Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Has Cosmology Been Solved? 315

An anonymous reader writes "In 1998, Dr. Michael Turner published a famous paper titled 'Cosmology Solved? Quite Possibly!' where he outlined seven major issues cosmologists should address in the following ten years. Nine years later, he revisits the list in an interview with the Slackerpedia Galactica podcast. He summarizes progress on each issue, adds some new goals for the next ten years, and even suggests that cosmology is now more interesting than science fiction."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has Cosmology Been Solved?

Comments Filter:
  • by richdun ( 672214 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:16PM (#19164739)

    seven major issues cosmologists should address in the following ten years

    1. Move to a better hosting service.

  • Yup! (Score:2, Funny)

    This has been well-settled for 6,000 years. God created the world in 7 days! Says so right in Genesis, chapter 1.

    *smirk*
    • Heathen (Score:3, Informative)

      by benhocking ( 724439 )
      God created the world in 6 days. He rested on the 7th. (What? You think it was easy?!?)
    • Why religion works (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alienmole ( 15522 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:35PM (#19165145)
      Perhaps you've hit on one of the ways that religion is an asset from an evolutionary biology perspective. By giving nice canned answers to these unsolvable problems, you free people up to focus on things that are more directly relevant to their survival.

      Any pre-religion cavemen who were sitting around wondering where we all came from probably either starved or got eaten pretty quickly...
      • I REALLY doubt that ancient people would philosophize themselves to death. Hunter-gatherers actually have more leisure time than modern people [lbcc.edu]. They had plenty of time to ponder things (a few naturally occurring hallucinogenic plants help too).
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by mapkinase ( 958129 )
        I am surprised your insightful post got modded up.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wytcld ( 179112 )
      But seriously ... when cosmology's solved we'll have a spade that can be used directly to uproot all the religions that make cosmological claims - particularly the genesis-myth-based ones. No smart child will any more join these religions, let alone fight wars for them, or strap bombs to their bodies to enter their paradises.

      Come rouse me off my barstool when that happens.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        when cosmology's solved we'll have a spade that can be used directly to uproot all the religions that make cosmological claims - particularly the genesis-myth-based ones. No smart child will any more join these religions, let alone fight wars for them, or strap bombs to their bodies to enter their paradises.

        Uh, no. Evidence and facts and all that stuff are no match for a superstitious mind.
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
        Wow, you posted a rational argument on slashdot. Of course you're flamebait, looks like the bible-fags have taken this place over.
    • In the beginning the continium was void and...without, and darkness was upon the face of the singularity. Then Blind Chance said: "Let there be Quanta!" And the morning and the evening of the first fempto-second.
    • by Jhon ( 241832 )
      Actually, wasn't it 6 days? Then he took a siesta?
  • welp.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Himring ( 646324 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:18PM (#19164769) Homepage Journal
    Welp, that was cosmology. Now on to human diseases, followed by understanding women....

  • is "solved," is the day that field of inquiry ceases to be science, and BECOMES science fiction

    science is a never ending inquiry into the unknown. there will always be the unknown

    however, some of the higher level stuff of cosmology strikes me as a little too far out there to be called completely science. it is in many ways an intersection of philosophy, and math, and astronomy, and even religion

    i think of cosmology as a sort of soft science, like sociology
    • Agreed. And the reason it's a soft science is similar to the reason why sociology or philosophy is a soft science- we're finite beings searching for infinite answers. There's a serious mismatch between our ability to comprehend and the size of what we're trying to comprehend.
    • however, some of the higher level stuff of cosmology strikes me as a little too far out there to be called completely science. it is in many ways an intersection of philosophy, and math, and astronomy, and even religion i think of cosmology as a sort of soft science, like sociology

      Cosmology has been the study of scientists for millenia, though. Aristotle, Einstein, Heisenberg, Hawking -- they all at someone point pondered the mysteries surrounding the beginnings and development of the universe. Solved,

    • Here's a site [aip.org] that repeats what I remember learning as an undergrad:

      At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists believed that all the fundamental laws of nature had been discovered and nothing more was left to be done except determine the physical constants to more decimal places.
    • by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:43PM (#19165281) Homepage
      science is a never ending inquiry into the unknown. there will always be the unknown

      *ahem.* We don't actually know that.

      (/self ducks.)
    • ...science is a never ending inquiry into the unknown. there will always be the unknown...

      Er...tell me, just how can you know that?

    • by neurocutie ( 677249 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @01:13PM (#19165879)
      While in principle, I agree with most of what you are trying to say, though I don't understand why you say that a thoroughly known science becomes sci-fi...

