×

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!

Before the Big Bang: A Twin Universe?

samzenpus posted about 6 years ago | from the two-possibilities-one-great-reality dept.

Space 212

esocid writes "Until very recently, asking what happened at or before the Big Bang was considered by physicists to be a religious question. General relativity theory just doesn't go there — at T=0, it spews out zeros, infinities, and errors — and so the question didn't make sense from a scientific view. But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a "quantum bounce," where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

212 comments

Before the big bang... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23019786)

he got her really drunk.

Re:Before the big bang... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23019936)

Was that right before he took a big fucking shit in her vaj?
 

Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (-1, Flamebait)

New_Age_Reform_Act (1256010) | about 6 years ago | (#23019802)

Hubble telescope can look at the sky in two opposite direction...and it did.

Two opposite direction, you know....exactly opposite.

In one direction, it looked into 12 to 15billion light years ago and see many galaxies. In a piece of the sky 1x1 degree it saw over 10,000 galaxies....

The light from this galaxies took 12 to 15 billion light years to reach our telescope.

Then the Hubble looked into the opposite direction and saw exactly the same thing....

Exactly...

Now put your mind to work...

12 to 15 billion light years ago....the galaxies in two opposite directions were already....24 to 30 billion light years away from one another!

This mean the age of the universe exceeds 30 billion light years.....

If you use this logic to compute the size of the universe 12 to 15 billion light years ago, it just won't work. You know why? Because Big Bang is bull crap!

If Big Bang is true, then you should see a light barrier where there will be total darkness once the boundary is crossed. This boundary is where the photons have already flew past us if it was emitted beyond this boundary.

OK....it is hard for you to understand. So bear with me...

The speed of light is uniform and always the same...

So if there was big bang, the initial batch of photons should have flown by us long time ago because the speed of expansion is less than the speed of light.

Therefore we should never be able to see the early moment of big bang because the photons emitted then were all gone past us!

How can you see something when there is no photons to be seen?

It is like you driving a Tata, I am driving a BMW.We start at the same place. You are the galaxy and I am the photon. First you and I were together...but the moment you move away from the center with the big bang, I passed you and then you will not see me again.

Therefore, looking into the past to see the early stage of the galaxy is itself a fallacy based on a phony concept. The galaxies have to be there 12 billion years ago so we can see it now.

At this very moment...you look at all direction you can see 12 billion light years away and still can see billions of galaxies.

This means that 12 billion years ago there were these galaxies at those locations giving out light.

So there were galaxies that were at least 24 billion light years away ( the one from opposite direction) that were giving out lights 12 billion years ago.

So, the universe was at least 24 billion light years in size 12 billion light years ago.

If you look into 15 billion light years ago..the universe, from one direction to the other, was at least 30 billion light years in size...

The funny thing is...the further we look into the past, the universe was found to be bigger in size...It has to be per my logic.

So..the more into the past, the bigger was the universe...Exactly opposite to the big bang that says we start at one point!

Also,The scientists say the universe was started from a point no bigger than a bar of soap. This point of extremely hot energy exploded and formed the space and time continuum as we know of today.

But facts tell us otherwise.

OK..the scientists tell you that, the further you look into deep space, the further back in time you are looking into. You see, it takes time for the photon to travel to you from its source. Therefore, the further into the deep space you look, the further into the past you are looking into because it took the photon more time to travel to you.

And, if the big bang is right, the further you look into the past, the higher is the temperature.

Yet this is not the case.

Also, the further we look into the past, the bigger the universe has become. Big bang predicted a much denser and hotter universe. If the big bang is correct, then you look close to the beginning of time...the universe could be like one big fire ball.

You see, the Big Bang theory said that if you can look at the beginning of the universe, you should see nothing but very high temperature.

Good luck to you if you want to look for a very high temperature region. Looking around a 4-pi space by the Hubble, we saw nothing of high temperature.. In fact, the temperature of what we can see is around a few hundred degrees below ZERO.... Yes...270 degree below zero Celcius. This is nothing of a temperature we could call...hot. And the temperature distribution is actually..pretty uniform in time. That means the background temperature now is not that much colder than the temperature 12 billion years ago.

The further you look, you see nothing but younger galaxies, and the universe grew bigger...from one end to the other...

AsI said before...the further we look, the bigger the universe gets. This is logical if the universe is infinite and has always been infinite...

The entire big bang thing is just not logical from what we are seeing today through the Hubble telescope.

This is like looking around in dense fog. When the fog start lifting, the further you can see.. the landscape gets bigger. This is exactly the case with Hubble. The further we can see the bigger the universe has become.

Instead of finding the universe converting to a point, we see the universe diverting to infinite in the past.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | about 6 years ago | (#23019824)

I was about to mod this funny, but suddenly I got this feeling that maybe you were serious.

I have no response to that other than, um, sometimes its best to not post your thoughts in public where others can see...

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23019852)

You're assuming space is linear. Check again in another 12 to 15 billion years, and if you see yourself looking back you'll understand how this could be...

