Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Scientists at subby's workplace have found a signal from the beginning of time. Possibly a Nobel Prize winning discovery   (wired.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Nobel Prize, Planck epoch, Lawrence Krauss, discovery, theory of relativities, gravitational wave, accelerating universe, signals  
•       •       •

13226 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:31 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



258 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 02:19:49 PM  

Max Awesome: Awesome. I love this field of science.

Okay, so the inflation occurred just before the Big Bang - there was a sudden expansion. But where did the universe expand into? Just a featureless void with no matter, energy, stuff?

Or did the universe displace something that was alreadythere? Was our creation also an act of destruction?


Well, inflation happened essentially immediatly after the big bang. Regarding what we're expanding into, I feel like the answer is largely "nothing" or maybe "nothingness" would be a better description. Or just that the universe isnt expanding into anything, it's just expanding. I've always thought it was at best a moot question, or at least one more geared towards philosophy.

Now if you mean outside our "observable" universe, the answer is largely "more of the same". The fac that our universe is 13.8 billion LY across really only refers to our observable universe, and I think at this point it's pretty well established that the "actual" universe extends well beyond that.
 
2014-03-17 02:21:44 PM  
this graph sums the findings up nicely.
www.thecrosshairstrader.com
 
2014-03-17 02:22:25 PM  

QuantuMechanic: Why not? The WMAP got it in '06


The WMAP provided extremely high quality data that directly and dramatically confirmed the big bang hypothesis, or more generally the idea that the universe as we know it had a definite starting point. It had huge and immediate social and philosophical implications for society at large. It has been called the most accurate scientific measurement ever taken (the error bars they used in their centerpiece graph used 400-standard deviations, the norm is two).

This work is scientifically impressive, but it's impact is going to be of a much more technical nature. This isn't going to fundamentally change how we see the universe overnight.
 
2014-03-17 02:22:54 PM  

jylcat: Headso: cool place to be a janitor, subs...

Hey I get to do math on the boards at night.


How do ya like them apples!
 
2014-03-17 02:26:56 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: this graph sums the findings up nicely.
[www.thecrosshairstrader.com image 574x539]


Oh, well when you explain it like that, it all makes sense now!
 
2014-03-17 02:27:46 PM  
i1.sndcdn.com
 
2014-03-17 02:28:45 PM  

Orgasmatron138: Does the big bounce theory coincide with the theory that the universe isn't expanding indefinitely, but is actually slowing down?


What?  The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  And what's more, some people smarter than me have determined that there is not enough mass to have gravity to slow it down, even counting predicted amounts of dark matter.
 
2014-03-17 02:29:56 PM  
Decoded:

God: "SIRI, play Foo Fighters"
SIRI: "Now playing 'let there be light'"
God: "Dammit!"
 
2014-03-17 02:30:36 PM  

Fubini: QuantuMechanic: Why not? The WMAP got it in '06

This work is scientifically impressive, but it's impact is going to be of a much more technical nature. This isn't going to fundamentally change how we see the universe overnight.



Well, the inflationary model was a pretty radical change to how we see the universe when it was proposed in 1980, and now we have experimental verification. To me, big things like this should have awards for theory shown to be correct, and for the experiment verifying the theory.
 
2014-03-17 02:30:45 PM  

Parthenogenetic: [www.wired.com image 660x352]
Is this one of those things where you cross your eyes and see a 3-D dinosaur or something?  Because I'm not seeing it.


It's a Sailboat!
 
2014-03-17 02:33:39 PM  
I do not believe in the big bang, or a creator, the universe has just always been here. Plain and simple.

Don't try to change my mind with Jesus or some other bullshiat, it ain't happening.
 
2014-03-17 02:34:41 PM  
"There will be no further misuse of this channel.  You are disturbing others who are using it to serious purpose.  Access will be restored when you understand what it is for.  Goodbye."
 
2014-03-17 02:34:55 PM  

trappedspirit: Orgasmatron138: Does the big bounce theory coincide with the theory that the universe isn't expanding indefinitely, but is actually slowing down?

