×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Big Bang Vs. the Big Rumble

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the ekpyrotic-upstart dept.

Math 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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

220 comments

You are academically retarded (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369529)

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

Re:You are academically retarded (4, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369565)

"You maybe academically retarded."

Check.

Re:You are academically retarded (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369613)

Shut the fuck up.

Re:You are academically retarded (1)

ControlAltDelete (1107897) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371271)

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/ [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 (1)

Smight (1099639) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371753)

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/ [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 (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371503)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19371831)

Step 1: Gain admission to Harvard.
Step 2: Disprove timecube.
Step 3: $10,000 profit!

Re:You are academically retarded (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371855)

-.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 (1)

22RealMcCoy (864375) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372011)

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Moving Dimensions Theory accounts for the aetherless aether. This simple postulate offers a physical model underlying and unifiying: RELATIVITY: 1) length contraction 2) time dilation 3) the equivalence of mass and energy 4) the constant velocity of light 5) the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source QUANTUMN MECHANICS 1) action at a distance 2) wave-particle duality 3) interference phenomena 4) EPR paradox THERMODYNAMICS 1) Time's arrow 2) Entropy STRING THEORY'S MANY DIMENSIONS / KALUZA/KLEIN THEORY 1) a fourth expanding dimension can be interepreted as many dimensions, each time it expands THE UNITY OF THE DUALITIES 1) wave/particle duality 2) time/space duality 3) energy/mass duality 4) E/B duality GENERAL RELATIVITY 1) Gravitational redshift 2) Gravity waves 3) Gravitation attraction THE SPACE-TIME BACKGROUND 1) quantum foam 2) the smearing of space and time at small distances 3) Hawking's imaginary time PARADOXES 1) MDT explains away Godel's Block Universe 2) MDT unfreezes time 3) Resolves Zeno's Paradox ONE GETS ALL OF THIS FROM A SIMPLE POSTULATE: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a sphereically symmetric manner, in units of the Planck length, at the rate of c. This means that every point in three dimnesional space is always expanding into a fourth dimensional sphere with a radius of the plank length. A photon is matter caught on the surface of this quantized expansion, and thus energy is quantized. The expansion of the fourth dimension occurs at the rate of c, and thus the velocity of all photons is c. Check out the t-shirt with a simple proof of MDT: http://www.cafepress.com/autumnrangers.72464949 [cafepress.com] "The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimenions." How sad it is that when truth stares modern physicists in the face, they must close their eyes so as to get a postdoc or raise more funds for String Theory. Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox. Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context. THE GENERAL POSTULATE OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. -Albert Einstein But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement, gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light, relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT. -The Physicist with No Name I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45 Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood MDT IN BRIEF Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be elaborated on throughout the book. Questions Addressed by MDT: Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the source. Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy are thus quantized. Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the same. How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a grain on a photographic plate. How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object, the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth dimension, and thus it moves. Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½ photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension. Why does time stop at the speed of light? Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light cannot emit a photon. How come a photon does not age? A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension. Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing? Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction? Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as perceived from the three spatial dimensions. Why are mass and energy equivalent? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2. In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c. Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons, is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy. Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension, appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity c. Why is there a minus sign in the following metric? x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2 The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the velocity of light. What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws? Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's laws. Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the shorter it appears, and the faster it moves. How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists "The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling; either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." - Abner Shimony and John Clauser Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years, have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists, such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that physics need news ideas. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time. "For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell "Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger "For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time. "Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new concept of space-time. http://physicsmathforums.com/ [physicsmathforums.com]

Movies? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369563)

Is that like a western vs. a Jackie Chan movie (Rumble in the Bronx)?

Latoyatveeoc@verizon.net

Spaghetti (3, Funny)

Swizec (978239) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369581)

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

In other news (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369665)

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:Spaghetti (1)

Lachlan Hunt (1021263) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369675)

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 (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371071)

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

Neil Turok (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369605)

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

Teaching conjecture as fact? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369625)

Big bang must be true, because our textbooks say it is so! Next they'll be teaching Common Descent as fact too.....no wait.....

Obviously (2, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369695)

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

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

Re:Obviously (5, Funny)

MortimerV (896247) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369727)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19370917)

What kind of moron puts an apostrophe in James? It's a NAME. JAMES.

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19371709)

I believe that it's the King Jame's version.
What kind of moron puts an apostrophe in James? It's a NAME. JAMES.
Wouldn't it be, "King James' Version"? King James having possession of "Version". His apostrophe wasn't that catastrophic... just misplaced.
Too bad the archaic spelling has persisted.

Re:Obviously (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372123)

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.)

Listen to it! (4, Informative)

massivefoot (922746) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369709)

To anyone who's got this far without having downloaded the mp3 [npr.org], 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! (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370729)

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.

Inside/outside (0)

Sqreater (895148) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369749)

You need an outside view to determine how the Universe started, and, last I checked, we're all inside. Great fun though. Continue. I actually heard this broadcast and enjoyed it as I've followed this for decades--since, as a kid, I bought and read a paperback titled "Frontiers of Astronomy," by Fred Hoyle, dealing with the discussion of the steady state universe model versus the big bang model. I think it was in the 60s some time. Much of science is becoming mere entertainment. Strings and branes. hahah. Good.

Re: Inside/outside (USA?) (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370615)

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:Inside/outside (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371201)

"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:Inside/outside (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372379)

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.

