Alan Guth on new insights into the 'Big Bang'

Mar 20, 2014 by Steve Bradt
Alan Guth. PHOTO: RICK FRIEDMAN

Earlier this week, scientists announced that a telescope observing faint echoes of the so-called "Big Bang" had found evidence of the universe's nearly instantaneous expansion from a mere dot into a dense ball containing more than 1090 particles. This discovery, using the BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole, provides the first strong evidence of "cosmic inflation" at the birth of our universe, when it expanded billions of times over.

The theory of cosmic inflation was first proposed in 1980 by Alan Guth, now the Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics at MIT. Inflation has become a cornerstone of Big Bang cosmology, but until now it had remained a theory without experimental support.

Guth discussed the significance of the new BICEP2 results with MIT News.

Q: Can you explain the theory of cosmic inflation that you first put forth in 1980?

A: I usually describe inflation as a theory of the "bang" of the Big Bang: It describes the propulsion mechanism that drove the universe into the period of tremendous expansion that we call the Big Bang. In its original form, the Big Bang theory never was a theory of the bang. It said nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged.

The original Big Bang theory was really a theory of the aftermath of the bang. The universe was already hot and dense, and already expanding at a fantastic rate. The theory described how the universe was cooled by the expansion, and how the expansion was slowed by the attractive force of gravity.

Inflation proposes that the expansion of the universe was driven by a repulsive form of gravity. According to Newton, gravity is a purely attractive force, but this changed with Einstein and the discovery of general relativity. General relativity describes gravity as a distortion of spacetime, and allows for the possibility of repulsive gravity.

Modern particle theories strongly suggest that at very high energies, there should exist forms of matter that create repulsive gravity. Inflation, in turn, proposes that at least a very small patch of the was filled with this repulsive-gravity material. The initial patch could have been incredibly small, perhaps as small as 10-24 centimeter, about 100 billion times smaller than a single proton. The small patch would then start to exponentially expand under the influence of the repulsive gravity, doubling in size approximately every 10-37 second. To successfully describe our visible universe, the region would need to undergo at least 80 doublings, increasing its size to about 1 centimeter. It could have undergone significantly more doublings, but at least this number is needed.

During the period of exponential expansion, any ordinary material would thin out, with the density diminishing to almost nothing. The behavior in this case, however, is very different: The repulsive-gravity material actually maintains a constant density as it expands, no matter how much it expands! While this appears to be a blatant violation of the principle of the conservation of energy, it is actually perfectly consistent.

This loophole hinges on a peculiar feature of gravity: The energy of a is negative. As the patch expands at constant density, more and more energy, in the form of matter, is created. But at the same time, more and more negative energy appears in the form of the gravitational field that is filling the region. The total energy remains constant, as it must, and therefore remains very small.

It is possible that the total energy of the entire universe is exactly zero, with the positive energy of matter completely canceled by the negative energy of gravity. I often say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch, since it actually requires no energy to produce a universe.

At some point the inflation ends because the repulsive-gravity material becomes metastable. The repulsive-gravity material decays into ordinary particles, producing a very hot soup of particles that form the starting point of the conventional Big Bang. At this point the repulsive gravity turns off, but the region continues to expand in a coasting pattern for billions of years to come. Thus, inflation is a prequel to the era that cosmologists call the Big Bang, although it of course occurred after the origin of the universe, which is often also called the Big Bang.

Q: What is the new result announced this week, and how does it provide critical support for your theory?

A: The stretching effect caused by the fantastic expansion of inflation tends to smooth things out—which is great for cosmology, because an ordinary explosion would presumably have left the universe very splotchy and irregular. The early universe, as we can see from the afterglow of the (CMB) radiation, was incredibly uniform, with a mass density that was constant to about one part in 100,000.

The tiny nonuniformities that did exist were then amplified by gravity: In places where the mass density was slightly higher than average, a stronger-than-average gravitational field was created, which pulled in still more matter, creating a yet stronger gravitational field. But to have structure form at all, there needed to be small nonuniformities at the end of inflation.

In inflationary models, these nonuniformities—which later produce stars, galaxies, and all the structure of the universe—are attributed to quantum theory. Quantum field theory implies that, on very short distance scales, everything is in a state of constant agitation. If we observed empty space with a hypothetical, and powerful, magnifying glass, we would see the electric and magnetic fields undergoing wild oscillations, with even electrons and positrons popping out of the vacuum and then rapidly disappearing. The effect of inflation, with its fantastic expansion, is to stretch these quantum fluctuations to macroscopic proportions.

The temperature nonuniformities in the cosmic microwave background were first measured in 1992 by the COBE satellite, and have since been measured with greater and greater precision by a long and spectacular series of ground-based, balloon-based, and satellite experiments. They have agreed very well with the predictions of inflation. These results, however, have not generally been seen as proof of inflation, in part because it is not clear that inflation is the only possible way that these fluctuations could have been produced.

The stretching effect of inflation, however, also acts on the geometry of space itself, which according to is flexible. Space can be compressed, stretched, or even twisted. The geometry of space also fluctuates on small scales, due to the physics of quantum theory, and inflation also stretches these fluctuations, producing in the early universe.

The new result, by John Kovac and the BICEP2 collaboration, is a measurement of these gravity waves, at a very high level of confidence. They do not see the gravity waves directly, but instead they have constructed a very detailed map of the polarization of the CMB in a patch of the sky. They have observed a swirling pattern in the polarization (called "B modes") that can be created only by gravity waves in the early universe, or by the gravitational lensing effect of matter in the late universe.

But the primordial gravity waves can be separated, because they tend to be on larger angular scales, so the BICEP2 team has decisively isolated their contribution. This is the first time that even a hint of these primordial gravity waves has been detected, and it is also the first time that any quantum properties of gravity have been directly observed.

Q: How would you describe the significance of these new findings, and your reaction to them?

A: The significance of these new findings is enormous. First of all, they help tremendously in confirming the picture of inflation. As far as we know, there is nothing other than inflation that can produce these gravity waves. Second, it tells us a lot about the details of inflation that we did not already know. In particular, it determines the energy density of the universe at the time of inflation, which is something that previously had a wide range of possibilities.

