PDA

View Full Version : New Theory on Big Bang alternative.



p9107
2002-Jan-23, 12:05 PM
I have a new theory on how the Big bang is wrong.

At the moment, It is agreed that we are moving through space with the other
planets.

This is thaught to have occured due to a 'big bang' which caused the planets
to be formed, And for it all to come from one origin.

What if there was no 'big bang'.

I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space. In fact, I
heard of a new space-ship, using 'sails' to propel it through space.

If these 'winds' can transport a small object through space, then it is just
as likely to transport a large object through space, namely a planet such as
ours. In fact it could probably push large solar systems and galaxies through
the universe on a 'wave'.

This is just a theory, so could you please email me back, telling me if this
is all wrong. If it is correct, then can you tell me the email address of
someone who knows a lot about the sbject, and could provide me with an even
greater insight into the topic.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-23, 12:18 PM
Just one question:

How does that show that the big bang is wrong?

And, welcome to the BABB.

James
2002-Jan-23, 12:23 PM
On 2002-01-23 07:05, p9107 wrote:

I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space.

I do believe they are called solar winds.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-23, 01:41 PM
The professionals here can correct me if I'm wrong or am missing something, but my understanding is that any alternative to the Big Bang theory needs to explain at least the following:

- the cosmic background radiation
- the apparent correlation between red shift and distance (Hubble's law)
- evidence that the universe has evolved (quasars at distances only, galaxies in Hubble Deep Field clearly more primitive)
- evidence that the universe is expanding
- the relative abundances of light isotopes
- the darkness of the night sky (Olbers' paradox)

I'm not sure if your concept explains any of this (except maybe the expansion part), but then I'm not sure I understand it, either.

A good online introduction to cosmology is Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm), from which I got much of the above information.


_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-01-23 08:42 ]</font>

Russ
2002-Jan-23, 04:36 PM
Welcome to the Bad Astronomy Bulliten Board (BABB). While I'm no expert and not an astronomy professional, I'll take a stab at some specific answers.


On 2002-01-23 07:05, p9107 wrote:

At the moment, It is agreed that we are moving through space with the other
planets.

While this is correct it has nothing to do with the BB cosmology. The planets orbit (move through space) around the Sun due to a forces called gravity and angular momentum. This has been known for about 400 years. This happens on a scale that is sub-microscopic compared to cosmology which has to do with 100's of millions of galaxies, spread over 10's of billions of light years.


This is thaught to have occured due to a 'big bang' which caused the planets
to be formed, And for it all to come from one origin.

While it is true that the BB was indirectly responsible for planet formation, it is generally accepted that planet formation is part of the process of star formation.

The BB is generally credited with galaxy formation, galaxies with star formation and stars with planet formation.


What if there was no 'big bang'.

There is some rather lively discussion about this very thing elsewhere on BABB.


I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space. In fact, I
heard of a new space-ship, using 'sails' to propel it through space.

What you are refering to is the Solar Wind. This is an outward flow of atomic particles from the Sun. There is currently a project to create a space craft that will capture the energy from the SW to propel the craft around our Solar System. Again, this is strictly a local, as within the Solar System, effect. It has nothing to do with BB cosmology.


If these 'winds' can transport a small object through space, then it is just
as likely to transport a large object through space, namely a planet such as
ours. In fact it could probably push large solar systems and galaxies through
the universe on a 'wave'.

The Solar Wind effect is FAR TO WEAK to propel planets anywhere. For example; comets which come barreling in from the Oort cloud have only a tiny fraction of the mass of Pluto (our smallest planet), yet they readily over power the SW.


This is just a theory, so could you please email me back, telling me if this
is all wrong. If it is correct, then can you tell me the email address of
someone who knows a lot about the sbject, and could provide me with an even
greater insight into the topic.

