Robert Jastrow, one of the noted astronomers of our time and, as it happens, a former professor of mine at Dartmouth, died earlier this year. This is my overdue tribute to his life and work.
Jastrow was one of the great popularizers of science. One of his books, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, became a national bestseller and conveyed to a whole generation of Americans the excitment and mystery of space exploration. When American astronauts landed on the moon, Jastrow provided expert commentary for the TV networks covering the event.
But Jastrow never permitted popularization to get in the way of serious professional accomplishment. After getting his doctorate in physics from Columbia, he became head of the theoretical divison at NASA. Later he was appointed head of the Goddard Space Institute. In 1992 he became chairman of Mount Wilson Observatory in California.
In addition to medals for scientific achivement, Jastrow also won acclaim as a gifted teacher. At Dartmouth, I always found him friendly and accessible. Later our paths crossed because Jastrow became an energetic and resourceful defender of President Reagan's strategic missile defense initiative, dubbed by its critics as "Star Wars."
While critics like physicist Hans Bethe said Star Wars would never work, the Russians agreed with Jastrow that it would, and they desperately sought to outlaw it. (Obviously if the Russians felt it was a boondoggle they would have supported it, since this would be a great way to waste America's defense budget.) In his last years Jastrow became increasingly skeptical of claims that global warming is destroying the planet. He saw global warming as an effort to exploit science for ideological ends.
One of Jastrow's gems is a little book called God and the Astronomers in which Jastrow, although himself an agnostic, made a startling argument. He argued that "the astronomical evience leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world." Jastrow not only documents his claim but shows why leading scientists including Einstein resisted the new discoveries, because they threatened the dogma that scientific laws enjoy eternal validity. Jastrow showed that in reality the laws of physics themselves came into existence with the Big Bang; beyond or apart from our universe, there are no such laws.
Jastrow's story reads like a detective novel, with the only difference that the facts he recounts are true. And here is his stunning conclusion: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 36)
16. Actually Thomas your view of traveling back to where you started is just one possibility. There are plenty of others.
You are correct that as I said it's likely we won't ever know for sure.
However the current evidence of the Big Bang suggests that spacetime began with the Big Bang. That has consequences. Think about it. Time began. Before the big bang there was not time. Space began. Before the big bang there was no spacial dimensions. Nada. Zippo. No time. No space. Infinite singularity.
You can of course hypothesize anything you want and that's fine. When it becomes a problem is when you insist that what you are hypothesizing is conclusively true without any evidence or proof of any kind. That is known as FAITH.
What separates junk ideas or even good ideas from fact is evidence, or verifiable proof.
You guys claim a mythical god who is immaterial and non-existent exists yet you have no evidence nor proof of this super natural super being. It's all based on FAITH. Believe it if you want. The problem comes in when you attempt to tell others about your belief as if it really is the way the universe is without ANY evidence or proof. It's irresponsible of you to do so. It's dangerous for you to do so as the history of christianity and other religions - mainstream or not - has repeatedly shown.
By making claims about objective reality you open your claims to validation and criticism by those of us who require evidence and/or proof of said claims.
What you guys seem to be pissed about is that you no longer have unfettered power to sell your silly bible stories about dead bodies rising from the dead and invisible immaterial non-existent god(s) without having blow back reality checks from rational human beings who reject faith based beliefs on principle.
Evidence rules when deciding what is real and what isn't NOT FAITH.
Faith rules when you choose to let go of critical thinking and take on beliefs that require you to make the horrifying leap of faith off the cliff into delusions that are usually self serving (such as believing you'll have an afterlife).
Sorry to continue to break the news. No afterlife for anyone. Just bugs feasting on our dead corpses which will eventually turn to dust one way or the other. All brain activity ceases meaning your consciousness is gone forever permanently irretrievable. Get used to it.
Peter at 4:56AM on Jul 1st 2008
17. Dinesh D'Souza wrote: "Jastrow showed that in reality the laws of physics themselves came into existence with the Big Bang; beyond or apart from our universe, there are no such laws."
That may be because beyond or apart from our universe there is nothing and no place and no time for any such laws to have impact. Thus no laws. Thus no immaterial god, which is what Dinesh is implying that there is.
Why is it that you need your god to exist at all Dinesh?
Peter at 5:29AM on Jul 1st 2008
18. In earlier articles Dinesh has made some false claims (no surprise) about "assumptions" in science. What Dinesh seems to forget is that science is a moving target that works to actually find evidence and/or proof for the hypotheses put forward. How about that, verification of ones ideas in objective reality.
Here is an interesting summary of two former assumptions that now have quite accurate evidence in support of them.
BIG BANG THEORY ASSUMPTIONS and EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Big_bang_theory_assumptions
"The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic."
"These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the fine structure constant over much of the age of the universe is of order 10−5.[29] Also, General Relativity has passed stringent tests on the scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of various aspects of the Big Bang theory.[30]"
"If the large-scale universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican Principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the CMB.[31] The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the 10% level.[32]"
So, assumptions are tested and evidence to rule them in or out is obtained. As further tests and experiments are conducted further evidence builds for or against or for something else.
No where do we see any such tests for the mythical god. In fact every test ever conducted for this so called god has shown that it's nature that's in charge with no possibility of god having anything to do with it since with nature handling it there is no need for gods.
Now taking your mythical non-existent immaterial ill formed god hypothesis (it's ill formed since it's not falsifiable as claimed by Dinesh) has anyone in the last 2,000 years conducted or is anyone conducting any scientifically sound tests to find evidence? To find proof?
Dinesh's answer (this week) seems to be to latch on to Jastrow's unprovable claims.
DD: "[Jastrow] argued that "the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world."
From what I can tell he's talking about the notion of the universe coming into being with the big bang.
