Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Four Keys to Cosmology
Scientific American ^ | February 2004 | George Musser

Posted on 08/31/2005 8:19:37 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

In what is widely regarded as the most important scientific discovery of 1998, researchers turned their telescopes to measure the rate at which cosmic expansion was decelerating and instead saw that it was accelerating. They have been gripping the steering wheel very tightly ever since.

As deeply mysterious as acceleration is, if you just accept it without trying to fathom its cause, it solves all kinds of problems. Before 1998, cosmologists had been troubled by discrepancies in the age, density and clumpiness of the universe. Acceleration made everything click together. It is one of the conceptual keys, along with other high-precision observations and innovative theories, that have unlocked the next level of the big bang theory.

The big bang is often described as an event that occurred long ago, a great explosion that created the universe. In actuality, the theory says nothing about the moment of creation, which is a job for quantum physics (or metaphysics). It simply states that as far back as we can extrapolate, the cosmos has been expanding, thinning out and cooling down. The big bang is best thought of not as a singular event but as an ongoing process, a gradual molding of order out of chaos. The recent observations have given this picture a coherence it never had before.

From the perspective of life on Earth, cosmic history started with inflation -- a celestial reboot that wiped out whatever came before and left the cosmos a featureless place. The universe was without form, and void. Inflation then filled it with an almost completely uniform brew of radiation. The radiation varied from place to place in an utterly random way; mathematically, it was as random as random could be.

Gradually the universe imposed order on itself. The familiar particles of matter, such as electrons and protons, condensed out of the radiation like water droplets in a cloud of steam. Sound waves coursed through the amorphous mix, giving it shape. Matter steadily wrested control of the cosmos away from radiation. Several hundred thousand years after inflation, matter declared final victory and cut itself loose from radiation. This era and its dramatic coda have now been probed by high-precision observations of the fossil radiation [see "The Cosmic Symphony"].

Over the ensuing eons, matter organized itself into bodies of increasingly large size: subgalactic scraps, majestic galaxies, galactic clusters, great walls of galaxies. The universe we know -- a set of distinct bodies separated by vast expanses of essentially empty space -- is a fairly recent development, cosmologically speaking. This arrangement has now been systematically mapped [see " Reading the Blueprints of Creation"]. Starting several billion years ago, matter has been losing control to cosmic acceleration. Evidently the big bang has gotten a second wind, which is good for it but will be bad for us. The ever faster expansion has already arrested the formation of large structures and, if it continues, could rip apart galaxies and even our planet [see "From Slowdown to Speedup"].

In developing a cohesive and experimentally successful account of cosmic history, cosmologists have settled the disputes that once animated their field, such as the old debates between the big bang theory and the steady state theory and between inflation and its alternatives. Nothing in science is absolutely certain, but researchers now feel that their time is best spent on deeper questions, beginning with the cause of the cosmic acceleration.

Although the discovery of acceleration was revolutionary, cosmologists' initial response was fairly conservative. They dusted off an idea of Einstein's, the so-called cosmological constant, which represents a new type of energy -- an example of what is more generally known as dark energy. But many physicists are thinking that a revolutionary discovery calls for a revolutionary response. Maybe the law of gravity works differently on gigantic scales than it does on humble, everyday ones [see "Out of the Darkness"].

Just as a nuclear missile cannot be fired unless two keys are turned simultaneously, the explosive progress in cosmology has depended on multiple observational and theoretical keys being turned at once. Will the rush of new ideas lead to chaos? Will order reemerge? Must the cosmos be "preposterous," as one of the authors of this special report once put it? Or will it start to make sense again?


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bigbang; cosmology; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: NJ_gent
Once the Grand Unified Theory is perfected (assuming such a thing is possible)

The assumption is preposterous. We're smart, but never so smart to be smarter than ourselves. There's one way out, of course: you just shrink your universe enough so it fits the size of your "grand theory").

I smell the ghost of Descartes

41 posted on 08/31/2005 9:27:49 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Yollopoliuhqui
Scientific American will never report on the discovery of Halton Arp...

Say "Hi" to Ted and the Kronia crew for me, Walt.

42 posted on 08/31/2005 9:44:30 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

I think it's both with an amusing emphasis on the latter.

43 posted on 08/31/2005 9:46:16 AM PDT by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"The assumption is preposterous."

Care to elaborate?

"We're smart, but never so smart to be smarter than ourselves."

This doesn't appear to make sense.

"you just shrink your universe enough so it fits the size of your "grand theory")."