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (0, Redundant)

deepthoughtless (1264016) | about 6 years ago | (#23019950)

Hubble telescope can look at the sky in two opposite direction...and it did. Two opposite direction, you know....exactly opposite. In one direction, it looked into 12 to 15billion light years ago and see many galaxies. In a piece of the sky 1x1 degree it saw over 10,000 galaxies.... The light from this galaxies took 12 to 15 billion light years to reach our telescope. Then the Hubble looked into the opposite direction and saw exactly the same thing.... Exactly... Now put your mind to work... 12 to 15 billion light years ago....the galaxies in two opposite directions were already....24 to 30 billion light years away from one another! This mean the age of the universe exceeds 30 billion light years..... If you use this logic to compute the size of the universe 12 to 15 billion light years ago, it just won't work. You know why? Because Big Bang is bull crap! If Big Bang is true, then you should see a light barrier where there will be total darkness once the boundary is crossed. This boundary is where the photons have already flew past us if it was emitted beyond this boundary. OK....it is hard for you to understand. So bear with me... The speed of light is uniform and always the same... So if there was big bang, the initial batch of photons should have flown by us long time ago because the speed of expansion is less than the speed of light. Therefore we should never be able to see the early moment of big bang because the photons emitted then were all gone past us! How can you see something when there is no photons to be seen? It is like you driving a Tata, I am driving a BMW.We start at the same place. You are the galaxy and I am the photon. First you and I were together...but the moment you move away from the center with the big bang, I passed you and then you will not see me again. Therefore, looking into the past to see the early stage of the galaxy is itself a fallacy based on a phony concept. The galaxies have to be there 12 billion years ago so we can see it now. At this very moment...you look at all direction you can see 12 billion light years away and still can see billions of galaxies. This means that 12 billion years ago there were these galaxies at those locations giving out light. So there were galaxies that were at least 24 billion light years away ( the one from opposite direction) that were giving out lights 12 billion years ago. So, the universe was at least 24 billion light years in size 12 billion light years ago. If you look into 15 billion light years ago..the universe, from one direction to the other, was at least 30 billion light years in size... The funny thing is...the further we look into the past, the universe was found to be bigger in size...It has to be per my logic. So..the more into the past, the bigger was the universe...Exactly opposite to the big bang that says we start at one point! Also,The scientists say the universe was started from a point no bigger than a bar of soap. This point of extremely hot energy exploded and formed the space and time continuum as we know of today. But facts tell us otherwise. OK..the scientists tell you that, the further you look into deep space, the further back in time you are looking into. You see, it takes time for the photon to travel to you from its source. Therefore, the further into the deep space you look, the further into the past you are looking into because it took the photon more time to travel to you. And, if the big bang is right, the further you look into the past, the higher is the temperature. Yet this is not the case. Also, the further we look into the past, the bigger the universe has become. Big bang predicted a much denser and hotter universe. If the big bang is correct, then you look close to the beginning of time...the universe could be like one big fire ball. You see, the Big Bang theory said that if you can look at the beginning of the universe, you should see nothing but very high temperature. Good luck to you if you want to look for a very high temperature region. Looking around a 4-pi space by the Hubble, we saw nothing of high temperature.. In fact, the temperature of what we can see is around a few hundred degrees below ZERO.... Yes...270 degree below zero Celcius. This is nothing of a temperature we could call...hot. And the temperature distribution is actually..pretty uniform in time. That means the background temperature now is not that much colder than the temperature 12 billion years ago. The further you look, you see nothing but younger galaxies, and the universe grew bigger...from one end to the other... AsI said before...the further we look, the bigger the universe gets. This is logical if the universe is infinite and has always been infinite... The entire big bang thing is just not logical from what we are seeing today through the Hubble telescope. This is like looking around in dense fog. When the fog start lifting, the further you can see.. the landscape gets bigger. This is exactly the case with Hubble. The further we can see the bigger the universe has become. Instead of finding the universe converting to a point, we see the universe diverting to infinite in the past.
It's my understanding that when things go bang, they expand, no? Of course it would be getting bigger, it exploded. And of course it would be cold at the edges; the temperature wouldn't just remain static into infinity, material loses energy. If you're going to challenge a major theory, you should site sources that provide solid evidence against it, or if it's your own research, offer more proof than what you've heard. It's difficult to imagine something so huge coming from something so small, but sometimes you have to bring yourself away from that pesky human perspective to see something so much bigger (in a non-ideological way :) than you or I.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (0, Troll)

qkslvr (594310) | about 6 years ago | (#23020564)

wow. we are all dumber for having listened to you... that's 4 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Go back to watching NASCAR and do us all a favor....

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

polar red (215081) | about 6 years ago | (#23021476)

but wait ... if 2 people leave my house at lightspeed in opposite directions, after an hour they will be at 2 lighthours from each other ! so they would have to be already travelling 2 hours after that hour ?

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

GrpA (691294) | about 6 years ago | (#23021718)

No, they are one light hour apart, relative to each other...

Otherwise they would have had to have travelled at 2C for the past hour...

Which if course, is impossible...

GrpA

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 6 years ago | (#23022692)

Your mistake is thinking that time and space are constants. They are not. They are relative to your reference frame. Hence the name relativity. After one hour, the two people are two light hours apart from each other from your reference frame. From their reference frame, time is going slower and distances in the directions they are traveling are shorter, so they would not measure themselves as being two light hours apart. They would measure themselves as being no more than one light hour apart, although from your reference frame it would be many billions of years in the future at that time.

ObFuturama (1)

EricWright (16803) | about 6 years ago | (#23023252)

Which if course, is impossible...
Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being is a scientist is all about.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (5, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 6 years ago | (#23019976)

You are assuming that the scale of space is stable - that the separation of galaxies comes entirely from their material moving apart (at sublight speed) since they were essentially together in the moments after the big bang.

In fact space itself stretches. The separation of the material between pairs of distant (and near) galaxies comes from both their motion through space and the stretching (expansion) of the space between them.

The result is that sufficiently distant galaxies can be much farther apart than they could have traveled - even at the speed of light - through non-expanding space in the time since the big bang.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 years ago | (#23020086)

If space (and in effect time) stretched like that, it wouldn't even matter. It would be like stretching a gummy bear... sure, maybe you got a long gummy bear, but it is still ONE gummy bear. If space stretched, so would time, and one unit of space-time is one-unit of space-time, regardless.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (2, Informative)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 6 years ago | (#23020362)

the explanation I have heard from a couple physicists and astronomers goes more like this:

Imagine space as a slightly inflated rubber balloon. Imagine two dots on the outside of that balloon. Then add air to the balloon, inflating it further.

