They should've had the Uni of Kansas...

[jez9999]

They didn't represent all sides of the debate! This is totally biased. Where is the theory of Intelligent Design represented?

Re:They should've had the Uni of Kansas...

[Belial6]

Yeah, and where is the theory that all of you and the universe itself is just a figment of my imagination!

Re:They should've had the Uni of Kansas...

[jim_deane]

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.

Re:They should've had the Uni of Kansas...

[RespekMyAthorati]

No, its called humor.
Or in other words, "WOOOSH!"

Re: The cosmology controversy

[Seiruu]

Which are?

I can somewhat imagine this being a bit of a possibility in the medical field, which is a large financial business if anything. But cosmology? Where's the controversy? Why wouldn't reputable journals publish rather sound theories in that field? I find that hard to believe.

Re: The cosmology controversy

[Eukariote]

I can somewhat imagine this being a bit of a possibility in the medical field, which is a large financial business if anything. But cosmology?

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 certainly can be very relevant. There are good reasons to believe that a proper cosmology will require fundamental revisions to physics, relativity theory in particular. See for example the observations mentioned in this online book http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc .html.

String theory...

[jeffasselin]

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:String theory...

[jeffasselin]

Indeed, they don't have to "convince" anybody. They just need to prove it through experiments and observations that corroborate the predictions of the theory. Oh wait!

Re:String theory...

[jeffasselin]

I'm not saying the ideas behind it shouldn't be pursued at all. I'm all for pure research that might not lead to anything concretely useful. It's indeed possible we've reached a point where we don't quite have the tools (whether in capacity of understanding of the human brain, mathematical knowledge, or computing power) to progress, or at least not very fast.

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 difference in the behavior of the universe that would differ from the predictions of quantum physics. But there ARE discrepancies and unexplained phenomenas that crop out regularly that I think string theory should concentrate in explaining.

Re:String theory...

[thePig]

Gravity is predicted (postdicted??) by String theory.
I guess, that is one real prediction which no other theory is able to match.

Re:String theory...

[JohnFluxx]

Exactly. Despite your dumb sarcasm, you're right. We see people working very hard to get the math working and get predictions. We also see the large hadron collider being built, which should be done this year. This will clear up quite a few things hopefully.

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 results.

Just assume for a moment that string theory is correct. Would it really be that surprising to you if it takes more than 20 years to work it out?

A huge amount of new math has been discovered/created. Even if string theory is wrong, it wouldn't have been a waste of time at all.

Re:String theory...

[jeffasselin]

My french-fry theory of reality predicts ketchup. Doesn't mean the existence of ketchup validates my theory, because I knew ketchup existed before I devised the theory. I know string theory explains (in theory) how gravity arises, but that's no proof.

Re:String theory...

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

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. Then maybe this alternative theory is something you've been looking for all those years! One way to look at it is to notice the progress achieved: first it was the question of what it is, then there was many, then one, then again many theories, now these guys are trying to give a cosmology that would be based on the string theory. I mean mathematically: imagine they work out all the mathematics and get the theory of universe where membranes collide, dark energy explained, etc... this is pretty much what the string theory was expected to deliver, and now it is getting there.

Re:String theory...

[thePig]

If you have devised the french-fry theory to specifically predict ketchup, yes, then existence of ketchup doesn't validate french-fry theory.
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 beautiful one, which was devised to explain our universe.
While investigating more on this theory, it was found that it predict gravity, which no other theory does.

Thus, the existence of gravity does validate string theory.

My opinion

[cjdkoh]

I'm still chosing to believe in the Big Bang and my own personal, god not included, theory of how everything was made out of nothing (which may or may not be scientifically plausable).

Mainly because I haven't bothered to try to understand this "big rumble" thing.

Just my two generic, low value coins.

Re:Inside/outside

[TapeCutter]

"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:this radio show

[quanticle]

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.

We already know the answer to this...

[vorlich]

As everyone surely knows, the universe was created by Ponder Stibbons when an experimental Thaumic Energy Generator overloaded and the resulting blast of unconstrained thaumons (if that is what they are) produced our universe.

Re:We already know the answer to this...

[Puff of Logic]

Ook?

Re:We already know the answer to this...

[orclevegam]

Ok, who let the monkey in here huh?

I mean... hey, what's it doi*thunk*



Sorry to anyone who doesn't get these jokes. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Inside/outside

[arminw]

,,,,,,You need an outside view to determine how the Universe started, and, last I checked, we're all inside,,,,,,,

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 choice to BELIEVE what God has revealed about Himself or not. Anyone may also believe the speculations of these scientists. However, as you stated insightfully, there is no way to KNOW for sure how it all began for anyone currently stuck INSIDE our time-space existence. All we can do right now is believe one thing or another. Everyone will know for sure when we all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Ahem

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Pinky: Gee, Brane, what are we going to do tonight?

