December 16, 1915 was the publication date for Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
He had published the "special theory" of relativity (SR) ten years before. It is SR that incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all observers, and this led in turn to the intriuguing idea of time dilation. This is sometimes explained in terms of a thought experiment. Imagine you are travelling at the speed of light -- riding on a photon, so to speak. You are getting farther and farther away from a clock which, in your 'inertial framework,' is stationary. You won't see any movement of the hands of that clock because no new information from that clock can reach you -- you're going as fast as the fastest speed at which information can travel, by hypothesis. So the clock is frozen.
If there are any particles that can travel faster than protons, as scientists at CERN now seem to be saying, then Einstein's view on time dilation needs revision. For if so, then (to revert to our thought experiment) you might be able to receive information about subsequent movements of the clock's hands while riding on a photon -- if the new information is conveyed by a stream of neutrinos rather than by other photons.
Anyway: ten years later, on this date, Einstein published a follow up work, on general relativity, which explained gravity as a consequence of the curvature of space-time. This GR centers on the following equation:
Ruv - (1/2) guv R = (8 Pi G/c4) Tuv .
I won't pretend to 'get it,' but I'm told that if Ruv is taken as equaling 0 you have flat space-time, roughly the sort of thing you learned about in high school geometry. The Tuv represents the distribution of matter and energy, so the equation as a whole shows the relationship between matter-energy on the one hand and space-time on the other. A theory can't get much more "general" than that!
Showing posts with label cosmology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cosmology. Show all posts
16 December 2011
08 December 2011
Nanotechnology
SUNY at Albany hosts the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, a center, perhaps the center, of nano tech research in the US today. It has collaborative arrangements with 250 companies at work in the field, including IBM, Toshiba, Samsung, Novellus Systems, TI, and DuPont, just for starters.
The October 2011 issue of ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZINE credits Alain Kaloyeras, whose many titles include that of Chief Executive of aforesaid College. The magazine portrays him as the academic entrepreneur who built this program, and tells us a bit about how he has done it, a story that beings in 1988, when he was a "newly minted Ph.D. in condensed matter physics," and had to decide wherther to take a jub with SUNY, at that time not an impressive physics-and-engineering place.
(Jason Daley gets the byline on the story, part of a broader feature called Gurus & Grads. )
Here is Kaloyeras' page, at www.albany.edu
Although I'm hopelessly out of my depth in matters of high science, this has never stopped me from expressing opinions,as you can see here, for example, or here, or here, where I linked nanotechnology to my own personal "cosmological heresy."
It is possible that sentient beings play a part in the big picture of the cosmos. Consider these points:
1) the great advantage of the Big Bang theory over any effort to revive the Steady State theory is that the former seems directly consistent with the 2d law of thermodynamics. Everything has to be running down to a heat death, and the Big Bang and consequent expansion gives us a vivid mechanism for this.
2) Maxwell, in his thought experimemt of a little demon that redirects molecules, was hypothesizing a way to beat the Second Law.
3) Nanotechnology sounds a lot like the creation of Maxwellian demons as a reality.
The October 2011 issue of ENTREPRENEUR MAGAZINE credits Alain Kaloyeras, whose many titles include that of Chief Executive of aforesaid College. The magazine portrays him as the academic entrepreneur who built this program, and tells us a bit about how he has done it, a story that beings in 1988, when he was a "newly minted Ph.D. in condensed matter physics," and had to decide wherther to take a jub with SUNY, at that time not an impressive physics-and-engineering place.
(Jason Daley gets the byline on the story, part of a broader feature called Gurus & Grads. )
Here is Kaloyeras' page, at www.albany.edu
Although I'm hopelessly out of my depth in matters of high science, this has never stopped me from expressing opinions,as you can see here, for example, or here, or here, where I linked nanotechnology to my own personal "cosmological heresy."
