Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AP - Proving How the Universe Was Born - Smoking Gun to Big Bang

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 09:13 PM
Original message
AP - Proving How the Universe Was Born - Smoking Gun to Big Bang

Associated Press11:26 AM Mar, 16, 2006 EST

Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery -- which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation -- is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

~snip~

But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance.

~snip~

Bennett added: "It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe."



Read full article here:

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70425-0.html?tw=rss.index


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. But but but, God made those microwaves to test our faith...
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. To which you just have to admit....and THEN there was the universe
Shazaam!!! Physics, magic, or the void responding to the WORD? If there had been an observer it all would appear to emerge instantly. How would those three possibilities look different?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. An interesting mistranslation in the bible is the translation of WORD.


The original greek uses LOGOS, which translates much closer to MIND. Makes a BIG difference in the meaning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. That's the official position of the Vatican,
after talking to physiscist Steven Hawking: God caused the Big Bang and the laws of physics - and the rest (as far as the material world is concerned) is history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreakForNews Donating Member (241 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. It's All in The Mind


The Universe in Your Hands
http://www.treeincarnation.com/leaves/Episode-0003-060115.htm


Science is searching for a Grand Unified Theory which can integrate all of our
knowledge about the universe into one fundamental explanation. That search
is hampered by the assumption that mind is a mere biochemical artefact which
evolved in the already-existing universe. Wrong. Mind is the compliment of
matter, and has existed since the universe first formed. This is a holographic
universe which blends mind and matter.

This breakthrough is the precise underlying structure of the holographic system.
http://www.treeincarnation.com/leaves/Episode-0003-060115.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. This stuff totally blows my mind
Wish I had the brain cells to really get it, because it's just totally fascinating. Amazing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. I think I'm with you on this one...
Edited on Fri Mar-17-06 11:51 AM by LanternWaste
I think I'm with you on this one... I can't get my mind to grasp the concept of "one-trillionth", let alone "one-trilliionth of one-trillionth"; or the speed it took to expand from quarter size to obsevable space. These are more conceptual "placeholders" for my brain rather than actual "real" numbers. It's simply to boggling for me too actually imagine.

Edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. This seems a bit circular to me
The inflationary theory came about to explain the non-homogeneous nature of the universe, including the cosmic background radiation. Now that very clumpiness is being used to "prove" inflation.

You can't tell much from a news article, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. Yeah.

I'm not convinced. Months from now we'll get data from some other experiment that will call the entire model into question and require a refactoring. Then there will be a push by steady-state theorists for a bit, then they'll glue the big bang back together with more popsicle sticks and bubblegum until the next conflicting empirical result and the whole process will repeat itself.

Not that I understand this stuff either, but that's just my general impression from the outside.

BTW, speaking of the steady-staters how annoying it must have been to be one during that whole
NASA censorship deal -- the guy wants the word "theory" placed in front of all occurances
of "big bang" and you'd be sitting there saying "yeah that would be helpful" on the one hand
and "this guy's a religious nut" on the other hand. Oh the ambivalence.

Fascinating field, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. The religious angle here is interesting
Without postulating inflation, or something like it, it can be difficult to explain why the big bang produced a universe with any structure at all. There shouldn't have been time for any inhomogeneities to have developed from the random fluctuations possible in the early universe. Some design advocates have pointed to this as proof that there must have been a designer behind the process. Inflation was one explanation offered that allowed a universe following purely naturalistic laws to develop clumpiness. So, religion is usually lurking somewhere in the back of these cosmological arguments and findings.

Of course most Christians who pick up on these things have at least two problems:

- science still points to a 14 billion year old universe, not 6000 years. It also doesn't give any support to Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden and the like (in fact it refutes most of these claims).

- the creator that might be deduced from these findings doesn't really have any ethical content. It is difficult to get the notion "God is love" out of all this, let alone "God hates same sex marriage".

Not that I am an expert on the science or the philosophy - just an interested bystander of the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. I think inflation was first proposed, in part, to explain
the striking homogeneity (although not perfect) of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How could vastly distant parts of the universe be at practically the same temperature unless all the parts were somehow causally connected to each other? Inflation helped explain that. Now we see how the seeds of non-homogeneity might have given way to galaxies, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Yes, it is the small imperfections I am referring to
As you say, they are supposed to have been the seeds of large scale structure like galaxies. I was under the impression that the original big bang hypothesis would have led to a very even distribution of energy, thus no galaxies, etc.

