Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
by Telegraph
Thanks to SPS for the link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/26/scihawking126.xml
Prof Stephen Hawking has come up with a new idea to explain why the Big Bang of creation led to the vast cosmos that we can see today.
The new theory believes original estimates of Big Bang expansion are wrong
Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Astronomers can deduce that the early universe expanded at a mind-boggling rate because regions separated by vast distances have similar background temperatures.
They have proposed a process of rapid expansion of neighbouring regions, with similar cosmic properties, to explain this growth spurt which they call inflation.
But that left a deeper mystery: why did inflation occur in the first place?
Now New Scientist reports that an answer has been proposed by Prof Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, working with Prof Thomas Hertog of the Astroparticle and Cosmology Laboratory in Paris.
Prof Hawking is best known for his attempts to combine theories of the very small, quantum theory, and that of gravity and the very big, general relativity, into a new theory, called quantum gravity.
Quantum mechanics is awash with strange ideas and can shed new light on inflation, which came in the wake of when the universe itself was around the size of an atom.
By quantum lore, when a particle of light travels from A to B, it does not take one path but explores every one simultaneously, with the more direct routes being used more heavily.
This is called a sum over histories and Prof Hawking and Prof Hertog propose the same thing for the cosmos.
In this theory, the early universe can be described by a mathematical object called a wave function and, in a similar way to the light particle, the team proposed two years ago that this means that there was no unique origin to the cosmos: instead the wave function of the universe embraced a multitude of means to develop.
This is very counter intuitive: they argued the universe began in just about every way imaginable (and perhaps even some that are not). Out of this profusion of beginnings, like a blend of a God's eye view of every conceivable kind of creation, the vast majority of the baby universes withered away to leave the mature cosmos that we can see today.
But, like any new idea, there were problems. The professors found that they could not explain the rapid expansion - inflation - of the universe, evidence of which is left behind all around us in what is called the cosmic microwave background, in effect the echo of the big bang, a relic of creation that can be measured with experiments on balloons and on space probes.
Now, in a paper in Physical Review Letters with Prof James Hartle of the University of California, Santa Barbara, they realised that their earlier estimates of inflation were wrong because they had not fully thought through the connection between, on the one hand, their theoretical predictions and, on the other, our observations of the echo.
At first, they found that the most probable history of the cosmos had only undergone "a little bit of inflation at the beginning, contradicting the observations," said Prof Hertog. Now, after a correction to take account of how the data we have on inflation is based on only a view of a limited volume of the universe, they find that the wave function does indeed predict a long period of inflation.
# Hawking warns Government over 'disastrous' science funding cuts
# Stephen Hawking seeks 'Einsteins of Africa'
# Hawking: Man must leave planet Earth
"This proposal, with volume weighting, can explain why the universe inflated," Prof Hawking tells New Scientist. By taking into account that we have a parochial view of the cosmos, the team has come up with a radical new take on cosmology.
Most models of the universe are bottom-up, that is, you start from well-defined initial conditions of the Big Bang and work forward. However, Prof Hertog and Prof Hawking say that we do not and cannot know the initial conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Instead, we only know the final state - the one we are in now.
Their idea is therefore to start with the conditions we observe today - like the fact that at large scales one does not need to adopt quantum lore to explain how the universe (it behaves classically, as scientists say) - and work backwards in time to determine what the initial conditions might have looked like.
In this way, they argue the universe did not have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different ones and that it has experienced them all.
The new theory is also attractive because it fits in with string theory - the most popular candidate for a "theory of everything."
String theory allows the existence of an" unimaginable multitude of different types of universes in addition to our own," but it does not provide a selection criterion among these and hence no explanation for why our universe is, the way it is", says Prof Hertog.
"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."
And now the world of cosmology has one. The next step is to find specific predictions that can be put to the test, to validate this new view of how the cosmos came into being.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/26/scihawking126.xml
Prof Stephen Hawking has come up with a new idea to explain why the Big Bang of creation led to the vast cosmos that we can see today.
The new theory believes original estimates of Big Bang expansion are wrong
Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Astronomers can deduce that the early universe expanded at a mind-boggling rate because regions separated by vast distances have similar background temperatures.