It is possible that sentient beings play a part in the big picture of the cosmos. Consider these points:
1) the great advantage of the Big Bang theory over any effort to revive the Steady State theory is that the former seems directly consistent with the 2d law of thermodynamics. Everything has to be running down to a heat death, and the Big Bang and consequent expansion gives us a vivid mechanism for this.
2) Maxwell, in his thought experimemt of a little demon that redirects molecules, was hypothesizing a way to beat the Second Law.
3) Nanotechnology sounds a lot like the creation of Maxwellian demons as a reality.
22 May 2011
Evolution From Space
I'm finally in possession of a copy of a book I've only heard about and read second-hand reports of until now. It is EVOLUTION FROM SPACE by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, published in 1981.
The late Fred Hoyle was of course a very prominent astronomer and astrophysicist, once the leading proponent of the steady-state theory of the cosmos, and renowned for his work on the evolution of stars.
Wickramasinghe is professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University.
Today, they spin out their theory of panspermia. It is a theory not only of the origins of life on earth, but in their hands (as the book's title implies) a theory of how life has developed since. For the arrival of new genetic material from the stars was not, for them, as it was for other advocates of panspermia, a one time event.
Let's take fairly recent history -- in terms of geological or biological time. Let us consider especially the span of time between the emergence of the first hominids and our own selves. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe quote a Japanese biologist, Susumu Ohno, thus:
"Did the genome of our cave-dwelling predecessor contain a set or sets of genes which enable modern man to compose music of infinite complexity and write novels with profound meaning? One is compelled to give an affirmative answer....It looks as though the early Homo was already provided with the intellectual potential which was in great excess of what was needed to cope with the environment of his time."
This seems to Hoyle et ux to mean that Ohno has given up on Darwinism. If the cave dwellers already had the capacity to compose like Bach, without an environment that would get them any natural advantage out of composing like Bach, or having that capacity, then ... something other than natural selection was clearly at work.
If new genetic material repeatedly rains down on the earth from space, and if it must be absorbed somehow, then it is easier (these authors think) to see how human develpment could get ahead of the environment to this degree.
At least ... I think that is what they are saying. I have only just dipped into the book.
The late Fred Hoyle was of course a very prominent astronomer and astrophysicist, once the leading proponent of the steady-state theory of the cosmos, and renowned for his work on the evolution of stars.
Wickramasinghe is professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University.
Today, they spin out their theory of panspermia. It is a theory not only of the origins of life on earth, but in their hands (as the book's title implies) a theory of how life has developed since. For the arrival of new genetic material from the stars was not, for them, as it was for other advocates of panspermia, a one time event.
Let's take fairly recent history -- in terms of geological or biological time. Let us consider especially the span of time between the emergence of the first hominids and our own selves. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe quote a Japanese biologist, Susumu Ohno, thus:
"Did the genome of our cave-dwelling predecessor contain a set or sets of genes which enable modern man to compose music of infinite complexity and write novels with profound meaning? One is compelled to give an affirmative answer....It looks as though the early Homo was already provided with the intellectual potential which was in great excess of what was needed to cope with the environment of his time."
This seems to Hoyle et ux to mean that Ohno has given up on Darwinism. If the cave dwellers already had the capacity to compose like Bach, without an environment that would get them any natural advantage out of composing like Bach, or having that capacity, then ... something other than natural selection was clearly at work.
If new genetic material repeatedly rains down on the earth from space, and if it must be absorbed somehow, then it is easier (these authors think) to see how human develpment could get ahead of the environment to this degree.
At least ... I think that is what they are saying. I have only just dipped into the book.
10 March 2011
Science News: Panspermia
There is something new on this subject. But I'm not writing a news report, so I'll bury my lede and begin with some introduction of the topic.
Panspermia, as one can infer from the "seeds-everywhere" etymology, is the theory that the seeds of life are ubiquitous in the cosmos, and that they sporadically land on planets where conditions are propitious for their development.