By determining the energy density of the universe at the time of inflation, the new result also tells us a lot about which detailed versions of inflation are still viable, and which are no longer viable. The current result is not by itself conclusive, but it points in the direction of the very simplest inflationary models that can be constructed.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the new result is not the final story, but is more like the opening of a new window. Now that these B modes have been found, the BICEP2 collaboration and many other groups will continue to study them. They provide a new tool to study the behavior of the early universe, including the process of .

When I (and others) started working on the effect of quantum fluctuations in the early 1980s, I never thought that anybody would ever be able to measure these effects. To me it was really just a game, to see if my colleagues and I could agree on what the fluctuations would theoretically look like. So I am just astounded by the progress that astronomers have made in measuring these minute effects, and particularly by the new result of the BICEP2 team. Like all experimental results, we should wait for it to be confirmed by other groups before taking it as truth, but the group seems to have been very careful, and the result is very clean, so I think it is very likely that it will hold up.

Explore further: First hints of gravitational waves in the Big Bang's afterglow

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Setting a trap for gravity waves

Mar 19, 2014

In 1996 Uros Seljak was a postdoc at Harvard, contemplating ways to extract information from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The distribution of anisotropies, slight temperature differences, in the ...

First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (Update)

Mar 17, 2014

(Phys.org) —Almost 14 billion years ago, the universe we inhabit burst into existence in an extraordinary event that initiated the Big Bang. In the first fleeting fraction of a second, the universe expanded ...

Researchers propose a new way to detect the elusive graviton

Mar 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Among the four fundamental forces of nature, only gravity has not had a basic unit, or quanta, detected. Physicists expect that gravitational force is transmitted by an elementary particle called a graviton, ...

Recommended for you

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

2 hours ago

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

Jul 29, 2014

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 83

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2014
Mathematical wonder but no reality.
The Big Bang nave happened.
GuruShabu
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2014
Correction:
The Big Bang never happened.
stargeezer
4.8 / 5 (26) Mar 20, 2014
Correction:
The Big Bang happened.

FTFY
Zachia
5 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2014
Alan Guth's officce at MIT, i.e. the place, where the concept of chaotic inflation was born...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2014
http://www.boston.com/realestate/galleries/springsweep/13.htm, i.e. the place, where the concept of chaotic inflation was born...
Hey, there's still room to sit down......
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2014
http://www.boston.../13.htm, i.e. the place, where the concept of chaotic inflation was born...

And I thought my basement workshop looked cluttered....
Jizby
Mar 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2014
there's still room to sit down
Feynman would say: "There's still plenty of room at the bottom"...

At least on the couch.....
orti
3.4 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2014
It all began in an instant. And the seeds of everything were embedded in it from the start – Including the conciseness to (at least partially) perceive itself.
"Like all experimental results, we should wait for it to be confirmed by other groups before taking it as truth"
I like his sense of humility at the time he seems to have been vindicated.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 20, 2014
Correction:
The Big Bang happened.

FTFY

Correction - It's STILL happening...
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2014
1, The "sign" of the force of gravity in the mathematics of physics is an ARTIFACT which merely denotes "downward", and has no meaning in terms of positive or negative energy. If a ball goes up it's velocity is said to be positive,a nd if it goes down it's said to be negative, but it has the same "energy" either way. the "Sign" of the energy doesn't change the fact that if a bullet hits you moving up or down the results will be identical...If there was an actual, real world difference in the "sign" of the "energy" involved, you'd expect the results to be different, but they aren't.

2, Even if that were not the case, if "positive gravity" actually has "negative energy", then "negative gravity" would obviously have "positive energy," and would by no means cancel the sum of all energy to zero...in fact it would mean the universe is even more energetic than it otherwise appears to be...
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2014
As I have shown in the past, it can be shown via set theory that it is absolutely impossible for "something" to come from a state of true "nothingness".

Any hypothetical process, P, capable of making nothing into something would need to be a member of the set "nothingness", which is an empty set by definition.

P is a thing, if it exists, therefore is a member of the set of existence,a nd cannot be a member of the set nothingness by any means.

Existence{P, everything else}
Nothingness{} (empty set)

Since P cannot be a member of Nothingness, then there has never been a condition of absolute nothingness.

Therefore this "from nothing came everything" theory is proven absolutely false, it's actually one of the few things you CAN prove absolutely false.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2014
As I have shown in the past, it can be shown via set theory that it is absolutely impossible for "something" to come from a state of true "nothingness".

Actually, a set of "nothing" could not even be a set. By naming it, you make it something and have to take it home.
However, subset "Almost nothing" could be in the set of "Everything"...
AmritSorli
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2014
Inflation model does not respect first law of thermodynamics, out of where the energy of the universe has come ?
Zachia
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
Correction - It's STILL happening.. (upvoted unanimously)....
If the Big bang is still hapenning, it means that the inflation still did not happen... That is to say, I've nothing against such a hypothesis, but it has its consequences...
Gawad
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2014
Inflation model does not respect first law of thermodynamics, out of where the energy of the universe has come ?


To the two-bit frozen chicken who would overthrow Einstein but who doesn't understand the basics of thermodynamics:

Gravitational energy (like all binding energy) is negative. The mass-energy of particles in our observable universe is positive. The two are expected to balance out. Sum zero. That's why real physicists like Guth have the luxury of calling the Universe (probably) "the ultimate free lunch". As to where it all comes from, in inflation models it's the (monstrous) energy of the inflation field that gets converted to particles (mass-energy and gravity) in a "reheating" event.

As to thermodynamics, it applies to the system as a whole. When the universe IS the system there is no violation as no energy disappears from or is spontaneously added to the system.

Now, it's back off to the freezer with you!
richardwenzel987
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
A long time ago Isaac Asimov proposed that the sum of all that exists expressed as signed energy, must be zero, but he was thinking in terms of a two-lobed universe, one positive and the other negative. Still a neat idea. As for what is left when you subtract everything that can be subtracted, that is probably a quantum field with no boundaries, or at least no definable boundaries. That quantum field would have to be the starting point.
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
A long time ago Isaac Asimov proposed that the sum of all that exists expressed as signed energy, must be zero, but he was thinking in terms of a two-lobed universe, one positive and the other negative. Still a neat idea. As for what is left when you subtract everything that can be subtracted, that is probably a quantum field with no boundaries, or at least no definable boundaries. That quantum field would have to be the starting point.