The Bad Astronomer is an excellent source of information. There are also other professional astronomers that frequint the BABB who, I'm sure, will be happy to give you better answers than mine. I encourage you to do a search on "google" for "solar wind". I'm sure you will find many interesting sites.

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-23, 04:38 PM
The big bang has nothing to do with the formation of planets. It has to do with the formation of the whole universe (All 800 billion bilion (+/- 3dB) cubic lightyears of it).

_________________
TANSTAAFL!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-01-23 11:39 ]</font>

p9107
2002-Jan-23, 05:04 PM
Ok...So I might be a little wrong. Thanks, everyone, for replying to this. To tell you the truth, I am 15 years old, and live in England. I don't have much 'real' knowledge on the topic, but I thaught of it when I was lying in bed trying to get to sleep. I am sure it is mostly wrong (perhaps even impossible) but it was worth asking

Thanks again,

James Wilson

Russ
2002-Jan-23, 06:00 PM
I am sure it is mostly wrong (perhaps even impossible) but it was worth asking

Thanks again,

James Wilson

The only dumb question is the one you don't ask. Keep asking questions!

I enjoy thinking myself to sleep also. I try to envision astronomical distances, black holes, Saturn's rings, etc. My wife calls it "boaring yourself to sleep". What does she know? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-24, 04:27 AM
In the past ten years, I have come up with many new theories. One is that the earth actually exhibits regular planforms of convection. Two is that the mantle is more viscous than many researchers believed thirty years ago, based upon their own data. Three is that claims that Subramanyan Chandrasekhar proved that degree one convection of the mantle was impossible are in error. Four is that anomalous splitting of the modes of earth vibration are a result of degree one offsets. Five is that core-mantle perturbations are responsible for anomalous length-of-day variation, as well as Chandler wobble excitation. Six is that there is more than one time dimension. Seven is that the disproof of Whitehead's alternative theory of relativity is not completely valid. Eight is that the Earth has no pear-shape. Nine is that astrology and biorhythms might have an evolutionary basis. Ten is that SIDs is basically rebreathing suffocation. Eleven is that Uranus was the star of Bethlehem. Twelve is that you can lose weight by changing your breathing. Thirteen is that...well, that's unlucky. There're many more.

I spend my nights trying to disprove them.

Chip
2002-Jan-24, 05:00 AM
On 2002-01-23 12:04, p9107 wrote:
"...I thought of it when I was lying in bed trying to get to sleep."


A lot of fascinating ideas have been discovered that way. (You're in good company with a lot of famous thinkers.) Keep thinking, and welcome to this bulletin board. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Chip

p9107
2002-Jan-24, 09:25 AM
Hello again,
I don't know what your real name is, but Mr. GrapesOfWrath, how can there be more than one time dimension. I understand that there are many dimensions which exist in sub-atomic particles, but how can time exist in more than one dimension? Do you mean the 'Tesser' theory?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 04:37 AM
You must be talking about Abraham Tesser, and social psychology, but no that's not what I mean.

I'm not really familiar with Tesser's work, although I have seen discussions about multiple time dimensions in other contexts. Do you have some references?

p9107
2002-Jan-25, 09:24 AM
No...I mean the tesser theory which states that it is possible for an object to travel from one point to another immediately, with no time spent traveling. It is a theory put forward by Jason Tesser, in the 1980's.

Is this what you meant by there being more than one time dimension?

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-25, 12:18 PM
P9107, at least you understodd that much. I'll chew me banana whilst trying to fiugre out the first 7 of GrapesofWrath's 12 things to think upon. Erm...where is the dictionary... And to think to look up in the sky and see stars required so much friggin brainpower /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 01:40 PM
On 2002-01-25 07:18, ChallegedChimp wrote:
the first 7 of GrapesofWrath's 12 things to think upon.
The first five are mostly geophysics, and I think if I went into detail, Code Red and ToSeek would get mad at me for mixing up astronomy and earth science (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=383&forum=2&19). /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



On 2002-01-25 04:24, p9107 wrote:
No...I mean the tesser theory which states that it is possible for an object to travel from one point to another immediately, with no time spent traveling. It is a theory put forward by Jason Tesser, in the 1980's.

