Slashdot Mirror
First Cosmological Results From MAP
riptalon writes "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a NASA Explorer mission has announced the first results based on a year of observations from the L2 Lagrangian point. MAP carries two
back-to-back microwave telescopes to study variations in the cosmic microwave background, to
much greater accuracy than the COBE satellite. The excruciating details of the results
on the age, geometry and composition of the universe can be found in this paper. Executive summary: 13.7 billion years old, flat, 4.4% baryons, 22% dark matter and 73% dark energy."
13.7 billion years old, flat, 4.4% baryons,
95% We don't know.
"MAP, an Explorer mission, cost about $145 million."
If I understand correctly...
Measuring the age of universe, calculating initial proportions of baryonic matter vs. energy, and deriving shape of universe: $145M.
Shuttle flight to install ISS module: $500M.
Shuttle flight to watch ants float in zero-G: 7 deaths, $500M for launch, $2.0B for new shuttle.
Your Congressional District's seat at the trough of Shuttle/ISS pork: "Priceless."
Now that I've bashed, some constructive criticism - cut NASA in half.
One half - NAA - I'll call the National Aeronautics Administration. Its job will be pure Aeronautics. Launch vehicles. Rockets. Engines. From pricy Shuttles to half-decent Shuttle-C heavy-lift modifications, to cheap expendables, to funky crewed vehicles like X-33, VentureStar, or DC-X.
The other half - N(whoops!) let's call it the NSSA - National Space Science Administration - will do science. Build probes. Stick 'em on rockets built by the NAA, or LockMart, Boeing, or Armadillo, and do some frickin' science.
Under such a scenario, we could have avoided the Shuttle/ISS debacle completely; NAA might have had concerns about losing funding once the last Shuttle was built, and probably would have had a significant incentive to keep asking Congress for funding to build newer, better, cheaper-per-pound launch vehicles.
Why? Because they'd be under competitive pressure from every other contractor under the sun building launch vehicles to launch NSSA's space probes. Perhaps NSSA would have come to the same mistake NASA did - and decided that we Really Needed a Space Station - but even if that were the case, the design requirements of ISS would have immediately mandated a heavy lift vehicle, wholly unlike the Shuttle.
In such a scenario, NSSA would have had the choice between building ISS with three FooCorp Big Dumb Booster flights, or 30-40 NAA Shuttle flights.
Unlike the current NASA monolith, in which both halves exist to feed each other, a separate NSSA would have been loathe to spend its hard-begged budgetbucks to use another government department's (i.e. "NAA's") Shuttle, particularly in the face of cheaper alternatives. (And likewise, NAA, seeing that it had no Shuttle customers, would have been forced to spend its hard-begged budgetbucks building the Shuttle's successor, or find itself on the Congressional chopping block.)
I would interpret this to mean the following:
(no profit recycling please)
1. 4.4 of the energy is stored in atomic nucleuses and some exotic particles.
2. 22% is stored in matter we can't directly observe, but can observe its effects on surrounding objects.
3. 0.6% is electrons and other small mass particles, measurable energy, etc.
Guess: Up to 73% of the original mechanical energy of the big bang is still in the form of mechanical energy (kenetic energy + potential energy).
Guess#2: Or 73% of the original ME of the big bang has been lost to entropy.
Aside Question: Given 2 objects of the same mass and potential energy at rest. Raise one of the objects to a higher potential. Does that not raise its mass relative to the first since the mass is its total energy/c^2? I remember NASA was puzzled by the Voyager probes not making it as far out as they expected them to be by now. Perhaps because they gained mass relative to us? Also, if 2 objects accelarate relative to each other and thier KE increases (relitively), does that not increase the mass, and their for the attraction between the two objects?
Bah, time to RTFA.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Where do you get your information that the earth is "a mere speck in a speck of a galaxy in a far corner of the universe" from? Your analogy which seems to want to destroy any logic in using current models as a description for existance, however, it too relies on the very same information. What is to say that we aren't in a cave looking at a wall which is projected and changes the projections perspective as we try to "move". In which case, what leads you to believe anyone but yourself exists at all?
Sir, re-read the definition of science. It doesn't suppose itself to be an end all be all in the definition of the world. It is a method. So is palm reading.. and I have seen palm readers with a bucket load more logic than you show in your argument.
pm
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Would not a sphere of unimaginable size have a surface that would essentially flat?
For millenia, most of the world thought the earth was flat and people could fall off the edge. Could this just be an extension?
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
This isn't science! Wait, oh shit, it is.
Let the naysayers be damned. I don't think there's a 'real' scientist out there who believes that this is the ultimate truth as to what the universe is composed of.
However, it's a good start at figuring out just what exactly is going on.
Where would we be now if some nutcase back in the day didn't say, "Hmm, well, what if the world was actually round?" and start working on craziness that would ensure.
Where would we be if some looney wouldn't have said, "You know, math would be a lot easier if zero exisisted."?
Giving random figures about things you aren't certain about isn't science. It's an important *part* of science. It's a launch vehicle for experimentation and theorizing.
When I first saw the COBE map awhile back, a little part of me said, "Well, that's nice, but such subtle data from a single platform isn't much to go on." But now, the new image certainly does seem to correlate well with it. The similarities are graphically obvious, and the fact that those data were obtained independently from COBE's is what makes this announcement most significant.
Who modded this clown up? Nobody claimed that we now understand "the entire universe." MAP is simply providing some data about fundamental characteristics of the universe. Its accuracy is arguable, but we're just getting some data here. Calm down before you blow out your last synapse.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Understood? Perhaps not fully, but one has to start looking somewhere. Why shouldn't we start looking from where we are now?
But then again, I could be wrong.
Ah, no. According to current theory, asking what was happening before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole (Hawking quote IIRC). The big bang was the creation of time. How can anything exist before the big bang? The whole idea of "before the big bang" doesn't even make sense.
I'd just like to mention that I really appriceate it when the author of an article on science sums it if for us. I often have only 5 min to brouse the headlines and information like this is most welcome.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for