Panspermia divides naturally into two sorts. One might think the spreading of these seeds a spontaneous or a directed fact.
Directed panspermia is a view associated for example with Francis Crick (no shabby authority, one of the co-founders of modern molecular biology). He believed that the earth is an unlikely place for the development of life out of non-life. He suggested though, that there are more likely planets, and that on one of them life, and even "a higher civilization," might have developed "perhaps eight to 10 billion years ago," and it may deliberately have seeded the universe, using bacteria that can be "stored almost indefinitely at very low temperatures."
Spontaneous panspermia, associated with the almost-equally renowned name of Svante Arrhenius, a chemist who published WORLDS IN THE MAKING more than a century ago, argues that no such direction is necessary -- spores might randomly escape one planet and then travel through space pressed by electromagnetic radiation until captured by the gravity of another.
So: what is the news? The Journal of Cosmology has published a paper by Dr. Richard Hoover, of NASA, which offers evidence for panspermia (of the spontaneous sort). The paper has the formidable title: "Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites." It maintains that certain microfossils discovered in the interior of carbonaceous meteorites are "the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies." Meteors are, then, a plausible mechanism for the life transfer that spontaneous panspermia requires.
The Journal of Cosmology is a serious peer-reviewed publication and its editor-in-chief is a serious guy, one Dr. Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Schild posted a note with the pre-publication copy of the paper indicating that he has asked 100 experts for critical analysis. and that their responses will be published along with the paper.
I look forward to following a stimulating discussion. Given such important claims, there wil and should be a good deal of skepticism. Still, on philosophical grounds this is a theory to which I for one am inclined to give credence.
Panspermia, as one can infer from the "seeds-everywhere" etymology, is the theory that the seeds of life are ubiquitous in the cosmos, and that they sporadically land on planets where conditions are propitious for their development.
Panspermia divides naturally into two sorts. One might think the spreading of these seeds a spontaneous or a directed fact.
Directed panspermia is a view associated for example with Francis Crick (no shabby authority, one of the co-founders of modern molecular biology). He believed that the earth is an unlikely place for the development of life out of non-life. He suggested though, that there are more likely planets, and that on one of them life, and even "a higher civilization," might have developed "perhaps eight to 10 billion years ago," and it may deliberately have seeded the universe, using bacteria that can be "stored almost indefinitely at very low temperatures."
Spontaneous panspermia, associated with the almost-equally renowned name of Svante Arrhenius, a chemist who published WORLDS IN THE MAKING more than a century ago, argues that no such direction is necessary -- spores might randomly escape one planet and then travel through space pressed by electromagnetic radiation until captured by the gravity of another.
So: what is the news? The Journal of Cosmology has published a paper by Dr. Richard Hoover, of NASA, which offers evidence for panspermia (of the spontaneous sort). The paper has the formidable title: "Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites." It maintains that certain microfossils discovered in the interior of carbonaceous meteorites are "the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies." Meteors are, then, a plausible mechanism for the life transfer that spontaneous panspermia requires.
The Journal of Cosmology is a serious peer-reviewed publication and its editor-in-chief is a serious guy, one Dr. Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Schild posted a note with the pre-publication copy of the paper indicating that he has asked 100 experts for critical analysis. and that their responses will be published along with the paper.
I look forward to following a stimulating discussion. Given such important claims, there wil and should be a good deal of skepticism. Still, on philosophical grounds this is a theory to which I for one am inclined to give credence.
28 February 2010
Maxwell's demon: Hoyle's steady state
The second law of thermodynamics says that we can't win. The amount of useful energy available in the cosmos, and in any "closed system" within the cosmos, is lessening. Why? Well ... because useful energy is created by differences. For example, the water above a cliff has a different altitude than the water at the bottom of the cliff. Hence, the resulting waterfall can be employed to generate electricity. Over time, though, differences within any closed system are worn away (cliffs are worn down to level plains, entropy increases), which means that there are fewer and fewer opportunities for the generation of energy, i.e. the doing of work.
