Being a cosmologist is a dream job. We spend our days (and nights) wondering about this vast and surprising and beautiful Universe we find ourselves in. Every now and then we make our own contributions, uncovering a clue, seeing just a little bit further. But we don’t often reflect on the miracles that are required for the field of cosmology to exist at all.
Human beings are natural-born cosmologists. Essentially all human societies have wondered about the origins of the cosmos. It is easy to imagine a world in which nobody cared about the age of the Universe; such questions have nothing to do with everyday experience, and are completely irrelevant for evolutionary success (in the strict ‘eating-sleeping-procreating’ sense). Nonetheless, part of being human seems to entail asking these “big” questions.
Perhaps even more surprising, contemporary society backs up its cosmological interest with cold, hard cash. Through gifts and taxes individuals make financial sacrifices, allowing science to exist and prosper. And this is not a trifling contribution. The total US investment in the basic physical sciences in 2006 was roughly $20 billion. US taxpayers spend about $70 per person per year, or $150 per household. Europe and Japan contribute similar amounts, and almost all nations contribute at some level. This is what pays for the beautiful images from Hubble. This is what allows us to figure out that there was a Big Bang, that the Universe is expanding, and that this expansion is accelerating. This is what allows us to continue to do what we do. Although funding is a struggle (especially this year, which is turning into a disastrous one for the sciences), the fact that it exists at all is wondrous.
But the greatest miracle is that cosmology works. The Universe appears to be comprehensible. It is possible to ask a question such as “How old is the Universe?”, and actually find an answer. Why are there so many clues? Why is it that, given enough careful observation and quiet thinking, we can actually figure this stuff out? We now have a description of the Universe which works remarkably well from a fraction of a second after the Big Bang to today, 14 billion years later. It’s truly astonishing.
Maybe the string of successes is about to end? It is conceivable that dark matter and dark energy, those mysterious elements which make up 95% of the energy density of the Universe, will remain “dark” to us forever. That we’ll never understand how the first stars formed, nor why galaxies look the way they do. Although this is possible, most of us are optimistic that there’s a long way yet to go. And we have history on our side. Thus far, nature, although coy, does seem to yield her secrets eventually. Science marches forward. Questions which once resided in the realm of metaphysics now have definitive physical answers. Why is the Universe comprehensible? As far as we know, it didn’t have to be this way.
However, without the generous contributions of society much of the Universe would remain incomprehensible. It thus seems appropriate to express thanks to our fellow citizens. It is through your munificence that this whole glorious enterprise is funded. This science belongs to you. From the preface to Gravitation, by Charlie Misner, Kip Thorne, & John Wheeler (affectionately known as MTW, or the telephone book):
We dedicate this book
To our fellow citizens
Who, for love of truth,
Take from their own wants
By taxes and gifts,
And now and then send forth
One of themselves
As dedicated servant,
To forward the search
Into the mysteries and marvelous simplicities
Of this strange and beautiful Universe,
Our home.
January 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Great first post Dan!
January 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Hi Dan!
Nice to see you blogging. I was wondering when they’ll assimilate you….
January 28th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
hi eugene! resistance is futile…
January 28th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Welcome and looking forward to ore posts from you.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
oops
..I mean `more’ .
January 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Hmm…did you get a LA-UR number for that? Lol. Jk.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Lovely post. That would have been a wonderful contribution in the editorial section of my Sunday newspaper. Please submit it. I’m serious.
Oh, dear…I just looked at your home page…a Cavafy quote and a Magritte painting…you may have just wiped out my Steven Pollock crush.
January 28th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
It is easy to imagine a world in which nobody cared about the age of the Universe; such questions have nothing to do with everyday experience, and are completely irrelevant for evolutionary success (in the strict ‘eating-sleeping-procreating’ sense).
Hunger for more knowledge? “Dreaming of farther realms” beyond what we can see with Hubble. Beyond the confines of “the beginning and the end” of this universe.
Interesting enough the image you use might be one associated with an “age of enlightenment?” Peering through “the limitations” we had applied to all thinking?
If we understood “the physics” the more the views change of our look toward cosmology. That “in itself” is quite a break through.
I will enjoy seeing the “new personalities” and what they will bring to cosmic variance.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Wonderful first post!