IIRC, Asimov was mostly concerned about the lacking antimatter problem with respect to that...but I'm a little hazy on this.

that is probably a quantum field with no boundaries, or at least no definable boundaries. That quantum field would have to be the starting point.
Or fields, but yes, as I understand it, that's what you would expect.
GSwift7
5 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
never thought that anybody would ever be able to measure these effects. To me it was really just a game


I can picture him last Monday, when the Bicep2 results were announced: "Dude, holy ____! They took me seriously? I was just messing with them! They built a telescop at the South Pole? Holy ____!"

Returners:

If a ball goes up it's velocity is said to be positive..but it has the same "energy" either way


Wrong. If the ball (or bullet) moves perpendicular to the field of gravity, it's potential energy changes in an amount equal to the 'work' done. The 'work' has either a positive or negative sign and so does the energy. This also ties in with thermodynamics and the concept of entropy, which also has a sign. Almost nothing you said was correct. Not even close.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
never thought that anybody would ever be able to measure these effects. To me it was really just a game

I can picture him last Monday, when the Bicep2 results were announced: "Dude, holy ____! They took me seriously? I was just messing with them! They built a telescop at the South Pole? Holy ____!"

..and it's a really concise expression of why scientists do what they do: Because they love doing it.
Gawad
5 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2014
1, The "sign" of the force of gravity in the mathematics of physics is an ARTIFACT which merely denotes "downward", and has no meaning in terms of positive or negative energy.


Oh fur chist's sake QC, yes it does! Here, have a look at http://en.wikiped...g_energy to get a clue what physicists mean when they say gravity has negative energy. And while you *could* "flip the signs" of the energy contribution of mass and gravity around mathematically, all that would happen is that you would just get more confused than you already are.

2, Even if that were not the case, if "positive gravity" actually has "negative energy", then "negative gravity" would obviously have "positive energy," and would by no means cancel the sum of all energy to zero...in fact it would mean the universe is even more energetic than it otherwise appears to be...

Gobbledygook...WHAT are you going on about?
Gawad
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2014
As I have shown in the past, it can be shown via set theory that it is absolutely impossible for "something" to come from a state of true "nothingness".


Ugh! Quantum fields are NOT "nothing". If the Higgs field, for example, sits at 246 GeV, how is that "nothing"?

What you have shown in the past, and right now, is that you are perpetually confused!
Jizby
Mar 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
why scientists do what they do: Because they love doing it
.. and because they're getting money for it. The people, who really love to travel at the South Pole are doing it for their own money.


Zeph, I'm just curious. Could ya tell me how much money it is that ya think scientists rake in each year? No, not the dollars/euros spent, but how much each individual scientist earns?

From some of (actually many of) your comments it seems as though ya think it some really huge amount.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
The "sign" of the force of gravity in the mathematics of physics is an ARTIFACT which merely denotes "downward", and has no meaning in terms of positive or negative energy
Moving toward a massive object is quite different than moving away from it. Moving away from it requires an expenditure of energy whereas moving toward it does not. Maybe you got your concept from Ender's maxim 'Remember - the enemy's gate is down.'
As I have shown in the past, it can be shown via set theory that it is absolutely impossible for "something" to come from a state of true "nothingness"
An actual scientist, Lawrence Krauss, wrote a book recently about this very thing.
http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

-Maybe you'd like to read it to see if you guessed right or not (you didn't.)
Jizby
Mar 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2014
how much money it is that ya think scientists rake in each year?

Senior Physicist $106,716
Senior Geologist $94,201
Senior Chemist $90,354
Astronomer $87,534
Senior Biologist $83,205
Clinical Researcher $78,035
Academic Researcher $67,356
....
....
Recreation Attendants $20,020
Farmworkers Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse $19,990
Food Preparation and Serving Workers $18,720
....
It could be worse, don't you think?


From your tone, I take it ya are in the $18,720 group. I don't think that $70K to $90K is too much for a person who has spent eight plus years in post secondary education. Especially since they don't earn that much until midway through their career. Do ya?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2014
It could be worse, don't you think?

OK, there's a couple of things missing here:

Go to a research institution. How many senior researchers do you find there? A handful (less than 10% in some cases). The overwhelming part are PhD students and postdocs.

To find a PhD student on a FULL salary is the vast exception (most are half or even 1/3 posts). For postdocs it is not uncommon to be on half posts either (at full time plus weekends, of course).
So we're talking in the 8-15k range for PhD students and 20k range for postdocs (if that. Some specialties like chemistry pay NOTHING for PhD students but have the students pay for their lab material also)

Now IF (and that is a big if) someone actually gets to rake in those 'big bucks' you have to add in that they spent 5 (or more) years at uni and 7 (or more) years being a PhD student and postdoc while those other jobs you mentioned could start earning right out of high school.

Not so cushy, now, is it?
TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
And how many years of study and academia have the lower paid people done?

It's ok to devote quite a few years of ones life to your field but jeez... don't make a living out of it, for accusations shall fly.

What about doctors and surgeons Jiz?
Do they fall in the same category?
richardwenzel987
not rated yet Mar 21, 2014


that is probably a quantum field with no boundaries, or at least no definable boundaries. That quantum field would have to be the starting point.
Or fields, but yes, as I understand it, that's what you would expect.

It really needs to be ONE field, since, if you have the equation of that field you have, in effect, a theory of everything: everything that is or that can be would be derivable from that field. I suppose our universe would be only one of many possible solutions. Maybe various parameters describing the field could represent possible random perturbations and under those initial conditions a solution would represent a "universe". Necessarily vague, here...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
From your tone, I take it ya are in the $18,720 group. I don't think that $70K to $90K is too much for a person who has spent eight plus years in post secondary education. Especially since they don't earn that much until midway through their career.
"Both the [University of Washington] and the inventor are entitled to a share of income from licensed inventions; the University on the basis of salary and facilities support for the inventor and the cost of patent or license administration; and the inventor on the basis of creative activity, documenting the invention, and assisting as necessary with commercialization. Thus, the University allocates a share of income to the inventor."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Now IF (and that is a big if) someone actually gets to rake in those 'big bucks' you have to add in that they spent 5 (or more) years at uni and 7 (or more) years being a PhD student and postdoc while those other jobs you mentioned could start earning right out of high school
This is why upwards of 80% of scientists opt to seek employment in private industry. AA can vouch for me on this statistic.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Mar 21, 2014
From your tone, I take it ya are in the $18,720 group. I don't think that $70K to $90K is too much for a person who has spent eight plus years in post secondary education. Especially since they don't earn that much until midway through their career.
"Both the [University of Washington] and the inventor are entitled to a share of income from licensed inventions; the University on the basis of salary and facilities support for the inventor and the cost of patent or license administration; and the inventor on the basis of creative activity, documenting the invention, and assisting as necessary with commercialization. Thus, the University allocates a share of income to the inventor."