They have proposed a process of rapid expansion of neighbouring regions, with similar cosmic properties, to explain this growth spurt which they call inflation.
But that left a deeper mystery: why did inflation occur in the first place?
Now New Scientist reports that an answer has been proposed by Prof Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, working with Prof Thomas Hertog of the Astroparticle and Cosmology Laboratory in Paris.
Prof Hawking is best known for his attempts to combine theories of the very small, quantum theory, and that of gravity and the very big, general relativity, into a new theory, called quantum gravity.
Quantum mechanics is awash with strange ideas and can shed new light on inflation, which came in the wake of when the universe itself was around the size of an atom.
By quantum lore, when a particle of light travels from A to B, it does not take one path but explores every one simultaneously, with the more direct routes being used more heavily.
This is called a sum over histories and Prof Hawking and Prof Hertog propose the same thing for the cosmos.
In this theory, the early universe can be described by a mathematical object called a wave function and, in a similar way to the light particle, the team proposed two years ago that this means that there was no unique origin to the cosmos: instead the wave function of the universe embraced a multitude of means to develop.
This is very counter intuitive: they argued the universe began in just about every way imaginable (and perhaps even some that are not). Out of this profusion of beginnings, like a blend of a God's eye view of every conceivable kind of creation, the vast majority of the baby universes withered away to leave the mature cosmos that we can see today.
But, like any new idea, there were problems. The professors found that they could not explain the rapid expansion - inflation - of the universe, evidence of which is left behind all around us in what is called the cosmic microwave background, in effect the echo of the big bang, a relic of creation that can be measured with experiments on balloons and on space probes.
Now, in a paper in Physical Review Letters with Prof James Hartle of the University of California, Santa Barbara, they realised that their earlier estimates of inflation were wrong because they had not fully thought through the connection between, on the one hand, their theoretical predictions and, on the other, our observations of the echo.
At first, they found that the most probable history of the cosmos had only undergone "a little bit of inflation at the beginning, contradicting the observations," said Prof Hertog. Now, after a correction to take account of how the data we have on inflation is based on only a view of a limited volume of the universe, they find that the wave function does indeed predict a long period of inflation.
# Hawking warns Government over 'disastrous' science funding cuts
# Stephen Hawking seeks 'Einsteins of Africa'
# Hawking: Man must leave planet Earth
"This proposal, with volume weighting, can explain why the universe inflated," Prof Hawking tells New Scientist. By taking into account that we have a parochial view of the cosmos, the team has come up with a radical new take on cosmology.
Most models of the universe are bottom-up, that is, you start from well-defined initial conditions of the Big Bang and work forward. However, Prof Hertog and Prof Hawking say that we do not and cannot know the initial conditions present at the beginning of the universe. Instead, we only know the final state - the one we are in now.
Their idea is therefore to start with the conditions we observe today - like the fact that at large scales one does not need to adopt quantum lore to explain how the universe (it behaves classically, as scientists say) - and work backwards in time to determine what the initial conditions might have looked like.
In this way, they argue the universe did not have just one unique beginning and history but a multitude of different ones and that it has experienced them all.
The new theory is also attractive because it fits in with string theory - the most popular candidate for a "theory of everything."
String theory allows the existence of an" unimaginable multitude of different types of universes in addition to our own," but it does not provide a selection criterion among these and hence no explanation for why our universe is, the way it is", says Prof Hertog.
"For this, one needs a theory of the wave function of the universe."
And now the world of cosmology has one. The next step is to find specific predictions that can be put to the test, to validate this new view of how the cosmos came into being.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 223 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #201730 by alexmzk on June 30, 2008 at 7:45 am
lovely. as a complete ignoramus in this area, i wondered a wee bit about how quantum physics tied in with the early state of the big bang.very nice.
Other Comments by alexmzk
3. Comment #201732 by Manson on June 30, 2008 at 7:48 am
Prof Stephen Hawking has come up with a new idea...
The new theory believes original estimates of Big Bang expansion are wrong
"This proposal, with volume weighting, can explain why the universe inflated," Prof Hawking tells New Scientist.
