NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Finally there's conclusive proof of the "Big Bang" theory. This may begin to lay at rest those few holdouts who rejected such theories as unacceptable for whatever reason.


Proof of Big Bang Seen by Space Probe,
Scientists Say (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html)


Davide Castelvecchi
for National Geographic News

March 17, 2006
New NASA space-probe observations of the oldest light in the cosmos are the most direct evidence yet that the universe expanded extremely quickly immediately after the big bang, physicists say.

Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, led the team overseeing NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). He and colleagues announced the new results Thursday in a teleconference.

Previous experiments—including WMAP results released in 2003—had provided strong evidence for the rapid-expansion theory, called inflation, that was first proposed by physicist Alan Guth in 1980.

In the trillion-trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a gumball to astronomical proportions, according to the inflation theory. The universe then settled into a more leisurely pace of expansion over the past 13.7 billion years or so.


A NASA probe has produced a new, more detailed picture of the infant universe. Colors indicate warmer (red) and cooler (blue) spots. The white bars show the polarization direction of the oldest light.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7861/bigbang7fb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This new information helps to pinpoint when the first stars formed and provides new clues about events that transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe's existence.


Smoking Gun

WMAP now has the most convincing evidence yet for inflation: a reading of the light released just after the big bang. This cosmic afterglow, known as microwave background, is made of a similar type of radiation to that which carries signals to a TV antenna.

The afterglow is as valuable to a cosmologist as the earliest fossils are to a paleontologist. It is the oldest radiation ever detected, still traveling almost 14 billion years after it was emitted.

The microwaves bathe the entire universe in a perpetual buzz, reaching Earth from all directions. The buzz is virtually uniform, but not quite.

Tiny variations at different points in space allow scientists to draw maps of the early universe, as the WMAP team has done with unprecedented detail.

These cosmic baby pictures show us a time when the universe was a smooth, fiery broth, when stars and galaxies had yet to form under the pull of gravity.

YES!!! More proof! Ha!

Now... being a non-physicist... how does one measure the age of microwaves? Furthermore, how does one decide that any given segment is x# billions of years old? This is the first I've heard of this being done.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7861/bigbang7fb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


That pic makes Big Bang look fat.

Now... being a non-physicist... how does one measure the age of microwaves? Furthermore, how does one decide that any given segment is x# billions of years old? This is the first I've heard of this being done.
If you read the article, you know just as much as I do. Never claimed to be a scientist, just an inquisitive, dirty, old veteran! :D

Now the ID kids have something else to chew on. Did God accidently blow up his first TV, or did he put the evidence there to mislead us and test our faith? You tell me.

That pic makes Big Bang look fat.
Perhaps it would say the same about the pictures of you, oh corpulent one! :D

If you read the article, you know just as much as I do. Never claimed to be a scientist, just an inquisitive, dirty, old veteran! :D

LOL
Well, it certainly sounds interesting, if nothing else... :)

Now the ID kids have something else to chew on. Did God accidently blow up his first TV, or did he put the evidence there to mislead us and test our faith? You tell me.
Why don't you know? God has been misleading scientists for millennia! Why just the other day God planted another monstrous bunch of bones which some gullible scientist will swear up and down is the skeleton of a dinosaur! :D

LOL
Well, it certainly sounds interesting, if nothing else... :)
What does? Being a scientist, or being an inquisitive, dirty, old veteran? Personally I kinda like the way things turned out! :D

this is a load of crap, space isn't even real

this is a load of crap, space isn't even real

huh? Do you mean to say that nothing outside of the Earth exists? Or what? I'm a bit lost here...

What a disappointment this thread is. :p



And seriously - this took until post #13? General is really slacking off.

this is a load of crap, space isn't even real
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!

This has been your quote from practically every comedy out there for the day.

Edit: This guy's only other post is one in which he says American beer is good. Just so we know the level of intellect we're dealing with.

this is a load of crap, space isn't even real

LOL, good one.

At least I hope that was a joke...

this is a load of crap, space isn't even real

Neither are spoons....