What?  The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.  And what's more, some people smarter than me have determined that there is not enough mass to have gravity to slow it down, even counting predicted amounts of dark matter.


Wasn't there a recent theory suggesting that time itself was slowing down, which would make it look like an accelerated expansion?  Did anything ever come of that theory?
 
2014-03-17 02:36:19 PM  

The Crepes of Wrath: Felgraf: AND direct evidence for the inflationary epoch?!

And if I'm not mistaken, the inflationary universe model also implies (requires, actually) a multiverse.


Which science-fiction authors predicted for years before this...

/Seriously, Terry Pratchett's overview in  Night Watch is actually fairly accurate.
 
2014-03-17 02:42:20 PM  

Andy Andy: Wasn't there a recent theory suggesting that time itself was slowing down, which would make it look like an accelerated expansion?  Did anything ever come of that theory?


Time is always moving at different rates throughout the universe.

BUT! I know what time actually is, unlike all the physicists in the world.

Time is the space between two instances of matter. Thus time, space and matter are all the same thing. TA DA!
 
2014-03-17 02:42:47 PM  

error 303: Fubini: QuantuMechanic: Why not? The WMAP got it in '06

This work is scientifically impressive, but it's impact is going to be of a much more technical nature. This isn't going to fundamentally change how we see the universe overnight.


And the Higgs just got it. That's quite technical stuff in my (MS CMP) opinion.

Well, the inflationary model was a pretty radical change to how we see the universe when it was proposed in 1980, and now we have experimental verification. To me, big things like this should have awards for theory shown to be correct, and for the experiment verifying the theory.

Agreed. How can this be passed up when other years like the '09 split between the CCD and fiber optics give it to technological achievements.  Big difference between physics and applied physics, and the nobel is given for the former.
 
2014-03-17 02:44:04 PM  

Fubini: Khellendros: The number of things wrong with your above progression is simply staggering.  You could have just written the final statement, and left the rest out.  The mass above makes your final statement redundant.

Please, O Wise One, please illuminate my ignorance. What specifically did I get wrong?

At all stages of human history, people have formulated models that seemed to explain the observable evidence most simply. As our knowledge about the universe expands, the theories that once seemed simple and beautiful no longer do. I think that the multiverse theory is going to fall into the category of ideas that seemed beautiful in the lack of further evidence, but don't have staying power.



If you insist - geocentric solar system ideas were not mathematically elegant - nor were they mathematical at all.  Circular orbits were not mathematical at all.  I'll give you the piece on elliptical orbits - and that's where descriptions of our solar system stopped.  However, they were done with Newtonian and Kepler mechanical models, and elliptical orbits didn't exist without them, so it's meaningless for you to have separated them as if they were different models.  General relatively didn't alter our basic idea of how our solar system worked from any kind of orbital mechanics point of view, and didn't replace the Newton/Kepler understanding of our solar system, so acting as if one replaced the other is just plain wrong.

And none of that has ANYTHING to do with understanding multiverse theory, which makes your final statement completely throw-away, and not connected to the previous ideas at all.  Then, with your added bit about not having the scientific education on such things shows that your assertion that multiverse theory has no "staying power" or that you can somehow balance it in your mind in terms of "beauty" is completely empty.

You admit ignorance on the science needed to understand a topic, then attack the outcome based on your feeling on the consequences, not a rational evaluation of the concept.  I'm trying to figure out why you said it at all.
 
2014-03-17 02:44:59 PM  
CONNECT 1200
 
2014-03-17 02:50:39 PM  

Khellendros: Fubini: Khellendros: The number of things wrong with your above progression is simply staggering.  You could have just written the final statement, and left the rest out.  The mass above makes your final statement redundant.

Please, O Wise One, please illuminate my ignorance. What specifically did I get wrong?

At all stages of human history, people have formulated models that seemed to explain the observable evidence most simply. As our knowledge about the universe expands, the theories that once seemed simple and beautiful no longer do. I think that the multiverse theory is going to fall into the category of ideas that seemed beautiful in the lack of further evidence, but don't have staying power.


If you insist - geocentric solar system ideas were not mathematically elegant - nor were they mathematical at all.  Circular orbits were not mathematical at all.  I'll give you the piece on elliptical orbits - and that's where descriptions of our solar system stopped.  However, they were done with Newtonian and Kepler mechanical models, and elliptical orbits didn't exist without them, so it's meaningless for you to have separated them as if they were different models.  General relatively didn't alter our basic idea of how our solar system worked from any kind of orbital mechanics point of view, and didn't replace the Newton/Kepler understanding of our solar system, so acting as if one replaced the other is just plain wrong.

And none of that has ANYTHING to do with understanding multiverse theory, which makes your final statement completely throw-away, and not connected to the previous ideas at all.  Then, with your added bit about not having the scientific education on such things shows that your assertion that multiverse theory has no "staying power" or that you can somehow balance it in your mind in terms of "beauty" is completely empty.

You admit ignorance on the science needed to understand a topic, then attack the outcome based on your feeling on the consequenc ...


d3na4zxidw1hr4.cloudfront.net
 
2014-03-17 02:58:30 PM  
Poor Subby, being a janitor at the company doesn't get you the accolades. You aren't really part of the team, you clean up after the team.
 
2014-03-17 02:59:28 PM  
LOAD "UNIVERSE"

PRESS PLAY ON TAPE

SEARCHING
FOUND UNIVERSE
 
2014-03-17 02:59:36 PM  

oldernell: Turtles.  Where are the turtles?


All the way down, man.
 
2014-03-17 03:00:27 PM  

Parthenogenetic: [www.wired.com image 660x352]
Is this one of those things where you cross your eyes and see a 3-D dinosaur or something?  Because I'm not seeing it.


It's a schooner.
 
2014-03-17 03:07:26 PM  
Sounds like Stargate Universe.In that series they detected a structure that existed at the beginning of time.
 
2014-03-17 03:11:53 PM  

Jubeebee: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

There was no "before" because time did not exist. You can't have anything north of the North Pole, and you can't have "before" the Big Bang.


True.  And on top of that, at small enough distances, time doesn't even exist now.  When the entire universe was that small (even after the Big Bang), we can't really even say that a definitive order of events existed, let alone quantized spacetime.
 

Felgraf: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

Thaaattt depends on what cosmological model you look at, but the concept of 'before' the universe/before time is tricky.

Especially since first you have to define what 'time' is, and we're kinda still arguing about *THAT*.


Yeah.  If you define time as "that which is measured by clocks", and the fundamental forces that allow clocks to exist aren't exactly functioning as we know them, it's hard to say whether time exists or not.
 
2014-03-17 03:15:49 PM  
They should return their telescopes for a refund.  I can't see the spaceship anywhere in their pictures.
 
2014-03-17 03:33:18 PM  
I wish I was smart enough to understand this
 
2014-03-17 03:39:36 PM  
What the hell do hair dressers know about space signals?
 
2014-03-17 03:50:31 PM  

Khellendros: geocentric solar system ideas were not mathematically elegant - nor were they mathematical at all.


I have no idea what you mean by the bolded statement. Astronomers from antiquity to the present usually developed their astronomical models precisely so that they can calculate astronomical positions forward and backward in time, and determine the occurrence of important astronomical events (eclipses, astrological events, etc). This was true before Ptolemy's time, and Ptolemy himself provided tables of figures that astronomers could use to easily calculate the future positions of the heavenly bodies. They were accurate models too.

Now, a lot of these models were developed around geometric notions more than algebraic or physics notions, but that doesn't mean that they weren't mathematical.

I suppose we can agree to disagree on the elegance observation, but my point was that the authors of these various systems of thinking all saw their models as particularly elegant. Others could (and did) disagree with them, but each model fills a specific role. For example, the Tychonian system was a geocentric model specifically designed to have the mathematical simplicity of the Copernican system, but retain the geocentric nature. If you were a priori convinced that a geocentric model was correct, the Tychonian system was very elegant for you.


Khellendros: I'll give you the piece on elliptical orbits - and that's where descriptions of our solar system stopped.


Nope. I'll address this down with general relativity.


