arXiv:1206.6297v1 [physics.hist-ph] 25 Jun 2012 osinit,teUies sapyia object physical a is Universe the experiment). and scientists, based observation To Universe (i.e., the methods of scientific evolu- it.” under- future) on and at imagine including origin (sometimes aims to structure, in tion cosmology have the everything physical quantitatively you mean Modern standing may it, universe world. see Calder’s the can’t artist you an As but real is sra,btyucntgapi sa bet o aet hn o think to have you object, 2011) an univ (Torretti as ‘The Idea’.” it like: Kantian grasp something a can’t counte as you be epistemic but would “the real, dictum is him, Calder’s to artist According to object”. “physical n r o,hwvri a em nqeydetermined uniquely seem, may words, it mind, Einstein’s however human Albert not, the In of are creations and science. free are in cosmol- concepts on alone of “physical based situation not the imagined is fact, Universe ogy In ‘the method.’ cosmology “scientific” scientific than the all, other After shows nothing well. cosmology affairs is Modern of using state model this lost. a In such a is techniques. individuality to statistical the data and way, analysis fitting of to by method it and the materialize model, idealized and mathematized) simplified, test isolated, (preferably an in abstract as trick subject and Thus, The the treat observation. to essence. before is comes the often grasp theory Ignore science and reasoning. scientific phenomena to obser- hindrance apparent Detailed a often theory. is se- preconceived in vation and a experiments, ignoring with of manipulating accordance art and the science contrary, observations, with the related lecting On more we is naively possible. as reality be in were science not the science may experiment, now If know and observation innocently. on based so experiment in and is which experiment. belong or knowledge observation they scientific by but of inaccessible are limit access, principle regions absolute to these far the of difficult the to Some practically and come. just light-cone, to not past yet has our horizon, which in cosmic future current passed forbid- our already The outside time include limited. regions accessible are den Universe experiment the and observation in by regions However, large-scale. 1 lxne adrhsmnindta teuniverse “the that mentioned has Calder Alexander fcus,sinei o ipybsdo observation on based simply not is science course, Of rpittpstuigL using 2012 typeset 28, Preprint June version Draft rfso oet ortiojcscligteUies as Universe the calling objects Torretti Roberto Professor 1 eateto srnm n topei cecs Kyungpo Sciences, Atmospheric and Astronomy of Department piooh,i n fisfntos stecii fcsoois”(Whit disc cosmologies.” philosophic of further critic deserves the is issue reflec functions, imagination at its human question of of one The construct in “philosophy, a era. assu is the limits. cosmological knowledge, of inevitable our us and consequent sense allow science with which of worldview not in cosmological do examine current We cosmology our means. in empirical situations the experimental and servational hsclcsooytist nesadteUies tlrewt it with large at Universe the understand to tries cosmology Physical 1. CEC N COSMOLOGY AND SCIENCE A T E tl mltajv 5/2/11 v. emulateapj style X 2 OENCSOOY SUPIN N LIMITS AND ASSUMPTIONS COSMOLOGY: MODERN oe nttt o dacdSuy eu 3-2,Republi 130-722, Seoul Study, Advanced for Institute Korea rf eso ue2,2012 28, June version Draft 1 a-hnHwang Jai-chan nthe in rpart ABSTRACT erse it f a nmte itiuincnb etdtruhteob- the through tested be can distribution assumption matter to the whether reference on wonder any might without one observations, theoretically postulated tially longer cosmology. no modern is in theory steady-state cosmo- popular the the prin- in cosmological to implemented perfect ciple addition the the in However, of cosmo- Universe invariance principle. perfect logical the time the of the to state adds similar laws physical which more physical notice is principle, to the time amusing logical of and is validity space It general in the testable. assuming not univer- general in that belief in this is principle; sality cosmological the reminds physics of of sort Thus, laws us the everywhere. of and universality always the valid advocating are know we physics development. future in cosmology ba- in a on become principle have based sic that would expect not assumption not working assumption did simple Einstein this an Perhaps is observed. was this what sim- that mathematical mat- Notice of the sake plicity. of the assumed for thus merely Einstein and distribution, space, time, ter of that isotropy external at and of known homogeneity presence not the was principle even has Mach’s galaxies with Although cosmol- he theory to which his 2000). reconcile (Torretti theory in to gravity order 1917, can in introduced in ogy origin newly paper Its his Einstein’s applied to cosmology. traced physical often be principle, modern cosmological in the homogeneous adopted termed distribu- spatially is is that might isotropic large-scale assumption the and which in An matter necessary, of tion is anticipation. assumption our an reflect principle, in lxfcs eaeatt alit h ro fthinking of of goal error the 1920) the is (Whitehead simplicity into because quest.” fall