by Ann » Wed Jun 23, 2010 9:33 am
Chris wrote:
There is nothing wrong with posing the question "what caused the Big Bang".
Good to hear, Chris!
The best scientific answer is that the question cannot be answered, may not be answerable, and may not even be a scientific question.
I get that, too. But scientists don't always agree among themselves. (Never fear,though, Chris, I'm not a fan of the wildest speculative theories about the cosmos. Having grown up among religious fundamentalists who told me that the world was coming to an end any day now took away most of my appetite for dramatic unproven theories.)
I'm going to ask another "honest question" which has probably been asked before. Inflation, the inflation that happened almost instantly after the actual Big Bang, is unexplained, as far as I can understand. Inflation has been "added" to the theory about the Big Bang because it answers many questions about the universe, like how the observable universe can be so uniform and isotropic. But as far as I can understand, inflation has been inferred from the appearance of the universe, not from any mathematical theories of how the Big bang "ought to" enfold. So science can't say why inflation happened.
Recently, the apparent acceleration of the universe dropped the latest bombshell in astronomers' laps. I followed astronomy throughout the nineties, and I vividly remember that astronomers speculated on just how much the expansion of the universe was slowing down. When it was found to accelerate, most astronomers were absolutely dumbstruck, and many refused to accept the findings.
So my point is that we have a case of early inflation that astronomy can't really explain, and now we have a case of universal accelearation that no one can really explain. Is there a connection between the two? I think I know what you are going to answer, Chris: no, there is no connection because the two forms of increasing expansion of the universe are so fundamentally different. And I guess I realize that myself. Nevertheless, there seems to be an underlying principle here, saying that the universe might increase the amount of its expansion for no reason that science can readily explain. To me, that points to
some sort of connection.
Ann
Chris wrote:
[quote]There is nothing wrong with posing the question "what caused the Big Bang".[/quote]
Good to hear, Chris!
[quote]The best scientific answer is that the question cannot be answered, may not be answerable, and may not even be a scientific question. [/quote]
I get that, too. But scientists don't always agree among themselves. (Never fear,though, Chris, I'm not a fan of the wildest speculative theories about the cosmos. Having grown up among religious fundamentalists who told me that the world was coming to an end any day now took away most of my appetite for dramatic unproven theories.)
I'm going to ask another "honest question" which has probably been asked before. Inflation, the inflation that happened almost instantly after the actual Big Bang, is unexplained, as far as I can understand. Inflation has been "added" to the theory about the Big Bang because it answers many questions about the universe, like how the observable universe can be so uniform and isotropic. But as far as I can understand, inflation has been inferred from the appearance of the universe, not from any mathematical theories of how the Big bang "ought to" enfold. So science can't say why inflation happened.
Recently, the apparent acceleration of the universe dropped the latest bombshell in astronomers' laps. I followed astronomy throughout the nineties, and I vividly remember that astronomers speculated on just how much the expansion of the universe was slowing down. When it was found to accelerate, most astronomers were absolutely dumbstruck, and many refused to accept the findings.
So my point is that we have a case of early inflation that astronomy can't really explain, and now we have a case of universal accelearation that no one can really explain. Is there a connection between the two? I think I know what you are going to answer, Chris: no, there is no connection because the two forms of increasing expansion of the universe are so fundamentally different. And I guess I realize that myself. Nevertheless, there seems to be an underlying principle here, saying that the universe might increase the amount of its expansion for no reason that science can readily explain. To me, that points to [i]some[/i] sort of connection.
Ann