How the universe formed? Why should the science of cosmology concern us? What does the principal question laid in the basis of this science really mean? On the face of it, not much. And the same could be said of other sciences. We use mobile telephones and computers, not really considering – more accurately, not considering at all- how the microcircuitry works, and many have no idea at all what is inside these electronic devices. We use the universe like an automobile, without considering the workings of the engine. The universe carries us from birth to death virtually without pause, and thus, insofar as it seems not to miss a beat, normally, we do not try to understand the core of its organization. Old wisdom tells us not to touch something that appears to be not broken, so – heaven forbid! – we won’t break it.
We are “consumers” of the universe as we are consumers of the services of airline companies. Should we really concern ourselves with how the airplane is constructed, and why it carries us to the end of our journey and does not drop out of the sky in mid-flight?
In the case of the universe we use, everything is completely simple. We do not know the time of arrival at the destination airport, and therefore if the universe throws us out of everyday reality and into another world or non-existence (and it is a matter of taste, take your pick) before the schedule-established time, then our complaining would will not be quite valid. For the schedule is not known to us, and we accept the fact of our unexpected mortality as a given, or we do not accept it and attempt to forget that the essence is unchanged and doesn’t at all mean that if we try to comprehend the construction of an airliner (the universe), then we still do not get a special allowance
And thus following from the above stated, the manifestation of our interest in cosmology is not something that is more justified per se than an interest in the workings of a vacuum cleaner.
There is, of course, one more factor that could cause us to take an interest in such an abstract subject, and that factor is none other than simple human curiosity. Like kittens, we stick our noses where they don’t belong.
But curiosity has its limits, and coming up against strange terminology and unimaginable masses, distances and temperatures, we look away from this impractical science. We confuse the conceptions of meteorites and galaxies, and focus our curiosity on something simpler and more concrete.
Occasionally the apocalyptic news of an asteroid ending human existence grips the world, and for a time the public is warmed to the celestial sciences, though as before people confuse astronomy with astrology and cosmology with cosmetology.
In the past, cosmology was inseparable from religion, and therefore it interested society to a much larger degree. People discussed questions such as “Does God exist?” or “Whose god is superior?. People’s lives were directly affected: Heretics were burned at the stake, and the question concerned not only learned men.
Somewhere at the crossroads of past ages, the direct link between cosmology and religion, it seems, was lost. Although people continue to kill each other with relish in large numbers because of questions of religion, it is hard to imagine that someone today would be executed because of his adherence to a particular cosmological theory.
But what do we hear? The New York Times reports in October 2005 that a representative of George Bush at NASA, a certain George Deutsh, asked a Web design agency to always add the word “theory” to occurrences of term Big Bang on the NASA Web site .The administration of the most powerful person on earth, George Bush Jr., isn’t quite indifferent to whether the Big Bang is considered to be the premiere theory, or whether it is only just one of many possible theories. (By the way, one must note that in this respect Bush is completely correct: The use of the word “theory” at every mention of the Big Bang is the completely correct approach from the scientific point of view.) Most likely, however, Bush’s primary concern is not scientific correctness, but is of a religions bent. A similar situation is observed in the newly resurrected dispute over teaching only Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, without mention of the theory of Intelligent Design.
It is possible that you do not agree that the president of the United Sates – and in January 2008 it is still Bush – is the most powerful person today. One may even say that his power matches the power of the gods: He can punish and have mercy on all of humanity. If one evaluates his power by its ability to destroy the world, Bush is one of the few world leaders who possesses a suitcase which contains control center over a huge nuclear arsenal. In the decades after the Cold War we have forgotten about these nuclear suitcases , despite the fact that they have not ceased to exist. Incidentally, it is a known fact that President Nixon in his time delivered an order to start a nuclear war. (He was ignored, however by his subordinates.) Allegedly, there even existed a secret internal memorandum to ignore such orders of Nixon, who liked to play the role of a madman – or actually was one! In any case, the ability to start a nuclear war gives rise to power. The fundamental enemies of Bush, who he has dubbed the “Axis of Evil”, do not yet possess sufficient power to destroy at once the entirety of humanity.
You can object that there is nothing wrong with religiosity, the fear of God, and endeavoring to sustain morals, and I will agree with you to a certain extent. But on the other hand, most of the civilized countries already declared a while back that religion should be separated from the state. This has become sort of a self-evident notion in our time.
Now that we have illuminated possible contradictions, we return to cosmology. And so, properly speaking, cosmology has become separated from religion only from the point of view of scientists. Statesmen and religious figures as before consider concepts from cosmology relevant to their own objectives. How else can one explain the interest of the Catholic Church in the conduct of independent research in cosmology and astrophysics? After all the Catholic Church, as far as I know, does not independently elaborate on the physics of semi-conductors or other practical issues!
Insofar as cosmology plays a role in politics and religion, it simply cannot be without affect on the lives of each of us. Granted the connection is subtle; granted it is masked by multiple layers of demagoguery, but the question of the design of creation has always been and will remain the fundamental element of political and religious speculation.
If you do not agree with my assertion, allow me to clarify. The current conflict between Western and Islamic civilizations is founded, on one hand, on Islamic dogmatists and, on the other, strange as it may be, on Christian dogmatists – specifically protestant dogmatists, advocated for by current US administration. Bush sees his position as highly moral and pious. He constantly invokes his protestant God as witness to his high intentions and divides the world into friends and foes. Moreover, foes by Bush’s philosophy are associated with world evil. In this respect, the position of Islamic terrorists hardly differs from the position of Bush. They also base their motivation on articles of faith, invoking their Islamic God as a witness to their high intentions and again dividing the world into friends and foes. Moreover, foes by the philosophy of the terrorists are also associated with world evil.
Thus to varying degrees both sides require confirming arguments that their God and faith are the only true ones. And where else besides in the questions of cosmology would one seek substantiation of creation’s divine beginning? To my astonishment, one time I came across a propaganda video on the Internet, which started with an explanation of contemporary cosmological theory. It then went on to call for a conversion to Islam.
And so cosmology, along with the battle over Darwin’s theory of evolution (which, by the way, is just a piece of the overall cosmological picture and therefore of secondary importance) has not lost its former potency. It is still able to move nations and ignite wars. Again, you will perhaps not find a direct correlation between politics and religion and any sort of cosmological discoveries. What is worse is , whatever the cosmological discovery may be, the result is simplified and distorted to the point of unrecognizablity in order to make it serve one or another politico-religious concept.
Such being the case, the fact cosmology is not separate from religion and politics, there is an urgent question facing contemporary society. Where does the fault lie? Do astrophysicists and cosmologists themselves allow political profiteering with their behavior, gifts of generalizing and half-serious names of complex astrophysical phenomena such as “big bang” , “black holes”, “dark matter” and “dark energy”? Or does the fault lie at the level of the philosophers who interpret the cosmological discoveries? We usually gauge a civilization’s development by its approach to cosmological models. In a highly politicized environment science simply cannot develop independently, for if the president’s representatives dictate to scientists how to name and characterize scientific theories, and if the president himself with one stroke of the pen can take away the lion share of the budget for fundamental cosmological research, can doom the Hubble telescope (now civilization’s main celestial eye, directed toward the farthest reaches of the universe), and can redirect funding to highly-politicized, utopian and poorly conceived future flights to the moon and to Mars with questionable scientific value, then science cannot develop independently. We are therefore doomed to remain a society that develops its cosmological ideas in terms of turtles, whales or the strings As a result of the abovementioned reflections, I decided to travel the world in search of encounters with people who study astrophysics, cosmology and philosophy directly, in order to understand what goes on in this secretive area of human knowledge that has so often been the cause for blood world catastrophes.
Don’t fear an asteroid, flying at us from outer space; fear the idea that our politicians and religious leaders can drink their fill of poorly understood scientific concepts.
How do you like the following sequence Darwin – Nietzsche – Hitler? Darwin innocently points out that species evolve by natural selection, which is the driving force of evolution. Nietzsche applies Darwin’s theory to human society, calling a person a mere bridge between an ape and a superman. And then Hitler appears in the world, a person who tries only to help natural selection and destroy all inferior races in order to hasten the triumph of the superman.
The facile application of deep scientific principles to human society usually results in colossal catastrophes. It occurs to me completely logical to examine comprehensively today’s cosmological beliefs in order to determin at which moment a truly scientific approach was substituted with an adventureist politico-religious approach an approach that causes the world to tremble.
The standard contemporary cosmological model asserts that the universe originated as a result of the Big Bang.
In recent decades scientists have developed a cosmological model which allows us to understand many observable properties of the universe. The Big Bang is now considered the standard model. It explains the abundances of the lightest elements (isotopes of hydrogen, helium and lithium) and estimates the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, which accords with the estimates of the ages of the oldest stars. The model predicts the existence and high homogeneity of vestigial radiation and explains how and why many other properties of the universe emerged.
In the name of the model – ICDM (Inflationary Lambda Cold Dark Matter model) three of its most important components are reflected: the process of inflation, the cosmological constant, denoted by the Greek letter Lambda, and the invisible particles, which are known only as cold dark matter (it is also called hidden mass).
According to the ICDM model, the period of inflation was a time of extremely accelerated growth, which began at the very first fractions of a second after the birth of the universe and ended with a flash of radiation, thanks to which the universe is as large as it is, is as filled as it is with mass, and is as homogenous as it is. The model also explains why the universe is completely homogenous: because random quantum fluctuations of the density of energy were inflated to the size clusters of galaxies and larger.
The model predicts that at the end of inflation the force of gravity initiated a contraction of high-density areas, which led to the formation of galaxies and caused their clustering. This process was aided by cold dark matter, which formed great clouds and which can be detected only by their gravitational influence. The cosmological constant is a strange form of antigravity, which is responsible for the presently-occurring acceleration of cosmic expansion. Of course, it is impossible to explain all the basics of cosmology in this series of sketches; therefore, I will try to explain terms and concepts as they appear in the text.
And thus, before you is the story of my wandering around planet earth in search of heavenly knowledge about how and why this heavenly knowledge turns into delusion, at times just as hopeless as a free fall into the black hole.