Brane: The same thing we do every night, try to create the world!

thanks folks, Ill be here all week.

From What I know...

[kitsunewarlock]

The universe started during the first "Big Bang", an explosion occuring when Chuck Norris roundhoused Mr. T at the same time Mr. T punched Chuck Norris. The battle raging on for the next 6,000,000,000,1980 years was known as "The Great Rumble". The second big bang, when both actually hit at the same time once again, would create the phenomenon known as "the 80s".

See, we can all get along with this theory.

Re:Inside/outside

[Belial6]

No, forming hypothesis is a part of science. If you jump right to Theory, then you are obviously adjusting data to match your theory, instead of the other way around.

Scholastic Doctors cannot fool scientists

[Pioneer1]

These two are scholastic doctors making a living by peddling their cosmogonic scenarios in the media. They may fool some of the people most of the time but their fraud does not work with this group. Freedom of Science is the most fundamental human right and it is alive and well at least at slashdot.

Mmmmm....fresh BRANES....

[Ralph Spoilsport]

(shuffle like a zombie and repeat:)

Must have BRANES... Must have FRESH BRANES.... Feed me BRANES... FRESH BRANES!!!

RS

Re:Inside/outside

[blackholepcs]

Umm, some of us (read : 97% of Slashdotters) don't believe in God in any manner. So while your reply to the parent is respectful (initially) to that fact, it still is offtopic, somewhat flamebait, and just asking for a whole slew of rude responses.
I respect your right to your beliefs, and your right to voice them. But you must respect the rights of others to not to be included as a group or part of a group that you belong to or believe in, ie. "as revealed to us in the Bible". This was not revealed to me in the Bible, nor was it revealed to the majority of the Earths population, including the majority of people who have actually read the Bible. Most people have other religious beliefs than Christianity, or no religious beliefs at all.
To put it simply, Slashdot is definitely NOT the place to include others in your religious views.
But, kudos to a mostly impartial and non-force-feeding post, even though it is slightly misplaced.
Now, as for the topic, I personally agree with the idea of the Big Bang. For now. It, for me, has made the most sense of any theory posited so far. Until something better comes along, String Theory and Big Rumble are nothing more than interesting mathematics and triva knowledge.

Alan Guth

[niktemadur]

Why did Alan Guth opt to appear on the show?
WBUR promised him a free lunch.

Re:Alan Guth

[niktemadur]

After remembering a bit more about it, I'll correct a crucial mistake in my post:

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 it, seal the rift behind itself (all under Plack Time, I would assume) and go about its' post-Big Bang business, creation of matter through inflationary supercooling and that sort of thing, parallel and completely disconnected from us.

In fact, Guth said at the time, the universe may be "the ultimate free lunch".

All right, then, now that we've cleared this up, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

Re:Inside/outside

[HeroreV]

The God who exists, as revealed to us in the Bible is the One who is outside of, apart from our time-space universe.

And why should anyone believe the Bible? I know of no logical reasons.

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.

Maybe many "gods" worked together to create the universe. Maybe some kind of unconscious cascade of events created it by chance. There is no logical reason to believe one single god consciously worked to put us here. There is no logical reason to believe there are definitely any gods at all.

That is why all human speculations about origins, whether called science or religion are entertaining fiction.

Yet I doubt you would admit your own religious fantasies are purely fictitious. Everyone who doesn't believe the same things you believe is kidding themselves, but you know the truth? Your argument makes no sense.

Everyone will know for sure when we all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Or maybe nobody will ever know for sure, because there is no afterlife.

Mt Palomar??

[IvyKing]

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.

A bit of nit-picking - the 200 inch Hale telescope is on Palomar Mountain.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[HeroreV]

The link is to a store. The post is just spam to make money.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Watson Ladd]

I have no financial connection to that store. I was only using the link as a source for the graph in question, which I could not find elsewhere.

Re:Teaching conjecture as fact?

[crAckZ]

i agree. next thing you know they will say there are only 8 planets and pluto is just a dwarf planet...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2 006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html... ahh crap

Re:Inside/outside

[arminw]

.....And why should anyone believe the Bible? I know of no logical reasons.....

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, our world view. The absence or presence of a belief in God is one foundational belief that determines everything in life. If there is no God, then there is no truth either, only 6 billion or so opinions. The majority doesn't hold a monopoly on truth either. History has shown that. All the majority can do and has ever done and can do, is to force their opinion down the throat of those who have different opinions.