Is this what you meant by there being more than one time dimension?

I'm not sure, how does Tesser accomplish that?

I tried to do a search, and couldn't find anything online about a Jason Tesser with such theories. Do you have some links?

Donnie B.
2002-Jan-25, 02:29 PM
Hmmm... then I suppose such travel through higher dimensions would be a sort of... Tesser-act?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-25, 04:10 PM
Resistance is futile.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-25, 05:09 PM
Ook?

PS
(methinks I been assimilated)

PPS (tis amazing what you can learn whilst dipping in the shallow end of you guys deep thoughts)

p9107
2002-Jan-26, 09:57 AM
Donnie-B, what wit!!

GrapesOfWrath, you still havn't told me what you mean by there being more than one time dimension. How is this possible? I would really be interested to know...



On 2002-01-25 12:09, ChallegedChimp wrote:
Ook?

PS
(methinks I been assimilated)

PPS (tis amazing what you can learn whilst dipping in the shallow end of you guys deep thoughts)


I agree with your PPS. I have learned so many new things in the last couple of days.
However, I am not so sure about the relevance of your other comments, is Ook, some sort of scientific anallergy?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: p9107 on 2002-01-26 05:01 ]</font>

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-26, 11:03 AM
Read some Terry Pratchett books, then you'll understand Ook. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-26, 11:41 AM
On 2002-01-26 04:57, p9107 wrote:
GrapesOfWrath, you still havn't told me what you mean by there being more than one time dimension. How is this possible? I would really be interested to know...
Simple really.

It's my own personal theory of supersupersymmetry. Not only is there three space dimensions, but there are three time dimensions.

Normally, you see the null-geodesics defined as x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2 = 0

In this theory, it would read x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2 + T^2 + m^2

Space equals time, in other words.

Now, do you have that Jason Tesser link?

p9107
2002-Jan-26, 06:27 PM
Um...no.
I havn't found any links, but there was a book published a couple of years ago - I can't remember the title immeadiately, but i will have a look for it tonight. I will be able to tell you tommorrow.

Sorry...

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-27, 05:33 AM
No hurry.

After coming up with the idea, I did a web search and found that Heinlein--who I had read up until maybe 1975--wrote a book about it in the late 70's, called The Number of the Beast. He called the three time dimensions tee, tau (Greek), and teh (Cyrillic).

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-27, 10:08 AM
IIRC, in "The Number of the Beast", there were a total of six dimensions which were interchangeable. Choose one as your "time" dimension and any three of the other five as your "space" dimensions.

_________________
TANSTAAFL!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-01-27 05:09 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-27, 01:44 PM
I don't recall anything like that. They could set an axis, and rotate about it, using a device invented by one of the characters. The key to using it was a powerful AI computer that could memorize coordinates and instantly zoom back to those coordinates, with offsets.

NottyImp
2002-Jan-28, 10:58 AM
"In this theory, it would read x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2 + T^2 + m^2

Space equals time, in other words."

So do you get valid gravitational field equations al a General Relativity using this formulation?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-28, 12:29 PM
On 2002-01-28 05:58, NottyImp wrote:
So do you get valid gravitational field equations al a General Relativity using this formulation?

::snaps fingers:: Sure, why not? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[Forgot to turn on smilies]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-01-28 07:30 ]</font>

p9107
2002-Jan-28, 02:32 PM
OK, i've found thye name of the book - it is called "A Wrinkle in Time".




Space equals time, in other words."



...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
How can time exist in any more than one?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-28, 03:22 PM
I've read that book. I think we have a copy around the house somewhere. Is Jason Tesser a character in it?


On 2002-01-28 09:32, p9107 wrote:
...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
How can time exist in any more than one?