What you get is two dots that are farther apart, more real distance between them but the same balloon.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 6 years ago | (#23020552)

To use your analogy, draw a grid on the balloon. When you inflate the balloon, the grid squares grow. But one unit is still one unit. If you had to measure around the balloon, it would be x squares, regardless the size. This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference. You are measuring it outside of the universe, and it just doesn't work like that.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (-1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about 6 years ago | (#23021066)

Well, all the astrophysicists and astronomers I have talked to seem to disagree with your interpritation. Seeing as I know their impeccable credentials, I hope you will forgive me if I remain sceptical about your take on this.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23021540)

You are pointing to imperfections in an analogy and claiming they are flaws in the concept the analogy is meant to describe. The balloon analogy is not a premise supporting expansion. It's just a visual aid.

This is because we are IN the balloon so that is our frame of reference.

No, we are on the balloon. The surface of the balloon is a 2D representation of our 3D space. Talking about the inside of the balloon is nonsensical.

You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23020210)

So it would be safe to say that if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, we could witness objects
distancing themselves at almost 3 times the speed of light, considering the addition of each:

- object A can travel "just a bit slower" than the speed of light in one direction
- space can stretch "just a bit slower" than the speed of light
- object B can travel "just a bit slower" than the speed of light in opposite direction from object A

Interesting isn't it?

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (1)

oscartheduck (866357) | about 6 years ago | (#23020288)

Actually, I understand that general relativity doesn't apply to the fabric of space, only to objects within space. So space's expansion isn't limited to the speed of light.

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (4, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 6 years ago | (#23020406)

So it would be safe to say that if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, we could witness objects distancing themselves at almost 3 times the speed of light, considering the addition of each: - object A can travel "just a bit slower" than the speed of light in one direction - space can stretch "just a bit slower" than the speed of light - object B can travel "just a bit slower" than the speed of light in opposite direction from object A Interesting isn't it?
Unfortunately, you can't do simple addition when you're dealing with relativistic velocities. The details of the math are beyond me, but in essence: velocity is a defined distance traveled over a certain amount of time. And, under relativity, time is not constant.

Consider having two probes going away from Earth at 60%-lightspeed in opposite directions, and they want to communicate with each other. At 120%-c speeds, you might think it's impossible. But each of them could communicate back and forth with Earth at mere 60%-c speeds. If you do the actual math you work out that they appear to each other as moving away at something-like-80%c (that figure is totally made up, but you should get the idea anyway).

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (4, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 6 years ago | (#23020486)

So it would be safe to say that if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, we could witness objects distancing themselves at almost 3 times the speed of light, considering the addition of each: ...

Nope. You can't observe objects whose effective speed in your reference frame - combining inflation with velocity - is greater than C. The light from them never reaches you and light from you can never reach them. From your point of view they're "off the edge". It's as if you and they were each below the event horizon of a black hole relative to each other.

(And sorry about an error in my previous post. The correct buzzword for the stretching of space is "inflation".)

Or at least that's how I understand it. IANAP(hysicist)

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (1)

DeadChobi (740395) | about 6 years ago | (#23021384)

Well, if we can't make observations about such physical phenomena as space expanding faster than the speed of light, then isn't it pointless to discuss such phenomena from the standpoint of physics? If we can't make any observations to confirm a model then it's pointless to develop the model except as an exercise in mathematical reasoning.

Oh, and buzzword isn't the same as a precisely-defined technical term. For a good litmus test, compare the precision of the definition of "Web 2.0" to the definition of "Force."

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (2, Informative)

JohnFluxx (413620) | about 6 years ago | (#23023082)

You can see objects whose effective speed is greater than c _now_, but wasnt when the light was emitted. We can see objects with a redshift equal to that of an object travelling twice or more the speed of light. (Redshift of about 6 ish)

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (2, Interesting)

dookiesan (600840) | about 6 years ago | (#23020632)

If object B looked back at object A, B would see A moving away from it slower than the speed of light due to time dilation. Time isn't actually any different for A than for B or for you in the center because you're not supposed to say that any one of them is actually the one that's moving. So if you're sitting in the center waving your hand at second intervals, B and A would see you waving very quickly. Likewise if I'm at B waving my hand at 1 second intervals you in the center would see my waving as quicker than your own! (I might have mixed up who sees who as waving slower).

It makes no sense, but it's OK because the theory never allows us to loop past each other like on a donut and simultaneously notice that the other person is a lot older than we are.

Re:You can go almost 3 times the speed of light? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23022926)

(I'd already modded severl posts, when I just had to reply to this one. So, I'm posting anonymously.)

The speed of inflation apparently isn't limited to the speed of light, which (more-or-less) applies to the transmission of information. There's no way to embed bits into empty space, so there's no limit to the speed of expansion. The question is, is the current rate of inflation a constant, or is it changing? And if it's changing, is that change decaying or accelerating? If the rate is increasing at an accellerating rate, then there will come a time when the space between the earth and the sun is increaing faster than gravity can hold them together. At that point, earth will "gravitationally decouple" and float away. Don't worry, though, about freezing to death. Within a just few hours our atoms will decouple, and we'll all decompose into expanding clouds of gas. And then subatomic particles will get sundered. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip [wikipedia.org] for more details.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | about 6 years ago | (#23019984)

Therefore we should never be able to see the early moment of big bang because the photons emitted then were all gone past us!
Well I guess that's why half the night sky isn't some gargantuan fiery explosion. All we see are secondary sources of photons from stars and stuff.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23020026)

Well I guess that's why half the night sky isn't some gargantuan fiery explosion.

