I'm glad to hear the oscillating universe theories are defunct now -- I'm no
expert, but the arguments on their behalf seemed so speculative and
desperate.
What's the status now, within the community of physicists interested in
foundational physics especially, of the many-universe interpretation of
quantum mechanics? Is that picking up steam, despite it's apparent
ontological bloat? I even heard one physicist say that one can't understand
quantum computing without it.
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
[mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of David Bowman
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 11:27 PM
To: evolution@calvin.edu
Cc: dbowman@tiger.georgetowncollege.edu
Subject: Re: The neutrino has mass?!
Regarding John Rylander's speculation about the recent report of evidence
for finite neutrino mass:
>A fascinating story that if confirmed has major implications for the
>standard model of particle physics..
>
>This is interesting here partly in itself, but also because it may bear on
>theories of the origin of the universe, and in particular, -may- give more
>credibility (I didn't say how much, please; only -more- than previously) to
>the oscillating universe theories, a leading atheological alternative to
>intelligent cosmological design..
Although a finite mass for neutrinos may have the effect of significantly
adding to the mean mass density of the universe, and thereby have some
cosmological significance (by biasing the universe more toward closure),
it won't give any more credibility to the, essentially defunct, oscillating
universe senario, however..
David Bowman
dbowman@georgetowncollege.edu