Are ya responding to my response to Zeph? Or to Zeph? Either way I don't understand the point.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
@a-p. :) That's not the whole story either. The rest has to do with RETAINING your status/reputation/tenure etc. Hence the pressure to 'publish or perish' is applied to them by their EMPLOYERS who want to keep the 'Institutional Prestige' up so they attract more students/grants. The 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' (ie, dough, publicity, prestige etc) which may or may not filter down to the employed at whatever academic level.

It's not the individuals only self-interest, but BIG SCIENCE INSTITUTIONS driving the sometimes 'iffy' bandwagon and not 'rocking the boat'....hence a circle of self-confirming 'peers' who 'review' each others 'work' from bias/trust based on prior 'passed' work which should NOT have been 'passed' but now infest all professional efforts due to cascade of prior BS built into 'new' efforts/treatment/interpretations.

What did Einstein say about mathematicians hijacking his theory?

Anyhow, incestuous longtime math-turbation circle seems run amok! Buyer beware! :)
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
The rest has to do with RETAINING your status/reputation/tenure etc. Hence the pressure to 'publish or perish'

The pressure to 'publish or perish' applies mostly to postdocs (professors have tenure and PhD student positions are only ever made available if the grant to fund them is already in)

Postdocs positions depend on grants they try to acquire themselves. If they don't get a grant in any one year then it's 'game over' for the most part. Science institutions have next to no money to spare on people who don't pull their weight. This makes publishing paramount. It's one of the central criteria for getting a grant: you have to have published in the field recently.
(Though I'd be the first to say that the pressure to publish is currently just too much as there is very little grant money to go around these days)

The rest of your post makes very little sense. Could you lay off the meds for a day or two?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
@a_p. :)
The pressure to 'publish or perish' applies mostly to postdocs (professors have tenure and PhD student positions are only ever made available if the grant to fund them is already in)

Postdocs positions depend on grants they try to acquire themselves. If they don't get a grant in any one year then it's 'game over' for the most part. Science institutions have next to no money to spare on people who don't pull their weight. This makes publishing paramount. It's one of the central criteria for getting a grant: you have to have published in the field recently.
(Though I'd be the first to say that the pressure to publish is currently just too much as there is very little grant money to go around these days)
When tenured academic is part of a team/institution, he/she is under peer/group pressure, however subtle. Then there is EGO itself, irrespective of tenure. :)

"Meds"? Nah, I'm allergic. Maybe you should try your own advice before assuming things not in evidence? Yes? :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2014
Are ya responding to my response to Zeph? Or to Zeph? Either way I don't understand the point.
The point being that scientists have the opportunity to get wealthy from licensed or patented inventions they develop during the course of their work, using university facilities and resources. This is incentive to increase the university's income as well.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Correction - It's STILL happening.. (upvoted unanimously)....
If the Big bang is still hapenning, it means that the inflation still did not happen... That is to say, I've nothing against such a hypothesis, but it has its consequences...

As do all things, Zeph...
And SOME one didn't agree. I see a 4.6 rating...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
how much money it is that ya think scientists rake in each year?

Senior Physicist $106,716
Senior Geologist $94,201
Senior Chemist $90,354
Astronomer $87,534
Senior Biologist $83,205
Clinical Researcher $78,035
Academic Researcher $67,356
....
....
Recreation Attendants $20,020
Farmworkers Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse $19,990
Food Preparation and Serving Workers $18,720
....
It could be worse, don't you think?

Yeah, it could - try being an artist - you, too, could make 50 to 100 a week....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2014
When tenured academic is part of a team/institution, he/she is under peer/group pressure,

No way. When you have gotten tenure then you have already achieved a lot. At that point there's no one that can put peer pressure on you. (No two researchers work on exactly the same subject - so where would the pressure come from, anyhow?)
Certainly other researchers don't work against you, because they actually LIKE one another (at least I have never met researchers who worked against one another, and I've met quite a few). It's just a matter of doing research after that. The most you will find is some friendly rivalry. If you've spent 15 years scraping to get to that point then being petty isn't in your psych profile (because without teeamwork you wouldn't have gotten there - petty people don't do teamwork well).

Of course there is pressure by the institution to do good research and try and garner grants - but that's just part of the job.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Are ya responding to my response to Zeph? Or to Zeph? Either way I don't understand the point.
The point being that scientists have the opportunity to get wealthy from licensed or patented inventions they develop during the course of their work, using university facilities and resources. This is incentive to increase the university's income as well.


That's only true for a few select fields closely related to engineering, chemistry and biotech. In most areas of science research and studies, there is not "income" producing science being done. That's a good thing in that the researchers have more independence, and a bad thing in that much fundamental science has to go begging for money.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded." Terry Pratchett

What did Einstein say about mathematicians hijacking his theory?


"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." Einstein
MandoZink
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
A recent quote from a favorite theoretical physicist:
"... one needs to understand that scientists in general do not trust scientists, they trust science. There is a distinction."

And in this article, from Alan Guth:
"Like all experimental results, we should wait for it to be confirmed by other groups before taking it as truth..."

We rely on it. Science is steadfast and inevitably dependable. And we put up with absurd arguments to the contrary.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
and because they're getting money for it
@Jiz Zeph
they still do the job because they love it. case in point: most firefighters make about what the average food service workers do (depending on area). the national average is about $20,000, and that means they have to put their life on the line, as well as get educated, then continue that education to maintain certification (tested yearly for some certs, every 2 yrs for others). this is a huge financial undertaking for minimum wage, but they LOVE the job (by the way, in our area, a paramedic with a 4yr bac. degree gets $9 hr, and CAN receive up to $10.5 with experience, whereas Wendy's/McD's is hiring out the gate at $12-$14 hr)

IMHO-Scientists are in the same bracket. they dont get paid what they are WORTH especially considering that education requirement as well as the continuing education

especially considering all the fields and work that DONT give the opportunity to file for patent, etc.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
@CptS.