Well, I don't see why not. Pretty much the same way that you can have more than three space dimensions--that's pretty common way of looking at thimgs nowadays.

DJ
2002-Jan-28, 08:43 PM
On 2002-01-28 09:32, p9107 wrote:
OK, i've found thye name of the book - it is called "A Wrinkle in Time".




Space equals time, in other words."



...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
How can time exist in any more than one?



One is then assuming that time is at least linear. Though there may seem to be a "direction" to time, that is largely for simplification.

Since time travel cannot be validated, and seems to have completely destructive paradoxes associated with it moving in the opposite direction, for now, I'm assuming time is not a linear function except to linear-beings... like us.


I'm heading more towards zero-point fields and string theory, which don't have such hangups.

p9107
2002-Jan-29, 07:09 AM
On 2002-01-28 15:43, DJ wrote:


On 2002-01-28 09:32, p9107 wrote:
OK, i've found thye name of the book - it is called "A Wrinkle in Time".




Space equals time, in other words."



...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
How can time exist in any more than one?



One is then assuming that time is at least linear. Though there may seem to be a "direction" to time, that is largely for simplification.

Since time travel cannot be validated, and seems to have completely destructive paradoxes associated with it moving in the opposite direction, for now, I'm assuming time is not a linear function except to linear-beings... like us.


I'm heading more towards zero-point fields and string theory, which don't have such hangups.



Thanks for the explanation, are you saying that there are 3 time dimensions but beings like us, cannot travel in more than one? That's not so hard to understand. Oh, and what on earth are zero-point fields?

And no, Jason Tesser is not a charecter in the book.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: p9107 on 2002-01-29 02:13 ]</font>

DStahl
2002-Jan-29, 09:16 AM
Hawking explains the idea of imaginary time in his recent popular-audience book "The Universe in a Nutshell" as an additional 2-vector at right angles to true (Greenwich) time. I don't understand a darned thing about how he's using the concept, but it obviously creates a sort of 3-D time.

Anybody know more about this? Could it be used to understand the many-universes version of quantum decoherence, with each possible history propogating along a unique 3-vector of one real + two imaginary time dimensions?

Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-01-29 04:18 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-29, 09:32 AM
On 2002-01-29 02:09, p9107 wrote:
And no, Jason Tesser is not a charecter in the book.
In A Wrinkle in Time (http://www.uky.edu/~engjlg/hon202/coltharp.htm) the characters "tesser," but that has nothing to do with Jason Tesser, right?

p9107
2002-Jan-29, 04:09 PM
That's right. I read the book when I was a small boy. It is quite good actually. See for yourself:



On 2002-01-29 04:32, Somebody wrote:

The concept of a tesseract is also brilliantly described by children's author Madeleine L'Engle in her Newbery Award-winning book, A Wrinkle In Time. She uses the concept of four-dimensional tesseracts as a means of travel through time and space in the three-dimensional world. This process, called tessering, is innocently and subtly slipped into the format of a book written for children. Despite the audience for which the story was intended, this explanation is very useful to explain a tesseract



Thanks for finding the link by the way.

p9107
2002-Jan-30, 05:26 PM
http://www.uky.edu/~engjlg/hon202/coltharp.htm

Here is a link to a net of a 4-dimensional 'hypercube'. I thaught for a minute and wondered how do we know there are more or less than 3 dimensions? How can we prove that things can exist in more or less than 3 dimensions. Take for example a 2D shape, lets say a square drawn on a piece of paper. That, when layed flat it still is a 3D shape. The hieght of the ink on the page. Also, how do we know there are 4 dimensions.
____
| |
|____|
| |
____|____|____
| | | |
|____|____|____|
| |
|____|

Above is a net of a 3D cube. It is 6 squares, which when folded make a cube. In the link, there are 8 cubes which in theory 'fold' together to make a 'hypercube'. How do we know this? Is it just made up, or has it been proved?
I hope you can answer this for me...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: p9107 on 2002-01-30 12:28 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: p9107 on 2002-01-30 12:35 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-30, 05:46 PM
On 2002-01-30 12:26, p9107 wrote:
Above is a net of a 3D cube. It is 6 squares, which when folded make a cube. In the link, there are 8 cubes which in theory 'fold' together to make a 'hypercube'. How do we know this? Is it just made up, or has it been proved?
I hope you can answer this for me...
It is made up, just like Newton's laws, and the laws of thermodynamics.