Khellendros: However, they were done with Newtonian and Kepler mechanical models, and elliptical orbits didn't exist without them, so it's meaningless for you to have separated them as if they were different models.


To the people working with these models, they were very different. Kepler believed that the sun was a symbol for the Christian God the Father, and the sun provided motive force for the motion of the planets that diminished over distance (explaining why planets moved slowly at aphelion and quickly at perihelion). Newton *unified* the motion of all the planets with a single physical force- gravity.

Now, if you only care about how a model describes the motion of the stellar bodies through space, I'll grant you that there isn't a difference between Kepler and Newton. If you care about the actual models that they espoused, the details and the motive forces, there's a huge difference. For example, Newton's model allows for and well-describes the motion of an interstelllar body captured by our solar system. I'm not an expert on Kepler's system of thought, but it seems doubtful that Kepler would have believed such things to be possible.


Khellendros: General relatively didn't alter our basic idea of how our solar system worked from any kind of orbital mechanics point of view, and didn't replace the Newton/Kepler understanding of our solar system, so acting as if one replaced the other is just plain wrong.


Oh, but it did. The earliest example of GR superseding Newtonian mechanics is a case called the "Perihelion Precession of Mercury".

It was known as early as 1859 that Mercury's orbit was not fully explained by Newtonian mechanics. In particular the perihelion would advance some small amount each year (the perihelion is the point of the orbit closest to the sun). Under Newtonian mechanics in a simple two body Sun-Mercury system, such an effect does not exist. Initially people thought that the cause must be small but measurable gravitational effects from other planets such as Venus and Earth. Such models were investigated, but eventually the scientific consensus was that Newtonian mechanics could not fully describe the orbit of Mercury.

As it turned out, General Relativity predicts a slightly different gravitational force than Newtonian mechanics. This slight difference explains the difference in expected orbits, and was in fact the first validation of Einstein's theory in explaining some phenomena that could not be explained through Newtonian gravitation.

If you want to quibble about what the "basic idea" really means, I would again contend that the mere paths that stellar bodies take through space is only a small part of the theory as a whole. General relativity unifies space and time into spacetime, and provides a radically different (relativistic) view of the universe and solar system. If you're just interested in calculating the positions of stars and planets in the sky we might as well have stopped with Ptolemy. If you want to understand *why* the universe behaves the way it does, you have to keep going.


Khellendros: And none of that has ANYTHING to do with understanding multiverse theory, which makes your final statement completely throw-away, and not connected to the previous ideas at all.  Then, with your added bit about not having the scientific education on such things shows that your assertion that multiverse theory has no "staying power" or that you can somehow balance it in your mind in terms of "beauty" is completely empty.


So first off, I hope you can tell at this point that I'm educated on the subjects at hand. I'm not some yahoo just looking stuff up on Wikipedia. What I did say was that I'm not a cosmologist orastrophysicist. All that meant was that I'm not an  expert. As a point of order, I'd like to say that my ideas could rather be judged on their own merit, rather than you dismissing them because of your (mis-) understanding of my background.

Anyway, you missed the fundamental point I was making. All through history we have these people who think that their theories are simple and beautiful and parsimonious,  at the time, they were. In retrospect, it's easy to see the mathematical contortions in Brahe's system as brutish and ugly, but he really believed that his theory most closely matched all available evidence, both scientific and theological. At his point in time, both the Copernican and the Tychonian system both described the solar system to the same degree of accuracy, and the Tychonian system even had slightly more evidence because the contemporary astronomers of the time were unable to detect the stellar parallax predicted by the Copernican system.

In our modern day, the multiverse theory (and associated anthropic principle) are very simple and elegant ways of explaining away all of the parameter tuning problems various models have. In my mind, they are a cheap way of getting around the fundamental problem, which is that we don't presently know why our universe behaves in certain ways. Like I said above, I'm not an expert, so I can't prognosticate on this in any technical detail, but from a pedagogical point of view this doesn't sound any better to me than the ancients saying that the planets move because the natural state of the aether is motion. To me, both arguments boil down to, "Because that's the way it is!"