Please see my post to you in: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

Goodbye.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
@a_p.

When you have gotten tenure then you have already achieved a lot. At that point there's no one that can put peer pressure on you. (No two researchers work on exactly the same subject - so where would the pressure come from, anyhow?)
Certainly other researchers don't work against you, because they actually LIKE one another (at least I have never met researchers who worked against one another, and I've met quite a few).
Humans/Scientists are not all made in the same mold. And Tenure doesn't always eliminate the drive to be better/sooner than others to the next big thing which will earn Nobel. Even a totally self-cloistered tenured prof dreams. He may even go AGAINST his work/theory that got him/her tenure in the first place! As Penrose has, now recognizing the validity of questions such as "What came before the BB?" He no longer uses the old copout evasion "What does 'before' mean if the BB created space and TIME?" He demonstrates that 'tenure' doesn't mean 'neuter' ego. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
And Tenure doesn't always eliminate the drive to be better/sooner than others to the next big thing which will earn Nobel.

I'm not entirely sure you know how few Nobel prizes there are and how many researchers there are in the world. 'Going for a Nobel' is not on any scientist's mind (you will hear them make mention of this very fact in every single acceptance speech)

He may even go AGAINST his work/theory that got him/her tenure in the first place!

Why not? If the work turns out to be superceded by something better - that's just the most sensible thing to do. Or if he can find conditions under which the assumptions of his former work doesn't hold - sure he'll investigate this. He's a researcher - not a "defender of theory X no matter how wrong". That's people like you

And in that simple satatement we have why you'll never understand the mindset of a scientists nor the basics of science.
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2014
As I speculate in my paper SUN FLAKES ARE COMING I suggested that when the Earth has encountered a sufficiently large flake of solar magnetic energy which can be felt by an individual the result is inevitably termed a 'gravity wave.'
We encountered one the day before spring, March 10, 2014 felt by the United States population.
Jizby
Mar 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
And SOME one didn't agree. I see a 4.6 rating...
Some http://en.wikiped...um,_1938 for annexation of Austria with Germans or Crimea with Russians. People are pretty sure with everything all the time and they cannot think of consequences, despite they're clear already...


I don't know what that has to do with inflationary cosmology, but doubt those were examples of free and fair voting. Zeph, ya do have a singular way of analogizing.
Jizby
Mar 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2014
@a_p.
I'm not entirely sure you know how few Nobel prizes there are and how many researchers there are in the world. 'Going for a Nobel' is not on any scientist's mind (you will hear them make mention of this very fact in every single acceptance speech)
The rarer, the more covetable. Subconscious mind/desires not always acknowledged consciously. But the point is that SOME may be driven by all too human motives if not careful or due to subtle 'publish or perish' imperatives because so many people in some fields.

If the work turns out to be superceded by something better - that's just the most sensible thing to do. Or if he can find conditions under which the assumptions of his former work doesn't hold - sure he'll investigate this.
That was my point. Tenure gained from prior work that may be FLAWED.

You misunderstand me. I ADMIRE and RESPECT Sir Roger greatly. He admits flaws in prior stance. He bravely reviews to find flaws, like I do. You've got me all wrong, mate. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2014
And SOME one didn't agree. I see a 4.6 rating...
Some http://en.wikiped...um,_1938 for annexation of Austria with Germans or Crimea with Russians. People are pretty sure with everything all the time and they cannot think of consequences, despite they're clear already...

Ouch, Jiz.. not sure I appreciate the connection, there...
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
It annoys me too much to see another generation of physicist deterred by the dumb, messy patchwork called the Big Bang and other called the standard model of particle physics that hide the basic problems physics ought to deal with. Whether this is fraudulent, charlatanry or just thoroughly foolish, we may leave aside but they just don't realize how absolutely unlikely their messy models are. George Bernard Shaw said: "Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance". I add: time is running and Universe is not going to wait for us to understand. Period of time is limited. This is scandal and very dangerous for our Civilization. Yes!!! I know the true about Universe and my aim is to teach you. I know what we measure as mass and what gravity is. I can explain dark matter and dark energy. I know source of entropy and structure of Time-Space. More, I know possible future.We need to get rid of that junk to evolve, survive and be successful part of Universe.
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
500 years ago was Copernican Revolution- the shift from a geocentric to heliocentric model of the Universe. Today we have Egocentric Model of Science Society.
To continue the progress of science we have to again confront deep questions about space and time, quantum theory, and cosmology. I am extremely concerned about a trend in which only one or two directions of research is well supported. It is a trend with tragic consequences. Never before have we been better prepared to discover the fundamental laws of Nature. Yet, and regrettably, there is also much that is ludicrous being sold under the name of physics and I will deal extensively with this issue. Today, the major part of theoretical physics has gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality. I asked few vexing questions to which I know answers and I asked professors who should know the answers. They do not know answers. Big Bang is wrong theory and very foolish.
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
500 years ago was Copernican Revolution- the shift from a geocentric to heliocentric model of the Universe. Today we have Egocentric Model of Science Society.
To continue the progress of science we have to again confront deep questions about space and time, quantum theory, and cosmology. I am extremely concerned about a trend in which only one or two directions of research is well supported. It is a trend with tragic consequences. Never before have we been better prepared to discover the fundamental laws of Nature. Yet, and regrettably, there is also much that is ludicrous being sold under the name of physics and I will deal extensively with this issue. Today, the major part of theoretical physics has gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality. I asked few vexing questions to which I know answers and I asked professors who should know the answers. They do not know what to answer or " we have no better idea". Big Bang is wrong theory and very foolish
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
In Science Society it is impolite to not agree with their theories and present new revolutionary. Think about it; Mass is one of the most important defining quantities of matter. So? What is the origin of mass?, Where does it come from?, What makes mass happen?, What shapes and controls and sculpts the elementary constituents of matter and their masses ? Believe me and sorry to Albert but his E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.
We know how important Entropy is. But what is a source of the Entropy. Yes! I know.
Whatever Universe has in store for mankind, unpleasant as it may be man has to understand, for ignorance and wrong knowledge are self-destruction. The goal of physical science is to explain what the Universe is made of and how it works. Universe has in store for mankind a life forever but we are on the way to lose all. As I said; Period of time is limited. Look what we learn now. CO is a heavy particle. We are putting more in atmosphere. It has bigger inertia, stronger winds.
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
Hi Jizby. :)