DStahl
2002-Jan-30, 07:15 PM
"How can we prove that things can exist in more or less than 3 dimensions?"

If there were more than 3 large-scale physical dimensions in OUR universe then distance-dependant forces like electromagnetism and gravity would not allow stable configurations like the solar system or a hydrogen atom. (See page 88 of "Universe in a Nutshell" by Hawking for one explanation of this idea.)

--Don Stahl

ToSeek
2002-Jan-30, 07:36 PM
On 2002-01-30 14:15, DStahl wrote:
If there were more than 3 large-scale physical dimensions in OUR universe then distance-dependant forces like electromagnetism and gravity would not allow stable configurations like the solar system or a hydrogen atom.


On the other hand, it is hypothesized that the reason gravity is so weak in comparison with the other forces is that it extends into other dimensions.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-30, 07:56 PM
On 2002-01-30 14:36, ToSeek wrote:
On the other hand, it is hypothesized that the reason gravity is so weak in comparison with the other forces is that it extends into other dimensions.
I just would like to point out here (since I've never done it anywhere else) that the idea that gravity is so much weaker is not a very well-defined concept.

Typically, the ratio of gravity strength to electromagnetic strength is computed by comparing the sizes of the forces between two electrons. The ratio is an incredibly small number, of course. The ratio is larger if you use an electron and a proton. If you do the comparison with a couple of protons, the ratio is a million times larger--but still, a very small number.

Now, what if you do it with neutrons?

p9107
2002-Feb-01, 12:26 PM
I don't know - what happens...?

ToSeek
2002-Feb-01, 01:24 PM
On 2002-02-01 07:26, p9107 wrote:
I don't know - what happens...?


I would assume that the electromagnetic force between neutrons would be nil, so that in that case the gravitational force would be infinitely stronger. Kind of an unfair comparison, but then (as GoW points out), so is the electron example, since an electron is at the other extreme and is almost nothing but charge.

DJ
2002-Feb-01, 04:13 PM
One cannot deny the existence of something simply because they cannot fathom it.

A single dimensional creature cannot comprehend a dual dimensional universe. They example is a point sitting on a plane. If the point looks forward on it's plane, and something intersects that plane at a right angle, the point "sees" a line of points on it's plane. It cannot comprehend something in the plane above, nor below.

A two dimensional creature cannot comprehend a 3 dimensional universe. Something intersecting two planes at a right angle (something we can obviously see and understand) looks like a moving line or moving set of points.

A three dimensional creature cannot comprehend a 4 dimensional universe. If "time" is the true 4th dimension to our existing 3, then a 4 dimensional creature could move forward and backward in time as easily as we move in our 3 dimensions. We obviously cannot comprehend that. Thought we labor intensely to do so.

A very good explanation of this is given in the book "Tertium Organum."

I once had a vision of a 4-dimensional sphere. It flashed through my mind. And surely, just as I had heard would happen, it leaves you, you cannot describe it to someone else, nor could you draw it or for that matter or prove it. The only thing I remember is it took into account something called the "long body of time."

The key is to not dismiss something. It is written in every language in every way that a lower cannot see a higher. As above, so below, goes my response to that.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-02-01 11:15 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-02, 05:08 AM
On 2002-01-29 04:16, DStahl wrote:
Hawking explains the idea of imaginary time in his recent popular-audience book "The Universe in a Nutshell" as an additional 2-vector at right angles to true (Greenwich) time. I don't understand a darned thing about how he's using the concept, but it obviously creates a sort of 3-D time.
I just purchased that book, because of this. Where does he discuss it?