To the ancients in their day, the concept of the aether had just as much explanatory power as the multiverse does today. Both explain how the universe functions, but neither explains  why the universe does what it does.
 
2014-03-17 03:53:40 PM  

jylcat: pkellmey: I don't see a Nobel in it, but interesting nonetheless.

http://blog.vixra.org/2014/03/16/who-should-get-the-nobel-prize-for- co smic-inflation/


I say YES to Alan Guth. He's the one who should get the Nobel all right - I remember when he proposed inflation in 1980. It was the only theory that really matched observations then, and it's the same way now.
 
2014-03-17 04:06:49 PM  

DoctorWhat: pkellmey: jylcat: sufferpuppet: jylcat: Headso: cool place to be a janitor, subs...

Hey I get to do math on the boards at night.

If you want to have more fun, change the math on the boards at night just a little.  Make that 2 into a 3 or that * into a /.  Then sit back and watch hilarity ensue.

Not that I ever knew anyone who did such a thing during college....

Hahahah NEVER!

One of my classes had someone who would always change the infinity symbols to christian fish symbols. Always good for a laugh when the professor would be going back through the equation and stop, scratch his head and mutter, "What the Fark...?"

Also, that's a greek alpha which (depending on context) could mean 1/137, which is a little bit different.  Although apparently 1+2+3+4+... = 1/12, so maybe not that much different.


-1/12, good sir. Ramanujan frowns upon your error.
 
2014-03-17 04:10:05 PM  

QuantuMechanic: error 303: Fubini: QuantuMechanic: Why not? The WMAP got it in '06

This work is scientifically impressive, but it's impact is going to be of a much more technical nature. This isn't going to fundamentally change how we see the universe overnight.

And the Higgs just got it. That's quite technical stuff in my (MS CMP) opinion.


It'll be interesting to see if the discovery of the Higgs field and now experimental confirmation of inflation revives any thoughts on the Higgs feild gives rise to inflation. I believe this was Guth's original proposal which has since dropped out of favor. If those two discoveries wind up intertwined that would just make this all the more awesome to me. Not that it needs to be any more awesome to be really really awesome...
 
2014-03-17 04:17:49 PM  
CNTL-F "Galactus"

'No results found'

/FARK, I am disappoint
 
2014-03-17 04:23:40 PM  

Fubini: As a point of order, I'd like to say that my ideas could rather be judged on their own merit, rather than you dismissing them because of your (mis-) understanding of my background.



I dismissed them because your progression example is absurd - an over generalization that doesn't make the point you claim it's making.  Your long justification for geocentrism as a mathematical model or asserting that general relativity changed the way we view how our solar system works is just a long, winding stretch to attempt to make a point that you don't feel multiverse ideas have "beauty" or "staying power".  You're using an exceptionally bent view of the history of science to make a point on model simplicity as a direct challenge to a new idea.

For all of our quibbling on history - and how poorly I feel you grasp it - it's fairly minor to my challenge of your initial statement.  Challenging a hypothesis of the multiverse by appealing to a historical progression of evolving theories (correctly or incorrectly stated) can do nothing to challenge its validity, explanatory power, or worth in development.  Your thoughts on how it "feels" or how "sturdy" it is doesn't hold any weight, nor is that opinion valuable for discussion.

Now, if you had some counter example that would show where this concept can't hold up, fails in predicative power, or is inherently untestable, THEN we have something worth developing in further discussion.  But as you've admitted you don't have the background as a physicist or cosmologist to challenge it, I'm still wondering why you thought that train of thought was valuable.
 
2014-03-17 04:24:16 PM  
The preprint is up.

If you're into that sort of thing. I'll be reading this to my kids at bedtime, for sure.
 
2014-03-17 05:02:19 PM  

Stephen_Falken: I say YES to Alan Guth. He's the one who should get the Nobel all right - I remember when he proposed inflation in 1980. It was the only theory that really matched observations then, and it's the same way now.

Guth joked in one of his books that he wanted his name to be spelled GUϴ, so it would be an acronym for "Grand Unified ϴeory".
 