      But in practice there are many fields, that while questions remain, the field itself has become very stagnant because, quite frankly, there isn't a whole lot of new and exciting knowledge or conceptualization to be done. Consider, for example, that nearly all of the Human Anatomy departments of US medical schools have either folded, or, more usually, mutated into something else, like departments of Cell and/or Developmental Biology. Its not because there aren't new findings in anatomy, nor new unanswered questions, and certainly not because human anatomy isn't taught anymore (every med student still needs to know it), but rather there really isn't enough new knowledge in anatomy per se, to warrant a continuing academic dept, or new faculty, or new graduate students -- we/they/the field has MOVED ON to related, but different branches of science.

      You can also ask the question another way: Do we, as a society, ever learn/understand enough about a field of inquiry that we no longer deem it wise to continue funding and using precious resources to further vigorous inquiry, instead of moving on to other, more promising, less well understood fields of inquiry ? Well the answer from the NIH, the NSF, the private foundations, the university, the scientists, the Congress, etc, etc is most certain YES.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ZOmegaZ ( 687142 )
      The entire basis of science is the idea that the universe operates under a finite set of consistent rules. For science to truly be a never-ending inquiry, then either the rules aren't finite, they're not consistent, or they're not fully knowable. And if they're not fully knowable, then we should recognize the point at which we can learn no more and stop wasting our time. We're nowhere near that point, of course. But the idea that there will always be some new rule of the universe we don't know defeats t
      • fractals [wikipedia.org]

        the universe is fractal in nature

        human beings ourselves, we are fountains of emergent phenomenon. you can describe human society in terms of starting formulae, and have no idea of the outcome. we create new and weird things in this universe that did not exist before, lending all the proof you need to conclude that the universe is open ended, not a pat and solvable math problem

    • There are plenty of scientific areas where are pretty much as good as they get, that is, where the effort needed to make the models better is not really reasonable given what little improvements in predictive power it will get us.
  • by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:22PM (#19164869) Homepage Journal

    ..cosmology is now more interesting than science fiction
    Maybe a lot of science fiction. That's why we need a lot more SF with bitchin' rocket ship fights and purple aliens with five boobs. You know, good stuff.
  • Cosmology (Score:4, Funny)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .thguorw.wodahs.> on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:23PM (#19164877) Homepage Journal
    Well Tammy Fay baker certainly showed us the extreme upper limit of the field. Or are we talking about something else?
  • Hmmm... Peer through a telescope at night, or pilot a FTL starship through the universe dodging space pirates and hooking up with hot humanoid aliens.
    Can't quite seem to make up my mind, here.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:29PM (#19165007) Journal
    Did not read the linked article. Seems to have been slashdotted. Wonder if he wrote, "I have a truly remarable solution for cosmology, unfortunately this website is too small to write down".
  • by donut1005 ( 982510 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @12:41PM (#19165257)
    42?
  • Damn, I was hoping for makeup tips.
  • Lame headline (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pigeon451 ( 958201 )
    It's like saying "Math has been solved". Wow, that's terrific!! Thanks for the tip.
  • TFA vanished in the aether...
  • Science Fiction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ushering05401 ( 1086795 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @01:09PM (#19165783) Journal
    Will always be more interesting IMO. It is the human element (emotional, political, and intellectual) that dictates our advancement of research, application of technology, and willingness to integrate new understandings of our universe into the social fabric through education.

    The human element is what separates a good science fiction story from an excercise in mental masturbation. On many occasions a solid sci-fi short or novella (my preferred lengths) have helped me gain a new angle on modern day issues.

    While religious fervor is a huge culprit in the scisms developing in modern society (I only can speak for the American communities I am familiar with), it should be noted that many scientists spurn the importance of popularizers like Sagan. If anything we need more focus on making scientific progress a matter accesible to non-scientists who otherwise have access only to religious cosmologies.

    Presenting new science in layman's terms does not have to = dumbing the information down. Good science fiction can accomplish this.

    Regards.
  • by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @01:46PM (#19166561) Journal
    Didn't scientists say just before the discovery of quantum mechanics that nature had been pretty much figured out and the rest was just details?

    I wish I could RTFA. Does his list include solving the Slashdotting Effect?
  • I give you here the Ultimate Formula of Cosmology (tm), solve cosmology today!

    (2.01^13.12+76.339*162.23179)/(5.7902*6.55+24.102* 20.05)

    PS: Should be solved only with low digit precision calculators, nature sucks at math.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Working...