Sure it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB [wikipedia.org]

Also, http://xkcd.com/54/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | about 6 years ago | (#23020092)

But CMB fills the entire universe, it doesn't come from one localized area. See the part of his post:

Good luck to you if you want to look for a very high temperature region.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (3, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 years ago | (#23020234)

But CMB fills the entire universe, it doesn't come from one localized area. See the part of his post:

      What you want is a specific "point" at which the big bang happened. That's not the case. When it happened - it WAS the universe - ie it was every single point at once. As the universe expands - anywhere you look from or to you'll be able to see this background radiation. Of course there will be fluctuations if the expansion of the universe isn't completely uniform - and why should it be? Matter distorts space and time, contributing to this non-uniformity.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

aingleby (606690) | about 6 years ago | (#23020008)

Aren't you forgetting about the Theory of Relativity, and the affect on Space-Time of the movements of such massive objects as Galaxies? In a purely Newtonian sense, you have a point, but Einstein proved things are a lot more complex than that.

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

Yehooti (816574) | about 6 years ago | (#23020130)

OK, I'm not a cosmologist. The Big Bang is a theory so could certainly be wrong, so I'm posing a question here as well as posing a 'what if?'. We're looking for the God Particle (Higgs boson), which attaches itself to all matter except photons. Well, I think they attach to photons in some way too. Where I'm going is to a steady state universe where the most distant light has been affected by Higgs' particles. That light has lost energy getting here though not velocity. We see it as a red shift. Further along back in that direction, the photons have been affected enough to no longer be light but background RF radiation. Is it possible that we are truly in an infinite universe and that the most distant sources of photons that we can discern are now in the RF range? Not because of a receding outer limit but because their extreme distance has drained their energy?

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

scottrocket (1065416) | about 6 years ago | (#23020168)

This mean the age of the universe exceeds 30 billion light years.....

So is this older than the Kessel Run, or simply faster?

Re:Fallacy of the Big Bang Theory (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | about 6 years ago | (#23021556)

This mean the age of the universe exceeds 30 billion light years.....


So is this older than the Kessel Run, or simply faster?

All I know is that for Han Solo and the Millennium Falcon, it's a shorter trip than for anyone else!

I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23019806)

This explains evil Spock and good Bender!

Thanks for furthering your agenda! (2, Insightful)

CodyRazor (1108681) | about 6 years ago | (#23019858)

Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.

If the likes of stephen hawking and albert einstein with general reletivity cant work it out how are illiterate goat herders from 2000 years ago supposed to have done it?

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23020002)

Actually he was a sheepherder. But I think you missed the point of their argument. Jesus is supposed to be like Superman. He has powers, dude!

I figure Superman could figure out all of these religious questions if he really wanted to. And the Christians believe that Jesus actually did.

Personally, I think Jesus is a pretty crappy superhero. Superman can hold up falling buildings, let trains ride on his arms and legs like on their rails, and can go back in time. Jesus can only walk on water (Superman can fly!) and then turn that water into wine. That's a great trick and I'm sure it is useful at parties, but it isn't a class A superhero ability. The only really notable thing that Jesus was able to do was with zombies. And it turned out that that you didn't even need kryptonite to kill Jesus the first time (and a shotgun will probably work for the second). Al in all, I'd have a lot more respect for the crackpot theories of Christians if they worshiped Superman instead of Zombie-0.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 6 years ago | (#23020172)

Remember, you gotta shoot em in the head.

What? Oh yeah, and the zombies too.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (4, Funny)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | about 6 years ago | (#23020068)

There are different kinds of intelligence. Some people can solve complicated problems like getting laid but can't handle simple problems like calculating pi to 15 places using a couple of paper clips a rubber band and a slinky. This doesn't make them useless to society, and I think we should celebrate our differences.

To look at it another way, Einsein supposedly intuited a lot of his work and then proved it later. He had that kind of mind. If Einstein had been a goat herd 2000 years ago, the accepted mode of proof would have been vastly different, so proof from them rates as primitive religion now just as general relativity is the superstitious mumbo jumbo of the future. I'd take you in my time machine to prove it, but it only seats one and I know you're prone to not returning them... or will be on July 12th, 2017.

Also, Einsein was wrong about a whole lot of stuff, but that doesn't make his contribution useless. Ditto for the goat herders.

If someone does finally work it out, kill him. Until then, being open to the idea that someone who can't read or write but can play world class lawn bowls probably has as much, if not more insight into the true nature of nature than Hawking et al is a healthy perspective.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

mtm_king (99722) | about 6 years ago | (#23020918)

Thank you Max L.

I was going to write something about us being primates with senses designed to find food and keep from being food. And our brains designed to interpret those senses. And here we are trying to figure out what happened before the BANG.

But I like your post better than mine would have been.

If you really have a time machine - If you let me use it I promise promise promise I will return it if I can borrow it.
 

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

BotnetZombie (1174935) | about 6 years ago | (#23022602)

Son! How many times have we told you not to mess with the heads of the primates from this era? Now get back to your own time and universe, your mother is worried sick! Oh, and can you bring some brain-snacks on the way home?

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

Cerberus7 (66071) | about 6 years ago | (#23023320)

Your UID is a little high for me to believe that you're a time traveller.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 6 years ago | (#23020070)

Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious
Every physicist I've ever met adheres to the cosmology of one religion or another, if only by way of personal suspicion about what science cannot answer.