Re:Inside/outside (1, Funny)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372125)

,,,,,,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.

Pyrothechnic vs. Ekpyrotic (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369807)

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 (4, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370699)

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 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19371305)

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 [nasa.gov]

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 (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371723)

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 (1)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372157)

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.

Spock's Brane (3, Funny)

jpatters (883) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369853)

"Brane and brane, what is brane?

Re:Spock's Brane (5, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369983)

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 [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:Spock's Brane (-1, Troll)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370077)

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.

Re:Spock's Brane (2, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370465)

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

Re:Spock's Brane (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19370769)

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 (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371507)

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 (2, Insightful)

DeadChobi (740395) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372017)

Yeah, because linguistic acumen is such an excellent measure of scientific prowess that we should ignore the inherient ad hominem argument.

Re:Zombie Mathematicians and the FSM (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370493)

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:Spock's Brane (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371369)

"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.

Ignore this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19369965)

Undoing moderation, nevermind.

Speaking of "science" (0)

pfortuny (857713) | more than 6 years ago | (#19369995)

Wow,

Being a mathematician, I find it difficult to even believe in numbers, let alone BRANES.

You call **that** SCIENCE?

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

I got it: a singular supermanifold!

Pedro.

the host of this show needs to STFU (4, Informative)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370051)

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."

So let me get this straight... (1)

cralewyth (934970) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370075)

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

Non-cosmological redshift (2, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370119)

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:Non-cosmological redshift (1)

neurostar (578917) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370541)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19370753)

Yes, indeed, and one should also point out that if a scientist happens to think that red-shift is not always a measure of recessional velocity then (1) there's no Ph.D. to be had, or (2) there's no tenure to be had, or (3) there's no longer any possibility of publishing in peer-review journals.

So, either one believes the scientific establishment has a clean bill of health, or... one doesn't.

Re:Non-cosmological redshift (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371633)

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 (1)

arminw (717974) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372245)

.....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 (1)

grikdog (697841) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372039)

"...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.

The cosmology controversy (0, Troll)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370193)

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 [mininova.org]. There definitely are quite a few observations that do not fit the mainstream cosmology.

Re: The cosmology controversy (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370291)

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?

Re: The cosmology controversy (0, Troll)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370313)

Well hidden from university students and the general public?
Not really. We're talking about a fairly large number of scientists. The problem is the peer review system: they have trouble getting their observations and views published. The general public, in turn, is not knowledgable enough to make an independent judgment, and as such relies on the scientific consensus which is moderated by the peer review system.

Re: The cosmology controversy (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370481)

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 [wikipedia.org].

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: The cosmology controversy (1, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370581)

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 [amazon.com].

Re: The cosmology controversy (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370667)

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 (1, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370733)

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.

Re: The cosmology controversy (1)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370887)

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 (1, Interesting)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370943)

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 [uu.net].

Re: The cosmology controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19371017)

errr, did the crackpot just win?

Re: The cosmology controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19371367)

In their own minds, the crackpot always wins. To the rest of us though the crackpot just pissed in their pants again.

Are their views really in conflict? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370273)

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

String theory .... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19370343)

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

A Steady State Universe, Instead (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19370415)

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 [electricpolitics.com]

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

http://www.haltonarp.com/ [haltonarp.com]

Re: A Steady State Universe, Instead (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370645)

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 (1)

Eukariote (881204) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370991)

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 (5, Informative)

boot_img (610085) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371563)

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:A Steady State Universe, Instead (1)

Bozdune (68800) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372061)

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

They should've had the Uni of Kansas... (3, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370745)

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... (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371601)

Probably because "intelligent" design has no place in a serious scientific debate? Or; to be diplomatic, because ID wasn't the theory on the table? If you want to offer ID as some kind of plausible scientific explanation for anything you can't insert it into every scientific debate that comes across your conscienceless; that's called "bogarting the forum."

Re:They should've had the Uni of Kansas... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372309)

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

String theory... (4, Insightful)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 6 years ago | (#19370999)

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.

this radio show (0, Offtopic)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371015)

if u listen to this show regularly, as I do, living in boston, u know that the host has this irritating and moronic habit of lowering his voice and trying to invest everything with big, earthshaking importance.
he is also a right wingnut conservative. Like other NPR (national peurile rightwing radio) hosts, his right wing bias is clearly seen when a liberal caller makes some perfectly reasoanble , if not correct, suggestion, like american attacks in the mid east prior to 9/11 irritated people, or that the failure of the american auto industry is not due to workers, but due to the astonishing incompetance of ceos. when somenone makes one of these comments, he has this incredibly arrogant way of dismissing them, by ignoring the comment, and directing a question to one of his guests that implicitly dismisses the liberal callers question as idiotic. perhpahs the effort by boston university to turn its station into a profit center is driving his views.
basically the 90s version of some middlebrow magazine like readers digest or american heritage.
yeah, i really do dislike him: he has this incredible forum, and does so little with it

Re:this radio show (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371687)

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.

My opinion (1)

cjdkoh (991723) | more than 6 years ago | (#19371085)

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.

Interviewer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19371137)

Jesus this man is annoying.

We already know the answer to this... (1)

vorlich (972710) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372065)

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.

Ahem (1)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372209)

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... (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 6 years ago | (#19372287)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...