Meh. I think an awful lot of theoretical astrophysics is just a bunch of wise guys sitting around a table trying to see who can come up with the craziest story that actually secures some grant money: "There is no Dark Matter and the Universe is Twice as Old as We Thought".
Hardest hit? Personal Astronomical Collectibles Online.
Calls down to the warehouse: "Hello, Ernie? You know all those bottles labeled 'Genuine Dark Matter'? Yeah, the little sealed bottles filled with black ink. Toss 'em. I'll explain later."
"Ok, boss. Say, what about the zinc funnels spray-painted black?"
"The baby black holes? I think we're good to go on those. Start shippin' 'em out".
It's kinda like another favorite research topic for scientists, "Are eggs healthy to eat?"
ReplyDeletethe "big bang" was a startling idea that first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. Many astronomers at the time were still uncomfortable with the idea that the universe is expanding. That the entire observable universe of galaxies began with a bang seemed preposterous.
ReplyDeletesome probably rejected it because he felt that it was proof of the existence of G_d and a plan. I'm willing to accept a G_d as a valid explanation for something that I don't understand, like people down through the ages, but I don't buy into religion.
It still comes back to my next question, ok, so a big bang happened, but where did all the star stuff and planner stuff come from... a black hole explosion? where did the black hole get the stuff? previous galaxy? where did the previous galaxy get the stuff... and there are multiple galaxies, maybe uncomfortable numbers of them... same question.
It's almost like all the science is unsettled.
ReplyDeleteAnd if all the science does become settled, there'll no longer be any science.
I read the article and it kind of makes sense, but then I'm no astrophysicist. The most intriguing question is what happens if keep building bigger and better telescopes and looking farther and farther back, and finally get to where the Big Bang was supposed to be, and it isn't there? What if the universe doesn't have a beginning or an end? It makes my head hurt.
ReplyDeleteSo dark matter was the astrophysicist's equivalent of the old joke about economists... "first, assume a can opener..."
ReplyDeleteStephen: that's about it. I remember watching a program about the universe one time, and some Mr. Science Guy introduces his spiel - "The beginnings of the universe? Oh, that's simple!" - and then proceeds to glibly relate how it all happened, completely skating on the origins of the original forces and the original "stuff" that had to be present in order for something to happen in the first place, as if anti-matter, and hydrogen and other things were the "can opener" of your example.
ReplyDeleteI'm sticking with Chesterton: it's less absurd to think that God created everything than to believe that nothing ever created anything.
I was into all this stuff as a kid in the 1960s and remember the debate between Big Bang and Steady State theories. No one seems to remember that the Steady State were basically the atheists and Big Bang followers were often believers in God, like the Belgian Catholic priest who first proposed the BB. See Tom's post above.
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I guess because it was a Catholic, American Protestants(?) seem to have never heard about that previous debate and seem to often say that the BB is atheistic.
For the mid 20th Century Catholicism I was raised in, the big controversy was about Teilhard de Chardin, the Darwinian Jesuit. Nowadays I doubt anyone remembers him either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin
Catholic priests in those days were big intellectuals and scientists. I do miss all that. It was an exciting time.
Yes, it was an exciting time. Now, everybody's a "scientist".
ReplyDelete