So which is it?
- an idea
- a proposal
- a theory
- a scientific theory
How about...
- a conjecture
- a guess
- a hypothesis
- really cool idea after a few beers and a joint
No wonder the vast majority of the lay-person pubic doesn't "believe" in the scientific theory of evolution. We all need to start using consistent language when communicating to the public. It really does do damage.
like a blend of a God's eye view of every conceivable kind of creation
And why do science editors CONTINUE to feel the need to bring the word God and creation into science articles. Why not Gods or Space Aliens or Spaghetti Monsters.
Other Comments by Manson
4. Comment #201746 by konquererz on June 30, 2008 at 7:57 am
I love new theories. I can't wait to see how this one progresses. Whether it fails or succeeds, this is the stuff that makes science fun and exciting. I do agree they need to stop using the "god" language where they don't mean "God". It really makes it difficult for non-believers to get it.
Other Comments by konquererz
5. Comment #201751 by Roel on June 30, 2008 at 8:02 am
Come on, Manson, it's a newspaper article for goodness' sake!Other Comments by Roel
6. Comment #201759 by Manson on June 30, 2008 at 8:16 am
Roel,Yeah, you're probably right. I must say I am a bit grouchy today. :)
That said, you must admit, the inconsistencies don't particularly lend themselves to clarity.
Other Comments by Manson
7. Comment #201768 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 8:42 am
This is definitely an idea, not a theory. I am no expert on the "sum over histories" approach to quantum gravity, but as far as I know there are technical difficulties with it that are yet to be resolved. However, it seems like a very sensible step to take the state of the universe today as a starting point instead of unknown initial conditions at the Big Bang. It will be interesting to see if they can derive interesting observable predictions from their idea. For those who want to see the technical details the manuscript is available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4630
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
8. Comment #201770 by riki on June 30, 2008 at 8:46 am
There was also an article in New Scientist a few days agoHawking 'close' to explaining universe's inflation
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19826624.300
Other Comments by riki
9. Comment #201776 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 8:56 am
Comment #201768 by Oystein ElgaroyI am no expert on the "sum over histories" approach to quantum gravity, but as far as I know there are technical difficulties with it that are yet to be resolved.
That seems a very polite response, considering there isn't yet any practical theory of quantum gravity.
However, it seems like a very sensible step to take the state of the universe today as a starting point instead of unknown initial conditions at the Big Bang.
I'd like to add that this is a sensible use of the much-maligned anthropic principle... this is the universe we observe, so it makes sense to explain this universe, with its conditions.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
10. Comment #201798 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 9:21 am
Comment#201776 by Steve ZaraThat seems a very polite response, considering there isn't yet any practical theory of quantum gravity
At least the "sum over histories"-approach has more modest goals than string theory and starts from things we know exist: four-dimensional spacetime, gravity and quantum mechanics.
But it should be noted that the no boundary proposal (which seems to be assumed in the paper in question) is just one of many choices for the wave function of the Universe, and there are no obvious reasons, besides aesthetic ones, why this particular choice is preferable.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
11. Comment #201831 by mordacious1 on June 30, 2008 at 9:53 am
Gee Toto, things are labeled theories pretty quickly around here.Working backwards from what exists now is not new, just not as popular as it used to be.
This "theory":
"fits nicely with string theory-the most popular candidate for the theory of everything". It reminds me of that old muffler shop commercial "Will that muffler fit my car?" "We will make it fit" (shows hammer)
Other Comments by mordacious1
12. Comment #201856 by bstani on June 30, 2008 at 10:35 am
Has someone else found it amusing this series of related news?# Hawking warns Government over 'disastrous' science funding cuts
# Stephen Hawking seeks 'Einsteins of Africa'
# Hawking: Man must leave planet Earth
Seems like Hawking, being disgruntled over recent science funding decisions, is seeking 'Einsteins of Africa' to leave planet Earth. ^__^
Other Comments by bstani
13. Comment #201876 by beelzebub on June 30, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hmm... Are they saying "Lets take an idea that gives an infinite number of answers, then pick the ones we like"? Isn't this a wee bit like the creationists saying "Here's the conclusion, now let's try and find evidence to support it"? Other Comments by beelzebub
14. Comment #201908 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 am
Comment#201876 by beelzebubNo, they take the current state of the universe and try to say something about what constraint it puts on the initial conditions for the Universe. Assuming, of course, that their model is correct. It is speculative, just like all other attempts to figure out how the Universe started. But I think it is too harsh to compare this idea and similar cosmological speculations to creationist drivel.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
15. Comment #201913 by Apathy personified on June 30, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Thanks for the link (Comment #201768) Oystein.What's your opinion on string theory?