As an inevitable extension of this law, cosmologists speak of the "heat death" of the cosmos, in which what is left of the world is mostly nothingness, punctuated perhaps by whatever irreducible particles may remain, which simply drift further and further away from one another, without interaction, without heat, and of course without life.
If the world has that as an end, then presumably the world also had a beginning. The law of entropy naturally suggests the cosmogony of the Big Bang -- though as a matter of the history of science there was a period of contention as that implication worked itself out. Most notably, Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi developed an elaborate steady-state theory in the 1940s, that would accomodate the expanding universe by having new matter pop into existence, so that the density of the universe remains constant over time. According to this theory as they and others developed it through the 1950s and 1960s, the new matter would be mostly hydrogen, and would be in such small amounts that it would not be directly detectable: roughly one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per billion years, with roughly five times as much dark matter.
Such a creation rate, however, could allow for the fact that all human-scale observations support the second law, while it allows for a subtle re-setting of the clock of time on the Big Scale involved, re-creating the differences, the disequilibria, that the unchecked operation of the 2d law of thermodynamics would destroy.
How did matter pop into existence, on that scale or any other? From a philosophical point of view, Hoyle etc. replied that this question is not more or less difficult than "how did the Big Bang happen"? One begs the universe all at once, or one begs it in pieces over the everlasting run of time. We are beggers in the matter of Being in either case. It is simply the old "why is there anything rather than nothing?"!
Yet this atoms-popping-into-existence stuff makes for an unattractive theory without more. That (perhaps even more than the background cosmic radiation, which has been called the echo of the Big Bang but could well have other explanations) has been the real drawback. If the popping is supposed to take place within the observable universe, it should be ... well ... observable.
Consider a thought experiment that goes back to one of the greatest physicists in history. James Clerk Maxwell spoke of a hyptothetical "demon" who could defeat the 2d law:
"If we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics...."
Notice that Maxwell is not bringing God into the picture here -- he is thinking as a secular scientist, and is specifying that the demon is as "essentially finite" as we are. But the demon works at a different level, a micro-level.
Notice also that while Hoyle et al sought to limit the Second Law to the human scale by escaping toward a much Bigger Picture, where humanly undetectable violations thereof can become important ... Maxwell follows the opposite strategy. He seeks to limit the Second Law to the human scale by escaping toward a much Smaller Picture, where an intelligent being can work molecule by molecule.
And now we bring in nanotechology, the development of a molecule-by-molecule, indeed atom-by-atom, variety of engineering accoring to which humans may yet create robots that can in term act as does Maxwell's hypothetical demon.
Ah, am I suggesting, by making this connection, that humans have a cosmic role to play by inventing Maxwellian demons that will enable the cosmos to avert heat death? No ... not exactly. That would have an unnecessarily arrogant sound to it. There is no reason to believe that life exists only on this planet, or that the intelligent beings here have a unique role.
Perhaps through the everlastingness of time, intelligent creatures have developed on myriad planets, and that in many of these cases they reach a point at which they develop a nanotechnology capable of beating the 2d law in their localities. And perhaps, the collective effect of all these independent nanotechnological/civilized planets is to keep re-setting the clock. Perhaps intelligent life on sporadically located planets has the same effect that Hoyle sought to model through this random popping into existence of hydrogen atoms he hypothesized.
The alliance of Hoyle and Maxwell moves in both directions at the same time, for the tiniest of scales may give us a crucial clue to what is happening on the largest.
As an inevitable extension of this law, cosmologists speak of the "heat death" of the cosmos, in which what is left of the world is mostly nothingness, punctuated perhaps by whatever irreducible particles may remain, which simply drift further and further away from one another, without interaction, without heat, and of course without life.