And those friends of mine who have worked with far more physicists report that they often find fundamental reason for what is essentially religious belief in their work. You know, kind of like Einstein, who was "religious" in the sense that he believed in a fundamental and purposeful (deterministic) order, rather than the stark random chance esposed by the "non-religious"

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23020264)

You know, kind of like Einstein, who was "religious" in the sense that he believed in a fundamental and purposeful (deterministic) order, rather than the stark random chance esposed by the "non-religious"
Which was his downfall.

Due to this "religious" belief he was never able to accept quantum theory, even after it was firmly established by experiments. Thus he more or less wasted the last few decades of his life.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

CodyRazor (1108681) | about 6 years ago | (#23020744)

Einstein did not believe this. He simply used god as a metaphor for the unknown. He was an athiest 100%. Many physicists do this, unfortunatly they have chosen a bad word to use because as soon as they use the word god they get labled religious.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (3, Insightful)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | about 6 years ago | (#23021358)

Science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for God to obey the laws of physics (or create them, for that matter). Arguments about whether this theory or that law proves or disproves the existence of God are stupid - for example, it is possible that God decided to create man through evolution.

I, too, know many scientists who are actively religious. Most of them say things along the lines of "my studies in field X have opened up to my mind the glory of God" or "the universe and its workings bear witness that we are God's creation".

I'm not trying to say that science can prove or disprove religion (or vice versa)... that's impossible. All I'm saying is that if you believe in God, science isn't going to contradict that belief.

And before I get flamed by people saying "you're just trying to explain away problems so you can still believe in God", it is my firm opinion that any valid belief in God will be consistent with science - any valid religion should be able to withstand that sort of scrutiny. As of yet, I personally have not come across anything scientific that cannot be reconciled with my religious beliefs. There is a world of difference between blindly explaining away problems and reconciling apparent issues.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about 6 years ago | (#23022452)

i think the conflict arises when science contradicts the particular holy texts of a religion, rather than the notion of a god. But that is only really a problem for biblical literalists or their equivalents, which from what you've said, i assume you aren't one of.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (1)

CodyRazor (1108681) | about 6 years ago | (#23022650)

If you believe science and religion arent in conflict you either dont know much about science or dont know much about religion.

Heres jsut one example. God states in the bible that he is omnipotent. omnipotence is impossible according to natural laws, e.g. can god create a rock ge cant lift. the only way to get around this is to say that god is exempt from the laws of nature, which conflicts with science.

Re:Thanks for furthering your agenda! (4, Insightful)

Lijemo (740145) | about 6 years ago | (#23023310)

Considering approximately 5% of Physicists in the Unites States are religious I dont think they considered it a religous question.

By "religious question", they mean, "according to our current understanding of the laws of physics, it is impossible, even in theory, to generate a falsifiable hypothosis about what happened before the big bang. Therefore, any discussion of what happened 'before' cannot be scientific, and hence is religions/philisophical discussion, not science".

TFA is about some folks claiming "actually, we DO have a hypothosis that is, at least in theory, falifiable".

"Science" is about studying things that are measurable, empirical, and/or falsifiable, whether one beleives that's ALL there is in the universe or not. "Religion" includes things that are not always empirical and falsifiable, and that cannot, even in theory, be scientifically tested. "Philosophy" includes all of the above and then some.

Whether something is or is not science, and whether something is or is not real, are two seperate questions-- whether or not one feels both questions have the same answer.

It's just like history... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 6 years ago | (#23019884)

It's just like history, really... History repeats itself, do does the Universe.

Re:It's just like history... (1)

CodyRazor (1108681) | about 6 years ago | (#23019966)

History tends to repeat itself because humans are for the most part stupid and dont take an active interest in history to prevent future mistakes. Human history repeats itself, i dont think you can really apply this to physiscs, unless your a fan of Unintelligent Design or something.

yeah, I heard about this (2, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 6 years ago | (#23019894)

There were two universes but Manfred drones destroyed the Light Universe. Fortunately, we're already in the Dark Universe.

Does anyone know ... (1, Insightful)

jonfr (888673) | about 6 years ago | (#23019914)

Does anyone know what they are speaking about ? But I doubt that there is a twin universe that is now gone. I am more on the line that there is a parallel universe that is almost like our own, expect Bush wasn't president of the U.S and we now have people on Mars and so on. That universe had Al Gore as president.

Re:Does anyone know ... (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about 6 years ago | (#23020618)

Bush wasn't president of the U.S and we now have people on Mars and so on. That universe had Al Gore as president.

Ah, I see. Because... when Gore and Clinton were in charge of NASA, there were plans in place and programs under way to have people on Mars by now, only 7 years later, and that got stopped cold by Teh Evil Bush. I wonder what else was under way while Clinton and Gore were running the executive branch? Say, the rapid build up of Al Queda tranining camps in Afghanistan, and the launching of plans to re-attack the WTC? The recession we were in as they left office? The changes in your alternate universe have to go back a lot farther than Gore not getting selective votes counted just the way he wanted in Florida in order to have people on Mars now, as we're talking. Of course, you know that, and you're just trolling.

Re:Does anyone know ... (1)

Khaed (544779) | about 6 years ago | (#23020720)

You forgot to mention the whole carbon footprint of launching something big enough to colonize Mars... something that would probably make Gore have an aneurysm.

Re:Does anyone know ... (2, Interesting)

drik00 (526104) | about 6 years ago | (#23021096)

You forgot to mention the whole carbon footprint of launching something big enough to colonize Mars... something that would probably make Gore have an aneurysm.


Yeah, but then again, you're assuming he actually believes the stuff he spouts off, b/c in this universe, he refuses to debate ANYONE on the facts, and he owns the companies he buys 'carbon credits' from... weird, huh?

Re:Does anyone know ... (1)

jonfr (888673) | about 6 years ago | (#23022100)

Actually, you are trolling. Being right-winged loser how lives in your moms basement. Are there any new right winged scandals in the works that I should know about ?