simple our to are facts apt com- the are of that We explanations “the simplest facts. Whitehead, the seek plex North to im- is Alfred and is science model by of it aim between remarked models, difference As the those of reality. test aware be to to and portant models through ena world.” external the by kNtoa nvriy ag 0-0,Rpbi fKorea of Republic 702-701, Daegu University, National ok lhuhi itr h omlgclpicpewsini- was principle cosmological the history in Although of laws the that is physics of tenet basic the fact, In even unknowable regions infer to order in cosmology, In lhuhsinei neott prxmt phenom- approximate to effort an is science Although 1 , 2 2. sin.I htha’ words, Whitehead’s In ussions. OMLGCLPRINCIPLE COSMOLOGICAL igtepplrble system belief popular the ting omlg,a te branches other as Cosmology, ha 1925) ehead fKorea of c pin nfc aeshaped have fact in mptions rgnadeouin Ob- evolution. and origin s opoedprl ae on based purely proceed to 2 servations. However, there are difficulties in practice, any potential dependence of the rate on the angular di- and often in principle. There can be some evidence of rection of the object in the sky. This is surely due to isotropy around us, but the test of homogeneity becomes the influence of the cosmological principle. Thus, even difficult as the scale increases. In addition, if we con- the observation is performed under direct influence of the sider the finite speed of light, even in a perfect observa- theory. In this case, the theory is nothing more than our tion, we cannot prove the homogeneity of space. Only assumed cosmological principle. through models we can agree on its plausibility. The ob- Motions of galaxies in clusters and the rotation speed served two-dimensional projected isotropy of the cosmic of disks in spiral galaxies are known to be too fast to microwave background radiation does not necessarily im- be bounded by luminous matter. Without substantial ply that the three-dimensional matter distribution is also amount of non-luminous matter present, galaxies and isotropic. Furthermore, examination beyond the horizon clusters are unstable and could be transient phenom- (light propagation distance during the age of the Uni- ena. Such non-luminous matter, only known through verse) is in principle impossible, and the cosmological gravity, is termed as ‘dark matter’. Such an interpreta- principle in those regions remains as an untestable as- tion, however, is based on the assumption that Newton’s sumption. As emphasized by George F. R. Ellis, “the (Einstein’s as well) gravity is valid in galactic and cluster problem [is that] there is only one universe to be ob- scales. This reflects our belief in the universality of phys- served, and we effectively can only observe it from one ical laws, and particularly our faith in Newton’s theory, space-time point. Given this situation, we are unable to which lead us to such a conclusion. But Newton’s the- obtain a model of the Universe without some specifically ory has never been tested on those scales; nor Einstein’s cosmological assumptions which are completely unverifi- gravity has yet been tested in cosmology. Therefore, dark able.” (Ellis 1975) In modern cosmology, the assumption matter is also a case where our belief system has affected refers to the cosmological principle. the interpretation of the observed results. Theoretically, without the cosmological principle, Einstein’s gravity is widely accepted as the gravity to physical cosmology becomes mathematically too compli- handle astronomical phenomena. The theory holds a re- cated to handle, and this practical difficulty might have markable track record in the solar-system test based on an important role in accepting this simple assumption. vacuum Schwarzschild solution and the parameterized Martin Rees has mentioned that “principles in cosmol- post-Newtonian approximation where the gravitational ogy have often connoted assumptions unsupported by fields are supposed to be weak. Although it is true that evidence, but without which the subject can make no Einstein’s theory has not failed in any experimental test progress.” based on modern scientific and technological develop- The cosmological principle still in large measure is a ment up till today, it is also true that there has been philosophical assumption, and is not based on obser- no experimental test of the theory in the strong gravita- vations or experiments as is often emphasized by the tional field and in large scale even including the galac- scientific method. Making assumptions is not a prob- tic scale. Cosmological application of Einstein’s theory lem. It is fine, as long as we are aware of this nature, requires 1015 factor (horizon scale divided by an astro- and try to examine the case in regions where testing is nomical unit) extrapolation compared with the experi- possible. From the observational side, efforts on tests mentally tested scale, which is surely a staggering ex- of whether the Universe is homogeneous (homogeneity trapolation. Einstein’s gravity is generally accepted in measure) and isotropic (isotropy measure), and whether cosmology mainly based on its successes in other astro- deviations from the homogeneity-isotropy are acceptable nomical and Earth bound tests and the theory’s own (linearity measure), should be continued. Only