Number Crunchers vs. Creativity in Cosmology

[teranko]

I hear what you're saying but my point is that a previous detailed understanding of other models is not a prerequisite... and in fact, may detract from a new theory that is being concieved. Some authors (fiction and non-fiction alike) do not read books as they feel it will cramp their artistic freedom. Many creative works have originated from unlikely sources. It's then up to the scientists to nitt pick the theory to confirm or deny it.

[Martin]

Teranko raised the issue of whether understanding the basics of the standard cosmo model might impair one's creativity.

 

This discussion was not appropriate to the original thread. Which is based on the premise that to discuss we need a common point of departure and if you want to talk cosmo you should first of all understand the conventional model that is in use---if you then want to crit and explore alts, that's fine.

 

So since this was a new topic, I have set up it's own separate thread.

 

AFAICS it is a real issue and the issue is one of degree. Just my opinion: there should be some common understanding, common concepts, some prerequisites for rational discussion. But not too much. It shouldn't be burdensome to acquire.

 

So the question is extent. How much is right?

 

A lot of SFN members over the years have recommended newcomers read Lineweaver's Sci Am article. I guess that's a minimum requirement. It's easy to read. I keep the link handy in my sig. It is also at princeton.edu.

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf

 

I would add that anyone who wants to talk cosmology with us should have some experience with either a cosmology calculator or a differential equation model. The point is that cosmology is a mathematical science. It is not done with words. Or with mental imagery. It is done by fitting data to an extremely simple numerical model of the universe. And there are literally millions and millions of points of data to be fitted. The amazing thing is how well such a simple model can fit the data.

 

If you want hands-on experience with the mathematical model, well it is built in to some online Java calculators and you can play around with them.

 

Google "wright calculator"

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

 

or google "cosmos calculator"

http://www.uni.edu/morgans/ajjar/Cosmology/cosmos.html

 

The third prerequisite would be to take 5 or 6 minutes and watch the balloon flic. Google "wright balloon model"

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Balloon2.html

=====================

 

I don't think that needs to take more than about 45 minutes in all and I don't think it will impair anybody's artistic creativity. It gives us the nucleus of a common culture.

 

Does anybody have another take on this. Or some other suggestions for prerequisites?

Edited May 11, 2009 by Martin