The science of confusion: Here a science reporter not only confuses the reader, but seems to contradict himself.
If the universe has a “width,” as referred to here, then it must have a length, no? Which means it could also could possibly have a "height," although a "height" is not mentioned. So, does that mean the universe is only two-dimensional? That must be a, “Maybe, maybe not.”
And what happened to the fourth, fifth … 15th dimensions posited by other astronomers?
Moreover, the astronomers in this story say there is no evidence that the universe is finite nor infinite, yet the graphic image shows a globe-like structure, which is both three-dimensional and finite.
Worse, the reporter again brings up the the theory that time and the universe bean with a Big Bang, which would suggest a moment of beginning, which would make time and matter finite in at least one direction.
The reporter coyly asks the reader, “Confused?” The answer, of course, would be, “Yes” -- but only on the assumption that the reporter himself understands what he is talking about, and is capable of explaining it.
The correct conclusion actually seems to be: either the scientists are confused (or are mixing analogies and creating confusion), or the writer is confused, or unable to summarized well in 12 inches of copy, or confusion is created because too much is left out for lack space -- or I am clinging too tightly to my own Bow Tie Theory of Time, Space and Matter, my gloriously different and far more literate take on the shape and mechanics of space and time. (On which, more later.)
If the universe has a “width,” as referred to here, then it must have a length, no? Which means it could also could possibly have a "height," although a "height" is not mentioned. So, does that mean the universe is only two-dimensional? That must be a, “Maybe, maybe not.”
And what happened to the fourth, fifth … 15th dimensions posited by other astronomers?
Moreover, the astronomers in this story say there is no evidence that the universe is finite nor infinite, yet the graphic image shows a globe-like structure, which is both three-dimensional and finite.
Worse, the reporter again brings up the the theory that time and the universe bean with a Big Bang, which would suggest a moment of beginning, which would make time and matter finite in at least one direction.
The reporter coyly asks the reader, “Confused?” The answer, of course, would be, “Yes” -- but only on the assumption that the reporter himself understands what he is talking about, and is capable of explaining it.
The correct conclusion actually seems to be: either the scientists are confused (or are mixing analogies and creating confusion), or the writer is confused, or unable to summarized well in 12 inches of copy, or confusion is created because too much is left out for lack space -- or I am clinging too tightly to my own Bow Tie Theory of Time, Space and Matter, my gloriously different and far more literate take on the shape and mechanics of space and time. (On which, more later.)
<< Home