I'm still not understanding what's meant by 'shrink'ing the universe in this context. If you mean simplifying it, then of course that's the goal. (See: Occam's Razor). It doesn't mean ignoring anything; it means you explain as much as you possibly can with the same terms. If I can explain everything as a function of strings and their interactions with each other, and I can do so accurately, than it becomes far easier to gain an understanding of what's happening in any given instance. That is the goal of the GUT.

"I smell the ghost of Descartes"

Descartes attempted to explain the universe in a very fundamental fashion without any understanding of the laws governing it, nor the behavior of most of it, nor any understanding of the fundamental aspects of matter or energy. He tried pushing for the explanation without the evidence, which is a rather large 'no-no' in the world of science.
44 posted on 08/31/2005 9:46:51 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus; cornelis; Michael Bluth; NJ_gent; Darth Reagan

In about a dozen different places, the Bible states specifically that "God stretched out the heavens" or similar variations.


45 posted on 08/31/2005 9:48:55 AM PDT by Hebrews 11:6 (Look it up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

What the Hell was that gibberish?


46 posted on 08/31/2005 9:56:45 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
I'm still not understanding what's meant by 'shrink'ing the universe in this context.

Simplification is helpful, but not exhaustive. If simplification is identical to being exhaustive, that would be tantamount to saying your grand theory is exhaustive of the universe. This view is not coherent, given that we have evidence that presents use with more than one kind of infinity. We we need to point out here is that the scope of anyone's theory--grand as they may be--is finite. The term unified only unifies the chosen universe.

47 posted on 08/31/2005 9:57:16 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"The term unified only unifies the chosen universe."

That being the one in which we live. I'm not sure which others we have to choose from, but I sure hope you're enjoying the one you're in right now.
48 posted on 08/31/2005 10:14:11 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
That being the one . . .

This is a great point of dispute, running from Heraclitus to Kant. Some of them refused to include matter. Think of it, a grand unified theory, but no cosmology!

The discovery for some of them was that the universe is always larger than the theory.

49 posted on 08/31/2005 10:21:58 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
We now have Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and all kinds of new ways of experimenting with some of the most fundamental things believed to exist. Once the Grand Unified Theory is perfected (assuming such a thing is possible), we'll be able to explain any given thing in the universe using the same terms as we would to explain any other given thing.

That's pretty much the way my teachers talked fourty years ago. Science was about to run out of stuff to do.

Just my opinion, but I am not holding my breath.

But assuming we reach a comfortable state of physics, and the levee holds for a couple hundred years, we have a phenomenon known as emergence. We cannot predict the properties of complex things from the properties of their components. We have no theory that explains water based on the properties of hydrogen an oxygen.

Hardly a state threatening unemployment for science.

50 posted on 08/31/2005 10:31:04 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

There been an enormous influx of Ted here recently -- Barfabrick.com, and other references. Did this wash ashore with the tidal surge?


51 posted on 08/31/2005 10:35:05 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"This is a great point of dispute, running from Heraclitus to Kant."

I'm not interested in ancient philosophers or meta-physicists; I'm interested in those studying modern science. Modern science stands in stark contrast to anything else ever put forth in terms of explaining things. That computer you're typing on works because modern science has helped us gain an understanding about how electrons work and how they can be manipulated. When you find Heraclitus' lost writings on String Theory and Quantum Mechanics, I might be interested in what he had to say.

"The discovery for some of them was that the universe is always larger than the theory."

They had the bad luck of living in times where the human understanding of the natural world was severely limited. Of course their theories were incomplete and wrong; they had almost no accurate scientific knowledge. Let's get some comments on Vafa's work, Schwarz's work, or Townsend's work instead of relying on guys who were dead hundreds and thousands of years before Einstein was born. Modern science bears no resemblance to ancient philosophy.
52 posted on 08/31/2005 10:43:33 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

I have to agree with this. Philosophy is always coming in like union thugs, after science has built something, and trying to take over the operation.

>>>>>>>
A sudden commotion destroyed the moment: the door flew open and two angry men wearing the coarse faded-blue robes and belts of the Cruxwan University burst into the room, thrusting aside the ineffectual flunkies who tried to bar their way.

"We demand admission!" shouted the younger of the two men elbowing a pretty young secretary in the throat.

"Come on," shouted the older one, "you can't keep us out!" He pushed a junior programmer back through the door.

"We demand that you can't keep us out!" bawled the younger one, though he was now firmly inside the room and no further attempts were being made to stop him.

"Who are you?" said Lunkwill, rising angrily from his seat. "What do you want?"

"I am Majikthise!" announced the older one.

"And I demand that I am Vroomfondel!" shouted the younger one.