You believe there is no afterlife and I believe that there will be an accounting for everybody. We will all find out whose belief was correct someday. I believe that the same mind that formulated the laws of physics, also made certain rules for humans. We cannot, ultimately choose which of these rules we wish to obey and which not.

In everything we humans do, we formulate these actions and designs first in our minds as concepts and ideas. A bridge or a computer chip begins its existence in one or more minds, sometimes long before it becomes physical reality. Is then so illogical that the universe and all life did not also have its beginning in a mind, one far greater than all human minds put together? Science is part of the fascinating quest to try and figure out how this reality we find ourselves in operates and originated. You KNOW that a computer chip came from a mind, even if you never met nor likely will never meet the one(s) in whose mind it was first conceived. You do not deny the existence of a mind behind a computer chip, but are you willing to deny that there is also a designer in whose mind the computer between your ears, your brain originated? In my thinking, such a denial is highly illogical.

In short, modern cosmological speculations are fun, just as the star wars movies are fun, but they are not logical.

Re:Allow me to analogize religion v science...

[gd23ka]

I don't know about you but I strongly detest the concept of re-ligion itself. Just take the word: religion, re-ligare, ligare (lat) to bind to tie, in other words religion as in to tie to bind again. Science is yet another religion to keep the mind bound.

missing element

[TheSHAD0W]

This theory is obviously defective, as it makes no mention of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Re:missing element

[Belacgod]

No, it was the Great Green Arkleseizure who sneezed his branes out.

Re:Inside/outside

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

Have you ever taken a step back and asked yourself, "Is everything the way it is because that's the only way it would work?" Better yet, if your creator loves each and every one of us so much, why would he condemn any of us to suffering? Better yet, why would the supposedly desirable afterlife be run as a dictatorship? Really, I'd like to know how religion (made by humanity, corrupted by humanity) is logical at all.

Re:Allow me to analogize religion v science...

[servognome]

I don't know about you but I strongly detest the concept of re-ligion itself. Just take the word: religion, re-ligare, ligare (lat) to bind to tie, in other words religion as in to tie to bind again. Science is yet another religion to keep the mind bound.

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 discussions on how the sun creates energy, without getting distracted by other philosophical topics such as trying to prove the sun is actually there.

Why does the creator have to love you?

[tjstork]

Saying that there is suffering in the world as a disprove of God's existence is something of a strawman.

You have this supposition that if you were all powerful, there would be no suffering, when really, if you were all powerful, you might not give a damn, and only intervene from time to time to those of your creations that prostrate themselves enough before you because it is entertaining. Please show me any phrase in any scripture of any religion where God says "Hey, I am a nice guy."

Besides, science is ultimately illogical. We already know, from science, that the universe is screwed. Our solar system will die. Our planet will be destroyed - no matter -what we do-. Yet, we keep pushing on trying to learn more, with this faith that learning more will somehow make our lives better, yet, in the end, all of it is pointless. The sun will run out of hydrogen, swell up, and consume the earth, and all these creatures you want to save are all going to die, including humanity, if we are still stuck on earth. The best science can offer is that humanity will run from star to star, planet to planet, until there are no more stars, and the game is over.

Compared to that, a dickhead God seems kinda warm and fuzzy.

Re:Why does the creator have to love you?

[arminw]

....Please show me any phrase in any scripture of any religion where God says "Hey, I am a nice guy.".......

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 present time-space universe we inhabit. You assume (faith) that this present physical reality and its laws is all that exists. Even within this physical reality there are these things we call mind, spirit, information, software etc. These are all a separate class, apart from the matter-energy science deals with. These are not subject to the same laws, but have rules of their own. Concerning information in particular, there is no known law of nature, no known process, no known sequence of events, which can cause information to originate by itself in or from matter/energy. The material realm can contain and manipulate existing information, but only a mind can create it.

It is in this realm, that God, who is not physical, reveals certain things. One of these things is that the physical reality we study in science is temporary and will one day be replaced. Science has figured that out as you stated. We are told that after this universe dies, the game is NOT over, but the beginning of a new game at a very much higher level. We are told of this in the last book of the Bible in Revelation 21:1. Now you may choose not to believe anything written therein, but that is your business.

Re:Why does the creator have to love you?

[TapeCutter]

"Even within this physical reality there are these things we call mind, spirit, information, software etc. These are all a separate class, apart from the matter-energy science deals with."

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 simply sort through existing information looking for meaningfull patterns. If the converse were true then the Universe could not exist without a "mind" to create the information it holds, and since a "mind" is dependent on the existance of matter (see above) then how could it exist in the first place?

