Slashdot Mirror
Antarctic Detectors Provide Evidence For Big Bang
Joshua Strzalko writes: "Aparently, the match, so to speak, that lit the big bang has been discovered by some detectors down in Antarctica. What would be the megatonage of that explosion? Full story can be viewed here." As always, working hypotheses are just that, of course. Update: 04/30 07:12 PM by T : CodeWheeney writes: "The home page for the instrument that was used is located here."
Nobody is claiming proof of anything.
Did you read the title of the story on slashdot? 'Antarctic Detectors Provide Evidence For Big Bang'
The actual story correctly stated that it was not a proof.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
The article merely provides evidence that the theory is correct, but it will never be possible to prove the theory.
You mean that it was not incorrect. Anyway, that is not the point. I am just amazed at the excitement over the possibility of a proof which seems to be rather unwarranted.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
Do you mean to say that if a hypothesis is contrary to an interpretation of a religious tradition, it shouldn't be investigated at all, whether or not the hypothesis is true?
No, I was just wondering what all the excitement was about. Especially why the story on slashdot had the title indicating that it was proof as opposed to the actual title which mentioned the possibility of proof. My opinion is that the need to elevate things to the level of proof was as you mentioned. I am not against any story being published, or any belief being pursued.
If an experiment gave reason to doubt a major theory like the Big Bang, it would be written up and sent to Nature or Science as fast as possible.
Could be. I just wonder sometimes.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
The title is "Possible traces of Big Bang discovered". Note the word possible. If I have a theory and I find some circumstantial evidence, which by itself would prove nothing, but fits in with the theory, that is proof? If anything, this has not disproven the theory.
Why get so excited over such a little thing? I would presume that people need to prove the theory so as to disprove other theories based in theology. If that is the case, I find the reporting of this proof quite pedantic.
I wonder what if this find didn't prove the theory. In fact, what if it slightly disproved it. Would it have been reported as well?
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
Uh... "provides evidence for" != proof.
I mean no disrespect to you. I thought evidence means proof. I checked http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?evidence and found "b : something that furnishes proof". If the title of the story used another meaning, then I misread it and my comment was unwarrented..
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Have you read my journal today?
Some of Velikovsky's ideas seem to be classed as ``bad theories'' despite being rather good predictors of observation. Is this a matter of politics or sociology rather than science?
Some of the plasma cosmologies also seem to be excellent predictors of observation, and in some cases the only sane explanation of observations, yet they are still not treated as a ``good theory'' - so what needs to happen in order for them to be considered ``good?''
If the answer is ``a quorum of acceptance'' can you then go on to explain how that is science and not politics? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Because a lot of people (and with good reason) aren't entirely sure about the Big Bang (-: or as another poster phrased it, ``the Horrendous Space Kablooie''
For another example of this effect in science, consider the number of ``birdosaurs'' or of ``pre-humans'' that have been discovered, proclaimed at full volume, and then quietly denied in small print as every single one is discovered to be a furphy of one kind or another. Some people have a need to believe that a dinosaur is where we got birds from, so anything that threatens this belief becomes a target for their zealotry. If someone convincingly ``proved'' that birds evolved from amphibians, and this ``proof'' was widely proclaimed and accepted as true, these zealots would be at a total loss for words.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This information is particularly apropos given the alternative theory of "colliding universes" very recently proposed.
A gigantic explosion of matter and/or energy that creates an entire universe...and they call it the "Big Bang".
I agree with Calvin/Bill Watterson - "The Horrendous Space Kablooie" has a much nicer ring to it...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
From reading the NYTimes version, it appears that they've seen fluctuations in the microwave background that they are attributing to quantum fluctuations in the pre-inflated universe. The original microwave observations could not detect fluctuations in the intensity of the radiation. It appeared uniform to a very high precision. COBE was able to detect fluctuation these only within the last decade but by operating outside the atmosphere. To be able to do it from the Earth's surface is a significant development.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Not to nitpick, but the anisotropies didn't lead to decoupling. Decoupling occured simply because the temperature of the universe fell low enough.
The anisotropies are important since they lead to structure formation, since if the universe were truly homogeneous and isotropic (FRW cosmology), structure wouldn't form, and we wouldn't have Stallman bashing M$FT.
The breakthrough in these observations is that the experiments measured the higher acoustic 'peaks' in the CMB, allowing for tighter bounds to be placed on various cosmological parameters (like the density of baryons, dark matter, etc.)
-------- The thought plickens....
I don't think the guys at CNN really understood what they were talking about there!
The fluctuations in the CMBR, first discovered in the COBE experiment, are manly a clue to the small-scale anisotropy in the early universe, which led to de-coupling of mass & radiation (it has more implications also). They are *not* what *ignited* the Big Bang. That would more have to do with the initial *matter* content.
Similarly "Drawing of the theoretical Big Bang" is not very intelligent, since 1.) it looks like a hot galaxy 2.) until quite late (10^4 yrs) the big-bang is opaque, you cannot "see it" 3.) space was expanding, so you can't "zoom out" and watch it froma distance.
I'm not sure whether this is any use, but I'll post it anyhow.
--
yours ever, fz.
"....There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field." [pg.176--Relativity: The Special and the General Theory.--A. Einstein]
I agree with Mr. Einstein on his characterization of spacetime as a structural quality of something else (the field). This 'something else' is what researchers should be concentrating on. Spacetime should not be the target and source of mindless extrapolations. Spacetime itself is an abstract construct deduced from measurements that are the result of that something else. Unless we understand exactly what that something else is and what its physical constituents, processes and interactions are, all spacetime extrapolations (big bangs, black holes, wormholes, time travel, etc...) are just cheesy Star-Trek physics. Chicken feather voodoo physics is what I like to call it.
This experiment confirms the results of previous experiements carried out in ground observations, balloons, high altitude aircraft, and the COBE satellite experiment. It is one of the most carefully verified, and NEVER reputed pieces of research ever done. The initial work was done by a team led by George Smoot. There is now more than 30 years of experimental data that all point at the same answer. No, this is not "just another experiment with questionable results".
In this article, there is a good discussion on the big bang theory and it's origins.
The discovery of background radiation is described well in this article. The work was done by Penzias and Wilson in 1965. As for the CNN article referring to this as the "cosmic match that ignited the big bang," classical theories break down at the singularity which we presume the universe began from. Because space and time break down at this singularity, how can we identify a cause? The only events in space and time that matter are the ones after the big bang. The article isn't well written and with what's written about it, it seems to be the same work done 36 years ago that I cited above. I'm sure there's a reason it's making the news now, but whatever the discovery is, the article doesn't do it justice.
guk is gay
I think a lot of people misunderstand the nature of scientific enquiry. It isn't possible to prove a theory by experiment. All you can do is continue to amass experimental evidence. If that evidence remains consistent with the theory, then we consider it a good theory. If it doesn't, we might still consider it a good theory, but work on it some more.
Scientists are often more interested in discrepancies with currently accepted theory than confirmation, as this is where greater insight arises. Consider the amount of money being spent on particle accelerators that will hopefully see effects inconsistent with the Standard Model of particle physics.
Science isn't about bracing up an old stone temple.