If the world has that as an end, then presumably the world also had a beginning. The law of entropy naturally suggests the cosmogony of the Big Bang -- though as a matter of the history of science there was a period of contention as that implication worked itself out. Most notably, Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, and Hermann Bondi developed an elaborate steady-state theory in the 1940s, that would accomodate the expanding universe by having new matter pop into existence, so that the density of the universe remains constant over time. According to this theory as they and others developed it through the 1950s and 1960s, the new matter would be mostly hydrogen, and would be in such small amounts that it would not be directly detectable: roughly one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per billion years, with roughly five times as much dark matter.
Such a creation rate, however, could allow for the fact that all human-scale observations support the second law, while it allows for a subtle re-setting of the clock of time on the Big Scale involved, re-creating the differences, the disequilibria, that the unchecked operation of the 2d law of thermodynamics would destroy.
How did matter pop into existence, on that scale or any other? From a philosophical point of view, Hoyle etc. replied that this question is not more or less difficult than "how did the Big Bang happen"? One begs the universe all at once, or one begs it in pieces over the everlasting run of time. We are beggers in the matter of Being in either case. It is simply the old "why is there anything rather than nothing?"!
Yet this atoms-popping-into-existence stuff makes for an unattractive theory without more. That (perhaps even more than the background cosmic radiation, which has been called the echo of the Big Bang but could well have other explanations) has been the real drawback. If the popping is supposed to take place within the observable universe, it should be ... well ... observable.
Consider a thought experiment that goes back to one of the greatest physicists in history. James Clerk Maxwell spoke of a hyptothetical "demon" who could defeat the 2d law:
"If we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics...."
Notice that Maxwell is not bringing God into the picture here -- he is thinking as a secular scientist, and is specifying that the demon is as "essentially finite" as we are. But the demon works at a different level, a micro-level.
Notice also that while Hoyle et al sought to limit the Second Law to the human scale by escaping toward a much Bigger Picture, where humanly undetectable violations thereof can become important ... Maxwell follows the opposite strategy. He seeks to limit the Second Law to the human scale by escaping toward a much Smaller Picture, where an intelligent being can work molecule by molecule.
And now we bring in nanotechology, the development of a molecule-by-molecule, indeed atom-by-atom, variety of engineering accoring to which humans may yet create robots that can in term act as does Maxwell's hypothetical demon.
Ah, am I suggesting, by making this connection, that humans have a cosmic role to play by inventing Maxwellian demons that will enable the cosmos to avert heat death? No ... not exactly. That would have an unnecessarily arrogant sound to it. There is no reason to believe that life exists only on this planet, or that the intelligent beings here have a unique role.
Perhaps through the everlastingness of time, intelligent creatures have developed on myriad planets, and that in many of these cases they reach a point at which they develop a nanotechnology capable of beating the 2d law in their localities. And perhaps, the collective effect of all these independent nanotechnological/civilized planets is to keep re-setting the clock. Perhaps intelligent life on sporadically located planets has the same effect that Hoyle sought to model through this random popping into existence of hydrogen atoms he hypothesized.
The alliance of Hoyle and Maxwell moves in both directions at the same time, for the tiniest of scales may give us a crucial clue to what is happening on the largest.
19 February 2010
Cosmological Heresy
Just a couple of quick links here for the heretical view, in which I persist, that some quasi-steady-state theory will be revived and will turn out to account for the evidence that is usually adduced for the Big Bang. The notion that the universe is expanding is itself a quite tentative hypothesis, drawn from the "red shift," which has other plausible explanations.
More broadly, big bang cosmology today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Its as if the theory keeps developing holes that require a new such patch. Eventually, one ought to wonder whether the best patch of all is to junk the theory and adopt a better one.
I believe firmly in the scientific method. I also believe that professional scientists are subect to the same frailties as the rest of the human race, and that in the more abstract fields -- such as cosmology or subatomic physics -- they are subject to a sort of clubbishness that keeps regnant ideas regnant far too long and too easily.
More broadly, big bang cosmology today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Its as if the theory keeps developing holes that require a new such patch. Eventually, one ought to wonder whether the best patch of all is to junk the theory and adopt a better one.
I believe firmly in the scientific method. I also believe that professional scientists are subect to the same frailties as the rest of the human race, and that in the more abstract fields -- such as cosmology or subatomic physics -- they are subject to a sort of clubbishness that keeps regnant ideas regnant far too long and too easily.
17 May 2009
For my deep thinking readers
A link to a few pages from a debate on the existence of God, here: click
Unfortunately, that google-books' site only gives you the preface and the first few pages of the theistic argument. Even if they were going to excerpt it drastically to induce you to buy it, it would have been nice for them to include a bit of each side in the excerpt.
Anyway, in that book, William Lane Craig takes the affirmative position, that God does exist.
Craig received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham (UK) in 1977, and another, in theology, from the University of Munich (Germany) in 1984. He is best known as the defender of a version of the cosmological argument that focuses on the alleged impossibility of an "actual infinite."
His opponent, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, takes the atheistic side, both arguing that Craig's proofs fail and that there are good reasons to believe there is no God.
They co-authored the preface and there explained the origin of the book in live debates, and its format as due to their shared belief in fairness.
Amen, then, to their shared commitment.
Unfortunately, that google-books' site only gives you the preface and the first few pages of the theistic argument. Even if they were going to excerpt it drastically to induce you to buy it, it would have been nice for them to include a bit of each side in the excerpt.
Anyway, in that book, William Lane Craig takes the affirmative position, that God does exist.
Craig received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham (UK) in 1977, and another, in theology, from the University of Munich (Germany) in 1984. He is best known as the defender of a version of the cosmological argument that focuses on the alleged impossibility of an "actual infinite."
His opponent, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, takes the atheistic side, both arguing that Craig's proofs fail and that there are good reasons to believe there is no God.
They co-authored the preface and there explained the origin of the book in live debates, and its format as due to their shared belief in fairness.
Amen, then, to their shared commitment.
24 July 2007
Big Bang
I'm delighted at every indication that the "Big Bang" model of cosmology is still -- or again -- considered an open question among scientists.
I have a strong prejudice on philosophical grounds against any absolute origins. I can't see how matter could possibly have "begun" in any very strict sense, nor life.
In science, one doesn't get one's druthers, of course. I wouldn't think of demanding that scientists comply with my prejudice that the universe is everlasting (nor with a competing prejudice that it is 6,000 years old, nor with any other).
But one is entitled to a rooting interest where there's an open question. So openness is my cause.
And in a bookstore yesterday, I saw ENDLESS UNIVERSE by Paul J. Steinhardt & Neil Turok.
Steinhardt is a physics professor at Princeton. Turok is a mathematician at Cambridge University across the pond.
The title also the thesis. Ain't it cool?
Apparently, though their theory of how the universe could turn out to be endless references "strong theory," which I tend to distrust on Popperian grounds.
So I might have to choose between my prejudices. Ah, horrid day!
I have a strong prejudice on philosophical grounds against any absolute origins. I can't see how matter could possibly have "begun" in any very strict sense, nor life.
In science, one doesn't get one's druthers, of course. I wouldn't think of demanding that scientists comply with my prejudice that the universe is everlasting (nor with a competing prejudice that it is 6,000 years old, nor with any other).
But one is entitled to a rooting interest where there's an open question. So openness is my cause.
And in a bookstore yesterday, I saw ENDLESS UNIVERSE by Paul J. Steinhardt & Neil Turok.
Steinhardt is a physics professor at Princeton. Turok is a mathematician at Cambridge University across the pond.
The title also the thesis. Ain't it cool?
Apparently, though their theory of how the universe could turn out to be endless references "strong theory," which I tend to distrust on Popperian grounds.
So I might have to choose between my prejudices. Ah, horrid day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
