Slashdot Mirror


Super-Sensors To Sense Big Bang Output

New super-sensitive microwave detectors from the National Institute of Standards and Technology may soon tackle the question of what happened immediately following the big bang. "The new experiment will begin approximately a year from now on the Chilean desert and will consist of placing a large array of powerful NIST sensors on a telescope mounted in a converted shipping container. The detectors will look for subtle fingerprints in the CMB [cosmic microwave background] from primordial gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space-time from the violent birth of the universe more than 13 billion years ago. Such waves are believed to have left a faint but unique imprint on the direction of the CMB's electric field, called the 'B-mode polarization.' These waves — never before confirmed through measurements — are potentially detectable today, if sensitive enough equipment is used."

50 comments

  1. What *really* happened after the "Big Bang" by Moryath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, they lay around in bed, smoked a few cigarettes, and then the next morning... at least, that's according to Eccentrica Gallumbits.

    Sadly, Zaphod is only number 2, having merely been described as the best bang since the big one.

    1. Re:What *really* happened after the "Big Bang" by JoelTC · · Score: 1

      Poor Zaphod, just tell him "Don't Panic" and everything will be alright.

    2. Re:What *really* happened after the "Big Bang" by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I'd say that after the Big Bang, "the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  2. Output? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they could sense the input, I'd be more impressed. ;-)

    A little cosmology humor there for ya.

    1. Re:Output? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "input", by definition, doesn't exist.

  3. I know what's after the big bang theory... by Chees0rz · · Score: 5, Funny

    How I met your Mother, duh

  4. Not yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I can't feel a thing," she said.

  5. Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by HasselhoffThePaladin · · Score: 4, Informative
    How sensitive, you ask?

    FTA:

    By contrast, the new NIST detectors are designed to measure not only temperature but also the polarization. The B-mode polarization signals may be more than a million times fainter than the temperature signals.

    ...the colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations, as in a weather map. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees.

    I might be missing something, but that sounds pretty impressive.

    1. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe I'm thinking of gravity wave experiments, but didn't the researchers have issues with unforeseen field effects the last time they tried this measurement?

    2. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by HasselhoffThePaladin · · Score: 1

      IANAP, so the only thing Wikipedia brought up was a cancelled telescope designed to detect B-mode polarization called Clover, so you might be thinking of the gravity wave experiments.

    3. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by blueg3 · · Score: 1, Informative

      For what they're doing, it may well be very sensitive. Unless I'm doing my calculations wrong, though, it's not amazingly sensitive in the absolute sense -- 0.0002 degK is 2.32 eV. It's certainly reasonable to measure energies in the meV range. Alternately, the temperature of the CMB is a few Kelvin, so this is measuring fluctuations of roughly one part in ten thousand.

    4. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by HasselhoffThePaladin · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're talking about the temperature signals from the CMB though. The sensors are designed to detect the B-mode polarization signals, which are supposedly 1 millionth as strong, according to TFA.

    5. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does get pretty Chile where this telescope is going.

    6. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by Anenome · · Score: 1

      I hear they're detectors are so sensitive that they will only be able to detect the sought-after Big Bang radiation if every microwave-oven on the planet is turned off for a good couple of hours. So, in other words, they'll never detect Big Bang radiation :P

      --
      "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
    7. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm doing my calculations wrong, though, it's not amazingly sensitive in the absolute sense -- 0.0002 degK is 2.32 eV.

      I think you multiplied instead of divided — 0.2 mK is equivalent to 17 neV. Much more impressive, but presumably doable.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    8. Re:Exactly how sensitve are these sensors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two problems here. TFA is not clear, but the 200 microK result is old news from an existing satellite. B mode measurement require much more sensitivity. Secondly 200 microK * Boltzmanns contant is 17 neV.

  6. What happened immediately after the big bang..... by EvilToiletPaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... everyone covered their ears!

  7. Re:What happened immediately after the big bang... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shit started to happen.

  8. Microwave background radiation by Taibhsear · · Score: 0

    Science. It works bitches!

    1. Re:Microwave background radiation by hack++slash · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been wondering for a while now; at what age should you stop wearing tshirts with funny slogans on and start buying cardigans?

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    2. Re:Microwave background radiation by rich_r · · Score: 1

      I think it's about the time you start asking that question. Still, carpet slippers *are* comfy.

    3. Re:Microwave background radiation by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, Funny

      False dichotomy. I wear cardigans over my t-shirts all the time.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:Microwave background radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll have to pull the "Schroedingers Cat is Dead/Schroedingers Cat is Not Dead" tshirts et al from my cold dead hands... or will they...

  9. I applaud more jobs ... by powerlord · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one am very glad that we (the world) is promoting jobs creation to fill the role of these "Super Censors", but I am sad to think that the whole world is allowing our fear of job loss to force us into the position of Censoring (children I assume), from hearing about the sound from a "Big Bang".

    I would think that most adults are more than happy to keep the noise down if a child is around, and it wouldn't take Sensors for this to happen.

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  10. The Point... by earlymon · · Score: 1

    Well, the summary is clear on the what - but if you're curious about the point of making the measurement in the first place (beyond because we can, etc.) - from TFA:

    If found, these waves would be the clearest evidence yet in support of the "inflation theory," which suggests that all of the currently observable universe expanded rapidly from a subatomic volume, leaving in its wake the telltale cosmic background of gravitational waves.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    1. Re:The Point... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a useful primer if you're really into that kind of thing but don't have background specifically on it. Makes the article a bit easier to understand on a technical level.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  11. Re:What happened immediately after the big bang... by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

    Nope ears were covered in preparation FOR the big bang not after.
    Well for some definition of ears and some other less likely definition of before.

