Time magazine spreads the horse manure

[phinds]

Remember the bitter sting you felt when the brutal truth about Santa Claus was first revealed to you - but, mommy, does that mean there is no tooth fairy, easter bunny or god?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've never believed in this god guy, but I'm quite confident the rest of them are real.

 

[nazarbaz]

Phinds…I think you missed the AT THE BIG BANG portion of my statement regarding the size of the universe. I am fairly certain that in the archives of this forum over the last four years you will find posts referring to the size of the universe at the instant of the big bang as ‘infinitely small’ (according to your opening post this is what the science editor apparently wrote), ‘pea-sized’, ‘grapefruit sized‘, about the size of a golf ball’, ‘unimaginably small’, and a host of others including infinitely large and unknown.

Chronos…Burning people at the stake for presenting viewpoints that violate prevailing religious doctrine is different than burning them for not clearly expressing their thoughts. And as much as I personally favor science funding, I would hope that funding for anything would be denied if the petitioners cannot present in clear terms the nature of their project. And that is perhaps how people such as the science editor of Time Magazine, and Morgan Freeman with his science show could be/are of assistance, by paving the way in presenting basic concepts to the general public.

Edit - just saw the above posts! :)

I'm not sure if we, as a species, really know what we're doing around here (l mean the universe), in a manner that allows us to make sensible or intelligent "propositions" about ourselves. Can we stop funding the noise and the gesticulations we make only by being alive ? Hum...
Cosmology is a very special science, maybe the ultimate one. One day it will test our very logic. So be a little bit more open about science and its goals, as long as it doesn't involve bigfoot and ancient aliens.

 

[ryan albery]

'Roger Roger, what's the vector Victor?'

The size of a singularity, or the un-observable universe, by definition are unknowable. Do data aka measurements define what's real?

Anybody want a peanut?

 

[somebodyelse]

Is that in the newstand/print edition of Time? The web coverage looks pretty well written. Maybe a different article?
time.com/24894/gravity-waves-expanding-universe/

I'm an interested layman. Forgive my ignorance but I read the article and a basic question struck me. The article says
" These microwaves didn’t even exist until about 400,000 years after the Big Bang happened, far later than the inflationary scenario—which occurred before the universe had aged even a billionth of a trillionth of a quadrillionth of a second—could have played out. "

Why did microwaves not exist until 400,000 years after the Big Bang? What's different about microwaves that they didn't start much earlier if not from the start?

Thank you.

 

[phinds]

I'm an interested layman. Forgive my ignorance but I read the article and a basic question struck me. The article says
" These microwaves didn’t even exist until about 400,000 years after the Big Bang happened, far later than the inflationary scenario—which occurred before the universe had aged even a billionth of a trillionth of a quadrillionth of a second—could have played out. "

Why did microwaves not exist until 400,000 years after the Big Bang? What's different about microwaves that they didn't start much earlier if not from the start?

Thank you.

The statement happened to be talking about what is now a microwave frequency, but that's somewhat irrelevant. ALL electromagnetic radiation was blocked up until about 400,000 years after the singularity. Google "surface of last scattering"

 

[somebodyelse]

People can read relatively recent quotes from people like Hawking to this effect, so I really don't find it suprising.

There's not a lot you can do when someone comes at you with "well Stephen Hawking believes in aliens, so why should I care about you and your Drake equation."

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying Hawking is wrong in what he says or that laymen misunderstand what he says?

 

[phinds]

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying Hawking is wrong in what he says or that laymen misunderstand what he says?

Hawking has been known to say things on pop-sci TV shows that he knows are oversimplifications to the point of not being true. That, in fact, is true of ALL physicists that I have ever seen on such shows with the single exception of Neil Degrasse Tyson who seems to just refuse to say anything stupid, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[craigi]

Now I'm really confused. Are you saying Hawking is wrong in what he says or that laymen misunderstand what he says?

Sure, Hawking is wrong on a regular basis and he admits as much. Probably no more so than many other physicists, but then they don't get so much media coverage. Without a doubt he has made an incredible contribution to physics, most notably in the 70's and 80's, but the media seem to have elevated him to some kind of mythical oracle status.

Hawking has been known to say things on pop-sci TV shows that he knows are oversimplifications to the point of not being true. That, in fact, is true of ALL physicists that I have ever seen on such shows with the single exception of Neil Degrasse Tyson who seems to just refuse to say anything stupid, regardless of the circumstances.

The way I see it, there's like a hierarchy of sensationalism from the physicists that have popular media exposure. Hawking revels in controversy. Kaku just likes to throw out the craziest ideas that he can think of. Degrasse Tyson manages to have a high impact manner without getting invoved in anything too crazy (check out his brutal takedown of Dawkins if you haven't seen it). Then there's people like Susskind who don't deal in any of that sort of stuff, but can still dicuss physics in a way that almost anyone can grasp.

 

[somebodyelse]

Thank you all.