2014-03-17 05:06:05 PM  

Khellendros: Your long justification ... is just a long, winding stretch to attempt to make a point that you don't feel multiverse ideas have "beauty"


Either you lack the most basic reading comprehension, or I am a horrible writer.

I am saying the exact opposite. The beauty, simplicity, or elegance of an idea does not guarantee it any measure of success. The point I made is that we  had all these theories that were once thought to be beautiful, simple, and elegant. The procession demonstrates a whole line of such theories.

Ergo, the fact that the multiverse theory is a simple explanation for many problems in modern physics does not lend it any credibility. It is simple, it is beautiful, but that does not mean it is good. We are making  the same point. Good God man I'm exasperated with you.


Khellendros: Your thoughts on how it "feels" or how "sturdy" it is doesn't hold any weight, nor is that opinion valuable for discussion.


If you look at the discussions of scientists throughout history, they very much do bandy about concepts like simplicity and beauty. For example, there are any number of articles by respected physicists on the beauty and elegance of string theory. These notions are important in that they direct individual scientists towards specific approaches and fields of study.

I'm not speaking abstractly here- I'm a published research scientist (not in physics), and these kinds of measures are very important in how scientific literature is advanced and perceived, and greatly effects the influence and adoption of scientific ideas. People with ugly, counterintuitive theories usually have a great deal more difficulty gaining acceptance than people who can unify and simplify things.

You can sit and spitball at the scientific community that really does engage in these kinds of discussions, but that doesn't make you right.


Khellendros: Now, if you had some counter example that would show where this concept can't hold up, fails in predicative power, or is inherently untestable, THEN we have something worth developing in further discussion.  But as you've admitted you don't have the background as a physicist or cosmologist to challenge it, I'm still wondering why you thought that train of thought was valuable.


I'm immensely curious as to why you believe yourself the arbiter of worthwhile discussion. So far, you've claimed that my history is wrong (which it is not), provided vague opinions on various astronomical models (which are incomprehensible), and dismissed me when I've pointed out your factual inaccuracies.

So, unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation, something aside from more disagreement and misdirection, I'm done. I have referenced numerous factual people, the things they did, and their opinions of their work. If I have said anything incorrect, feel free to lambast me for it, but I haven't. Put up or shut up.
 
2014-03-17 05:07:20 PM  

ZeroPly: "Approximately 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang, it suddenly went through an accelerated expansion that drove it to become one thousand quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times bigger [...]"

You know, if you think your readers are too stupid to understand exponential notation, it's cool to say "billions and billions" or "tiny fraction of a microsecond".


I'm quite scientifically literate, but I'm not mathematically literate.

0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds is a hell of a lot easier for me to understand than 10-35.

Exponentials require me to do the math.
 
2014-03-17 05:08:37 PM  

error 303: The preprint is up. If you're into that sort of thing. I'll be reading this to my kids at bedtime, for sure.

It has some pretty pictures in it.
 
2014-03-17 05:10:25 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds is a hell of a lot easier for me to understand than 10-35. Exponentials require me to do the math.

As opposed to counting the zeroes?

// Cue Lazarus Long quote here.
 
2014-03-17 05:16:57 PM  

Contrabulous Flabtraption: this graph sums the findings up nicely.
[www.thecrosshairstrader.com image 574x539]


Oh,  now I see. It's a profit deal.
 
2014-03-17 05:38:05 PM  
 <img src="http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Professor_Farnswort h_7838 .png ">

"The gravitons and the graviolies have torn open a spacehole in time and now it's clenching shut!"
 
2014-03-17 05:45:48 PM  
INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
 
2014-03-17 05:50:03 PM  

Loadmaster: 100 Watt Walrus: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds is a hell of a lot easier for me to understand than 10-35. Exponentials require me to do the math.
As opposed to counting the zeroes?

// Cue Lazarus Long quote here.


Don't need to count the zeroes. The sheer volume of them conveys the point quite well. I don't need to fully understand the math here. I just need to grasp the concept. Volume gets that point across (to me anyway) better than negative numbers in superscript. Frankly, the vast, vast, vast majority of people dropped exponents from their brains the minute they passed algebra in high school, assuming they passed at all. 10-35 is fine for people with mathematical minds. But if you want the other 90% of the population to have any chance of grasping the concept, use the KISS rule (keep it simple, stupid).
 