Mate, I suspect what Remigiusz means is that E=mc2 is only abstract maths symbols/quantities depiction of something not actually known as to the fundamental nature, origins and how they 'couple' to the energy-space in which they arise and subside. Even the GRAVITY effect on surrounding energy-space by central energy-space 'energy-mass feature' body is not yet know as to its mechanism for conditioning energy-space and how that conditioned energy-space is 'connected physically' to the central body's mass/processes. E=mc2 is ok for predictions of dynamics/exchanges etc, but does not actually explain the physically real (not abstract) mechanisms/origins involved. Cheers. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
Period of time is limited. This is scandal and very dangerous for our Civilization. Yes!!! I know the true about Universe and my aim is to teach you
IMO the fringe cosmology is the least problem of contemporary civilization. It does illustrate the contemporary moral and intellectual problems of civilization well, but we should rise some priorities here. The contemporary energetic crisis is much more dangerous for people today. We are still apes, who are using to fight mutually instead of finding common solution.

C'mon, guys... Don't you realize the human race LIVES for this "on the edge" stuff? Hollywood couldn't write it any better.....
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
Thank You all. We human just copy apps of Universe in very simple way. Our computers are primitive copies of Quantum Computer : UNIVERSE. It's unlimited memory with growing Time-Space and unlimited fluxes of Time. You know about NSA but it is like kindergarten in surveillance. Universe records also what You think, what You dream, Your life with history of each cell in Your body. When one die it is like his program stops registered on Universe's quantum hard disc. This programs wait for....what? For next level of evolution to be restarted to accomplish goals of Universe. But I stop hear. It is just philosophy. I go back to physic. Because I'm sure what we measure as mass and what gravity is, so I testify unto you this day, that Big Bang , Standard Model with it's Higgs particle, E=mc^2, strings theory, "dark matter" , idea that Time slows with the speed are all Science Fiction sold as Science and all this is dangerous for human future. You can see it in front of your nose.
balslev
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
No, the echoes of the so-called "Big Bang" are not evidence of the universe's nearly instantaneous expansion. It is however evidence of the existence of small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background that correspond to density fluctuations in the early universe. These density fluctuations can only be created by the "old" black holes, galaxies, and other celestial bodies, that were present at the time of the Big Bang. So the findings are not a proof of the theory of inflation, but confirms that the Big Bang took place in an existing universe, as described at www.finaltheories.com.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
These density fluctuations can only be created by the "old" black holes, galaxies, and other celestial bodies, that were present at the time of the Big Bang


And where exactly were those? You seem to think the big bang was an explosion. But that doesn't work as we observe parts of the CMB that are so far apart that they can't have influenced each other - and yet they are homogeneous to within 1 part in 100000
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2014
@a_p. :)
...parts of the CMB that are so far apart that they can't have influenced each other - and yet they are homogeneous to within 1 part in 100000
Occam's Razor. Imagine a cold dark room in your house at equilibrium with its environment reached over eons and infrared heat photons going back and forth for millennia across that space and forming the 'background radiation' everywhere in that room space. Imagine lighting a match in that dark room and hence adding 'new' photons' to that 'pre-existing background' of radiation. Imagine an infinite number of such rooms, and then taking away the separating walls. The background had existed 'forever' and had equilibrated its background radiation forever. Just because you light a match in 'one small room equivalent volume' and add new radiation, doesn't mean your 'new' radiation is the 'only' radiation in that volume. Because 'homogenized pre-existing background radiation' from all the other volumes is already flowing across there too?
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2014
Erm...whut? That makes no sense.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
Erm...whut? That makes no sense.

Did you try thinking it through instead of kneejerking evasive tactic like that?

Think Infinite universe always existing. Think all events over infinite universe produce background CMB which pervades across space. Think that this observable space we are in has had CMB from infinity going across it even before any 'local' recent bangs added their own local radiations of all types. Penny drop yet?

Sean Carroll et al proved that space is infinite in all directions (and Euclidean/flat) extending to infinity. They added angles of triangulations of CMB 'features', and they added up to only 180 degrees to precision of 3 decimal places. Local variations in geometry by dynamical mass/energy-space processes is just that. Local. Geometry can be NON-Euclidean in localized dynamics sense particles/waves energy-space feature surfaces, densities configurations etc.

Locally observed CMB could be from equilibrating-over-eternity volumes everywhere.

Occam.:)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
Did you try thinking it through instead of kneejerking evasive tactic like that?

Yes I thought it through. It amkes no sense

Occam

Positing infinite energy is a bit of the opposite of Occam, don't you think?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
@a_p. :)
Positing infinite energy is a bit of the opposite of Occam, don't you think?
Think, a_p. Occams (confirmed by Sean Carroll et al) says underlying fundamental universal energy-space ALWAYS infinite/flat, so universal ground-state energy component is inextricably the dynamically evolving aspect of infinite energy-space effectively DISTRIBUTED as INFINITESIMAL quanta LOCALLY over eternally processing infinite EXTENT of said localities in processing energy-space.

Get it now? The infinite universal TOTALITY of 'energy' is obviously infinite by dint of Occam's already saying INFINITE TOTALITY of energy-space EXTENT.

BUT LOCALIZED QUANTA of energy-space is logically (by distribution over infite totality) takes INFINITESIMAL and FINITE quantum component/dynamical values.

Infinity/eternality of energy-space is a-priori per Occam's (confirmed by Sean Carroll et al), so the EVERYTHING that is UNIVERSAL energy-space is INFINITE by logical implication.

Get real, mate! :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Get real, mate! :)


How this Carroll-Skippy confirm a thing that is infinite Really-Skippy? Maybe I misunderstand because I'm not the scientist. Ol Ira thought infinite means goes and goes and goes without the ending. Is that the wrong thing I'm misunderstanding? If it is the right thing I'm understanding then the Ira-Skippy don't figure that is the thing no one confirm unless this Carroll knows some special way to get to the end of infinite things, eh?

If you can answer that one and tell me if some other Skippy confirmed his confirming maybe I'll start giving the Really-Skippy a bye on the bad karma points. But don't say something stupid or I'll have to double up on the bad points. Can't do nothing about that silly looking pointy cap though me. It looks to good on you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
How this Carroll-Skippy confirm a thing that is infinite Really-Skippy? Maybe I misunderstand because I'm not the scientist. Ol Ira thought infinite means goes and goes and goes without the ending. Is that the wrong thing I'm misunderstanding? If it is the right thing I'm understanding then the Ira-Skippy don't figure that is the thing no one confirm unless this Carroll knows some special way to get to the end of infinite things, eh?