Other Comments by Apathy personified
16. Comment #201916 by decius on June 30, 2008 at 12:07 pm
My understanding is that in theoretical physics and in cosmology the word theory has less stringent requirements than in other fields of science. Namely, the math must add up, the mechanisms must be plausible and in tune with available data.The real question is when and if it will become an accepted theory.
It would be interesting to know if viable ways of testing it have already been suggested, and when it will be possible, if ever, to test it.
Oystein, did I say something stupid? :)
Edited for mistakes
Other Comments by decius
17. Comment #201929 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Comment #201913 by Apathy personifiedI don't know if I am entitled to having an opinion since my knowledge of it is rudimentary. But here goes: I think there are aspects of it that are extremely attractive. For example, string theory is often ridiculed for requiring extra spatial dimensions, but I think it is remarkable that the theory actually predicts this number. Just write down the equations of motion for a relativistic string in N spatial dimensions and require them to be consistent with quantum mechanics, and then the number of spatial dimensions is fixed.
Having said that, I think the main problem with string theory is that it has been oversold for too long. For more than 20 years is has been described by its proponents as a the Theory of Everything, but they have yet to come up with a single testable prediction. And they don't know how to do the calculations to check that they can reproduce things like the particle masses in the Standard Model.
I have great respect for the people who work on string theory, the great majority of them are way smarter than me. But I won't jump and cheer until they actually make a connection between their calculations and the real world. They have got to produce numbers that can be measured. In the meantime I think it is very important that other approaches to quantum gravity and unification of forces are explored.
Comment #201916 by decius
I agree that the word "theory" is often used in a sloppy way in physics. Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity definitely deserve to be called theories. String theory does not, since we don't even know if it applies to the real world. I also prefer to talk about the Big Bang model rather than the Big Bang theory.
When it comes to the model of Hawing et al., it is still to sketchy to be put to a real test. So far it only contains a scalar field (to drive inflation) coupled to gravity. And no, you did not say anything stupid. :)
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
18. Comment #201932 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 30, 2008 at 12:37 pm
With respect - how the hell would they prove this? I know and you know that a theory is only a theory if it has testable predictions.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
19. Comment #201937 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I don't think String Theory should be ridiculed for having multiple dimensions. The problem is that it has indeed been oversold. There are some amazing people working on String theory, from Brian Greene to Edward Witten.It isn't entirely true that String theory hasn't connected with the real world. There have been some amazing insights into black holes from string theory, but nothing that is experimentally verifiable.
My personal concern is that String Theory isn't even the kind of thing that should be considered as a candidate for ultimate reality. It would, even if true, explain the origin of all particles and forces, but it gives no insight into quantum uncertainty.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
20. Comment #201944 by Apathy personified on June 30, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Comment #201929 by Oystein Elgaroy,Thanks for the reply.
My only 'real' exposure to string theory has been through Peter Woit's book (Not Even Wrong) and Lee Smolin's book (The Trouble with physics), so i may have a slightly negative attitude towards it.
I can see the potential in it but i think that after 20 years, alarm bells should ring and new approaches should be tried.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
21. Comment #201948 by clatz on June 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Nice diagram ...
Hey, I can see my house from here!
"ahem"
As you were.
Other Comments by clatz
22. Comment #201953 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Comment #201937 by Steve ZaraI am not sure I would call the derivation of the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a black hole a connection with the real world. Hawking radiation has not been measured yet, and the "black holes" considered in the string theory derivation are very different from astrophysical black holes. It is more precise to call them black hole-like states.
