Sky & Telescope December 1992 [antikvár]

FOCAL POINTWhat Good Is COBE, Anyway?Back in APRIL, astronomers armed with new data from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) announced a great triumph. The satellite had picked up minuscule temperature fluctuations in the distant and thus early universe, evidence that matter exhibited the gravitational "seeds" of structure within 300,000 years after it was created in the Big Bang (July issue, page 34).So much for the good news.The bad news concerns the reception of this announcement by the news media, as reporters' questions often exposed profound misconceptions about the nature of science. For example, in their respective television news forums, Tom Brokaw and Bryant Gumbel each asked what is the practical use of the COBE discovery? If the question must be answered, we astronomers can safely respond that, ultimately, scientific knowledge extends our view of ourselves into the larger, cosmic context of things. Or, more bluntly, "The COBE result has no apparent practical value."Whether we appreciate it or not, scientific discovery is affording us an increasingly awesome perspective on a universe into which we have only just begun to look with any clarity. This in itself, Messrs. Brokaw and Gumbel, should be ample justification for the pursuit. It would be wonderful if everyone had a working knowledge of what science is about, what we scientists do, and why we do it. Instead, many have come to believe that society is owed some kind of immediate, tangible return on its investment, overlooking the fact that scientific knowledge lies at the foundations of our modern world.The modern scientific enterprise is barely 400 years old. It is a fairly recent expression of a much older and more fundamental human (and animal) instinct: curiosity. Consider that in the wilds of nature the most inquisitive creatures are ultimately the ones that survive. Curiosity leads to learning, which in turn provides experience, which offers an advantage over competitors in the struggle for food and survival. That is a very practical use.Human beings are no different. Ever since we learned to think and talk we have asked questions about the world around us. The more we know about theworld, the better our chances for survival. We find this syndrome expressed all the time. Witness every child who instinctively wants to know everything. "Why this?" parents hear incessantly. "Why that?"Primitive peoples could answer questions about the world around them only in terms of fictions of the imagination. The means to probe deeply into the secrets of nature, to discover the truth about the physical universe, had not yet been invented. For example, how else could the ancients account for the motion of the Sun except to invent a god riding a blazing chariot across the heavens? No one had any inkling yet of the laws of planetary motion or that the Sun is a star about which the planets orbit. Such knowledge required the advent of precise measuring devices, precursors of the telescope and many other instruments that now routinely extend the range of our senses.The marvelous adventure of the human spirit that is science has taught us how to explore the deepest and most hidden secrets of the universe. Countless experiments with little "practical use" laid the foundations for every aspect of modern civilization. For example, Alessandro Volta's experiments with dead frogs led in-advertently to his discovery of the battery in 1800. Thirty years later Michael Faraday played with the electricity generated by Volta's batteries and made a key discovery (induction) that led inexorably to radio and television. Neither man had any preconception of the practical use of his research. They were just curious and wanted to know more about something that interested them. And it has been so for virtually every scientist before or since.Our species may be innately curious, but unfortunately our schooling tends to kill individual curiosity at an early age. To question is often seen as a threat to the status quo. Within many societies it is still dangerous to question too much. In this context, scientists can be seen as individuals who persist long after childhood in asking questions about the workings of nature. They have done so relentlessly for centuries, uncovering ever-deeper answers regarding the foundations of nature.Four centuries ago we chanced upon a new way to satisfy our curiosity. Newly invented instruments and their use in controlled experiments gave meaningful data about the way the universe really is, as opposed to how anyone might wish it to be. Clearly, the COBE results represent one of the most dramatic triumphs of this approach.There is a second fundamental misunderstanding reflected in news-media reactions to COBE. In his interview with COBE investigator George Smoot, Gumbel asked about the relationship between the primeval "ripples" and God. Perhaps it was an understandable question. After all, the COBE results had been trumpeted as "the Holy Grail of cosmology," "a glimpse of God," and other incongruously grandiose terms.However, COBE tells us nothing whatsoever about God or how some metaphysical entity may have created the universe. It is a pity no one saw fit to state this publicly when the question was posed. Scientific discovery teaches us nothing about God. But that is another story.GERRIT L. VERSCHUUR a story that continues here next month with commentary by Paul Davies.Gerrit Verschuur, a radio astronomer at Rhodes College in Tennessee, wrote "Interstellar Molecules" in the April issue.Focal Point invites contributions from readers who wish to comment on contemporary issues in astronomy and space science.604 Sky & Telescope, December, 1992