If you can answer that one and tell me if some other Skippy confirmed his confirming maybe I'll start giving the Really-Skippy a bye on the bad karma points. But don't say something stupid or I'll have to double up on the bad points. Can't do nothing about that silly looking pointy cap though me. It looks to good on you.
If you read mainstream you'd know. Only trolls who WON'T read and/or understand keep posting idiotic drool like yours. The 'smarts peoples' (a_p et al) will explain it to you, since they approve your drooling posts. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
If you read mainstream you'd know. Only trolls who WON'T read and/or understand keep posting idiotic drool like yours. The 'smarts peoples' (a_p et al) will explain it to you, since they approve your drooling posts. :)


I guess that means ol Ira asked you a question you can't answer, eh? Why you just not so that without trying to be so much like you want get into a tussle with me Skippy? P'tit boug, what you think, I can't notice that you are the couyon who don't have nothing but the foolishment?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippydoo

That's means the Ira is saying to you, "Bring it on down the bayou Skippydoo. This ought to be the Big Fun".

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
@Crazy Uncle Ira.

Read my earlier posts, you drooling idiot. I already alluded to their 'triangulation of CMB map features, and the angles adding up to 180 degrees and hence energy-space to infinity beyond observable horizon is flat Euclidean geometry at fundamental ground state level.

That you don;'t read before you drool all over this forum, and are still here, means the forum admin/mod is failing his duty and letting you clutter up discussions/threads with idiot drivel they obviously approve of. You seem to be a 'protected' idiot pretender who can't do any real original science contribution, and just heckles from the sidelines like a demented stalker.

Your're delusional if you think anyone is actually taken in by your troll antics and mindless idiocy and nasty 'noise' in lieu of real discussion of the science. Take your meds and stay away from that keyboard for a while, mate! :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
@ Okay Really-Skippy apology accepted. Again. But this will be last one I get tricked into accepting.

But that still don't explain how that Carroll-Skippy was able to confirm that it goes out to forever without never ending. How he know it don't just stop somewhere past where he measured to? Just because something is flat don't mean forever. Me Ira-Skippy can confirm the plywood is flat and stop at the 2 foot edge side and at the 4 foot edgement.but I don't understand the confirm busyness if you can no go to the edge to see if comes to the end or just keeps going.

I'm sure this Carroll-Skippy is the smart scientist man, but did somebody check his confirm to make sure that it doesn't stop past where he left off measuring? Oh yeah, what he use to measure infinite with?
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
Physicist want to know about space and time, and what brought the world into existence. These fundamental questions are the hardest to answer. How unusual is it for decades to pass without major progress in fundamental physics? Never before have we been better prepared to discover the fundamental laws of Nature and in Science Society they avoid their obligations to answer the vexing but fundamental questions:
1.What is the origin of mass? Where does it come from? What makes mass happen?
1a. What is a particle from which all matter is build?
2.What is texture of Time Space? What is quantum time-space? How a quantum time-space shapes and controls and sculpts the elementary constituents of matter and their masses?
3.What is Entropy? What is It source? What makes It Happen ?
4. What is gravity? What is a quantum time-space gravity ?
5. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are really the same matter and energy so why we can't detect them ?
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
cd:
6. Really (?) photon is light ? What is light ? There are electromagnetic waves which can move only particles with mass. Photons without mass move only from high temp to lower. They have nothing to do with electro magnetic waves, not direct.
7. It is not truth that buildup of speed slow down time. It slow down a process because particles participating in process have to cover longer distances.
8. What is minus charge ? It does not exist! There is not positive charge . There is only the charge. So why some particles run to lower potential, some to higher and there are particles for whom it does not matter?
I am sure You ,by the way I ask the questions, understand that I know all answers. Now take a sober look at the facts. Regrettably, there is much that is ludicrous being sold under the physics and I will deal extensively with this issue. I am personally concerned because I need our Civilization to survive. I know what Universe has in store for mankind.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
I know what Universe has in store for mankind.


Well Ramaguizi-Skippy if you know that why are you wasting time fooling around with these peoples? Maybe you should get you into Town and buy the powerball ticket.

The peoples are smart (except for the Really-Skippy and the Returner-Skippy) I know but they aren't that smart. But they are smart enough to no ask questions that they already know what is the answers to them. So maybe you should have some time in the corner with silly looking pointy cap on? Don't fret none Cher, I know that the Really-Skippy got that. But we have four corners to sit in, he's only using the one. And I always keep a spare silly looking pointy cap in case some couyon show up with some special foolishment.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Riminiaz-Skippy

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)
@ Okay Really-Skippy apology accepted. Again. But this will be last one I get tricked into accepting.

But that still don't explain how that Carroll-Skippy was able to confirm that it goes out to forever without never ending. How he know it don't just stop somewhere past where he measured to?

If the angles of triangulation added to only 180, then universal energy-space flatness is to infinite extent unless YOU posit some reason/physics which would provide a limit to that flatness extent. Have any such? Occam's Razor starts out that the most likely is flat energy-space universal extent to infinity, and that all local observable volumes are just that, localized dynamical processing of/within that universal energy-space of infinite extent. Go on, ask the 'smarts people" and they will explain to you (if they want to waste more time on you). Bye.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2014
If the angles of triangulation added to only 180, then universal energy-space flatness is to infinite extent unless YOU posit some reason/physics which would provide a limit to that flatness extent. Have any such? Occam's Razor starts out that the most likely is flat energy-space universal extent to infinity, and that all local observable volumes are just that, localized dynamical processing of/within that universal energy-space of infinite extent. Go on, ask the 'smarts people" and they will explain to you (if they want to waste more time on you). Bye.


Did this Occam-Skippy do the confirming of the Carroll-Skippy's confirm it's infinite? You still not tell how they CONFIRM (two can play the capitals game) the infinite. Measuring out a triangle don't tell me nothing about what's WAY outside the triangle, so Cher, I have to have the doubts about this CONFIRM busyness.