But I agree that there is something very unsatisfactory about taking quantum mechanics for granted as one does in string theory. It is hard to argue with success, and quantum mechanics is remarkably successful. But it is hard to make sense of, and has nothing of the inevitability of, say, Einstein's general theory of relativity. To me, quantum mechanics is a set of rules one applies to a classical theory. I would like to know whether these rules can be derived, or whether they are approximations to a deeper theory.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
23. Comment #201954 by Apathy personified on June 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Steve,I personally don't think we have enough knowledge to actually consider a theory of everything. The standard model has some 'small black clouds on the horizon' (to quote lord kelvin) - such as the neutrino masses, the constants whose values have to be experimentally determined, etc.
But, to pose a contraversial question,
What would be more interesting, from a scientific perspective - The LHC finding or not finding the higgs boson?
Note: I'm well aware what a £4bn 'failed' experiment would do for the future of particle physics.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
24. Comment #201955 by al-rawandi on June 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Fanusi,
Let's talk shariah and hijack the thread....
*ducks*
Other Comments by al-rawandi
25. Comment #201957 by decius on June 30, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Oystein,thanks for your reply.
Other Comments by decius
26. Comment #201958 by Jiten on June 30, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Manson wrote : And why do science editors CONTINUE to feel the need to bring the word God and creation into science articles. Why not Gods or Space Aliens or Spaghetti Monsters.I agree completely! Always fucking God in a cosmology article especially one with Hawking in it. God god god god fucking god. Enough !
Other Comments by Jiten
27. Comment #201963 by ggab7768 on June 30, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I am a total string theory whore.
I admit that my understanding is rudamentory, and I may not have the grey matter to grasp it any further. I also know that it has been pushed way too hard for way toolong, but I can't help myself.
I just get all giddy!!
I want it to be right so I can walk around like a high school kid going "Dude, I was into string theory way before you guys."
I really am a sad little man sometimes.
Other Comments by ggab7768
28. Comment #201966 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Comment #201954 by Apathy personifiedThere are many different variants of the Higgs boson(s) depending on, e.g., whether you include supersymmetry or not. The worst case scenario, I think, would be if they were to see only the Standard Model Higgs at LHC and nothing else. Then they would just have confirmed the SM, but left us without a clue as to what lies beyond.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
29. Comment #201975 by Apathy personified on June 30, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Interesting.I'm more intrigued by the idea that what if NONE of the variants of the higgs boson or any supersymmetric particles are found?
What if the SM is shown to be a 'low-level' approximation to a deeper theory (as you hint at in comment 201953), but technically wrong (rough analogy to the newton mechanics relation to the relativities)?
I say this an someone about to start the final year of a theoretical physics degree, i have to make choices about phd's soon (not even sure i want to do one!) - so i want the outcome that produces the largest amount of new physics that needs doing - so they'll still be jobs for me!
Other Comments by Apathy personified
30. Comment #201979 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Comment #201975 by Apathy personifiedIf they don't find any kind of Higgs boson at the LHC, then the most popular idea of how particles get their masses is wrong. There are other ideas around, for example something called technicolour. But if nothing beyond the SM is seen at the LHC, then I guess we will not know which directions to explore. And worse, it will be hard to get funding for a bigger accelerator. But for a theorist I guess the scenario where no Higgs and no supersymmetry is found will be the best.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
31. Comment #201980 by beelzebub on June 30, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Comment #201908 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 11:57 am
Comment#201876 by beelzebub
No, they take the current state of the universe and try to say something about what constraint it puts on the initial conditions for the Universe. Assuming, of course, that their model is correct. It is speculative, just like all other attempts to figure out how the Universe started. But I think it is too harsh to compare this idea and similar cosmological speculations to creationist drivel.
Hi Oystein,
The problem I have with their approach, is that they have chosen a hypothesis, THEN tried to fit the observations with it. Unfortunately, the hypothesis quite literally predicts all and any possible scenarios
"they argued the universe began in just about every way imaginable "
So, rather than creating an hypothesis based on observation, they are running the risk of trying to fit observation with their hypothesis.
