Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe

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 » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:11 PM
Original message
Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060316/sc_space/astronomersdetectfirstsplitsecondoftheuniverse;_ylt=AlO9OkzKfWyiQ1__bPMOMLsDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second to become larger than the visible universe," said WMAP researcher David Spergel, also from Princeton University."


So, a question. How could the universe expand from the size of a marble to the size of the present universe in a trillionths of a second without violating C? This stuff boggles my poor little brain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. The speed of light 'rule' involves matter/energy travelling through space
In the first split second described, it was the 'fabric of space' itself that expanded, not matter travelling through it (though any matter present at that point would have gotten farther apart without actually 'moving').

Or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Yes, it's called inflation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Correct you are H
Alan Guth, MIT physicist and father of inflation theory, would be delighted with your cogent explanation.

http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. OK then, 'splain me this:
How can something "expand" without getting farther apart, especially in light of the fact that according to Einstein's Special Theory space is defined by the presence of matter? If matter wasn't moving then, when did it start moving? Expansion is meaningless without a stationary reference frame to compare it to, and this whole thing reeks of physicists coming up with obtuse mathematical explanations to describe natural phenomena which themselves have no grounding in natural phenomena.

I.e., pointless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Expansion is relevant wrt density
During expansion matter went from extremely dense to much lower density.

"natural phenomena which themselves have no grounding in natural phenomena"?

That statement doesn't make much sense to me.

Perhaps you think the Big Bang and expansion does not explain any natural phenomena?
There's redshift/observed expansion, Cosmic Background Radiation, evolution of galaxies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. For matter in the early universe to lose density
Edited on Fri Mar-17-06 01:30 AM by wtmusic
at the rate they describe, it would have to be traveling in excess of the speed of light. According to the article the universe expanded from "the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space" in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Since v = d/t, at least some matter has covered millions of miles in a tiny fraction of a second, which is impossible according to general relativity.

Big bang/expansion explains all kinds of natural phenomena. What doesn't is the idea of matter traveling faster than the speed of light.

What I meant is the explanations they offer have no grounding in natural phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. I'm sure there is some logical explanation I don't understand--I just hate it when articles present crappy sensationalistic ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The idea is that "expansion" and "inflation" = expansion of space,
not just stuff flying apart. Matter then is carried with the expanding space.
There's no theoretical limit on the velocity of expansion of space.

These theories/hypothesis do explain the phenomena i mentioned in my previous post.

There's virtually no serious science reporting in the popular media. Otoh physicists agree unanimously that physics is in fact counter-intuitive; it isn't exactly easy to understand when you get to the nitty-gritty of it (quantum mechanics/quantum electro dynamics, relativity). As for serious discussions on these matter i recommend books about Richard Feynman and the book "A brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking.

It so happens that a number of videos of lectures by mr Feynman are online:

"A set of four priceless archival recordings from the University of Auckland (New Zealand) of the outstanding Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman - arguably the greatest science lecturer ever. Although the recording is of modest technical quality the exceptional personal style and unique delivery shine through."
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Although these don't deal with the origin of the universe i do highly recommended them because he presents the topics in a most accessible way.

"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school: it is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it.
You see, my physics students don't understand it. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."
-- Richard Feynman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. thanks for the link -- will check it out
I have read nearly everything Feynman has written but haven't seen the videos.

Right now I'm reading Greene's "The Elegant Universe". He has obviously done a lot of work in the area, and apparently feels this is important.

The gap I need to bridge is the idea that you can accept something without understanding it. Although Feynman said just that, he clearly understands the mathematics and the ability of the theories to make predictions. More accurately he was probably referring to having an intuitive grasp, or mental picture of it. And although I have a pretty good handle on relativity, quantum mechanics and uncertainty is pure math to me.

In the mad rush to find a Theory of Everything in the last 50 years IMO theoretical physics has gotten ahead of itself. Professors at universities don't get paid to not know; they get paid to put out abstruse papers on subjects which are largely unconfirmable using present technology. They publish a theory which has problems, then they patch the problems with more theorizing. They drink a lot of coffee. They go back and forth. This is all not particularly elegant, especially when it only took ten years and two papers for a patent clerk from Berne to turn classical mechanics upside down. And even Einstein didn't feel the need to publish about which he wasn't certain. His last major theory was published in 1924, thirty-one years before his death.

A good example is the "expanding universe" thing. A wealth of data clearly shows the universe is currently expanding at subrelativistic speeds. Measures of redshift in distant galaxies confirm the theory perfectly. But it is easy to push this concept to the point of absurdity, i.e., once can just *say* that the subatomic particles in your body are flying apart at tremendous speeds, but because all of the other particles in your computer keyboard and the room around you are also expanding you don't notice any expansion (by the same token everything could be shrinking). Without a point of reference it's 100% arbitrary.

OTOH many people smarter than me are wetting their pants over it. Whatever -- my goal is to have a basic grasp of the physics behind the two-slit experiment before I die. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. "which is impossible according to general relativity"
no, it's exactly possible according to general relativity.
It's impossible in special relativity, but special relativity is a special case, not the general case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. I Believe the Problem Is
there is no beginning, and no end; just transitional evidence to mark specific moments throughout eternity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. You're doing that on purpose!!
:yoiks: All I can do with this stuff is :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. lol
Seriously, I love this stuff. The older I get the more curious I become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrazyOrangeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Boggles my pea-brain too.
Of course, maybe Herr Spergel intended this press release for April Fools Day . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. it's a lie
the universe is a big lie started out a wee true fact!
maybe
maybe not
bush proves something, surely!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is why Einstein postulated that....
...God does not role dice against the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Constants are only constant when you want them to be!
The rest of the time they are variables that don't vary in a
significant manner ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. this stuff is among the best stuff we do. Bravo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yes, I agree! If only the US military-industrial complex had stuck to...
moon walks and Mars explorers and Hubble telescopes and Viking grand tours of the solar system and off into the great universe! I could almost love them! Instead they got hijacked by the Bush junta and turned back into the worst killing machine humankind has ever created. Alas, alas!

