Both Bohr and Einstein would allude to that it seemed that what they were writing this year was refuting what they wrote last year. Watching the current phase of cosmology from a historical perspective as it is evolving is fascinating, complex, as well as perplexing. Who are the “star” players? Who are the “villains”? Published papers can routinely have as many authors as references. What will the history of the current scientific investigations look like fifty years from now and how will it be pieced together? What works will be considered seminal from that future perspective? The historian’s task may be similar to the way science is done today. A selected small area may have to be chosen to concentrate on simply because the total wealth of data is so overwhelming, that no one person could possibly consume all of it. How could a wide field view be maintained to put all the pieces together, to weave the tapestry of where we are and where we are going? Watching the ebb and flow of data and opinions in the current events of cosmology today give hints, as to many possible directions, but no absolutely clear path as to how it will evolve. How wonderful a time this is.

I would consider the work of Bohr, Einstein, and Gell-Mann to be seminal, but what of Feynman, Chandrasekhar, Filippenko, Perlmutter, Hawking, Smoot, Penrose, Davies, Linde, Peebles, Wheeler, Rees and so many others. Whose work (and by no means limited to the preceding short list) will turn out to be “the” breakthrough. How should the word ‘breakthrough’ be defined in a historical context? Will there be a next breakthrough or will it be a case of continuous progress to a resolution at some point, baby steps if you will? Are we interpreting the photonic flux we receive correctly?

These babblings are just the thoughts and questions of a student of history.

JLH