Slashdot Mirror
NASA Reaffirms Big Bang Theory
Peretz writes "NASA has found evidence reinforcing a theory of what took place post-Big Bang and time expansion. They claim: 'Over the course of millions of years, gravity exploited the density differences to create the structure of the universe---stars and galaxies separated by vast voids.' Thereby creating a 'structure' to the universe -- a kiddush cup. '...finds that the first stars---the forebears of all subsequent generations of stars and of life itself---were fully formed remarkably early, only about 400 million years after inflation. This is called the era of reionization, the point when the light from the first stars ionized hydrogen atoms, liberating electrons from the protons.'"
NASA has a confirmed a theory of what took place post-Big Bang and time expansion.
Please don't use sensationalist and misleading headlines. Confirmation of a theory is tantamount to saying that it is proven. Given that this is scientific theory we're referring to, I don't think that's what you want to say. What you probably want to say is, "New evidence supports a Big Bang Theory".
What NASA actually says in their article is:
To put that into laymans terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. That can be a good thing for the status of a theory. But let's be somewhat scientific here and not throw around statements that imply proven theories. This is, after all, supposed to be "News for Nerds".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
---stars and galaxies separated by vast voids.' Thereby creating a 'structure' to the universe -- a kiddush cup. '...finds that the first stars---the forebears of all subsequent generations of stars and of life itself---were fully formed remarkably early, only about 400 million years after inflation. This is called the era of reionization, the point when the light from the first stars ionized hydrogen atoms, liberating electrons from the protons.
Fantastic!
I was looking for a pickup line for tonight!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
And we all know the answer will be 42, so why bother?
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
There's an ironic post. George Bush upset because these scientists are using science rather than religion?
How do we gaze back to the infant universe? The cosmic microwave background is a fossilized record of what occurred way back when. Embedded in this light are subtle patterns that point to very specific conditions about the early universe.
So...subtle patterns from something that happened long ago that may or may not have been affected by external forces on the way towards us. Patterns for which we are extrapolating initial conditions on the basis of what is equivalent to a very, very small number of observations in the grand timeline, and for which we only have a single location (this solar system) to sample from.
All this to describe an event whose happening we don't really understand and which we have no way to either predict or test. What can we really do now that we couldn't before?
We can see into space with a higher degree of accuracy, and finally, perhaps, test a few of the theories that we couldn't before (which are based on other theories that we still can't yet test). Don't get it wrong, though:
Deciding that the universe is a particular age is still taking a leap of faith, no matter what age you think it is.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Have you ever heard the word "inference"? You know, the same kind of process as you would use if you find a man lying on the ground with a pool of blood around his head and a bloodied hammer lying beside him.
Big Bang cosmology is based upon three key lines of evidence:
1. The red shift of distant galaxies demonstrates that the observable universe is expanding.
2. Nucleosynthesis demonstrates that the large majority of the very lightest elements; hydrogen, helium and lithium are not the products of stars, but rather from some period when the universe was much hotter and denser than it was today.
3. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, seen in *every* direction you care to look, is the clearest earmark that the Universe was much hotter and denser.
So even if Big Bang cosmology is replaced, the replacement theory is going to have to explain these observations and the inference gained from them that the universe was much denser and hotter early in its history.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Plenty of observations could falsify the Big Bang. If the CMBR were localized in one direction, then it would knock down a key pillar of the theory. If we could demonstrate some other means by which the vast amounts of hydrogen needed for the earliest stars to form other than by primitive nucleosynthesis, that would certainly cause severe problems.
The Big Bang is falsifiable, though by this point, and with the vast number of observations done in the last three decades, it's hard to imagine any evidence now coming to light that would overthrow it. If it is replaced at all, then the new theory is still going to have explain the evidence, and that means that the new theory is still going to have to deal with a universe that was once incredibly hotter and denser than it is now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why is it so difficult to believe that the universe just always was in existance?
The dame walked into my office with a sneer on her pretty pasty-white face. "You sure you know what you're talking about?" I sneered back.
"Yeah," she said. She had the kind of teeth made for clenching, white and pearly and pressed firmly together. "Yeah, the way I see it, the Universe got a bum rap. They say it all exploded, but I don't believe it. Not my Universe, the big handsome lug." She went on like that for a while. It coulda been the whiskey, but I think she was just dumb in love with her own voice. She went on about how the Universe had to've always been, and nobody had no evidence to the contrary.
She wound down after sixty minutes or so.
"Look, Lady," I snapped. "I get paid by the hour. You owe me big. But I'll forget to send the bill if you just answer me one question."
She squinted at me like her eyeballs got a taste of something sour. "What?" She spat the word out in a short blast of noise, like a bird honking for attention.
"You ever break the second law of thermodynamics?"
The question must've smacked her right between the eyes. "What're you implying?" She was suddenly, strangely coy.
I pressed my advantage. "Your lovely little thing with the Universe. You ever break the second law of thermodynamics? Did you ever see the Universe break the second law of thermodynamics?"
She shook her head like she had a boiled egg stuck in her ear. She admitted, "I have never done any such thing. It's impossible for a lady of my fine upbringing. I don't even understand what you are driving at, Mister Entropy."
"Yeah, I know." I pointed toward the door. She took the hint, and left my office like a hot, wet squal in the middle of the Pacific. "That's the problem, " told the blank and empty space where she had been. "If you don't get it now, you'll probably never understand."
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Why is it so difficult to believe that the universe just always was in existance?
Well, there's Obler's Paradox for one.
Saying the universe was always in existence implies an actual infinity, and the problems this brings up are, well, practically infinite! Like for example, if the universe has always been here, and it's increasing in entropy, how come it hasn't completely run down already?
There's lots more. All it takes is a little reading and thinking to find lots more problems with a universe that's always been here.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
If the Universe started out in one place, and expanded at less than the speed of light, how can we only now be receiving light from its early days?
.6c, and object B is moving the opposite direction at .6c, does each object appear to be moving at >1c from the other object?
Because the Big bang was not an explosion. The universe didn't start in one place - it was one place, and that place - space itself - expanded.
If object A is moving one direction at
No. Because by special relativity, velocities do not add in the Newtonian fashion. The wikipedia article on it is pretty good.