2014-03-17 06:21:34 PM  
Can someone give me an explanation of this finding? I understand biology well but I struggle with physics. I find it fascinating though.
 
2014-03-17 06:30:51 PM  
"All your base are belong to us"?
 
2014-03-17 06:50:49 PM  

4seasons85!: Can someone give me an explanation of this finding? I understand biology well but I struggle with physics. I find it fascinating though.


Short answer: Evidence has been found that light (i.e., background radiation) that we can see from the earliest milliseconds of the universe is polarized in a way that can only be explained by the effects of gravity - and a particular kind of gravity at that. This discovery confirms major theories that explain why the background radiation of the big bang is "smooth" and uniform, rather than "lumpy," which had been a major mystery. This is not only confirmation that the big bang happened the way most cosmologists theorize, but the evidence from this discovery is much stronger than the cosmologists had hoped.

Still needs to be confirmed and reproduced, but it looks like existing data may already allow that confirmation, so it could be only a matter of weeks or months before this discovery becomes peer-reviewed fact.

The Bad Astronomer (paging Phil to thread 8182681!) has a good write-up that doesn't hurt the head too much.

/GED in astronomy ;)
//farkers who make their living from the stars and universe, feel free to fix
 
2014-03-17 06:53:32 PM  

Fubini: am saying the exact opposite. The beauty, simplicity, or elegance of an idea does not guarantee it any measure of success. The point I made is that we had all these theories that were once thought to be beautiful, simple, and elegant. The procession demonstrates a whole line of such theories.

Ergo, the fact that the multiverse theory is a simple explanation for many problems in modern physics does not lend it any credibility. It is simple, it is beautiful, but that does not mean it is good. We are making the same point. Good God man I'm exasperated with you.



Ok, let me put this as simply as possible - your approach to evaluating the multiverse concept (as you've written it above) is completely non-scientific.  I am an arbiter of what is a worthwhile discussion because I am requiring you to attack the hypothesis based on what is in the hypothesis.  You are looking at it from some pseudo-historical perspective of continuity, writing styles, and elegant approach, and not from the required perspective of the testability or predictive ability of the model.  In short, you're not using the scientific method in evaluating the idea.

You pointed it out as a "step in the wrong direction", and yet you have provided no counter to the elements of the hypothesis.  Instead you put forth arguments one way or the other based off of how these ideas will be "perceived" and "accepted", or their place in a historical context.  Neither matter to whether the hypothesis has predictive value, or is correct.  At all.

I suppose I'm being a pedantic pain, but your approach adds to the incredibly unscientific approach to ideas that pervades our culture.  People put forth their impressions and opinions on ideas based off of total irrelevancies, and not challenging the idea on its merits.
 
2014-03-17 07:35:44 PM  

100 Watt Walrus: 4seasons85!: Can someone give me an explanation of this finding? I understand biology well but I struggle with physics. I find it fascinating though.

Short answer: Evidence has been found that light (i.e., background radiation) that we can see from the earliest milliseconds of the universe is polarized in a way that can only be explained by the effects of gravity - and a particular kind of gravity at that. This discovery confirms major theories that explain why the background radiation of the big bang is "smooth" and uniform, rather than "lumpy," which had been a major mystery. This is not only confirmation that the big bang happened the way most cosmologists theorize, but the evidence from this discovery is much stronger than the cosmologists had hoped.

Still needs to be confirmed and reproduced, but it looks like existing data may already allow that confirmation, so it could be only a matter of weeks or months before this discovery becomes peer-reviewed fact.

The Bad Astronomer (paging Phil to thread 8182681!) has a good write-up that doesn't hurt the head too much.

/GED in astronomy ;)
//farkers who make their living from the stars and universe, feel free to fix


Thanks! I knew I could count on Fark to help me out with this.
 
2014-03-17 07:46:08 PM  

Khellendros: I suppose I'm being a pedantic pain


Ding ding ding
 
Displayed 50 of 258 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report