What a disappointment this thread is. :p
My ... my thread is a disappointment to you??? [ weeps ]

Neither are spoons....
There IS no spoon, Grasshopper. :D

Does this mean that Bush will start melting now, along with two-thirds or so of the population of the American South and most of the population of the Middle East?

Does this mean that Bush will start melting now, along with two-thirds or so of the population of the American South and most of the population of the Middle East?
No, but no one never expects the effects of a new scientific proof. It's rather like the Spanish Inquisition! :D

Does this mean that Bush will start melting now, along with two-thirds or so of the population of the American South and most of the population of the Middle East?

Hey now, I resent that comment. I live in the middle east, (or what I consider part of it), and I believe in science, along with alomst everyone around here.

There IS no spoon, Grasshopper. :D
thanks alot, creepy-little-bald-kid-from-the-matrix man:D

Hey now, I resent that comment. I live in the middle east, (or what I consider part of it), and I believe in science, along with alomst everyone around here.
where from?

My ... my thread is a disappointment to you??? [ weeps ]
Less thread title innuendo, less weeping, kiddo.

There IS no spoon, Grasshopper. :D

Which is why they aren't real...:rolleyes: :D

No, but no one never expects the effects of a new scientific proof. It's rather like the Spanish Inquisition! :D

Sigged, methinks. :p

Less thread title innuendo, less weeping, kiddo.
But without innuendo in the thread title, how would it be a Eutrusca thread?

But without innuendo in the thread title, how would it be a Eutrusca thread?
You know, I was about to kind of automatically agree with that, but it's not even true. He hardly ever has innuendo in his thread titles (and I bet you a tenner that this one was unintentional). His innuendo is all in the posts. :D

Yeah, it's interesting. They've suspected this for a while, but had to wait to prove it with the WMAP.

Being a believer of evolution, this is just another stick in the fire...

From a ID point of view, however, what does a swirly blue-green picture with red spots and white bars prove?

From a ID point of view, however, what does a swirly blue-green picture with red spots and white bars prove?
That God is a 6000 year old abstract painter?

We all know the universe expands, no new news.

When the time comes when scientists explain HOW the Big Bang happened, then we can look for hope in Cosmology.

They use logic to explain everything, just not that.

EDIT - Is National Geographic Okay? This just explains the Inflation Theory, not the Big Bang.

Hell, even God coulda' wanted the Universe to keep expanding.

When the time comes when scientists explain HOW the Big Bang happened, then we can look for hope in Cosmology.
Erm... cosmology is a branch of astronomy, I'm sure you know. And of course, it includes cosmogony. And there are a few theories on how it happened, just not the instruments to make the relevant observations. They will be created in the next 10 to 20 years, though.

You know, I was about to kind of automatically agree with that, but it's not even true. He hardly ever has innuendo in his thread titles (and I bet you a tenner that this one was unintentional). His innuendo is all in the posts. :D
Your mind just isn't dirty enough. :p

When we finally develop a device to produce images from the moment that spacetime emerged from unspacenotime, there will be Eutrusca, down in the corner, waving with the rest of his high school class.

Seriously, its nice to see threads recognizing the work of multidisciplinary scientists. In honor of this, I will now go expand, via double cheeseburger.

Now... being a non-physicist... how does one measure the age of microwaves? Furthermore, how does one decide that any given segment is x# billions of years old? This is the first I've heard of this being done.

One doesn't!
The age of the Universe is one of the parameters that comes out of fitting the CMB anisotropies to a suite of models. It has nothing to do with the wavelength spectrum of the CMB. The CMB is getting cooler all the time in the expanding Universe, but that can't be used to learn anything useful about how long the Universe has been expanding unless you have a good idea for what the temperature of the Universe was at some early time.
In fact there's no theoretical prediction for the CMB temperature, and hence its measured temperature isn't a useful constraint on cosmological models. But the variations in temperature on the CMB sky (i.e. the anisotropies) are very useful in pinning down the precise values of the parameters that describe the Universe, including its age.