But Ira ain't stupid, I notice you change it to "most likely" from CONFIRM. You wiggly with the words, eh?
Jizby
Mar 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Remigiusz
1.5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2014
More than ever the world needs the competence of physicists no playing with fantasies more suited to the science fiction industry. Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science. It appears to be a universal mechanism of human aspiration that, while following the seemingly obvious methods, can gradually slip into absurdity, leaving behind unresolved problems. The theoretical physics and cosmology have gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)


Okay Really-Skippy, I did the reading that you say I should do. This Carroll-Skippy seems like he is one of the smart scientist peoples. But I can no find where he claims to have CONFIRMED any about the infinite space. He has his own interweb page and on it he says a lot of things with a big heap of "we just don't know" and "this is all speculative" and "seems to indicate" (hold on while I remember to find some more) , okay I'm returned, "I happen to think" and "future observations may answer" and "or it could be that we will find".

Now he don't sound like he's real sure of his CONFIRMATIONS. What you think about that Cher? Google on the google, he got the really nice science web call the Ponderous Something or Other.

So don't be calling me more stupid you. At least I got the right idea about what CONFIRM it means and INFINITE it means. So now you get to keep the silly looking pointy cap for till the end of the school year Skippy.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)


P.S. to the Really-Skippy with the silly looking pointy cap on his head.

I google on this Occam-Skippy too. That Skippy has been dead and dust for almost the 7 or 6 hundred years. He was before telescoping and computers. How he is CONFIRMING any of this space and infinite stuffs? You make that up because you think ol Ira couldn't find him with the google? P'tit boug, you got to stay up late to bamdazzle me with foolishment like that.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy watch your self in the tall grasses, eh Cher?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

You haven't a clue, no matter what you google. The BB Inflation Hypothesis was invented by Guth to 'explain' why the universe at the largest scales was FLAT. And since no-one has yet identified how a universe that contains all there is can be bounded and finite, then the Ocam's razor holds that it is infinite in extent. No physicist argues with that infinite extent nor with the flat-to-infinity findings of Sean Carroll et al.

How dumb does the dumb get out your way, mate. Is it the driveling language you speak or is it by your free will choice to be so dumb, not to mention sounding/reading as crazy as a split-infinitive in an agenda sheet for a 19th Century Grammatical Society meeting?

Stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking, you poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

You haven't a clue, no matter what you google. The BB Inflation Hypothesis was invented by Guth to 'explain' why the universe at the largest scales was FLAT. And since no-one has yet identified how a universe that contains all there is can be bounded and finite, then the Ocam's razor holds that it is infinite in extent. No physicist argues with that infinite extent nor with the flat-to-infinity findings of Sean Carroll et al.

How dumb does the dumb get out your way, mate. Is it the driveling language you speak or is it by your free will choice to be so dumb, not to mention sounding/reading as crazy as a split-infinitive in an agenda sheet for a 19th Century Grammatical Society meeting?

Stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking, you poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)



If you can't answer the question ol Ira asked just say you can't answer or SHUT UP. Pretending you answered only works on peoples who don't know you Cher.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

So you didn't even know that about why Inflation was posited by Guth? You're a real crash dummy, aren't you?

You haven't a clue. No wonder why they call you "Poor (Crazy Crash Dummy) Uncle Ira".

See where in the other thread (Dark energy hides behind phantom fields) our "antialias_physorg" just effectively referred to you as an irrelevant loudmouthed useless crash dummy?

He says he ignores you like everyone else does. Makes you proud of our a_p, doesn't it? LOL.

Give it up, sunshine, you're either crazy or troll, probably both. Dribble that drivel of your dementia somewhere else. That's a good Uncle Gasbag. :)
Jizby
Mar 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

He says he ignores you like everyone else does. Makes you proud of our a_p, doesn't it? LOL.


Skippy that advisement was give to you and you decided that you was the BIG MAN and would run the show. The Really-Skippy can still take that good suggestion. I'm not proud of anyone here me, except maybe for me.

Give it up, sunshine, you're either crazy or troll, probably both. Dribble that drivel of your dementia somewhere else. That's a good Uncle Gasbag. :)


Like I tell you Really-Skippy you not the BIG CHIEF no. Now why don't you sit yourself down and "try to do better"?

Just me curious but do they let you play like the BIG CHIEF on them other sites that you make the claim of posting at? Where you get the idea that people like that from you Skippy? I get the fan mail telling me I do fine, what you get Skippy? Your momma telling you it is cute for her little Really-Skippy pretend to be the BIG MAN? She do you no favor with that Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2014
The BB Inflation Hypothesis was invented by Guth to 'explain' why the universe at the largest scales "was" FLAT
Well, now the same Hypothesis is used for "explanation", why the why the universe at the largest scales IS NOT FLAT. Should we be surprised? This is how the epicycle models are constructed.

Hahaha! Good one, Jizby. The mainstream 'publish or perish'-imperatives-driven mainstream 'speculatists' want it BOTH WAYS every time they are challenged on their published 'explanations', hey!

No wonder they have hit an abstractions riddled dead end in the wall of speculation upon speculation they themselves built so carefully but witlessly as they inexorably left the reality way behind.

Cheers to all questioners of abstract orthodoxy and explorers of the reality around them. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor, poor Ira. :)
He says he ignores you like everyone else does. Makes you proud of our a_p

Skippy that advisement was give to you and you decided that you was the BIG MAN and would run the show. The Really-Skippy can still take that good suggestion. I'm not proud of anyone here me, except maybe for me.
Give it up, sunshine, you're either crazy or troll, probably both. Dribble that drivel of your dementia somewhere else. That's a good Uncle Gasbag. :)

Like I tell you Really-Skippy you not the BIG CHIEF no. Now why don't you sit yourself down and "try to do better"? Just me curious but do they let you play like the BIG CHIEF on them other sites that you make the claim of posting at? Where you get the idea that people like that from you Skippy? I get the fan mail telling me I do fine, what you get Skippy? Your momma telling you it is cute for her little Really-Skippy pretend to be the BIG MAN? She do you no favor with that Skippy

Poor, poor Ira. :(
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor, poor Ira. :)

Poor, poor Ira. :(


Hoooyeei, Skippy. For certainment you tell me, eh? You "try to do better" okay Really-Skippy?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor, poor, poor Uncle Ira. :)
Hoooyeei, Skippy. For certainment you tell me, eh? You "try to do better" okay Really-Skippy?

Oh dear. He's off into 'the puffer' again. Poor, poor, poor Uncle Ira. :(