Perceiving the Universe

Remove all ads!

That is the problem some astrophysicists have with the expansionist model. However, the assumption that the universe cannot expand infinitely is precisely that: an assumption, with no logical or reasonal foundation -- only a gut instinct. And there is far too much that defies instinct on the cosmological level and the microscopic level to reject a model simply on that basis.

 

The problem is one of perspective.

Some parts of our reality, such as at a subatomic level, resist direct viewing because the moment we attempt to look at an area, the things we do in order to make certain particles visible distorts their common behavior. We turn the lights on, but the cockroaches scatter.

I wonder if the same thing happens on a macro level--if all the cheers and hurrahs surrounding the distances and objects we can see via Hubble are less helpful than we think. And if red shift is as helpful as we think, given the possibility that back in time, physical properties/laws of physics may have been been subtly different.

This difference could be minute, but because of the vast distance, it would be magnified. If gravitons are packed more densely in the early universe, for instance, that would tell us the local gravitational constant (the way two objects with mass interact) would be different.

All that being said, I think we can deduct the nature of very large and very small objects better by understanding commonly sized objects' behavior better and use those clearer observations to inform the unclear. It's sexy and fun to talk about seeing further than ever and speculating about what we are seeing, but those announcments are all about money and research dollars for next year--not about science. Real science rarely fits in a 50 word blurb on a press release with a glossy picture to illustrate.

A good example of how science tries, to its own peril, to market itself is the debate about "what color are galaxies?" We colorize pictures of nebulai, and now that we've done it with those lovely blues and reds, scientists have to photoshop everything to match it or people think it's not real or not high quality photos, and therefore not good science. Articles that discusses this question are:

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~kgb/cosspec/

which talks about the "color" of space, making it clear that it's all subjective

and

http://www.discover-net.net/~xecon/astroimg.htm

which explains the way they apply color to astronomical data.