In any case, what real use is an idea so flexible it can create, with equal likelihood, any possible scenario - so what if it includes a solution that looks a bit like reality, it can have no predictive power as it is essentially divergent, so pretty much useless. A bit like saying "Hey, I dunno, maybe Goddidit"
Just my tuppenceworth :-)
Other Comments by beelzebub
32. Comment #201987 by Apathy personified on June 30, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Comment #201979 by Oystein Elgaroyit will be hard to get funding for a bigger accelerator
Oh, the ramifications of a LHC 'failure' would be huge - we'd certainly be saying goodbye to big particle physics experiments for a while.
for a theorist I guess the scenario where no Higgs and no supersymmetry is found will be the best.
That would certainly be interesting....though i'm sure it'd have the effect of tearing down what we think we know and sending quite a few physicists back to the drawing board.
I think i'm a bit naive about real research in general - and i'm sure it'd get some quite shocked looks if i said to faculty members at any uni,
'Wouldn't it be interesting if the last 30 years of physics has been wrong?'
Other Comments by Apathy personified
33. Comment #201988 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Comment #201980 by beelzebubThe phrase "the universe began in every way imaginable" is misleading. In quantum cosmology the wave function of the Universe is a probability amplitude for different spatial geometries. When the universe is dominated by quantum effects, it exists in a superposition of different geometries. Some of these have a higher probability amplitude than others, and when things become classical the Universe pretty much settles on one of these. The Hawking et al. paper explores, given the present state of the Universe, whether any of these states would make an inflationary epoch likely.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
34. Comment #202007 by beelzebub on June 30, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Comment #201988 by Oystein Elgaroy
If they are merely exploring possibilities, then fine. But the summary seems to imply something more definite. I really need to read the article itself, unfortunately it is subscription only.
Upon re-reading the summary, it does seem a bit confused, first Quantum Gravity, then String Theory - These are not quite the same thing, so what are Hawking et al looking at?
I really need to live next door to a university :-)
Other Comments by beelzebub
35. Comment #202069 by mordacious1 on June 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Oystein, et alIt sure makes my day coming to this site and finding you guys discussing physics. Oystein I'm glad you're posting here, I'm really enjoying it.
It sure beats reading page after page of Al and Fanusi discuss Shariah (ducks).
Other Comments by mordacious1
36. Comment #202073 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Comment #202069 by mordacious1 on June 30, 2008 at 7:27 pmI agree. It's a real pleasure to have even the chance of understanding a word Oystein says. No such chance taken by me so far.
Stupid fucking Modern Languages degree. (Gnashing of teeth.)
I wonder if Oystein would permit me to look at myself with any sort of dignity again in the mirror - by telling me, as I asked before - what he thinks of that cunt Robertson?
Ahh. Feels better. Now that's my level.
:)
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
37. Comment #202083 by Laurie Fraser on June 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Styrer, Styrer, Styrer... (shakes head in exasperation)
O.K. - the guy's a fucktard.
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
38. Comment #202089 by Zamboro on June 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Hi Oystein! I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the way your expert knowledge enriches comment threads related to astrophysics. Other Comments by Zamboro
39. Comment #202108 by chuckgoecke on June 30, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Oystein, Dito the comments of Zamboro, Mordacious, et al. I was wondering if you have or would consider building a blog over at Science blogs, where PZ Myers, and many others hang out. PZ is the 800 lb gorilla in that blog group, but he's great about helping out his fellow science bloggers, and cross links to lots of the others there. I think a lot of them are more into "Wet" or "Earthy" science subjects, but I'm sure they would let someone with clean hands join. Edit - Oh ya I forgot about the chalk dust, I'm sure you will be fine! Other Comments by chuckgoecke
40. Comment #202114 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Comment #202083 by Laurie Fraser on June 30, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Styrer, Styrer, Styrer... (shakes head in exasperation)
O.K. - the guy's a fucktard.
Well, quite. But we already knew that, and I wondered if Oystein had his own view?
As a former theist, with an Alpha plus mind, he may be able to shed some light on the twat's thinking, but be reluctant to so quickly turn on one of his former own.
I thought he might provide us with material enough to shut the fucker up for good in one, fell and glorious swoop.
I guess it's back to cheque books and fucking vicarious redemption by human sacrifice.
O woe is me. And you, Laurie, for spoiling the fucking fun. :)
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
41. Comment #202116 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Comment #202073 by StyrerRegarding Robertson: his behaviour on this forum may be described, perhaps too diplomatically, by the Norwegian terms "fjompenisse" and "rasshøl".
Comment #202108 by chuchgoecke
Thanks for the nice words and encouragement. I am not sure about starting a blog though. There is already an excellent cosmology/physics blog run by Sean Carroll and others at http://cosmicvariance.com. I don't think I will be able to compete with that.
Other Comments by Oystein Elgaroy
42. Comment #202117 by Brian English on June 30, 2008 at 11:03 pm
fjompenisse
[fjom'pe/] -n /am. fool, sap. fdo'n -e//sa/*-en i mote, speck.
Speckpenis? Littledick? stupidcock?
or perhaps more idiomatic: dumbfuck?
Other Comments by Brian English
43. Comment #202118 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Comment #202116 by Oystein Elgaroy on June 30, 2008 at 10:58 pmIf Brian English's translation should prove to be even slightly correct ('Speckpenis?'), then you are now formally absolved of any further responsibility to pass the 'I hate that fucking cunt Robertson 'cos he knows I'm gonna burn in hell' test.
With that, I offer to you my thanks for playing, and wish you well in continuing your disputations with others here who are not so "fjompenisse" and "rasshøl" as I.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
44. Comment #202119 by Brian English on June 30, 2008 at 11:17 pm
The translation is almost certainly wrong. Just curious about what it's translation would be.I just looked at it again and it appears that fjompenisse just means fool. I was fooled by the similarity of the ending of the word with the viril member and the similarity of that member with a certain poster. Mea culpa. :)
Other Comments by Brian English
45. Comment #202122 by Laurie Fraser on June 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm
*Ahem* Getting back to the subject at hand (sorry, Styrer - I'm just about over Mr Holy of Holies Robertson), for a relative physics dummy like me, could Oystein briefly clue me in to the nature of the "inflation" hypothesis? I'm puzzled by the idea that inflation occurs at faster than light speed. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
46. Comment #202123 by Brian English on June 30, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Inflation is a mind boggler. I think the idea is, and I'm probably wrong, that space was extremely curved after the 'big bang' and it uncurved rather rapidly. Perhaps this was the inflationary period....???OK, I have no idea what I'm on about.
Other Comments by Brian English
47. Comment #202127 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Comment #202122 by Laurie Fraser on June 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm
I'm puzzled by the idea that inflation occurs at faster than light speed.
And was not I having a little chat with my dad earlier about this very phenomenon, with both of us wondering how on earth the very fastest of things - light - could reach so far in those early decimal points of a second after the big bang?
Yup, I was. Not a clue, unless matter travelled FASTER than light at some point my teachers at school omitted to share with us all.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
48. Comment #202129 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Comment #202122 by Laurie FraserI'll leave the details of inflation to someone who knows them, but there really isn't a problem about inflation happening faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is the limiting velocity of information or particles through space. There is no limit to the speed at which space itself can expand or contract or move relative to other bits of space.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
49. Comment #202133 by Styrer- on June 30, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Comment #202129 by Steve Zara on June 30, 2008 at 11:38 pmAh, the old 'the universe itself was at maximal speed, not the stuff in it' idea.
So light has not always been the fastest thing in the world, so to speak?
So what was, if not? [Edit: to try to look less ignorant.]
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
50. Comment #202135 by Brian English on June 30, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I think the idea is that space inflated like a ballon. Imagine all the partices/waves on the surface of the balloon, all just humming along at or below the speed of light, while the balloon is inflated. They move apart much faster than the speed of light but are only moving at normal luminal or subluminal speeds on their particular region on the 'surface' of space. Other Comments by Brian English
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #201722 by squinky on June 30, 2008 at 7:31 am
This theory is intellectually gratifying because it starts with no a priori assumptions--it's natural selection from the start at cosmic scale. Hopefully, I'll live long enough to see measurements to codify such a theory.
Other Comments by squinky