Why don't you know? God has been misleading scientists for millennia! Why just the other day God planted another monstrous bunch of bones which some gullible scientist will swear up and down is the skeleton of a dinosaur! :D
WOAH! What about the Earth only being 6000 thousand years old?!

Put that ass-big hole out there into the apathetic public!

We all know the universe expands, no new news.

When the time comes when scientists explain HOW the Big Bang happened, then we can look for hope in Cosmology.

They use logic to explain everything, just not that.

EDIT - Is National Geographic Okay? This just explains the Inflation Theory, not the Big Bang.

Hell, even God coulda' wanted the Universe to keep expanding.

Why do you assume it had a cause? Why can't something explode from nothing? After all, there were no real laws of physics before the universe exploded, so it's entirely possible for something to explode from nothing.

One doesn't!
The age of the Universe is one of the parameters that comes out of fitting the CMB anisotropies to a suite of models. It has nothing to do with the wavelength spectrum of the CMB. The CMB is getting cooler all the time in the expanding Universe, but that can't be used to learn anything useful about how long the Universe has been expanding unless you have a good idea for what the temperature of the Universe was at some early time.
In fact there's no theoretical prediction for the CMB temperature, and hence its measured temperature isn't a useful constraint on cosmological models. But the variations in temperature on the CMB sky (i.e. the anisotropies) are very useful in pinning down the precise values of the parameters that describe the Universe, including its age.

and in english?

Anyway, who are/were the holdouts?

This is not proof of big bang, it is evidence for inflation.

In some cosmologic theories the universe expanded very rapidly right after big bang. This is still not an accepted scientific fact, although most cosmologists believe in it. And this article describes a new piece of evidence that gives even better reasons for believing in this.

Big bang is en established fact, and is an implicit assumption in the relevant theories.

COMMENTARY: Finally there's conclusive proof of the "Big Bang" theory. This may begin to lay at rest those few holdouts who rejected such theories as unacceptable for whatever reason.
etc.
As always, these scientific articles are a very interesting read. Thank you, Eutrusca.

Only thing that they should have shown you: The whole picture!!! ;)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Cthulhu.jpg

Oh, come on! That was funny. No need to let the thread die now...

As always, these scientific articles are a very interesting read. Thank you, Eutrusca.

Only thing that they should have shown you: The whole picture!!! ;)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Cthulhu.jpg


No, no, the real picture is something like...

THIS!
http://monkeysaurus.net/wp-content/FSM.jpg
Bow before His Noodliness!

and in english?

Ok, point taken. Maybe have a look at these:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisotropy

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html

Now... being a non-physicist... how does one measure the age of microwaves? Furthermore, how does one decide that any given segment is x# billions of years old? This is the first I've heard of this being done.

Simple: Determine how far away they originated. Since microwaves travel at the speed of light, the rest is simple math.

Now... being a non-physicist... how does one measure the age of microwaves?

Well, I'm assuming that if they can "see" the source of the microwaves and determine its distance, they can determine how "old" the microwaves are.

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but "Wow, we've got pictures of a star" does not mean "We have photographic evidence of the Big Bang, an event that preceeds the Sun, the Earth, and the Universe in general."

Measure microwaves and make assumptions, but in the end, you're still assuming. Assumptions do not equal facts.

Too many people take random facts, string them together, draw assumptions that aren't solid, and call it science. Or worse, invent predictions or models, and present them as facts.

I'm not an Intelligent Design junkie, I'm not religious, and I believe in the Big Bang, but I honestly don't believe when people tell me they just recently took a picture of the birth of the Universe, which happened before our little Galaxy was born, which happened before our little Sun was born, which happened before our little Planet had an atmosphere, which happened before a tiny group of amino acids formed into the first cell...because that requires a camera with such a long exposure time...:cool:

I think many of you are mislead by the idea of intelligent design in general. ID just states that some intelligence is guiding the universe. How is it that this intelligence didn't decide, billions of years ago, to create the universe as we know it, using evolution as his method? Hell, even the catholic church says that evolution is valid. What IDers don't like is the anti-religion dogma that many who follow evolution preach.