in this prestige associated with Einstein’s fame and historical way, physical cosmology could be defined as a genuine legacy. Thus, Einstein’s gravity can be regarded as an- science. other important assumption often adopted in cosmology. The real problem is that the cosmological principle, Near the end of the last millennium, using the cor- which is merely our own assumption, gives a strong con- rected luminosity of Type-Ia supernovae as a distance straint on our perspective towards the Universe; as a con- indicator, reports were made that the expansion is accel- sequence, it has a significant impact on the interpretation erating in time. In order to have accelerated expansion, of observed results, and even on the observational strat- gravity in the large-scale must have a repulsive nature. egy. In fact, this has determined our present cosmological Historically, Einstein (1917) has introduced the cosmo- worldview. Remarkable examples are episodes concern- logical constant Λ, which shows a repulsive nature for a ing the expansion model, the dark matter, and the dark positive sign, in order to achieve a consistent static model energy interpretations. Let’s examine these three cases. with spherical geometry. The possibility of discovering a 3. repulsive nature of gravity in the cosmic scale is still a IMPACTS surprising claim. Acceleration does not necessarily im- The only motion allowed under the assumption of ply a cosmological constant, and the agent which causes spatial homogeneity-isotropy is the Hubble-like (velocity the recent acceleration is more generally termed as ‘dark proportional to distance) expansion or contraction. We energy’. don’t even need any theory for that. The assumption However, the interpretation of the observations as a demands the result. However, current observations only presence of acceleration is based on the assumption that tell us that the redshift increases roughly proportionally the matter distribution up to the observed supernovae to the distance, and do not tell that the redshift is due distances and beyond is well approximated by the cos- to Doppler or cosmological expansion. In particular, in mological principle. That is, as we strive to fit the ob- order to measure the expansion rate, an individual ob- served data (nature) within a preconceived theoretical servation is merely aligned along the radial axis, ignoring model (theory) based on the cosmological principle, the 3 observation is interpreted as acceleration. The situation ination of competing theories the standard model be- is consistent with Kuhn’s (1962) interpretation of the be- comes a dogma and now presses other remaining and havior of normal science within a paradigm. arising alternatives as heresy. Considering that cosmol- The nature of dark matter and the nature of dark en- ogy has only a handful of observational facts to face ergy are regarded as two important mysteries in modern with, and remembering that it is based on presupposi- physics. Compared with the case in galaxy and cluster tions (many unverifiable) without proper observational motions where a new matter distribution is preferred to evidence, various alternative theories in regions where changing the gravity theory, it is ironic to notice that in the observation has not yet reached will have neutraliz- the wake of supernovae observations researchers prefer ing roles in our current single vision on the Universe. to take radical positions, rather granting the accelera- What would happen if we change our assumption on tion by changing gravity theories than reconsidering our the cosmological principle? This fundamentally impor- basic assumption on the matter distribution. Research tant problem has not been pursued much, due to the feasibility has certainly played a role in such diverging mathematical difficulty in handling nonlinear processes. trends. Abandoning the homogeneity-isotropy assump- Not having alternatives due to practical difficulties in re- tion and confronting with nonlinear phenomena is a limit search does not guarantee that the presently available and a challenge faced, not only in cosmology but also in explanation should be correct. Scientific cosmology has the whole science. the Universe as an external reality to compare. If the 4. Universe looks simple in the standard model, is it due to STANDARD MODEL its intrinsic nature or to our simplifying assumptions? Despite weaknesses from the observational side, the Meanwhile, if the cosmological principle is even ap- cosmological model based on the cosmological principle proximately true, there must be a reason for the fact. is still in good shape. A reason is that the model is Inflation provides a possibility that the region within our widely regarded as capable of providing an overall theo- present horizon has originated from inside the horizon retical paradigm, which can consistently explain various before the early acceleration phase, thus opening a pos- observations. Recently, the cosmological model based sibility that the cosmological principle can be achieved on Einstein’s gravity and the cosmological principle is through a causal mechanism. However, inflation has not making a show of constraining cosmological parameters provided the actual mechanism for that achievement. Al- with a few percent precision level through the