DD: "Jastrow not only documents his claim but shows why leading scientists including Einstein resisted the new discoveries, because they threatened the dogma that scientific laws enjoy eternal validity."
So, he documented his claim. Anyone can do that.
DD: "Jastrow showed that in reality the laws of physics themselves came into existence with the Big Bang;"
So? Are you claiming that he was first to do that? Is he credited with thinking that first? It's not possible that others thought of it first. I've been reading about science for over thirty years and I've most certainly heard this many times. For sure Carl Sagan said it, as did others. Even if he was first, so what? I don't get it.
Science is about moving forward with evidence. As you push forward sometimes there is resistance to the ideas by others. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is the proof and the evidence, not the trials and tribulations. Well those are important to those involved but it's the science that really mattes in determining objective reality.
DD: "beyond or apart from our universe, there are no such laws."
As mentioned, given the implications of the expanding universe the big bang came from a singularity without an outside thus there is no place nor time nor need for any "such laws". This of course needs evidence which is being worked on.
I'm happy with whatever science figures out with evidence or proof in my lifetime. I'm interested in it but I'm not committed to it one way or the other unlike faith freaks who commit without evidence and take the leap of faith over the cliff into delusions where they refuse to even admit that they are wrong about their precious god and his evil vile dogma in the bible, or koran, or other so called holy books.
It amazes me that you people won't admit that you could be wrong about your god considering that you have NO EVIDENCE and NO PROOF and have the gall to claim that you can't ever test for your god since it's immaterial non-existent yet somehow magically the creator of everything. It amazes me how you think that your precious notion of causality is required for the big bang. Had it never occurred to you that with the big bang that the notion of causality goes out the window until well into the big bang process. I suppose not since you like to limit your thinking what is only possible with leaps of faith.
We may never know and I'm happy with that. I'm happy living a life that ends with oblivion and no afterlife.
Are you?
Are you satisfied not having an future with an afterlife?
Sure I in some ways don't like it but then I don't want to die. I just find it easier to life the limited life we do have by accepting the harsh facts of life rather than wasting my precious life energies pretending that my belief in an invisible immaterial super natural being will somehow magically save me. There is enough of a challenge living life without the added nonsense of leaps of faith polluting ones thinking.
Peter at 5:59AM on Jul 1st 2008
19. Why do you worship a god Dinesh?
Why do you subvert your spiritual freedom by aligning yourself with the evil vile creature represented as god in the bible? Evil and vile since the god of the bible commands horrific atrocities which the church and men of faith have actually carreied out for that god concept of theirs and YOURS!!!
How can Dinesh support a genocidal god?
Peter at 6:06AM on Jul 1st 2008
20. If Jastrow was double douche's professor, and a true scholar, a great man....but he was more liberal, or believed in global warming, or didn't see the need for a god in this science picture, double douche's tribute would have smugly mocked the man, and also contained a shameless link to douche's own book.
America's Most Gangsta at 7:55AM on Jul 1st 2008
21. Hey Dinesh,
This is a nice tribute of a man. The ending of his book which you mentioned, about the theologians being there for centuries, well, I had heard of that before, but now I know whose book it came from.
"...as an effort to exploit science for ideological ends."
This is ever the case, unfortunately, as liberals try to pretend that they are "scientific" and thus beyond criticism. The problem with that is that they are NOT scientific, yet they demand that their views are the only legitimate viewpoints and all opposed should be censored and silenced by force of law. The weaker their "science" is, the harder and more hatefully they yell, as if science is a shouting match. This has worked to get the APA promoting homosexuality, and it has worked to intimidate most people of faith into pretending they are non-believers, up till now.
Actually, it is great thinkers like yourself, Dinesh, and others, who are now, at long last, teaching the faithful how to answer the Godless, hateful non-believers when they falsely claim science is on their side.
Keep up the God work, Dinesh!
Rev 3:16 at 8:18AM on Jul 1st 2008
22.
What I truly appreciate Rev, is how the Bible chronicles Gods fuck ups, Satan, temptation, the great flood and Jesus. I can't think of any religion that glories in God's fuck ups as much as Christianity does.
sparrow at 8:37AM on Jul 1st 2008
23. Sparrow; don't forget where God and Satan conspire together to kill some poor schmoe's children just for a bet!
Ryan Anderson at 8:47AM on Jul 1st 2008
24. Rev 3:16
Tsar Nicholas II
Kumar
....and counting...
(my apologies, to Rev 3:16, if you are indeed NOT dd. But sheesh, sir, if you're not him, how sycophantic pathetic can you get??)
Might that be dinesh in therrrre?? at 8:53AM on Jul 1st 2008
25. This blog seemed like it ended before it ever got to say its point. I wish there was at least some controversial worth here, but you've given us nothing to talk about.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:02AM on Jul 1st 2008
26. There's always sex...
dinesh makes me sick at 9:09AM on Jul 1st 2008
27. Rev,
What euphemism do you ascribe to your own hatefulness?
Mokele Mbembe at 9:10AM on Jul 1st 2008
28. This would be a new record for the earliest hijacking of DD's blog.
Ryan Anderson at 9:11AM on Jul 1st 2008
29. AMG,
Not for me!
:P
:|
:(
XO
Mokele Mbembe at 9:12AM on Jul 1st 2008
30. Rev; I live in a liberal town, and I know lots of Christians. No one feels they have to pretend to be non-believers. That's just stupid. You guys aren't being persecuted. I'm sorry though that you have to occasionally hear "happy holidays" in place of "merry Christmas". That must be difficult, akin to being broken on the rack or boiled in oil.
But I know how much you guys NEED to feel persecuted.
Ryan Anderson at 9:14AM on Jul 1st 2008