As for this article: while it may confirm the big bang, the real question should be what happened BEFORE the big bang.

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but "Wow, we've got pictures of a star" does not mean "We have photographic evidence of the Big Bang, an event that preceeds the Sun, the Earth, and the Universe in general."

Measure microwaves and make assumptions, but in the end, you're still assuming. Assumptions do not equal facts.

Too many people take random facts, string them together, draw assumptions that aren't solid, and call it science. Or worse, invent predictions or models, and present them as facts.

I'm not an Intelligent Design junkie, I'm not religious, and I believe in the Big Bang, but I honestly don't believe when people tell me they just recently took a picture of the birth of the Universe, which happened before our little Galaxy was born, which happened before our little Sun was born, which happened before our little Planet had an atmosphere, which happened before a tiny group of amino acids formed into the first cell...because that requires a camera with such a long exposure time...:cool:
Problem with that argument is that light takes such a long time to get here. When you look at the next galaxy over, chances are about 10,000 of its stars have died since the light left. When you look out as far as we can see, chances are that half or more of that galaxy has died.
As for saying that predictions or models aren't facts, that's totally true. That's why we call it the THEORY of gravity, the THEORY of evolution. Thing is, though, that they explain what happens far better than anything else. We can never know absolutely, we can only know approximately.

Like someone said, this isn't evidence for the Big Bang, but for inflation, which is a theory that, for a very short period at the beginning of the universe, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Don't ask me how that's possible, but it's what scientists say... Apparently it accounts for the 'clumpiness' of matter in the universe, which without expansion should be spread much more evenly (I think).

As for ID, fair enough, but why do we need it? Occam's Razor cuts here.
Between "The universe started and stuff happened because God said so" or "The universe started by pure dumb luck", the second one wins (because of the anthromorphic principle - if it hadn't we wouldn't be here to see it.)

I think many of you are mislead by the idea of intelligent design in general. ID just states that some intelligence is guiding the universe. How is it that this intelligence didn't decide, billions of years ago, to create the universe as we know it, using evolution as his method? Hell, even the catholic church says that evolution is valid. What IDers don't like is the anti-religion dogma that many who follow evolution preach.

As for this article: while it may confirm the big bang, the real question should be what happened BEFORE the big bang.
How can there be a "Before" when time and space was created in such an event?

Simple: Determine how far away they originated. Since microwaves travel at the speed of light, the rest is simple math.

Beat me to it. :)

Wouldn't the idea that there was nothing before violate the idea that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed? You'd have to have something for the big bang to explode from, no? Though I suppose you could take the parallel universe string theroy perspective that, when ever the two collide, you have a new big bang.

I saw this absolutely hilarious thing on TV the other day. I was at a friends house and he just lost cable, and one of the few channels he could get was some church channel. This thing was set up like a public service announcement and it had a kid playing with firecrackers in the garage. It showed several of them blowing up, and then he put one in an apple. The text at the end (I forget the exact wording) was something to the effect that explosions can't create, they can only destroy. We all stared at it for several seconds before someone said "What the fuck?"

What frightens me is that someone somewhere watched that and said "Damn right!"

COMMENTARY: Finally there's conclusive proof of the "Big Bang" theory. This may begin to lay at rest those few holdouts who rejected such theories as unacceptable for whatever reason.




I was afraid someone was going to post photos of my wife and I from last yesterday on here-maybe I left the curtains open...phew!

that was the big bang I was thinking of...

Wouldn't the idea that there was nothing before violate the idea that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed? You'd have to have something for the big bang to explode from, no? Though I suppose you could take the parallel universe string theroy perspective that, when ever the two collide, you have a new big bang.
I believe the current theories include the collapse of a 24 dimensional space configuration. Either way the Planck Barrier is a problem

I remember reading in science that 10 dimensions were required, and the most suitable model was two 4-dimension universes seperated by a 2 dimensional "membrane" that gravity can travel through (explaining why it is such a weak force).

As for this article: while it may confirm the big bang, the real question should be what happened BEFORE the big bang.

Maybe have a look at this:
www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html