Archive for the ‘Big Bang’ Category

The “big bang” was not an exploding ball of matter

January 13, 2008

Popular accounts of the big bang often describe it as the detonation of a compact ball of matter poised in a preexisting void, with the galaxies compared to fragments flying away from the center of the explosion.

Easy though this image may be to grasp, it is seriously misleading and the source of much confusion: people are inevitably prompted to ask, “Where is the center of the universe?”

If the big bang really had been an exploding ball of matter, then some galaxies would lie deep in the midst of the melee, surrounded on all sides, while others would be located near the edge of the assemblage.  Suppose this were so, and picture the view from a far-flung galaxy.  In one direction would lie the center of the universe; in the opposite direction there would be empty space.  The sky would appear dramatically different depending on which way an observer looked.

That is certainly not what we see from Earth: the universe looks very much the same in all directions.  As far as our telescopes can penetrate, which is about 13 billion light-years, encompassing roughly 100 billion galaxies, matter is distributed uniformly (strictly, it is clusters of galaxies that are distributed uniformly).  There is no evidence for any bunching up around some sort of center or, conversely, for any thinning out toward an edge.

How, then, should we describe the big bang and the expanding universe, given these observational facts?  Cosmologists have struggled to find ways to describe the expanding universe in simple language.  Here’s one attempt:

The big bang happened everywhere, not at one point in space.

A simple analogy that may help is to imagine a very long string of elastic with beads attached at regular intervals.  As the elastic is stretched, the beads move apart.  Every bead extends its separation from its neighbors, so the view from any given bead will be of other beads moving away.  All beads are equal: there is no center bead.

Cosmic Jackpot by Paul Davies

Questions of origins play prominent roles in most sciences. Where do economies come from?

September 7, 2007

Questions of origins play prominent roles in most sciences. It would be difficult to imagine modern cosmology without the Big Bang, or biology without evolution.

“Where do economies come from?”

Traditional economic courses begin with “assume an economy.”

The process of economy formation presents us with a first-class scientific puzzle.

Joshua Epstein and Robert Axtell, researchers at the Brookings Institute, decided to conduct an experiment to see if they could grow an economy from scratch. Like biologists trying to cultivate life in vitro in a petri dish, Epstein and Axtell wanted to see if they could spark economic life in silico, in the simulated world of a computer.

They wanted to go back to the very beginning, to a state of nature, and have a model that included nothing more than people with a few basic abilities, and an environment with some natural resources. They wanted to find out the minimum conditions required to set off a chain reaction of economic activity. What would it take to get the system to start climbing the ladder of increasing economic order?

[My Comment] To make a long story short, Epstein and Axtell created a model they called Sugarscape, and the model was successful in spawning economic activity. The thing of interest to me, however, is the notion described in the preceding paragraph – get back to fundamentals, rethinking how we got to where we are now (this applies not just to economies, but to everything), and considering whether we have arrived at a desirable place.

The Origin of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker