Slashdot Mirror
Big Bang Really a Big Hum
benna writes "The New Scientist reports, 'The Big Bang sounded more like a deep hum than a bang, according to an analysis of the radiation left over from the cataclysm. Physicist John Cramer of the University of Washington in Seattle has created audio files of the event which can be played on a PC. "The sound is rather like a large jet plane flying 100 feet above your house in the middle of the night," he says.' Apparently the idea for the project came from an 11 year old."
AFAIK, the density of matter approached infinity as you went back to the moment of the big bang (since the volume approached 0.) I don't know how long it lasted, but for at least awhile there would have been enough density for sound to propagate.
For great justice.
What is amazing is that Prof. Cramer used only a 16 line Mathematica notebook to produce his simulation of the "sound of the Big Bang. This summary gives you more details on his work and his writings. You also can read his column, "BOOMERanG and the Sound of the Big Bang," It has been published in January 2001 and amended in September 2003.
The soundwaves that were found are an impression of quantum scale energy fluctuations carried to earth by cosmic microwave background radiation. Scientists were able to measure the waves by looking at cosmic microwave background (CMB). These early soundwaves are thought to have created super and giant clusters of galaxies with their travel. The soundwaves are actually contained in primordial plasma. They are effectively overtones or harmonics of the big bang explosion that is said to have created the universe.
I did a story that posted on Kuro5hin some time back about this that goes into just a touch more detail about ramifications for this sound.
But the early universe at the moments they're talking about was crammed into a space less than a quarter the size of a proton. Any vibrations in the primordial soup would have to have a wavelength even smaller than this, and hence a frequency whose value in Hertz would boggle the mind. If it had a wavelength bigger than the size of the universe at the time, then the "sound wave" would destructively interfere with itself.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
They haven't quite worked it out. There are some competing theories about but nothing that results from some fundemental mechanism (think relativity+quantum physics). Below are the two I have heard talked about.
1) Inflationary model.
The universe went through a period of extreme expansion from about a trillionth of a second to a billionth of a second where it expanded much faster than light through some unknown mechanism.
2) Variable light speed.
Light itself has changed it speed during the evolution of the universe.
Also you have to keep in mind that we are talking about the surface of the universe which does not necissarily have to follow the same rules as what is inside of it.
But, as an observer, you either had to be a part of that "singularity" to "hear" it (certainly couldn't exist as a human in those circumstances) or you had to be separate from the singularity. (Not even sure you could exist outside... Wouldn't you need SPACE and/or TIME for that?) Within the event horizon? Not going to exist for long! Outside of the event horizon? All vacuum, no sound. DURING the event? You just became some of the matter flung all directions.
The point of this mental drivel? The idea of the Big Bang having any sort of sound is absurd. Kinda like downloading ice cream...
I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.
Of course, there are examples of false evolutionary predictions that have had dangerous medical effects. Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs. That has turned out to be ~0. And there's the example of back treatment based on the false assumption that our ancestors walked like apes. That cause more problems until a creationist started treating patients on the assumption that the back is designed perfectly as it is. Read more here.
My recommendation is that you explore the whole of that theory of evolution that creationists reject, and see whether the pieces really do fit together.
Bear in mind, if you don't understand how a creationist can accept natural selection (which is a part of the creationist model) and still consider themselves sane/credible, then you have a lot to learn about our position. As I've said many times, I am yet to find an evolutionist who understands our position. And to me, that speaks volumes of people who are so quick to condemn something they haven't even taken the time to understand and evaluate.