observa- though a class of homogeneous but anisotropic models is tions, thus hailing a precision cosmology era (precision known to be driven to an isotropic model through accel- of unknowns?). The model is termed as the standard eration, the general mechanism is not known yet. Why is (concordance) cosmological model. The ΛCDM (cosmo- the Universe spatially homogeneous and isotropic? This logical constant plus cold dark matter) with ‘inflation’ may deserve to be one of the important theoretical prob- (early acceleration phase) is another name of the model. lems in scientific cosmology. Here, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, together Dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are essential with Einstein’s gravity and the cosmological principle, theoretical devices introduced in standard cosmology. By are taken for granted; notice that the latter two are not future observations and experiments, these may turn out often even mentioned. to be the success of simple theoretical inferences. Or, as However, whether the theory is successful or not be- we encounter better theoretical alternatives, these may as longs to the eye of the beholder. There is an irony in the well turn out to be mere theoretical devices like epicycles claim that the standard cosmological model is success- in Ptolemaeus’ Earth-centered cosmology. That is, these ful in explaining all the cosmological data. All the three three devices could be merely ad hoc concepts introduced terms (inflation, Λ, and CDM) describing the standard in standard cosmology, in order to accommodate new ob- model are nothing more than names referring to unknown servational results in the currently popular cosmological theoretical mysteries introduced as saviors of the favored paradigm. In fact, the introduction of unseen dark mat- model. Here we point out that in the standard model ter has precedent cases in the history of astronomy. Here only about 0.5% of required agents in energy are avail- we have both success and failure stories. The discovery of able in light (Persic & Salucci 1992); the other 99.5% are Neptune as dark matter to explain the anomalous orbit unseen theoretical devices only introduced to fill the gap of Uranus, and the attempt to explain the unaccounted (calling missing 99.5% as a gap is not an entirely fair ex- precession of Mercury’s perihelion by unseen dark mat- pression). Such a tremendous effort undertaken only to ter Vulcan are two episodes corresponding to the success maintain existing theory is likely to be unprecedented in and failure, respectively, of Newton’s gravity. other scientific fields. 5. Inflation, which is another flexible theoretical tool, was METAPHYSICAL QUESTIONS introduced to reduce the internal inconsistency of the Concerning the Universe’s future evolution, who can Big-Bang model and to generate the initial seeds for later tell the cosmic future? If we take a specific cosmologi- development of large-scale structures. However, if we cal model, the future of that model can be determined. consider its energy scale, its experimental verification is However, how do we know that a specific model is suit- simply not feasible; in the laboratory, we are now barely able for the purpose? Besides, situations in the early reaching one tera electon-volt energy scale, and to reach stage of the Big-Bang where the energy scale is beyond inflation we need yet another factor of tera (1012) in en- our experimental reach, and regions beyond our present ergy scale, which is an utter impossibility. horizon, can be regarded as metaphysical (beyond the If the standard model means orthodox, it may also scope of physical science in Aristotle’s sense, see Trusted reflect well the current situation of modern cosmology. 1991) domains not only practically but also in principle This shows an unhealthy situation, where through elim- impossible to reach, thus demarcating the boundary of 4 absolute scientific knowledge possible. The cosmic fu- reached the ultimate stage in our cosmological knowl- ture, together with the early Universe and beyond the edge. horizon, is yet another Terra Incognita. With no poten- Such a fundamental limitation in our understanding tial observational and experimental tests, all theoretical of the Universe is not necessarily a disappointment. We attempts are only explanatory arguments and cannot be may get a comfort from the following insight according distinguished from metaphysical speculations or myth. to Aristotle, “the charm and importance of a study of “Un-testable science” is an oxymoron. the Heavens was matched only by the uncertainty of the Let us examine the early Universe, where no experi- knowledge produced.” (Aristotle) ment will ever be possible in the foreseeable future. Did Here are some more related wisdoms. Bertrand Rus- the expansion have a beginning? If there was a begin- sell: “Science is what you know, philosophy is what you ning, what does that mean? Is it possible that we have don’t know.” William James: “Our science is a drop, a collapsing phase before the expansion? At present, all our ignorance a sea.” Samuel Butler: “Science, after all, these questions are concerned with the unknown terri- is only an expression for our ignorance of our own igno- tory, regions unreachable by observations or experiments, rance.” Alfred North Whitehead: “Not ignorance, but in other words, a province of metaphysics. However, ignorance of ignorance, is the death of knowledge.” Ben- these are questions concerning real phenomena. There- jamin Disraeli: “To be conscious that you are ignorant fore, one cannot deny that, as the observational and ex- is a great step to knowledge.” Confucius: “To know that perimental range of science is expanded, there may be a we know what we know, and that we do not know what chance that answers will eventually come by science in we do not know, that is true knowledge.” Then, here is the future. Thus, these questions differ from fundamen- the well-known wisdom by Socrates: “I know only that I tally metaphysical questions in cosmology. do not know,” and that “true wisdom lies in knowing the The fundamentally metaphysical cosmological ques- limits of wisdom.” Similar statement was made by Im- tions are the following. Is the existence of the Universe manuel Kant: “It is precisely in knowing its limits that necessary? What is the ultimate reason for its existence? philosophy consists.” Scientific cosmology needs the help Does the Universe have a purpose? What is the mean- of philosophical introspection. ing of the Universe? What is the man’s status in the Universe? The following questions are commonly raised We wish to thank Professor Roberto Torretti for in- in both physical and metaphysical cosmologies. What is sightful correspondences and clarifying remarks on many the origin of the Universe? What is the ultimate build- issues. We also wish to thank Dr. Graziano Rossi ing block of the Universe? Although it may look like for his invitation to write, careful examination of the that these questions are within scientific reach, answers manuscript as well as disagreements. Most of Dr. Rossi’s to these questions are still under groping in the dark in disagreements remain which is natural in our view of the astronomy and physics. Perhaps, as always has been the subject. As M. Rosemary Wright writes, “cosmology it- case in the history of knowledge, we may have answers self, like all arts and sciences, is a construct of human which only reflect the ideology of the modern era (the intelligence, subject to social and linguistic conditioning science); these constitute a modern myth. and dubious means of communication.” (Wright 1995) REFERENCES 6. LIMITS Gautama Buddha has remained silent on two cosmo- Aristotle, “Parts of Animals” Book I, 5; translation by Roger French in Wright (1995) logical questions. These are questions about ‘tempo- Einstein, A. 1917, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen ral and spatial finiteness or infiniteness’ of the Universe. Relativit¨atstheorie” K¨oniglich Preussische Akademie der (These correspond to eight in the ‘fourteen unanswerable Wissenschaften; translated in Bernstein J., & Feinberg G., eds, questions’. They are eight because, for example, for the 1989, “Cosmological Constants: Papers in Modern Cosmology” time we have the following four possibilities: ‘is the world (Columbia Univ. Press, New York) Ellis, G. F. R. 1975, “Cosmology and verifiability” Quarterly eternal?’, ‘or not?’, ‘or both?’, and ‘or neither’.) Buddha Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 16, 245 has undeclared on these questions, as being metaphysi- Kuhn, T. 1962, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (Univ. cal speculations irrelevant to attain the liberation and to of Chicago Press, Chicago) reach nirvana, and he has discouraged his disciples from Pali Canon, “Cula Malunkhyaputta Sutta (Parable of the wasting time and energy on those points (Pali Canon). poisoned arrow)” in “Majjhima Nikaya (Volume II, Sutta 63)”; translated in Bhikkhu Nanamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi 1995, “The As these questions are related to actual facts with poten- Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the tial answers, we might anticipate that the answers can be Majjhima Nikaya” (Wisdom Publications, Boston) reached through science. However, even with stunning Persic, M., & Salucci, P. 1992, “The baryon content of the scientific and technological endeavor and advances, even Universe” Mon. Not. of the Royal Astron. Soc., 258, 14 Torretti, R. 2000, “Spacetime models for the world” Studies in after 2,500 years have passed, the answers to these ques- History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31, 171 tions in modern physical cosmology are still unknown. Torretti, R. 2011, private communication From a standpoint of standard cosmology, the answers Trusted, J. 1991, “Physics and metaphysics: theories of space and to these questions are not merely practically difficult to time”, (Routledge, London). unravel, but rather ‘impossible to answer in principle’. Whitehead, A. N. 1920, “The Concept of Nature” (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge) That is, the answers to these questions are beyond the Whitehead, A. N. 1925, “Science and the Modern World” scope of observations and experiments, thus they belong (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge) to the territory of metaphysical speculations. Of course, Wright, M. R. 1995, “Cosmology in Antiquity” (Routledge, this is the perspective from the modern physical cosmol- London) ogy, and there is no reason to believe that we have finally