Fact is, science is skepticism

Fact is, science is skepticism

Map of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation developed with the data provided by the COBE satellite • NASA (Public Domain)

Originally published 23 January 2001

Aston­ish­ing fact Num­ber 1: The uni­verse began bil­lions of years ago in an explo­sion from an infi­nite­ly small, infi­nite­ly hot seed of ener­gy. The Big Bang.

It is cer­tain­ly dif­fi­cult to imag­ine that the uni­verse we observe today — with hun­dreds of bil­lions of galax­ies, each galaxy con­tain­ing hun­dreds of bil­lions of stars, each star (per­haps) with a fam­i­ly of plan­ets — might have been con­tained with­in a space the size of a pinhead.

Dif­fi­cult, but not impos­si­ble, because cos­mol­o­gists imag­ine it. And they do more than mere­ly imag­ine; they cal­cu­late with the laws of physics pre­cise math­e­mat­i­cal details of how the uni­verse came into exis­tence in that blaze of glory.

The Big Bang the­o­ry had its begin­ning ear­ly in the 20th cen­tu­ry when Edwin Hub­ble dis­cov­ered that the uni­verse is expand­ing — the galax­ies are rac­ing apart. Cal­cu­late back­wards — reverse the out­rush of the galax­ies — and every­thing comes togeth­er in a sin­gu­lar begin­ning for mat­ter, ener­gy, space, and time.

Aston­ish­ing fact Num­ber 2: We are still bathed by the radi­a­tion of the Big Bang.

Big Bang cal­cu­la­tions pre­dict that the uni­verse should be filled today with the resid­ual radi­a­tion of the Big Bang — the flash of cre­ation — now much cooled. This is the so-called cos­mic microwave back­ground radi­a­tion, which was pre­dict­ed before it was acci­den­tal­ly dis­cov­ered by two Bell Tele­phone engi­neers, Arno Pen­zias and Robert Wil­son, in 1965.

The Cos­mic Back­ground Explor­er, or COBE, satel­lite has sub­se­quent­ly mea­sured the radi­a­tion with exquis­ite pre­ci­sion. The tem­per­a­ture of the radi­a­tion is 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, exact­ly as the Big Bang the­o­ry pre­dicts. The spec­trum of the radi­a­tion is also in pre­cise agree­ment with theory.

We mea­sure the cos­mic back­ground radi­a­tion in the here and now, 10 bil­lion years or so after the begin­ning. But maybe the radi­a­tion we mea­sure has some oth­er cause. A superb test of Big Bang the­o­ry could be achieved if we could trav­el back in time with a ther­mome­ter, and see if the uni­verse was hot­ter in the past.

Aston­ish­ing fact Num­ber 3: We can trav­el back in time and mea­sure the tem­per­a­ture of the Big Bang radiation.

As we look out into the uni­verse, we are also look­ing back in time. Light trav­els at a finite veloc­i­ty. When we look at an object 8 bil­lion light-years away, say, we are see­ing it as it was 8 bil­lion years ago.

What if we could see some­thing 8 bil­lion light-years away that is sen­si­tive to the tem­per­a­ture of the uni­verse at that time and place? This is what a group of astronomers using the Euro­pean South­ern Obser­va­to­ry’s 8.2‑meter tele­scope in Chile have now man­aged to do, by find­ing a quasar whose light is absorbed by a cloud of gas and dust that lies between us and the quasar.

Quasars are bril­liant sources of light that were com­mon in the ear­ly his­to­ry of the uni­verse, prob­a­bly relat­ed to the for­ma­tion of mas­sive black holes at the hearts of galax­ies. The cloud that absorbs this par­tic­u­lar quasar’s light lies bil­lions of light-years away, at a time when the uni­verse was only one-sixth of its present age.

Every kind of atom or mol­e­cule absorbs light at char­ac­ter­is­tic wave­lengths. By see­ing what wave­lengths in the quasar’s light are absorbed by the inter­ven­ing cloud, the astronomers iden­ti­fy the kinds of mat­ter in the cloud.

They can also tell what ener­gy state the cloud’s atoms and mol­e­cules were already in as they absorbed the quasar’s light. If atoms and mol­e­cules in the cloud have been excit­ed by some local source of ener­gy, this will show up in the absorp­tion spec­trum of the dis­tant quasar.

By doing some bril­liant spec­tro­scop­ic analy­sis, the astronomers found so-called fine-struc­ture states of car­bon atoms and hydro­gen mol­e­cules in the dis­tant cloud that could only have been excit­ed by cos­mic back­ground radi­a­tion at a tem­per­a­ture of 6 to 14 degrees above absolute zero. Big Bang the­o­ry pre­dicts a tem­per­a­ture of 9 degrees for the back­ground radi­a­tion when the uni­verse was one-sixth of its present age, in agree­ment with the mea­sured limits.

Report­ing on this amaz­ing bit of work in the jour­nal Nature, physi­cist John Bah­call writes: “The Big Bang the­o­ry has sur­vived a cru­cial test. The the­o­ry would have been aban­doned if astronomers had found that clouds at ear­li­er times had low­er tem­per­a­tures than predicted.”

He con­tin­ues: “I con­fess to feel­ing a lit­tle dis­ap­point­ed, and I am sure that some of my more rebel­lious col­leagues will secret­ly feel the same way. I am hap­py that the Big Bang the­o­ry passed this test, but it would have been more excit­ing if the the­o­ry had failed and we had to start look­ing for a new mod­el of the evo­lu­tion of the universe.”

Aston­ish­ing fact Num­ber 4: There is no fact in sci­ence so aston­ish­ing that sci­en­tists will not stand ready to aban­don it if the evi­dence goes against it.

Share this Musing: