There is valuable information at this site: Â How Vaccines Cause Autism
Monthly Archives: March 2014
How the Universe Got Big
A team of radio astronomers, working in Antarctica, where the air is clear and dry, have found the first direct evidence for the theory of cosmic inflation. That’s the theory about the origin of the universe first stated by the physicist Alan Guth in 1980.
Here’s some background from an article Guth wrote in 1997 for Beam Line, the magazine of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (now the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory):
Although it is called the “Big Bang theory,” it is not really the theory of a bang at all. It is only the theory of the aftermath of a bang. It elegantly describes how the early Universe expanded and cooled, and how matter clumped to form galaxies and stars. But the theory says nothing about the underlying physics of the primordial explosion. It gives not even a clue about what banged, what caused it to bang, or what happened before it banged. The inflationary universe theory, on the other hand, is a description of the bang itself, and provides plausible answers to these questions and more.
Guth explains that in order for the universe we observe to have begun with a Big Bang, the early universe must have been extremely uniform and have had a precise density. However:
The classical form of the Big Bang theory requires us to postulate, without explanation, that the primordial fireball filled space from the beginning. The temperature was the same everywhere by assumption, not as a consequence of any physical process….
[In addition]Â the initial values of the [universe’s] mass density and expansion rate are not predicted by the theory, but must be postulated. Unless we postulate that the mass density at one second just happened to have a value between 0.999999999999999 and 1.000000000000001 times the critical density [the boundary value between a universe that will expand forever and one that will eventually collapse], the Big Bang theory will not describe a universe that resembles the one in which we live…
Although the properties of the Big Bang are very special, we now know that the laws of physics provide a mechanism that produces exactly this sort of a bang. The mechanism is known as cosmic inflation.
The National Accelerator Laboratory issued a press release today:
Instead of the universe beginning as a rapidly expanding fireball, Guth theorized that the universe inflated extremely rapidly [faster than the speed of light] from a tiny piece of space and became exponentially larger in a fraction of a second.
For inflation to occur, the universe must have been in a state that allowed a sudden change to release enormous energy, creating an expanding universe almost from nothing. The process was apparently a kind of delayed phase transition, as when water is supercooled below its natural freezing point and then, because of some disturbance, suddenly freezes, generating heat.
However, as Guth immediately realized, certain predictions in his scenario contradicted observational data. In the early 1980s, Russian physicist Andrei Linde modified [the theory so that it] generated predictions that closely matched actual observations of the sky.
The new observations reported today are the first evidence of the existence of gravity waves. These are ripples in spacetime originally predicted by Albert Einstein. The radio astronomers working in Antarctica found traces of these ancient gravity waves by analyzing the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. Andre Linde reacted to the news:Â “These results are a smoking gun for inflation, because alternative theories do not predict such a signal. This is something I have been hoping to see for 30 years.”
Future Nobel Prize-winner Alan Guth offered this summary in 1997:
While it may be too early to say that inflation is proved, I claim that the case for inflation is compelling. It is hard to even conceive of an alternative theory that could explain the basic features of the observed Universe. Not only does inflation produce just the kind of special bang that matches the observed Universe, but quantum fluctuations during inflation could have produced non-uniformities which served as the seeds of cosmic structure [in particular, the existence of galaxies].
Physicists doubted whether Guth’s theory would ever be proven. With today’s announcement, cosmic inflation is a big step closer to becoming settled science.
Why Hell Was Invented (Starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore)
Why was the idea of hell invented? Wouldn’t the promise of eternal happiness up in heaven be enough to get people to walk the straight and narrow? No, probably not.
As evidence, here’s a scene from Bedazzled, a terrific movie from 1967 that starred the English comedians Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (sorry, couldn’t find a video).Â
Both temporarily dressed as London traffic cops, Lucifer (Cook) is explaining to Stanley (Moore) why he got thrown out of heaven and is now stuck making trouble on Earth:
It was pride that got me into this. I used to be an angel, up in heaven.
Oh yeah, you used to be God’s favorite, didn’t you?
That’s right. “I Love Lucifer” it was in those days.
What was it like up in heaven?
Very nice, really. We used to sit around all day and adore him. Believe me, he was adorable, just about the most adorable thing you ever did see.Â
Well, what went wrong then?
I’ll show you. (Approaches mail box.) Here we are. Give me a leg up, would you?
(Sitting on mailbox, legs crossed.)Â I’m God. This is my throne, see? All around me are the cherubim, seraphim, continually crying “Holy, holy, holy.” The angels, archangels, that sort of thing. Now you be me, Lucifer, the loveliest angel of them all.Â
What do I do?Â
Well, sort of dance around praising me really.Â
What sort of things do I say?Â
Anything that comes into your head that’s nice. How beautiful I am, how wise, how handsome, that sort of thing. Come on, start dancing!Â
(Singing and dancing) You’re wise, you’re beautiful, you’re handsome.Â
Thank you very much.Â
The universe, what a wonderful idea, take my hat off to you.Â
Thank you.Â
Trees, terrific! Water, another good one.Â
That was a good one. Yes. Â
Sex, top marks!Â
Now make it more personal. A bit more fulsome, please. Come on!Â
Immortal, invisible. You’re handsome, you’re, uh, you’re glorious.Â
Thank you. More!
You’re the most beautiful person in the world!
(Stops dancing) Here, I’m getting a bit bored with this. Can’t we change places?Â
That’s exactly how I felt. I only wanted to be like him and have a few angels adoring me. He didn’t see it like that. Pride, he called it. The sin of pride. Flew into a monumental rage, chucked me out of heaven, gave me this miserable job. Just because I wanted to be loved!
I had no idea. It’s a very sad story.Â
I suppose he had his reasons…. He moves in very mysterious ways, you know.Â
I mean, apart from the way he moves, what’s God like, really?Â
He’s all colors of the rainbow — many-hued.Â
But he is English, isn’t he?Â
Oh yes, very upper-class.
Peter Cook, who wrote the script, wasn’t the first to suggest that heaven would be boring. It’s hard to even imagine how it could be interesting for more than a while. How could bliss last forever? Would God be so wonderful that being nearby would be eternally pleasurable? It doesn’t seem all that appealing  to me. For one thing, we don’t even know what God is supposed to be like, so it’s hard to imagine why being in the divine presence would be so wonderful. It certainly doesn’t seem that singing God’s praises would be a good way to spend eternity.
Maybe it would help if one’s nearness to God fluctuated. That would introduce anticipation and contrast: “Now I’m further away. If only I were closer! Yes, like that. Excellent!” That way, the whole eternal experience would be pleasurable, but not always equally so. Changing one’s perspective like that would seem to cause emotional ups and downs, however, which sounds rather unheavenly. Plus, cycling between higher and lower pleasures for eternity might still be less than blissful (been there, done that, forever).
In addition, some of the greatest pleasures we know presumably wouldn’t have much of a role in heaven. Being reunited with someone you haven’t seen for a long time, for example. How often could you have the pleasure of seeing someone again? Would you miss them in the meantime (negative emotion again)? Or winning a competition. Are there losers in heaven? For that matter, are there really good discussions in heaven? Do you have to watch what you say, the way you do in church? Can you be yourself in heaven? And how about sex? Are there orgasms in heaven?Â
The more I think about heaven, the less heavenly it sounds. And also the less feasible. Hell, on the other hand, is far easier to imagine. Ever see that Star Trek episode with the two guys who are colored black and white, but on opposite sides? They hate each others guts. To the point that when the show ends, they’re sent out into space to wrestle with each other forever. At least that’s the way I remember it. The ending is unsettling. Trapped forever in a very small space fighting someone who wants to destroy you. It sounds terrible.
So do the various tortures supposedly popular in hell. Sitting in a pool of lava for eternity. Or being eaten alive forever, like Prometheus on his rock.Â
But maybe if you were tortured forever, you’d get used to it. Eventually get bored with the whole thing. Somehow, that doesn’t seem likely. Serious pain doesn’t lose its unpleasantness as time goes by. You can “learn to live with it”, but it still hurts like hell (my point exactly). And it’s so easier to imagine being in constant pain than being in constant pleasure. In fact, the phrase “being in constant pain” is quite common. Have you ever heard of someone “being in constant pleasure”, or, more grammatically, “enjoying constant pleasure”? Outside of heaven anyway, and we know how implausible that is.
As usual, there is probably some evolutionary reason why pain is more intense than pleasure. In order to stay alive and have children, it’s important to avoid painful injuries. Pain is great at getting our attention. Pleasure isn’t really required in order to survive, although mild pleasure helps in various ways and serious pleasure encourages procreation (which, due to the house rules, probably isn’t on the agenda in heaven anyway).Â
If you doubt whether physical pain is generally more intense than physical pleasure, consider the greatest pleasure you could have and decide whether you would want that if it required enduring the most intense pain you could have. Most of us would decline the pleasure in order to avoid the pain.