Majikthise turned on Vroomfondel. "It's alright," he explained angrily, "you don't need to demand that."

"Alright!" bawled Vroomfondel banging on an nearby desk. "I am Vroomfondel, and that is not a demand, that is a solid fact! What we demand is solid facts!"

"No we don't!" exclaimed Majikthise in irritation. "That is precisely what we don't demand!"

Scarcely pausing for breath, Vroomfondel shouted, "We don't demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!"

"But who the devil are you?" exclaimed an outraged Fook.

"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."

"Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers.

"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"

"What's the problem?" said Lunkwill.

"I'll tell you what the problem is mate," said Majikthise, "demarcation, that's the problem!"

"We demand," yelled Vroomfondel, "that demarcation may or may not be the problem!"

"You just let the machines get on with the adding up," warned Majikthise, "and we'll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much. You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers. Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we're straight out of a job aren't we? I mean what's the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?"

"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"


<<<<<<<<


53 posted on 08/31/2005 10:50:10 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Doctor Stochastic
Say "Hi" to Ted and the Kronia crew for me, Walt.

Paging Dr. Stochastic!

54 posted on 08/31/2005 10:52:52 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"That's pretty much the way my teachers talked fourty years ago. Science was about to run out of stuff to do. Just my opinion, but I am not holding my breath."

Neither am I. I never gave a time frame for any of that. First of all, assuming the GUT is sufficiently developed within the next hundred years to be even mildly useful, it's still going to take a long, long time before we can get off this rock we're gravitationally stuck to so we can go out in search of new things. GUT could take a thousand years to perfect, or it may be impossible to perfect. If we were handed a complete GUT tomorrow, it'd be dozens or perhaps even hundreds of years before it could be fully understood. Once it's understood, it becomes a very useful tool to understand how things work and to engineer new things to work. The GUT is a massive accelerator to the growth of our knowledge, but I seriously doubt that human beings will run out of things to explore prior to our sun exploding. By that time, I doubt the human race will be anywhere near this planet, and I doubt they'll even vaguely resemble the race we have here today.

I do pity the poor folks who grow up in a period of time where discovery is a very rare and difficult thing to find. We're really in a golden age right now. We have barely scratched the surface of the natural world, and we're just now getting the tools necessary to dig in deep.

"We cannot predict the properties of complex things from the properties of their components."

Sure we can; just in a less than ideal way. How do you think new substances are created? (like the stuff they just created that's harder than diamond)
55 posted on 08/31/2005 10:53:25 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
I'm not interested in ancient philosophers or meta-physicists;

I wish you joy in your exclusionary unity.

56 posted on 08/31/2005 11:01:08 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
I do pity the poor folks who grow up in a period of time where discovery is a very rare and difficult thing to find.

In one of my meaner moments I asked my children how it felt to grow up with space travel in the past instead of the future. Looking back, I suspect that was a kind of child abuse, even if I intended it as a joke.

I honestly think your worries are misplaced. It sounds to me like an artist thinkng everything has been painted because all the paint colors have been invented.

There is a descriptive side to science and an inventive side. When all the pebbles have been counted, you can still make things with them.

57 posted on 08/31/2005 11:03:56 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"I honestly think your worries are misplaced."

I'm not worried for me. As I said in another post, I don't expect that mankind will have exhausted the quest for discovery until well after our sun has long since exploded. :-)

"When all the pebbles have been counted, you can still make things with them."

Sure, but there are a finite number of possible configurations for the pebbles. It may take an extraordinary amount of time to run through all of them, but what do you do when you're the guy at the end of the line, growing up with everything else tried, tested, and run into the ground?

"In one of my meaner moments I asked my children how it felt to grow up with space travel in the past instead of the future."

Ahh, but space travel is only the beginning. Getting into space is just the first step. We've never sent humans to another planet before. We've never sent humans to another star system before. Nor have we sent anything to another galaxy. There are many exciting things that have yet to pass any of us by.
58 posted on 08/31/2005 11:09:12 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
"I wish you joy in your exclusionary unity."

The only things excluded by modern science's GUT are those that science cannot study, measure, or test. No responsible scientist bothers trying to measure, test, or disprove God.
59 posted on 08/31/2005 11:12:06 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
The only things excluded by modern science's GUT are those that science cannot study, measure, or test

And so we return to my point. The scope of your theory is only as universal as the portion of the universe it studies.

Plus (and this is important), there is no science so pure that it's study of things measurable and testable have nothing to do with logic or metaphysics. Scientific thinking is influenced by other kinds of thinking.

60 posted on 08/31/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson