Comments on: Robert Jastrow, 1925 – 2008

By: Ken G

Ken G — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:40:26 +0000

Actually, I think Jastrow is quite right in that article
(I don’t like the sound of the Marshall Institute business,
but that’s something else). Yes, science might be able to
find ways to approach the “crisis of creation”, like brane
worlds, but frankly to me those sound like grabbing at straws.
If we detach ourselves from the idea that science somehow
guarantees to us that the beginining must have a cause
(whether or not there is any concept of what came “before”),
and just look skeptically at the evidence, the best evidence
at the moment is that it did not have a cause– at least,
not in the scientific meaning of the word. That’s really
all Jastrow seems to be saying.

Is this such a crisis for science? I say no, I say it only
looks like a crisis if you take science for something that
it is not. Just be true to science, and you have no
guarantees of an explanation for everything. Where is
the principle of science that says there cannot be mystery?
Science is not about claiming what it can do, it is about
doing what it can do. I think many people really have
elevated science to the level of religion, simply by not
being true to the rules of science as above all an empirical
art, not a separate avenue to “warm fuzzy feelings” than
other forms of creation myths.

By: Félix

Félix — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:59:27 +0000

to Quiet_desperation : Thanks for the cue.

By: Quiet_Desperation

Quiet_Desperation — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:09:01 +0000

Destroyed the record of the past? I’m only a neophyte, but it’s quite obvious: given that time, as the 4th dimension, is linked by Relativity laws to matter, there was no “before” the big bang.

There’s all sorts of work being done to determine what caused the Big Bang.

The ekpyrotic/cyclic theory (brane cosmology), the main competitor to inflation theory, stipulates a universe before the Big Bang.

Actually, some inflationary models take a stab at what led to the Bang. Chaotic inflation ponders the nucleation of false vacuums into bubble universes.

There’s the Hartle-Hawking state which is another idea about how it all started.

And, oh, just google it.

By: sudopod

sudopod — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:45:07 +0000

Aw man, I loved that book when I was a kid.

By: Wayne

Wayne — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:17:09 +0000

I think he’s just speaking in layman’s terms, I wouldn’t read too much into those statements. I’m sure the BA can attest that it’s hard to be technically accurate and still make things accessible to a regular person.

By: Félix

Félix — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:08:43 +0000

How could an astronomer write this?

“But I think the circumstances of the Big Bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past-make that extremely unlikely.”

and what about this quote ?

“Einstein once said, “The scientist is possessed of a sense of infinite causation.” If there is a religion in science, this statement can be regarded as its principal article of faith.”

Note that the second sentence is not quoted from Einstein. Still, this could cause quite a fuss (maybe it did)

By: David

David — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:54:46 +0000

Religion isn't the half of it.