So that’s probably why the idea of hell was invented. Promising heaven is a good way to control behavior, but threatening hell is probably better, since being rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven is less imaginable and less appealing than avoiding eternal agony in hell. Which, when you think about it, is a disheartening commentary on what we actually have to deal with, life itself.
Note: Why some individuals are willing to endure horrible pain in order to achieve some goal or other is one of life’s mysteries. Giordano Bruno, for example, was burned alive by the Catholic Church in 1600 after refusing to disavow his beliefs. When sentenced to death, he is said to have replied: “Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it”. He preferred agony and death over telling a few convincing lies about his beliefs. And, of course, some people (mostly men) march off to war and some people (always women) endure natural childbirth. Pain may be more intense than pleasure, but some things are more important to some people than pain. Go figure.
Analyzing Barack Obama
With less than three years remaining in his second term, President Obama has had three major accomplishments: he moved America closer to universal healthcare; he guided the country through the final months of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, keeping the American automobile industry functioning in the process; and he kept the White House out of Republican hands. He also cut the federal deficit by more than 50% — from 9.8% of Gross Domestic Product at the end of 2009 to 4.1% at the end of 2013 — but since it’s a bad idea to reduce the federal deficit when the economy is weak, that doesn’t really qualify as an accomplishment.
Clearly, the rabid Republican opposition in Congress has made it difficult for Obama to accomplish more, but it’s reasonable to ask whether a more gifted politician could have done better. In an article from TomDispatch reprinted at Salon, David Bromwich argues that Obama has accomplished too little because he views himself as “something like a benevolent monarch — a king in a mixed constitutional system, where the duties of the crown are largely ceremonial”.
According to Bromwich, Obama thinks that merely stating his preferences, calmly and eloquently, should be enough to lead the country away from polarization toward rational compromise, without his having to get his hands dirty making deals and confronting the opposition. It should work in the White House because it’s always worked before:
Extreme caution marked all of Obama’s early actions in public life….The law journal editor without a published article, the lawyer without a well-known case to his credit, the law professor whose learning was agreeably presented without a distinctive sense of his position on the large issues, the state senator with a minimal record of yes or no votes, and the U.S. senator who between 2005 and 2008 refrained from committing himself as the author of a single piece of significant legislation: this was the candidate who became president in January 2009.
It’s a good analysis, although it might be difficult to read if you’ve ever been one of the President’s big fans. I didn’t have that problem, because back in 2008, I voted for Hillary.
(Whether she lives up to her promise, we’ll probably find out starting in 2017.)
Blogging Made Very, Very Easy (Political Economy Edition)
I could just quote Paul Krugman. With appropriate attribution, of course:
But how can the effects of redistribution on growth be benign? Doesn’t generous aid to the poor reduce their incentive to work? Don’t taxes on the rich reduce their incentive to get even richer? Yes and yes — but incentives aren’t the only things that matter. Resources matter too — and in a highly unequal society, many people don’t have them.
Think, in particular, about the ever-popular slogan that we should seek equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That may sound good to people with no idea what life is like for tens of millions of Americans; but for those with any reality sense, it’s a cruel joke. Almost 40 percent of American children live in poverty or near-poverty. Do you really think they have the same access to education and jobs as the children of the affluent?
… This isn’t just bad for those unlucky enough to be born to the wrong parents; it represents a huge and growing waste of human potential — a waste that surely acts as a powerful if invisible drag on economic growth.
Now, I don’t want to claim that addressing income inequality would help everyone. The very affluent would lose more from higher taxes than they gained from better economic growth. But it’s pretty clear that taking on inequality would be good, not just for the poor, but for the middle class….
In short, what’s good for the 1 percent isn’t good for America. And we don’t have to keep living in a new Gilded Age if we don’t want to.
One of the comments at the Times website suggested we should stop talking about equality and talk about fairness instead. When we talk about equality, the right-wing response is “but people aren’t all the same  — what you want to do is punish success”. That’s not true but it’s a clever response. The natural response to talking about fairness is “life isn’t fair”. No, but we could and should make it more fair than it is. Not just for ethical reasons, but, as Krugman points out, for pragmatic reasons as well.
Whereof One Can Speak 🇺🇦 
You must be logged in to post a comment.