The Cosmic String Bikini Theory...  

   A beautiful, perfectly formed, pleasingly well rounded theory leaving only a couple of areas yet hidden away awaiting certain revelation forthcoming promised by ongoing diligent research and analysis of specific observational data all amazingly supporting the basic framework desired.  This is the popular view of  The Big Bang Theory, not a swimsuit magazine layout.  

   Some say that the two piece bathing suit called the string bikini creates a sexier presence than nudism and that leaving things to the imagination can be more enticing at times than having all revealed at once.  In the absence of any real concrete explanation for the nature of the large scale structure of the universe, looking at pieces that seem to be hidden in an otherwise revealed explanation makes sense to those who find The Big Bang theory so compelling as to be all but completely alive and real.  There is an attraction factor at play.

   Using the bikini clad beauty as a metaphor, I will refer to this garment as partially covering, or mostly revealing, the entirety that is the body.  In terms of one theory being more popular than another, the idea here is that a claim that the structure of the universe is not a total mystery but rather mostly revealed (or only just a little hidden) makes for a much more attractive proposition to many seeking answers.  In fact, to claim one "does not know" anything does not constitute any kind of theory or hypothesis at all, even though this is the truth of the matter.  Just to get into the ballpark (theoreticaly speaking) requires by definition, a Theory:

theory - "supposition or system of ideas explaining something, esp., one based on general principles independent of the particular thing(s) to be explained;  abstract knowledge or speculative thought or view;  exposition of the principles of a science, etc.;  collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a mathematical subject."   (Oxford dictionary)

   So, by definition, in a manner of speaking, a "theory" sits in between "not knowing" with an absence of clear ideas and models, and "knowing" the answers and having a complete model or story, as in having a particular faith, belief, or true knowledge, etc.  A theory cannot reveal all and give a final answer, nor can it admit any large degree of mystery or unknown else it become something else, perhaps in the area of metaphysics, or just a bad theory, etc.

   When the Big Bang Theory and religious Genesis were first compared and contrasted something interesting began to transpire.  There did not seem to be any great conflict between the religious and the scientific view.  The two seemed to compliment one another.  There may have been a sort of acceptance of "the missing parts" or leaps of faith within a serious consideration of cosmic reality from both perspectives.

  By taking a purely religious and non-scientific myth (a non-theory or naked truth :-) and bringing it into the world of science as a serious cosmological model of the origins of and dynamics animating the universe, the line between science and religion is blurred and it at once seems that science might become the proving ground of religious doctrine and biblical texts.

   At a UC Berkeley lecture some years ago, Stephen Hawking said that during a visit with The Pope he was told something like the following - "Please don't mess with The Big Bang Stephen, We like The Big Bang".   The age old Genesis myth had suddenly become as sexy and contemporary, and as attractive, as any other modern idea, such as the String Bikini.  It also made it seem scientific and real in an otherwise realm of myth and legend.

   Now, of course, this makes it all the more difficult to change or challenge the most popular theory of modern times doesn't it?  Placing a cosmological theory inside the realm of religion, with it's lack of required proofs, experiment, or logic, etc., makes it somewhat bulletproof.  One does not require physical evidence and acceptance on faith is good enough.   Claiming that red shifting of light indicates velocity, for example, is considered reasonable not based upon scientific principles but rather upon leaps of faith based upon wishful thinking and taking the road that best suits the results desired.  Choosing to believe that microwave radiation has a particular meaning is also based upon this religious like fervor for making the proofs necessary and hiding the initial process of choice or assumption underneath the process, or down in the fine print, or left out of the conversation completely.

   So, having become a big cross-over hit (pun intended :-) by building a bridge between science and religion, the Big Bang has actually come to fill the role of a religion for many who have left one church or another behind while still desiring meaning and a worldview that makes sense and is understandable. One can draw a picture of it and imagine it as a whole and complete story versus living with the unknown and mysterious nature of not knowing.

    There is a tricky problem here, to continue with the String Bikini idea, in that one cannot remove the bathing suit (in the metaphor) since there is nothing underneath and one might not wish for the woman to actually completely disappear either (become a total unknown) or become fragmented.  It can be better (and more appealing) to have the sexy theory in place even if it may not be accurate, real, or have a basis in reality at all.  Even if the existence of this theory or model might tend to thwart or stifle the search for something that might be more real and relevant or complete, it still seems more natural and pleasant as opposed to having nothing but a blank slate before the eyes and mind of many people.

    In having no belief or theory at all, religous or scientific, are we lost or found?  Is this a good or a bad thing, the truth?   Does this relate to seeking a good relationship while staying in a bad one, which makes that exploratoin problematic at best?   Does this compare with seeking cyberspace interaction versus real companionship or looking for the large scale structure of the universe while assuming that this place is already taken up by a popular model that is nearly proven with total proof just around the corner?  Does having one thing in place prevent or impare the discovery of another?

   There really cannot be any religion or science or theory in the absence of "something" - model, belief, story, or legend, etc. - so perhaps the task given any new thinker is to provide a new "something" else, even if it harkens back to ancient "Great Mystery" seen from a more knowledgable and enlightened perspective.  Merely saying "it ain't so" would not appear to be enough to displace popular cosmology regardless of how little it stands upon.  This would, after all, mean "no thing" like an invisible woman with a bikini just floating in space.