Cosmological theories are always being updated though, so it may be a matter of which book one read last.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. gOD farted.
Of course, this along with any other SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE will be completely discounted or twisted to suit the purposes of those who prefer "the opiate of the masses."

J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Like THIS? (I had the same idea)
I was going to say the Fundies would sputter and say "Well, it All came to pass, like a MIGHTY FART from GAWD!!!"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoodleyAppendage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. That's hilarious!! n/t
J
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drhilarius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ooopsie....da meanie scientists had to go....
deflating more superstitious bullshit. Sorry, Fundies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emillereid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
7. This stuff is SO FRICKIN' NEAT!@!!
Wonder if it all blew in through a black hole in another universe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apnu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. That would have been one hell of a black-hole ...
... considering the amazingly HUGE amount of material floating around out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. What was there before there was the universe?
Edited on Fri Mar-17-06 08:12 AM by Whoa_Nelly
And if, as you wonder, it all blew in through a black hole from another universe, then what was in the void, the space before the amazing bang happened?

Have heard scientists make statements about the edge of the universe... If there is an edge, then there has to be something beyond it to create that definition of edge...

Damn...I better get some sleep..........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. It's Zeno's Paradoxes
From Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox

The dichotomy paradox
"You cannot even start."
"That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal." (Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b10)
Suppose Homer wants to catch a stationary bus. Before he can get there, he must get halfway there. Before he can get halfway there, he must get a quarter of the way there. Before traveling a fourth, he must travel one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.

This description requires one to travel an infinite number of finite distances, which Zeno argues would take an infinite time -- which is to say, it can never be completed. This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first after all. Hence, the trip cannot even be begun. The paradoxical conclusion then would be that travel over any finite distance can neither be completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.
This argument is called the Dichotomy because it involves repeatedly splitting a distance into two parts. It contains some of the same elements as the Achilles and the Tortoise paradox, but with a more apparent conclusion of motionlessness. It is also known as the Race Course paradox.

I was explaining to a rocket scientist friend this idea I had gotten while working on an art project using only black and white, absolutes. During my work on the project, I was thinking about being required by my art teacher to draw from memory. I was not too keen on drawing from memory; 1.) because I'm not that good, and 2.) because there were so many details I couldn't remember. (During class, I would sneak my camera out and take a picture.) But even with digital photography, there are details that are lost. Despite the absolutes of ones and zeroes, it was still not an accurate representation of what was there. I started thinking about other absolutes, the big bang and the end of the universe, life and death. How long does it take to die? Will there be a moment, infinitely small, where someone is between the living and the dead? My rocket scientist friend told me about Zeno's Paradoxes. I was so blown away by the concept, it was all I could think about for a week.

Here is the paper I wrote on my project:

The Space Between is an exploration of kinetic energy and passage of time conveyed through the synergistic relation of value range, grouping strategies, balance conditions, and continuity and dissolution of line. The following images provide visual codes, interpreted by the viewer, to describe “movement”. While the code is innately interpreted, the syntax needs explanation.
There are only two values in the images, black and white. However, some pieces appear to be neither black nor white, but a value of grey. The pieces look grey because of grouping strategies that the viewer uses to organize information. Defining the object from its background, or figure/ground, is created this way.
Clusters of small white dots on a black background are grouped together by proximity to create the illusion of a value of grey. Depending on the amount of dots and their proximity to each other, the pieces can appear to look lighter or darker. The same conditions apply to black dots on a white background.
These values of grey give the impression of distance. Lighter objects appear to be in the foreground while darker ones recede. The opposite can also be true depending on how figure/ground was established.
Arrangement of these values in the visual field creates balance conditions that lead the viewer to follow a course set by the grouping strategies. This project uses four balance conditions: Symmetrical, an equal balance; Asymmetrical, an unequal balance; Radial, a gradation of value beginning at the corner and center with the emphasis of moving both directions simultaneously; and Crystallographic, an alternating “checkerboard” pattern where the gradation in one set of steps will run in one direction while the opposite gradation will run in the inverse.
Finally, continuity and dissolution of edge will allow the original mark, or unit form, to simultaneously move between figure/ground. As the viewer determines continuity of edge, the object will rise to the foreground. When there is dissolution of edge, the object will sink into the background.
By using the code described, the visual images in this project create an implied passage of state between two absolutes. Only black and white are present, yet there appears to grey. The images are stationary, yet there appears to be movement. Yes. No. On. Off. Ones and zeros. Being and not being. There is a space, a moment, where and when they are neither. What has happened ten seconds ago is as irretrievable as something that happened ten years past. What will happen in the future is equally distant. A ball hangs from a string. The ball is lowered to half its distance from the ground. If the distance from the ground is continually divided in half, how can the ball ever reach the ground? Yet it does. There is a transition where object becomes background and background becomes object, a land of ghosts that lies somewhere in the space between.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kineneb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. musicians have understood this all along
There is sound and silence, and the silences are just as important as the sound. But the silences are part of the sound, and the sounds are part of the silences.