We are right on the precipice of discovering life elsewhere than on planet Earth. There are now FIVE probable sources of water in our solar system alone--a tiny dot in the bigger picture of the cosmos. FIVE! And we're finding plants everywhere. This solar system, which was once thought to have created rather unique conditions favoring life, is by no means unique, and is probably replicated billions of times.

We're seeing mind-boggling pictures of the universe and all (or what we can see of) its incredible array of galaxies and weird phenomena, and are discovering all sorts of things by other means--such as, recently, the discovery of an earth-like planet (rock and ice--as opposed to gaseous giants) by using gravitational lensing.

We are seeing farther, and learning more about the universe--really, it's just mind-boggling--than any human beings, ever; and are making staggering advances in physics, biology and a host of other studies, as well as in technology itself.

And we couldn't have a more mean-minded, low-minded, dull-witted, greedy, murderous, torturing, bullying, immoral, wasteful, unlawful, vision-less government!

It makes you want to throw up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dudley_DUright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. As a physicist, I completely agree with you Peace
It does make me want to throw up. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-16-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. the hijacking is much older than Bush
they already gave up under the Vietnam war and through Reagan's space war. The rest has been peanuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-17-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Well, I think a two-track thing was happening in the 1960s. On the one
hand, you had JFK, who refused to get sucked into invading Cuba, de-fused a nuclear war with Russia over Cuba, and signed an executive order withdrawing US military "advisers" from Vietnam just before he was assassinated. I think he was assassinated because of these things--too much of a tendency toward peace. Although the space program was begun in rivalry with Russia--and had patriotic and military overtones--when you hear JFK's speeches about it, you cannot help but notice that he was speaking as a visionary, not a chauvinistic militarist. Further, the PEOPLE who made it happen were, by and large, progressive free-thinkers, Caltech and MIT engineers, all raised on Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke and Ben Bova and Ted Sturgeon--youths filled with science fiction and its progressive values, astronomy and Star Trek. Visionaries, in their way--quite suspicious of the military and its top-down thinking and its parochial attitudes. They also tended to be free thinkers on religion. And the lot of them would just vomit at the Bush junta. I happen to know some of these engineer-types from the '60s era, and all were against the Vietnam war, and had no desire to militarize space, but rather to explore it with a sense of wonder and adventure.

The process of stepping out into outer space that they began has not stopped. It has suffered many setbacks, especially under Reagan and Bush II, but it is stumbling on, greatly augmented by items like the Hubble telescope, and the solar system explorations, flybys and landings (mostly on Mars).

Simultaneously, the advances in physics, astronomy and cosmology, and also biology (DNA research)--from a slightly different establishment, more academic, less beholden to Reagan-Bush type budgets (give all to the rich and to rich war profiteers; starve anything good our tax dollars might do)--have been advancing by leaps and bounds. In physics, it appears that the "speed of light" may fall, as the ultimate law that cannot be broken. The implications of that would be staggering. In theoretical physics, items like black holes have gone from theory to discovery rather quickly. Can parallel universes, wormholes and the independence of gravitons from the limitations of space-time be far behind? These are serious theories. What will the implications be, as to technology (if one can call it that, in connection to something like parallel universes), space or time travel, and life here and elsewhere? As for the mapping of human DNA--well, I think these and other advances may actually be RESPONSIBLE for a bit of a backlash (even if it is largely created by the corporate news monopolies) toward rightwing religion. It's a bit much for human beings to grasp all at once. Emotion and psychology come into it--especially in what may be hard economic times ahead, with an $8 trillion deficit due to Bush's horror in Iraq.

What I'm saying is that, "The rest is peanuts," is really not true. Some of this science and exploration may be underfunded, but it is still advancing human knowledge very quickly, to really amazing heights.

A more serious concern is how these great advances will be used--for instance, by a fascist junta like the Bush regime, and by our Corporate Rulers. There was already a fight about somebody wanting to patent human DNA. That unbelievably stupid effort failed, as I recall. But many other such questions arise. The Bushites using technological advances to spy on people, to torture people, to control behavior, and god knows what-all they might be up to. And corporations doing the same--monopolizing knowledge and information, for purposes of profiteering and political power. Who owns the planets? Who owns the stars? Who would own and control a "time machine"? Could someone hold onto the key to unlimited energy, or the key to reversing the aging process, or doubling the length of human life, and deny those capabilities to other human beings, or provide them only to the rich and the powerful?

Our crude system of capitalist predation is simply not suitable as the arbiter of vital human knowledge--especially of the kind that may be coming our way soon. And that is a very serious problem.

I do have a lot of faith in human beings, though, and our ability to get around systems of control. We are very clever that way. It is our greatest glory as a species.

It may even earn us membership in galactic civilization. (The rebels and visionaries will be invited--the controllers and powermongers will be consigned to the dustbin of history, left behind on earth to fight among themselves over the last green spots on a planet that they have destroyed with their greed--in my "apocalyptic" fantasy, anyway.)





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, 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science 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