Re:Does anyone know ... (4, Interesting)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | about 6 years ago | (#23020866)

I'll admit that I don't know what he's talking about. But it's not really a unique theory, in that there are other "fate of the universe" theories that predict that an end of one universe will bring the beginning of another. Or something along those lines. I had a lecture recently, where the professor talked about some of the wildly speculative theories of the future of the universe. It goes something like the following:

The common view now is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating [wikipedia.org] . As the universe ages, galaxies will be spread further away, and the amount of hydrogen and helium in any given galaxy will start to decrease to the point that it would be difficult to produce any stars. Galaxies will be full of brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, and black holes. Over a long time frame, galaxies will start shedding some of their stars, and black holes will decay via the process of Hawking radiation [wikipedia.org] . Eventually, about a googol years from now, protons will start to decay [wikipedia.org] . As the universe runs out of ways to generate energy, there will be parts of the universe, starting with the large empty gaps left behind by the expansion, that will undergo a phase transition. Once some pockets of the universe undergo phase transition, they will act as seeds that spread the transition to other parts of the universe (like the process of water turning into ice). When the phase transition is complete, the laws of physics will change drastically, and there may be a new seed for a new universe.

As I mentioned earlier, it's WILDLY speculative, so don't take this comment as anything definitive. I just wanted to illustrate one of the many theories out there that share some of the most basic premises of the one in the story.

Re:Does anyone know ... (1)

pseudochaos (1014063) | about 6 years ago | (#23021426)

Phase transition presupposes matter to be transitioned. As such, empty pockets of space cannot undergo phase transitioning.

The universe is accelerating. Is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023146)

The common view is that the universe is accelerating, yes. But it could well be that we are slowing down. All we notice is a constant redshift. But lacking a point of reference, we could also be slowing down.

Re:Does anyone know ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23021390)

Sadly we're not talking about a place where everyone has a goatee... however it goes like this:

LQC predicts that the contracting phase of the universe (imagine a tape recording of the universe run backwards if you like) connects to an expanding phase at a critical matter density - so you get a big "bounce" instead of a big "bang". On the other side is a collapsing universe. The universe starts out large, smooth and low curvature/energy density. As you go back in time, the curvature gets large, as does the energy density. LQC says that when the density of energy reaches something near the Planck density (it's much more precise about this than I'm being here) the contraction of the universe stops, and it begins expanding again.

Something that people don't seem to realize here: This is a prediction of the theory. Not the theory itself. A lot of people here talk about theories about what happens near a singularity (even if they don't use the technical term). LQC takes its basic variables, makes the assumptions about how they are quantized (and that is where the theory stands distinct from others, such as WdW and string theories) and then actively calculates what will happen as you approach the singularity. Everyone had active guesses at what happens at the big bang, but LQC has an actual prediction.

It's much like the situation with black hole evaporation - lots of physicists had theories (again more like guesses really) about what happened: stuff came out/went to another disconnection sector of the universe/everything turned into a point, but Hawking's famous work was to calculate a prediction (from quantum field theory adapted to curved space time) that the mass would radiate away over time.

Is heat death still possible under this theory? (1, Interesting)

sweet_petunias_full_ (1091547) | about 6 years ago | (#23019920)

Will our galaxy drift until it reaches a clump of galaxies (another universe?), where it will be compressed, or will the compression take place after all galaxies expand outward, slow down in their expansion, and then all slowly begin compressing in a big crunch?

Obviously, IANAPBICAT (I am not a physicist but I'm curious about this).

Re:Is heat death still possible under this theory? (2, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 6 years ago | (#23022038)

"I'm curious about this" ironically becomes "I CAT" in an acronym.

Galactus (4, Funny)

dpilot (134227) | about 6 years ago | (#23019930)

Marvel Comics has been telling us this for years! Decades, even!

Galactus, the Overmind, and the Stranger all came from the previous Universe, by one mechanism or another surviving the Big Crunch and the following Big Bang. There may be other previous universe types, but those 3 are the only ones I picked up on, back in my comic book days. (decades ago, even)

Re:Galactus (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 6 years ago | (#23020748)

Correction: Galan was the sole survivor of the previous universe, and was reborn Galactus. Death and Eternity are his "siblings", the similarly reformed instances of the former incarnations of life and death. Which is odd since he lives inside Eternity, and converts life into death to extend his own life...

http://www.marvel.com/universe/Galactus [marvel.com]

http://www.marvel.com/universe/Stranger [marvel.com]

http://www.marvel.com/universe/Overmind [marvel.com]

Re:Galactus (1)

CyrusSukhia (597933) | about 6 years ago | (#23022778)

It's odd. I had come up with this theory when I was around ten. Maybe ten minutes after I learned about the big bang theory. It seems such a natural intuitive idea. I don't understand how science can make this news. OK I didn't rta but somehow I don't think they are proving anything in that article. Maybe just throwing a bit of scientific jargon on it but it still amounts to the same idea a ten year old can come up with.

Re:Galactus (1)

Graff (532189) | about 6 years ago | (#23022982)

The main difference between a ten-year-old's idea and a solid scientific theory is very simple: math.

Anyone can come up with all sorts of "it sounds logical" ideas but until you can back that idea with solid theory and mathematics all you have is wild conjecture. This idea of "twin" universes is based on a theory called Loop Quantum Gravity [einstein-online.info] which has made several important observations about the universe and has a very solid mathematical backing.

After all I can come up with the theory that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure [wikipedia.org] and back it with some compelling reasoning but that doesn't mean I've accomplished anything noteworthy...

Re:Galactus (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#23023346)

The TV show "The Lexx" was posited on the idea of a light universe (abandoned by humanity) and dark universe coexisting. The "multiverse" is, after all, a VERY old sci-fi trope.