  12. B-mode polarization? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we infer that there's an A-mode? As in, perhaps, Gravity A and Gravity B, ala Bob Lazar? As in, I'm avoiding the "kook" label and the MiB by posting as AC?

  13. No, there's an E-mode. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    I figured this was "electric" (e-field) and "magnetic" (b-field), but Googling around so far has only left me more confused.

    1. Re:No, there's an E-mode. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so we detect it with and E-meter?

  14. It would be a lot more interesting to know... by Tangential · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It would be a lot more interesting to know what happened before the Big Bang.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:It would be a lot more interesting to know... by JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F*** · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nothing or the Big Crunch depending on your favorite theory.

    2. Re:It would be a lot more interesting to know... by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you know what. I think everyone, including these scientists, agree with you.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:It would be a lot more interesting to know... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Assuming there actually was a "before the big bang". If the beginning of time was at the big bang, then there simply was no time before, so the question of what there was at that time is meaningless.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:It would be a lot more interesting to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you know what. I think everyone, including these scientists, agree with you.

      science has revealed how the universe came into existance now recently some 20- 30 before. But quraan has said this 1400 years before thru our prophet Mohammed (PBUH). If anyone wants greater details about this topic go to quraan and update your knowlege for better.

  15. Misread summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "nipples in the fabric of space-time"
    I should really stop reading articles when i am tired...

    The thought of gigantic nipples in space horrifies me.
    Even worse is the fact that my captcha was explode... oh god.

    1. Re:Misread summary by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The thought of gigantic nipples in space horrifies me.

      What did you think how the Milky Way was created?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  16. Listening for the First Sound? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    I can't believe nobody's mentioned Terry Pratchett's Listening Monks yet! :P

  17. So what? by bugeaterr · · Score: 3, Funny

    This only shows what happened in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.
    Which leaves PLENTY of room for God.
    He's awfully quick, you know. (As Mrs. God can attest to!)

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there is no room for Mr Darwin, cause he is to slooooow

  18. This is not the only such experiment by jpflip · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's worth noting that more than one such telescope hopes to probe CMB polarization on a similar timescale. Caltech and JPL are leading the BICEP2 and SPIDER collaborations (also with NIST), which will also be deploying in a few months (the former at the South Pole, the latter on a high-flying balloon) to probe E-mode and B-mode CMB polarization. The Princeton experiment mentioned in this article isn't that different - it just apparently has better press!

  19. Wait... by nicc777 · · Score: 1

    Didn't it happen like really long ago or something? Then we must be in a giant fishbowl which echoes :-)

    --
    Need an ISP in South Africa?
  20. E- and B-modes by jpflip · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "E-modes" and "B-modes" referred to in the article aren't quite the same as electric and magnetic fields. Here's the basic story.

    Suppose you try to map the polarization of the microwave background across the sky. Each direction on the sky has some polarization magnitude and direction, which we can represent by a little headless arrows on the sky (headless because flipping the polarization 180 degrees doesn't change it). A map of the CMB polarization thus looks like a bunch of little line segments of varying sizes and orientations all across the sky.

    Now imagine looking at the pattern of polarization directions near some point on the sky. This arrangement of lines can be "curl-free" if the lines are oriented radially or circumferentially around the central point; this is called an "E-mode" pattern. The polarization pattern might instead have a curl component, which is called a "B-mode" pattern. another way of looking at it: an E-mode pattern looks locally the same when mirror-reversed, while a B-mode pattern does not. Any field on the sky can be written as the sum of an E-mode pattern and a B-mode pattern.

    This technicality is important because of how polarization is generated in the microwave background. It turns out that all kinds of relatively mundane processes can generate E-modes - they're still very interesting and informative, but we know they're there (and have even detected them). B-mode patterns are much more unusual - it turns out that normal CMB physics cannot generate large-scale B-modes. Inflation, however, generates a background of gravity waves in the early universe that produce a B-mode contribution to the CMB. This is incredibly tiny and difficult to detect, but it's a smoking gun for inflation.

  21. but this big blur is in the way of the telescope.. by BitwiseX · · Score: 1

    and noone can figure out what this strange figure is out in space...

    Here's what it looks like What the heck is that?!?

  22. The big pop by caywen · · Score: 0, Troll

    The universe is the fluid in the pimple of God. I'm waiting for the Big Pop and the Big Wipe Off The Bathroom Mirror.

  23. I'd bet by PPH · · Score: 1

    a telescope mounted in a converted shipping container.

    ... that they'd see a lot more if they took the telescope out of the shipping container.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  24. E/B Mode Decomposition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see pages 20-21 of this presentation: http://www.ics.forth.gr/ada5/pdf_files/Starck_talk.pdf

  25. Re:What happened immediately after the big bang... by dudpixel · · Score: 1

    ... everyone covered their ears!

    nope. mum screamed. THEN everyone covered their ears!

    --
    This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
  26. Can't detect what didn't happen by Benfea · · Score: 1

    How can this magic microwave thingie detect what clearly didn't happen? According to the devil-worshiping scientists, this "big bang" occurred billions of years before the universe existed, so we know it never happened. If it never happened, how can we possibly detect anything emanating from it? This is obviously yet another hoax designed to lead people away from GAWD. [/christianstrawman]