DStahl
2002-Feb-02, 10:20 PM
Aw, jeez, I'm at work and don't have the book with me. The index surely has listings for "time, imaginary?" I hope you aren't disappointed that the book is truly for a popular audience and not a mathematically sophisticated one. At least the illustrations in the book are gorgeous, whatever their explanatory value.

Don Stahl

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-03, 10:22 AM
Yep, thanks. I wasn't sure what he called it, but I see that that is exactly what you'd called it. I'm not nearly that lazy, just impatient.

p9107
2002-Feb-08, 09:23 AM
Grapes of Wrath, is your name taken from a book by John Steinback? If not, why...

Simon
2002-Feb-08, 04:54 PM
Hmm... I think I have an argument for stating that the forces in our universe only extend through three dimensions:
The Inverse-Square law.

Lemme see if I can write this without making a total fool of myself. The inverse-square law is true because, if energy (say light) is radiating in a sphere from it's source (say the sun)...

Okay, if I keep writing, I'm going to make a total fool of myself. Just think about how the density of energy decreases as the sphere expands. Now imagine how it would decrese if the sphere were 4-dimensional instead of 3.

I hope you guys can extract some sense from this jumble. It honestly does make sense in my head. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Well, even if you CAN make sense of it, all it proves is that energy doesn't interact 4-dimensionally.

DJ
2002-Feb-08, 09:07 PM
Okay, if I keep writing, I'm going to make a total fool of myself. Just think about how the density of energy decreases as the sphere expands. Now imagine how it would decrese if the sphere were 4-dimensional instead of 3.


If the universe is truly just 3 dimensional, then the universe is the same as at first cause, only expanded to ludicrous dimenions. In this scenario, Time is a stretching of the original singularity to the dimensions we see today. Everything just seems further apart because of the dilation. In essence, the .00000000001mm (or whatever the size of the original singularity) is today equal to 10^16 light years. That's a pretty big equivalence factor.

Four dimensions allows us to express movement independent of original conditions and allows one to understand great distances. This is much closer to observation.

I believe Hawking once put it best: 3 dimensions are the minimum required for life. He used an example with a dog's digestive tract... from mouth to butt. If only 2 dimensions, the top half of the dog would not be attached in any way to the bottom half.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-02-08 16:14 ]</font>

Simon
2002-Feb-09, 08:20 PM
Yes, I remember reading that. It fails to take in to account that life-forms do exist with a one-opening digestive tract. Or none at all; look at amoebae. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Fine, maybe advanced life can't exist in two dimensions.

Anyway, in my (muddled) example, I was talking about four dimensions in space, not three in space and one in time. I really do have to learn the language necessary to make these things clear. My bad.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-11, 12:51 AM
On 2002-02-08 04:23, p9107 wrote:
Grapes of Wrath, is your name taken from a book by John Steinback? If not, why...

Sort of. It was the name of many of my old softball teams, which were named after the hovel I lived in--which was named by my roommate. I'm not sure that it was Steinbeck's novel, but it could have been. Of course, Steinbeck got his phrase from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, so that's probably it, ultimately.

ObBABB: I'm half-way through Hawking's book. I've only found a few errors. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

kilopi
2003-Jul-10, 09:14 AM
Hey, Grapes, we're up to 5000.


ObBABB: I'm half-way through Hawking's book. I've only found a few errors.
On page 107, he mentions hidden variable theories and says that they are not in agreement with observation. That is not true. Observations are not in agreement with so-called "local" hidden variable theories, but non-local hidden variable theories haven't been contradicted. I think the hidden variable theories were pretty much non-local anyway.