Physicist Theory? (2, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | about 6 years ago | (#23019944)

This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing.

Or Hindu belief...

Re:Physicist Theory? (1)

quixote9 (999874) | about 6 years ago | (#23023192)

Yup. They've been saying it for 3,000? 4,000? years. They left out most of the math, though, which made it too easy.

Re:Physicist Theory? (1)

PlatyPaul (690601) | about 6 years ago | (#23023582)

Depends on if you count the Harappans (~5500 B.C.E.) as Hindus, or maybe just the Classical Era populations (~1500 B.C.E.), or if you think it all starts with the Rig Veda (~1700 B.C.E.). It's tricky to say when what we call Hinduism today actually arose from earlier regional faiths.

By the way, we're on the 5109th year of the Hindu calendar, but that's debatable due to local variations.

And... what was before that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23020062)

It had to expand from something the first time, didn't it?

Re:And... what was before that? (2, Insightful)

Joe U (443617) | about 6 years ago | (#23020122)

It had to expand from something the first time, didn't it?
No, it didn't and that's where things get really interesting.

hurts my head (4, Insightful)

INeededALogin (771371) | about 6 years ago | (#23020094)

Adams said it best: "The Universe, as has been observed before, is an unsettlingly big place, a fact which for the sake of a quiet life most people tend to ignore."

not just loop quantum gravity (5, Interesting)

bcrowell (177657) | about 6 years ago | (#23020192)

There's nothing particularly special about loop quantum gravity that makes it possible to avoid having a singularity at the big bang. Loop quantum gravity is just one theory of quantum gravity. The best known theory of quantum gravity is string theory. In pretty much any theory of quantum gravity, the classical picture of the big bang singularity is going to get heavily modified. The conditions of the big bang are pretty much the only conditions under which you really need a theory of quantum gravity (unless you're really clever about finding some other situation, like black hole evaporation, where quantum gravitational effects come in). In all theories of quantum gravity, there's a scale called the Planck scale, and when you go beyond that scale (e.g., the universe is hot enough so that the wavelengths of particles are on the order of the Planck length), mysterious stuff happens. Because of this, it's reasonably plausible that the big bang singularity is eliminated in any theory of quantum gravity.

Old attempts to make a theory of a rebounding big bang (with, e.g., a cyclic universe) had various technical problems, which have been solved in recent years. In a rebounding big bang, there are issues to worry about such as what happens to causality, entropy, and the thermodynamic arrow of time. E.g., you could imagine that a universe cycles through a series of big bangs, and that each cycle is a lot like the one before, or you could imagine that the second law of thermodynamics operates across rebounds, so that each cycle has more entropy than the one before. You could imagine that there could be cause and effect relationships extending across rebounds, or that that could be prevented by the laws of physics. Some people believe that there's an unsolved "entropy problem" in the current standard big bang theory. Here [princeton.edu] is a good FAQ about cyclic models.

Re:not just loop quantum gravity (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23020734)

Disclaimer: I work on loop quantum gravity.

Actually there IS something special about loop quantum cosmology - it's theory actively predicts a big bounce instead of a big bang. This comes directly out of the loop quantization of a homogenous and isotropic cosmology. So far all other theories have had to put in a bounce "by hand" - adding extra physics at the singularity in order to get something out of the other side. LQC doesn't do that - it replaces the usual metric and curvature operators with holonomies and flux operators as done in loop quantum gravity (OK, the derivation isn't exact yet, and we've a lot more work to do here).

Once you do this, however (and by using other tricks like using a massless scalar field as your time variable), you see that a contracting branch naturally re-expands once you reach a critical matter density (something like 82% of the Planck density - Ashtekar has a good numerical reason for this IIRC). In these steps you end up replacing the Wheeler-deWitt equation (a continous differential equation) with a difference equation which needs to pick a certain super-selection sector of the theory - in simpler terms the timestep effectively becomes discrete.

The beauty of LQC is that it doesn't need us to speculate about what happens at singularities - it gives us an active way to look at them without needing to invent new physics that only apply there. Sure, it makes a few assumptions - that our basic observables are holonomies and fluxes - but there's no new input directly at the singularity, unlike in other theories (such as ekpyrotic scenarios where two branches are joined artificially across the singularity.

For an introduction, see Martin Bojowald's (one of the founders of LQC) living reviews site:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-11/ [livingreviews.org]

If you have questions, please reply and I'll see what I can do to answer them to the best of my ability. If there's enough interest, I might be able to get an "Ask Slashdot" type of thing put to Ashtekar/Bojowald although it'll probably be their post-docs and grad students who end up answering all the questions ;)

Re:not just loop quantum gravity (1)

jonfr (888673) | about 6 years ago | (#23022140)

How do you account for compression of dark matter and energy ? How do you account for the compression of normal matter and normal energy ?

A universe that falls in on him selfs must compress the mater that exit inside of him to make that possible, if that doesn't happen, the universe doesn't fall in on him self, as this theory suggests.

Re:not just loop quantum gravity (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 6 years ago | (#23022566)

Hey physicists! Try holding still for a minute!

While you guys go off on quantum loop tangents, we're still trying to work through some 19th century problems like the Riemann hypothesis! Your latest theories aren't scheduled to be made rigorous until 2158 at the earliest.

Best regards,
The mathematicians.

Re:not just loop quantum gravity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23023294)

although it'll probably be their post-docs and grad students who end up answering all the questions
Would that include you, AC? :-)

Re:not just loop quantum gravity (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 6 years ago | (#23021068)

Incidentally, string theory ALSO predicts a kind of rebounding universe. IIRC it seems that in ST a universe with a radius of R is indistinguishable from a universe with a radius of 1/R, when measuring R in Plank lengths.

