The south end of the table

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

The south end of the table

Owen Densmore
Administrator
The best read so far, other than the alas too dated The First Three  
Minutes (Weinberg) is Guth's The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for  
a New Theory of Cosmic Origins.  Its fairly readable and shows the  
historic struggle to get beyond certain problems the early Standard  
Model had.

http://tinyurl.com/82sov
or
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201328402/qid=1134932455/sr=8-2/ 
ref=pd_bbs_2/103-9781154-1655041?n=507846

I like in particular many of his points that are NOT standard quantum  
mechanics or general relativity but more thermodynamic.  For example,  
the proton/neutron ratio derived out of thermal equilibrium at a  
particular temperature.  And naturally, the very core of inflation is  
thermodynamic in a way by considering a phase transition and a sub-
critical state in the vacuum flux (sorta like water below freezing:  
the transition to ice is dramatic.)

String theory .. hmm.  Yes, I gotta admit its tough to work with  
theories that are not verifiable.  There is rumor of some indirect  
validations that will be available in the next decade, but its a long  
shot.  Loop quantum gravity
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
is getting an edge in the unification world due to not needing the  
extra dimensions.

Owen

On Dec 18, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Giles,
>
> Are you a physicist?  I'm not one, myself, but my father in law is  
> a theoritical astrophysicist, and one of my long-time "hobbies" has  
> been the study of cosmology.  I am curious why you think the big  
> bang theory is ridiculous.  *All* of the observable evidence  
> (cosmic background radiation, redshift, COBE's ovservations of the  
> anisotropy of the ovservable universe) supports a big bang origin.
>
> --Doug
>
> On 12/18/05, Giles Bowkett <gilesb at gmail.com> wrote:On 12/17/05,  
> Robert Holmes <rholmes62 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm just confirmed in my belief that string theory is about as  
> scientific as
> > intellgient design, just with harder mathematics.
>
> I have to say I agree with this position wholeheartedly. I don't even
> believe in the Big Bang. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. (I
> wrote a huge rant about this and then left it in "Drafts" as a public
> service.)

     -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org