Re:Why does the creator have to love you?

[arminw]

.....Minds don't "create information" .......

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 arises WITHOUT the activity of mind. The very LAWS of physics are immaterial, yet govern all aspects of the physical universe. Those laws were formulated in a mind to govern our time-space-matter-energy universe before it came to be.

Software on a disk neither adds nor subtracts from the mass of that material information carrier. Information, in order to interact with us in the physical realm must be imposed in some way onto a physical object. That doesn't mean though that Information cannot exist apart from and beyond the physical. The information lies in the arrangement of bits or letters on a suitable carrier. If the information is encrypted, it is lost, unless the key can be discovered in some manner. Interpreting information involves MEANING. If I wrote this to you in German, it would not convey information to you, unless you know German or can find someone who does and will translate the message so you can understand it and possibly take some kind of action based on that message.

I can run Windows, Mac OSX, Linux, DOS and who knows what else all on the same hardware. Each of these gives the computer a distinct "personality" but in no way normally affects the physical structure of the hardware. Software (Information) can travel at the speed of light. If we knew of a physical carrier that could go any distance instantly, then the information imposed thereon would also. Information then is CERTAINLY different than matter-energy. There is no reason mind cannot exist apart from and independently from matter-energy. However, since we are limited to the physical right now, we could not interact with or in any way perceive a pure mind.

Re:Why does the creator have to love you?

[tjstork]

In your cite, you have the Apostle John, saying "God is love." God never says: "I am love", nor does he ever say, "I am a nice guy." People in the Bible ascribe to God the trait of being filled with love, and nice, but, God Himself often says otherwise.

When Job mentioned his plight to God, God merely said that he is God and has the right to do what he wants, and Job is a peasant that has no clue. God doesn't justify why He allowed Satan to prosecute Job. He merely says that He is God, and therefor, He can.

God said told Noah that he wouldn't flood the world and kill everyone again, but, then he told his other prophets that he reserved the right to bring down flaming destruction, famine, pestilence and other destruction, instead.

Re:Why does the creator have to love you?

[arminw]

..... then he told his other prophets that he reserved the right to bring down flaming destruction, famine, pestilence and other destruction, instead........

Indeed He does and rightly so. I do not want this to turn into a long religious discussion. /. isn't really the place for such.

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. So you, I and every person on this planet that has ever told a lie is guilty of and is sentenced to death. We are all on death row, awaiting execution. God could have left us in this state, but in His love He found a way to satisfy justice and be merciful. That is the purpose of Jesus death and resurrection. He took the sentence we all are under.

Full pardon and release is now available to all who choose to admit their guilt, believe in and freely accept and submit to the righteous rule of Jesus. I have accepted these conditions and therefore have received a full pardon, allowing me full present and future access to God and fellowship in the society of all others so forgiven of all wrongdoing.

Right now, the good and evil are mixed up together here on earth. There will be a separation. One place where there will only be good and another where there is nothing good. One is light the other is darkness, heaven and hell. You may choose now where you will be after that separation happens.

There are only two groups of people, those who have been forgiven and those still under sentence of death -- eternal death. Which group are you in?

Re:Inside/outside

[TapeCutter]

"No, forming testable hypothesis is a part of science."

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:Allow me to analogize religion v science...

[gd23ka]

Yes of course. And philosophy itself is if I translate that greek loosely: love of knowledge, or rather the love of knowing or even better: love to know. As with everything under the sun, everything is open to abuse to those with an agenda. What love is there at the bottom of the socio-engineering heart?

Re:Zombie Mathematicians and the FSM

[bhiestand]

Perhaps the dinosaurs discovered The One Grand Unified Brane Theorem, and were so enlightened that they all had seizures and died. Damn. That's halfway plausible. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Easy. Man hunted the dinosaurs to extinction about 5000 years ago.

Re:Inside/outside

[blackholepcs]

97% wasn't a scientific figure. I mean, c'mon. 68% of statistics are made up on the spot.

I was just making a point.

Re:Inside/outside

[spun]

The human mind assumes a creator because it creates. The most complex things it knows, it has created. It assumes that things need a creator. You most likely believe that the creator exists without itself having a creator. Isn't it possible that the rest of reality could exist without a creator, too?

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. All we have are the writings and sayings of humans, why should I believe them? And before you ask, yes, I have opened my heart and asked to be shown, and I got jack squat. Obviously, if there is a creator, he doesn't give a rat's ass whether I believe in him or not.

Re:Inside/outside

[arminw]

....whether I believe in him or not......

