[Marxism] The Big Bang Theory
schaffer at optonline.net
Fri Jun 27 16:12:51 MDT 2008
Mark Lause wrote:
> steve houston <stevehouston3000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> C'mon..by definition there can't be two UNIverses.
> I'm wondering what sort of scientific understanding is at work here,
> because this kind of rhetorically mocking dismissiveness smacks of how
> the Fundies talk about evolution.
kudos to Mark ... though i am not aware of anything in the colliding
branes theory that deserves steve's derision. the ethereal parts of
these theories require extra dimensions we have no sensory perception of
at this time, true. but the "how can there be more than one universe"
thing is not a real issue for colliding branes once you realize these
collisions take place in higher dimensions. perhaps popular accounts
call them colliding universes. who cares. serious marxists (thats a dig
back) know how to sort thru popular accounts and separate the news
headlines from the meat.
now, if steve wants to get into a serious (sorry, can't help it)
discussion about the use of extra dimensions in theoretical physics,
that would be an interesting conversation. i find myself bored lately
with the "ultimate theory" fanfare.
chegitz guevara wrote re/ the colliding branes thing:
> That only makes sense *if* string theory is valid, and so far, string
> theory is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis. It may be what
> actually happened, but right now, the evidence isn't there.
the evidence isnt there to distinguish between the two theories, i
heartily agree. my point was there is more than one *theory* that can
account for large scale observational features. things have changed
since Big Bang was the only thing one could talk about.
but if you take your argument one step further, we need not accept the
Big Bang as proven, because a key ingredient -- inflation -- is an
unproven hypothesis. i am ok with that too. yes, talking about vacuum
energy is a lot more solid at this point than talking about branes. but
i don't see your razor as that sharp.
and later you write:
> Disagree all you want, but no other testable theory accounts for the
> expansion of the universe and the background radiation.
Look thru Guth and see if you can find such a "testable" claim. for
others, here is how Guth (the first author on inflation) concludes his
summary of inflation to date (2007):
We should keep in mind, however, that observations in the past few
vastly improved our knowledge of the early universe, and that these
have been generally consistent with the simplest inflationary
models. It is the success
of these predictions that justifies spending time on the more
speculative aspects of
i was going to ask if chegitz could prove the inflaton exists. but on
checking this thought first, i came across a paper entitled "Inflation
without Inflaton(s)". here is their opening paragraph
Despite the simplicity and promising phenomenology of scalar driven,
much remains to make the idea theoretically viable. In particular,
vexing issues such as the required
flatness of the inflationary potential and the very existence of a
fundamental scalar (which must
be both extremely light and weakly interacting) remain elusive (see
however [1, 2, 3]). In recent
years, a substantial effort has been invested in understanding how
to embed such models in a quantum
theory of gravity [6, 7], and there has also been the suggestion of
removing the need for slowroll
completely  (see  for earlier work). However, in this paper we
will take a different and yet
complimentary approach to inflation model building based on
the point is, things are a wee bit more open than chegitz lets on, So i
find chegitz's take a little too bombastic. but i side with him over
More information about the Marxism