The Chronology Protection Conjecture (defined p.202 as the idea that the laws of physics conspire to prevent time travel by macroscopic objects) is listed in the index as appearing on pages 64, 153, and 160, but I can't find it near page 64. On page 153 he also defines his Chronology Protection Conjecture and says that the probability of time travel is zero. But he also mentions there his bets with Kip Thorne and says that he can't bet about time travel with Thorne because they're on the same side, and he wouldn't bet with anybody else because they might be from the future and would already know that time travel works.

On page 170, he claims that within two decades, you'll be able to build a computer as complex as the human brain for a thousand dollars.

Fig. 4.1, page 103, has a nice illustration of the retrograde motion of Mars and why it occurs, but the numbers at the top are mis-matched. The 3 and the 4 should be switched. On the next page, the text talks about a butterfly in Tokyo causing rain in Central Park, and refers to Fig. 4.3, but the figure shows a butterfly in New York.

On page 159, he claims that if you stacked all the new books being published next to each other you'd have to go ninety miles an hour to keep up. Although he talks there about the large number of articles that might someday appear in his field (ten per second), he's referring toall of the copies of books in that example (later, page 165, he says that there are 200,000 new books being published each year). If you place the books flat and end to end, and assumed they averaged a foot, ninety miles an hour is still over four billion books per year. Probably an exaggeration (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/print.html).

On page 188 he discusses the possibility that missing mass in the universe is contained in "shadow" universes, that might contain shallow humans wondering about their shadow stars in their shadow galaxies. Maybe he meant "shadow" instead of "shallow" but I'm betting that one is on purpose.

HUb'
2003-Jul-11, 05:36 PM
Hey, Grapes, we're up to 5000.


ObBABB: I'm half-way through Hawking's book. I've only found a few errors.
On page 107, still over four billion books per year. Probably an exaggeration (http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/print.html).

he meant "shadow" instead of "shallow" but I'm betting that one is on purpose.
REALLY {no longer a BrKEYlee fan after BSD}
anyway heres my revisit of today MODIFIED
RESTART;
lambda := 1;
t0 := 0;
tmax := 5;
c0 := 1;
h := 0.1;

t := array(t0..tmax); # page 78 see RED Maple book Room 110 DC

c := c0 * exp(-lambda*t);

plot( c(t), t = t0..tmax) ;
??????????????????????????
anwy? I think it will work as is /Maple
v1 at 10:11 was my tranxlation of a MatLab version
as there exist some subtile differences in syntax
it took ME a long while ( and several different coloed books to arive at
c(t) rather than t,c but alass i made It.. 10:36 am
{link 2 B4 may go here some day &amp; maye_not 2}

kilopi
2003-Jul-13, 06:44 PM
Thanks for the bump; surely, someone else has read/is reading this book?

2003-Jul-14, 03:57 PM
Thanks for the bump; surely, someone else has read/is reading this book?
WHooo... things sure seam to go Fast around here these days
{let me say first though I seam to have been DEbuged} =D>
now back to an hour {ok 10 minutse ago today..}
RESTART;

lambda := 1;
t0 := 0;
tmax := 5;
c0 := 1;
h := 0.1;

t := vector(tmax/h,t0..tmax);

c := c0 * exp(-lambda*t);

plot( c(t), t = t0..tmax);
title = `exponential decay, decay const = 1`;
-------------------------------------------------------
so I changed my t:=
from array
to vector
===========
I could not see 1 speck of difference? Maybe I was not LOOKING
at the graphic right? \_ {oh well} back to the book {page 100}?

grapes
2013-Jun-20, 02:39 AM
On page 170, he claims that within two decades, you'll be able to build a computer as complex as the human brain for a thousand dollars.
So, we're halfway to Hawking's braaain

grapes
2018-Aug-09, 12:20 AM
On page 170, he claims that within two decades, you'll be able to build a computer as complex as the human brain for a thousand dollars.
So, we're halfway to Hawking's braaain

And, another halfway. This is not looking good