Twin Bang? (0)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | about 6 years ago | (#23020258)

Awesome, reminds me of a video I once saw.

Jesus Christ I love porn.

Re:Twin Bang? (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | about 6 years ago | (#23021470)

I was going to say that twins are an impossible fantasy and you might as well just have sex with the same woman twice, but then I realised that around here "sex", and indeed "woman", are also impossible fantasies.

If it really is just nodes and links at the bottom (4, Interesting)

ynotds (318243) | about 6 years ago | (#23020340)

Though coming from very different directions, both LQG pioneer Lee Smolin [leesmolin.com] and Stephen Wolfram [stephenwolfram.com] , who needs no introduction here, have opined that the best candidate as the fundamental level of a discrete physics (i.e. where the appearance of being continuous is emergent) is a graph theoretic network of nodes and links where it ceases to make sense to ask what they are made of. (This is also explored in Greg Egan's Schild's Ladder [gregegan.net] .) The basic idea is that there is some simple enough but cosmologically consistent transformation rule which produces the next local state of the graph from the current local state, supposedly at the Planck scale [unsw.edu.au] (of order 10^43 times per second).

A likely scenario is that "somewhere" long unreachable beyond our event horizons, there was a region of network sustaining chaotic inflationary expansion in which a bubble of more conservative physics emerged. Our conservative bubble only exhibits polynomial (near cubic) growth but that was enough to separate it from the exponentially growing seed graph.

My current betting is that Type 1a Supernovae [wikipedia.org] , or at least some more precise analogue thereof in our parent cosmos, seed new outbreaks of chaotic inflation in which a new generation of more conservative bubble cosmoses arise, the whole process being susceptible to selection for fecundity and constrained only by the need for a viable history to some initial conditions simple enough to have just happened, presumably for no better reason than because nothing is unstable.

Re:If it really is just nodes and links at the bot (1)

mcelrath (8027) | about 6 years ago | (#23021998)

The problem with such theories is twofold:

First, we will likely never prove anything at the Planck scale. This means that without some radically better ideas, we may be stuck with current situation -- lots of theories but no proof.

Second, one cannot take a theory that is wrong in a measurable way, make some small adjustment, and end up with a theory that is right. In field theory if we get the strength of electromagnetism wrong, we can adjust it. It's just a number. If we find a new particle we didn't expect, it's straightforward to add it and does not radically change all the other particles. But in Wolfram's cellular-automata ideas, if you change even slightly the inter-link rules, you get radically different behavior on large scales. These ideas may even be right, but they're impossible to work with.

Instead we develop a low-energy theory that predicts everything we need and everything we observe, and that is all physics can do. This kind of wishful thinking about gravity is not physics, because it cannot be proven (or disproven). Falsifiability is an important feature of a physical theory, and is too often neglected these days. Likewise fantasizing about the beginning of the universe is not falsifiable. We have only one universe, and cannot do experiments on its beginning.

Science is prediction, not explanation.

Re:If it really is just nodes and links at the bot (1)

axiem (119959) | about 6 years ago | (#23022938)

Are you talking about the universe, or the United States economy?

Ah! (1)

zegota (1105649) | about 6 years ago | (#23020364)

This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing.

So that explains all the dinosaurs!

Re:Ah! (1)

killmofasta (460565) | about 6 years ago | (#23020816)

Or Joe Haldeman with the Saw Tooth theory. Universe bangs, creates life, life builds a HSC and recreates a big bang, and it all starts over again.

Whatever Happened to the Big Bang? (1)

KevinVinsen (825994) | about 6 years ago | (#23020642)

Professor Sir Roger Penrose gave a fantastic lecture at UWA in Aug 2007 on a very similar theme.

universe stems from the collapse of a previous uni (4, Interesting)

zerkshop (1222778) | about 6 years ago | (#23021080)

Hmmm, the universe steming from the collapse of a previous universe.

Read this off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony [wikipedia.org] the other day. Kinda similar idea in ways:

In David Brin's book "Earth" it is suggested by a scientist, that in the moment of the collapse of an experimentally created black hole, it separates itself from this universe (like the separation of a child from its mother) taking with it all consumed energy which lies behind the event horizon. In his speculation the implosion of a singularity in this universe is followed by an explosion/expansion of a singularity in the child-universe, which then became independent of ours. Of course this causes an energetic underpressure with every collapse of a black hole, finally making this universe disappear when the last singularity implodes. It can be interpreted as a variant of the oscillatory universe theory.


What if the big bang was just the explosion of all the crap that was in the event horizon of a black hole from a parent universe?

Questions I have are:
-How could there be such a massive black hole in a parent universe that our universe originated from? Subsequent universes would have smaller and smaller total mass/energy so it couldn't go on forever, and that would mean there was a starting point?
-Wtf is the collapsing of a black hole? I thought they evaporated...

Geometry of the universe (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 6 years ago | (#23022032)

Doesn't the geometry of the universe have to be closed in order for expansion to reverse and turn into a collapse?

I remember that some calculations showed it to be either flat or almost so. Of course, the key could lie in the "almost"...

Re:Geometry of the universe (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about 6 years ago | (#23022942)

Last time I followed this stuff. The universe was open (destined for heat death) and the margin of "how open" was HUGE.

Unless the universes before had significantly different masses, there's no way this happened.

It's irrelevant in any case. You can think, talk, have a beer while imagining all this stuff as much as you want. But unless you can tack a method of gathering data to TEST the theory it IS. NOT. SCIENCE.

Fun, yes. Science? Hell no.

Those Intelligent Design proponents are starting to reap the damage on the intellect of our nation I think.
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...