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 the sufferings and shame He was subject to, while here on earth. Because Jesus was willing, He has been given the highest position under God and invites those other humans wiling to follow Him, to share in that royal calling under His name.

If you tell God that you too are willing to become a follower of Jesus, with NO conditions, he will take you at your word, show Himself to you and assign to you a path that will come to glory with Him through suffering. Jesus doesn't promise His followers a flower strewn pathway through life, but to the contrary, present unfailing love in spite of suffering and exaltation with Him in the future. Be careful though, before you ask God this, for it will cost you everything. Jesus said it this way:

And He said to all, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me. For whoever will save his life shall lose it, but whoever will lose his life for My sake, he shall save it. For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world and loses himself, or is cast away? (Matt. 9:23-25)

Re:Inside/outside

[spun]

As I mentioned, I have told God I was willing to be a follower of Jesus, with NO conditions, and I was NOT taken at my word, I was NOT shown anything, I was NOT assigned a path. You can either believe that I was sincere and unanswered or not. I don't care, I know I was sincere, and I know I was not answered with ANYTHING. I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I am a counter example to your claims.

Now Buddha, on the other hand, when asked definitely showed me some signs, sent me a teacher, and set me up with a path. That was after Jesus completely let me down. As far as personal evidence goes, I have never had any personal evidence that Jesus is anything more than a dead prophet. Maybe your savior answered your prayers, but he hasn't done jack squat for me and I'm kind of pissed at him for making me an offer he wasn't prepared to make good on. That's false advertising in my book.

What about the elephant in the room?...

[makuabob]

Nice talk, but not one person wanted to mention the behemoth lurking over cosmology today,...

That would be Burkhard Heim's unified theory from the 1950s. His work brought up the idea that gravity comes in several varieties, only one of which is experienced by us puny beings (so far). One of his additional gravitational entities is, today, called "Dark Energy" although he named it "Quintessence." It is the other, however, which is the "elephant in the room."

Heim deduced that a messenger particle he called a "gravitophoton" could be produced by using a very intense magnetic field (>20 Teslas) to produce electron-positron pairs from the background vacuum. The gravitophoton would have two types, attractive and replusive. Sound fanatasic?!

Uh, uh! Last year, the findings of two+ years of careful experiments with rotating, superconducting disks were announced by the European Space Agency (ESA). See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb364473.h tm . A non-Newtonian gravitational field has been conjured up and made to produce a measureable force in one direction and, upon accelerating the super-conducting disc in the opposite direction, have that non-Newtonian gravitational field produce a force in the opposite direction!

This makes talk about 'branes and Big Bangs idle chit-chat. Nor are these results a one-shot fluke. Two-hundred-plus runs were made, and the results studied for eight months, before the scientists doing the experiments could convince themselves that they weren't nuts! Their published work is here -- http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental _Detection.pdf

Of course, well-established scientists don't need to hear about this. It sort of means a lot of what they know is wrong.

Re:What about the elephant in the room?...

[makuabob]

Well, perhaps I could have made it clearer but I thought that,...

"...Burkhard Heim's unified theory from the 1950s. His work brought up the idea that gravity comes in several varieties, only one of which is experienced by us puny beings (so far). One of his additional gravitational entities is, today, called 'Dark Energy' although he named it 'Quintessence.' It is the other, however, which is the 'elephant in the room.' "
made it clear that Quintessence was NOT the elephant in the room. I continued with the gravitophoton and the fact that a non-Newtonian gravitaitional force, heretofore unmentioned by any other theory, had been measured. Heim called the shot well ahead of its discovery! He should get the credit.

Re:What about the elephant in the room?...

[makuabob]

Well, "Anonymous Coward," when you quote chapter and verse of the Establishment Bible of Science, you miss the point. Besides, I gave up any kind church cr.. decades ago.

Heim did the brainwork and pulled QD and GR together by the mid-1950s. He had Quintessence AND "non-Newtonian" gravity figured out while other, "established" scientists were suckling at funding teats, working to get their nice homes, showpiece wives, kids and the things a successful scientist SHOULD have.

Remember that "Rocket Man" lyric?--

"And all this science, I don't understand; it's just my job five days a week."

That's for folks who see science as a job. Some of see us science as a means to attempt to understand where the hell we are.

Just be patient and see how this 'new' gravity thing shakes out. I've seen layer after layer of "valid" science go under in the past three or four decades. Some folks will go down with the ship, others will choose to survive.

Eukariote is not a troll

[crolix]

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.

Re:Inside/outside

[spun]

Buddha's prophet, in my case, happened to be a very cute lady named Meg, and if by "death" you mean le petite mort then yes.