As you point out though the search for truth and the desire to penetrate the mysteries that surround us precedes current societies preoccupation with individual wealth and ownership above all by centuries. It seems more fundamental and more human to me.
One might argue that what is truly strange is that in todays society the pursuit of these goals seems offbeat, and wondrous.
January 28th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Interesting choice of a painting, in that it has been the subject of much study by those in academia who study myth, mysticism, shamanism, and the history of religions. The symbolic referents are plentiful, and do go so well with the preface poem you provided. Welcome and thanks
January 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Welcome Daniel, and a lovely first post….seeing you on CV makes me miss Santa Barbara even more!
Did you all get a mail from the “Saving Hubble” documentary filmmakers? They say they are making a film that goes beyond Hubble to an examination of NASA and government priorities in spending, it looks potentially very interesting..
http://www.savinghubble.com
Ciao, and welcome to the other new bloggers too, I wonder if all the citizens we’ve sent forth will end up on CV, hope so…
January 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Hi Daniel -
I must say I’m not too surprised these guys pulled you into the fold. I’m a regular reader of CV (normally with a little bit of Von Freeman on in the background). Jen says hi too.
Cheers,
January 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Everyone, thanks for the good wishes and encouragement! It’s nice to join the family.
fh, you make a good (though somewhat depressing) point. I suppose some would argue that capitalism is innate and primal. But I prefer your point of view.
Jennifer, I did get that email about “Saving Hubble”. The back-and-forth with servicing Hubble has certainly epitomized many of the problems at NASA. I think they’ve been amazed at the public outcry. Truth is, I think even many people in the broader astronomy community have been surprised. There’s no doubt that the Hubble images have touched a nerve; they are hauntingly beautiful, and one cannot help but be moved. And there’s good science to boot!
kmeson, come visit! you’re just next door, right?
January 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
spyder, do you know when it was painted?
January 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Daniel – I see you joined the bandwagon. Exciting! I will look forward to receiving regular nuggets of wisdom from you now.
January 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
[...] [...]
January 29th, 2007 at 12:56 am
I’m not sure what Spyder is referring to, but the “painting” is originally a woodcut and it’s origin is nebulous:
I found out about it by way of a Swiss physicist’s web page where he copied it from Photodisc, Inc. with its description. This color image is titled “The Universe and Man.”
I noticed that several physics and astronomy edu sites have used it as well. As another site said, “it [appears] to be a reconstruction of a medieval conception of the universe.” It’s prettier when colored or painted.
January 29th, 2007 at 1:51 am
TBB, thanks for the detailed clarification. It’s certainly an iconic image; perfectly captures what we’re trying to do. If only it were that easy.
January 29th, 2007 at 2:53 am
I know most certainly that the quote of Camille’s above will resonate with some.
I think it was called “Man Looking into Space” and was copied as TBB said in 1888 and was of a “16 century woodcut” by Camille Flammarion.
January 29th, 2007 at 2:55 am
should read…..”copied” by Camille Flammarion
January 29th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Hi Daniel,
This is a bit off-topic. I glanced at your web page and was wondering how the red text with the cool optical illusion of being “lifted” off the page was done. I can’t recall seeing anything like this before. I am not a web design guru by any means (actually I’m a grad phys student). Thanks & welcome.
Bob E.
January 29th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hi Bob, Wish I could say I was doing something super fancy, but I’m not. Just red text on black background. The combination of colors sort of makes the eyes swim (bug? feature?). For what it’s worth, the font is Arial.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Perhaps you could replace the hubble with a massive optical telescope array connected together by reference laser beams in order to be able to combine the data together at a later time. THen you would get super duper resolution.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:53 am
daniel writes:
There’s another possibility. Some one could come up with a theory that would make the dark energy and dark matter “superfluous” as Einstein did when he came up with Special Relativity which made the luminiferous ether unnecessary.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 am
I first came up with a theory in the early 80’s that predicted the acceleration, the axis of evil, the dipole pattern in the CMB, and as I have just recently read they found: the deceleration before the acceleration. I didn’t publish back then because there were a few missing features of the theory, and it would have been considered absurd back then. The last several years I have further developed the theory. But so far I have had no response in my attempts to have it published. I am not in the biz.
So I am currently finishing a book on the subject.
Anybody interested in seeing this can email me.
Cosmology needs help.