Time to go listen to some Bach organ works. Bach always goes well with physics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Ahhhh, yes..Am an artist, as well as a musician,
Edited on Fri Mar-17-06 12:27 PM by Whoa_Nelly
and have played Bach on piano, as well as Mozart, who's genius also could be applied here.

Now it all makes sense in the only way music and art can represent a fine line of demarcation between being mathematically explained and intuitively understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. as have many sacred practitioners in many cultures...
read about the structuring of time/space/place/matter in an australian aboriginal "walkabout"...fascinating stuff...it is NOT a given that humans are cognitively programmed to think of time/space as discrete, dissectable units...however in the West we took this as a "given" and it is only NOW that Western scientists are starting to look at "reality", "the universe" whatever from another perspective. It does blow my mind that the Paradox is only just now informing mainstream science, but naturalized discourses are difficult to deconstruct when we've been conditioned to think of them as innate for so long....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Ginny Donating Member (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. What about the speed of light?
after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

OK, I know nothing, but I did learn that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. So, it appears that based on the quote above, that a lot happened in that "trillion-trillionth" of a second-more than could happen at the speed of light. Even light does not move that far in that amound of time.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Inflation was postulated partly for this reason
As another poster noted, upthread. I guess the idea was that the entire matrix of space was expanding, so technically no information was going faster than the speed of light. Or something like that.

It is pretty counter-intuitive, but the math probably works out.:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. An answer to your question from Scientific American
Edited on Fri Mar-17-06 04:18 PM by Jim__
I highlighted the part that I think is particularly applicable:

Yes. Hubble's Law, v = Hd, tells us that a galaxy that is d megaparsecs away from us will be receding at velocity v. And if we take the current best measurement of Hubble's constant H (72 kilometers per second per megaparsec), simple algebra predicts that galaxies 4.2 gigaparsecs (4.2x109 parsecs) away are receding at velocity c. More distant galaxies recede faster than c. This indeed violates special relativity--but that's not a problem because over such cosmological distances general relativity applies. Special relativity assumes that spacetime is flat and not expanding, while general relativity happily deals with a curved, expanding spacetime.

In general relativity the speed limit c only applies locally: One cannot have a particle traveling faster than c relative to another particle that is nearby. To compare velocities over very large distances in a curved, expanding universe requires some sophisticated mathematics. It is no longer as simple as measuring a distance and seeing how fast the distance changes.

Let's say galaxy Omega is 5 gigaparsecs away. The distance between us and galaxy Omega will be increasing at a rate faster than c. But that is because the spacetime between us and galaxy Omega is itself stretching and becoming larger at that rate, not because galaxy Omega is exceeding the speed of light in its local part of spacetime. This description may sound like doubletalk, but it is grounded in well-defined mathematics of curved spacetimes.

If we could build a telescope to see across 4.2 gigaparsecs what would we see? We can't see that far. The galaxies that we see a billion light years away appear to us today as they were a billion years ago. Before our telescope "reaches" 4.2 gigaparsecs, what we can see runs so far back in time that we hit the Big Bang, or more precisely, we hit the first moment at which light began traveling freely through space. In a sense we can already "see" that far: that oldest and farthest traveling light is none other than the cosmic microwave background.

This answer has also glossed over details such as the changing rate of expansion of the universe over the aeons, which modifies the simple law v = Hd, but the principles remain the same.
... Taken from here

The part about Time/space stretching is the part that I think will apply to the inflation following the Big Bang - I'm not sure that this is the actual answer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wise Doubter Donating Member (458 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
27. I`ve been saying for quite some time.......
maybe God IS science.


I grew up in a Christian home, but the older I get and the more I see and understand (or don`t) I find it EXTREMELY hard to see God as some gray-haired old traffic cop in the sky.

Everyone should be their own God and make things happen themselves. Not looking to be "saved" by some big brother.






Create your own Heaven.:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC