Scientists find cosmic ripples from birth of universe

[Tribal Warfare]

Scientists find cosmic ripples from birth of universe

Published March 17, 2014


Astronomers have discovered what they believe is the first direct evidence of the astonishing expansion of the universe in the instant following the Big Bang -- the scientific explanation for the birth of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago.

Scientists believe that the universe exploded from a tiny speck and hurled itself out in all directions in the fraction of a second that followed, beginning just 10 to the minus 35 seconds (roughly one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the universe's birth. Matter ultimately coalesced hundreds of millions of years later into planets, stars, and ultimately us.

And like ripples from a ball kicked into a pond, that Big Bang-fueled expansion caused ripples in the ancient light from that event, light which remains imprinted in the skies in a leftover glow called the cosmic microwave background.

Scientists still don’t know who kicked the ball.

But if confirmed, the newfound ripples would be amazing proof of what has long been mere theory about what happened in those first millionths of a second.

“The implications for this detection stagger the mind,” said Jamie Bock, professor of physics at Caltech, laboratory senior research scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and project co-leader. “We are measuring a signal that comes from the dawn of time.”

"It would be the most important discovery since the discovery, I think, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating," Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who is not a member of the study team, told Space.com. He compared the finding to a 1998 observation that opened the window on mysterious dark energy and won three researchers the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics.

The groundbreaking results came from observations by BICEP2, a telescope at the South Pole, of the cosmic microwave background -- a faint glow left over from the Big Bang.

Beginning a fraction of a fraction of a second after the universe's birth, according to the current theory, space-time expanded incredibly rapidly, ballooning outward faster than the speed of light. The afterglow from that expansion is called the cosmic microwave background, and tiny fluctuations in it provide clues to conditions in the early universe.

For example, small differences in temperature across the sky show where parts of the universe were denser, eventually condensing into galaxies and galactic clusters.

Since the cosmic microwave background is a form of light, it exhibits all the properties of light, including polarization. On Earth, sunlight is scattered by the atmosphere and becomes polarized, which is why polarized sunglasses help reduce glare. In space, the cosmic microwave background was scattered by atoms and electrons and became polarized too.

“Our team hunted for a special type of polarization called ‘B-modes,’ which represents a twisting or ‘curl’ pattern in the polarized orientations of the ancient light,” said Bock.

The team presented their work at a press conference Monda at Harvard -- the discovery of that characteristic pattern of polarization in the skies, which they called proof of the gravitational waves across the primordial sky.

“This work offers new insights into some of our most basic questions: Why do we exist? How did the universe begin? These results are not only a smoking gun for inflation, they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was,” Harvard theorist Avi Loeb said.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

lol, whatever. The burden of proof is squarely on you to explain how the big bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which has been tested and confirmed.

But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)

Guth says (p. 12-14, 271-276) that the person who first suggested that the universe and its associated space may have originated as a quantum fluctuation was Edward Tryon in 1973 in his paper Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? (Nature, vol. 246, p. 396-397, 14 December 1973.) As Tryon says in that paper:

In any big bang model, one must deal with the problem of 'creation'. This problem has two aspects. One is that the conservation laws of physics forbid the creation of something from nothing. The other is that even if the conservation laws were inapplicable at the moment of creation, there is no apparent reason for such an event to occur.
…
Contrary to widespread belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. The laws of physics merely imply that a Universe which appears from nowhere must have certain specific properties. In particular, such a Universe must have a zero net value for all conserved quantities.
…
To indicate how such a creation might have come about, I refer to quantum field theory, in which every phenomenon that could happen in principle actually does happen occasionally in practice, on a statistically random basis. For example, quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously from a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind.
…
If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.
Note that our universe likely came into being with just a tiny amount of matter. But after that initial fluctuation triggered the start of the universe, what caused the avalanche that created the massive amount of matter that currently comprise our universe? The inflationary model of the universe takes care of that problem too, although the explanation is a little technical. As Stenger says (p. 148):

[I]n the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics.
In other words, no energy was required to "create" the universe. The zero total energy of the universe is an observational fact, within measured uncertainties, of course. What is more, this is also a prediction of inflationary cosmology, which we have seen has now been strongly supported by observations. Thus we can safely say,
No violation of energy conservation occurred if the universe grew out of an initial void of zero energy.

http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-b...rvation-energy

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Priest31kc

It explains how the Big Bang Theory does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But okay.

at what part exactly?

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Priest31kc

It explains how the Big Bang Theory does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But okay.

He can't verify his outrageous claim, therefore it has no merit.

All he can do is say "No, U!"

He should not enter that sauce into the county fair, because it is weak.

[Dr. Van Halen]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

the conservation of energy is not hard to understand, but you think insulting people somehow absolves you of trying to reconcile how the big bang theory violates this law. You not only are stupid, you are lazy too.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows these type of violations in short bursts.

I mention this not because I am an expert, but because I took your question, did a simple Google search, and found several answers that are supported by observable fact.

[Priest31kc]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

at what part exactly?

Go to the 16:00 minute mark or so...

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Fish

Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which has been tested and confirmed.

Thank You! So the theory of zero energy is the key to this theory! At least that is something...

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Priest31kc

Go to the 16:00 minute mark or so...

ok I watched that part and a little more. I still struggle with the fact that it this theory is based on a random event. But the idea that negative energy and positive energy cancel themselves out leaving the theory of zero energy to enable the universe to start is something that needs further investigation.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

ok I watched that part and a little more. I still struggle with the fact that it this theory is based on a random event. But the idea that negative energy and positive energy cancel themselves out leaving the theory of zero energy to enable the universe to start is something that needs further investigation.

Honestly, we probably can't really expand this any further until we have a grand theory that satisfies both relative theory and quantum theory at the same time. There are 4 natural forces(we know of) in the universe. Gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism. Our physics explains how these 4 forces work in the universe.

Relative theory explains very well the motion of what we consider large bodies focusing on the force of gravity. But when you try to apply the theory of relativity(gravity) to very small scenarios, some things happen that relativity cannot explain. To simplify, gravity acts weird at really really small scales, and relativity breaks down. Inversely, quantum theory does very well at explaining things that happen on a very small scale, by looking at the natural forces other than gravity. Electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces in nature. These forces have great effect at very small scales where gravity is essentially insignificant. But these 3 forces are so weak at large scales that the physics again breaks down. Quantum mechanics in turn cannot explain some things that happen on very large scales, mostly because gravity is the dominant force there.

Which is also why quantum mechanics could actually serve as a better model than relativity for explaining the Big Bang because it's describing the universe as a tiny singularity where quantum physics works better. Gravity doesn't have much if any affect in a singularity, which is why the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily violate relativity.

That said.... we need a new model that explains all 4 natural forces simultaneously.

When we finally discover the "Theory of everything" that can explain physics correctly at all scales of reference, we'll have another explosion of knowledge and information even bigger than when we proved the relativity and quantum theories. And it will happen eventually. Hopefully in our lifetime. It may very well be that we need to include another force(s) other than the 4 that we know. Perhaps it will require new physics to include what we now know as dark energy/matter/weakly interacting massive particles. That's my guess.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Fish

Honestly, we probably can't really expand this any further until we have a grand theory that satisfies both relative theory and quantum theory at the same time. There are 4 natural forces(we know of) in the universe. Gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism. Our physics explains how these 4 forces work in the universe.

Relative theory explains very well the motion of what we consider large bodies focusing on the force of gravity. But when you try to apply the theory of relativity(gravity) to very small scenarios, some things happen that relativity cannot explain. To simplify, gravity acts weird at really really small scales, and relativity breaks down. Inversely, quantum theory does very well at explaining things that happen on a very small scale, by looking at the natural forces other than gravity. Electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces in nature. These forces have great effect at very small scales where gravity is essentially insignificant. But these 3 forces are so weak at large scales that the physics again breaks down. Quantum mechanics in turn cannot explain some things that happen on very large scales, mostly because gravity is the dominant force there.

Which is also why quantum mechanics could actually serve as a better model than relativity for explaining the Big Bang because it's describing the universe as a tiny singularity where quantum physics works better. Gravity doesn't have much if any affect in a singularity, which is why the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily violate relativity.

That said.... we need a new model that explains all 4 natural forces simultaneously.

When we finally discover the "Theory of everything" that can explain physics correctly at all scales of reference, we'll have another explosion of knowledge and information even bigger than when we proved the relativity and quantum theories. And it will happen eventually. Hopefully in our lifetime. It may very well be that we need to include another force(s) other than the 4 that we know. Perhaps it will require new physics to include what we now know as dark energy/matter/weakly interacting massive particles. That's my guess.

Thanks fish for a great post. It's entirely too much typing for me however I agree and I do think that dark energy or matter is going to play a role with tying the theories of the small and the large together.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Thanks fish for a great post. It's entirely too much typing for me however I agree and I do think that dark energy or matter is going to play a role with tying the theories of the small and the large together.

We don't even know what Dark matter is made out of? How it acts? It's like what 85% of the universe, correct? Basically its a way we are giving mass to something that has no mass?

When we figure out what dark matter and energy is or how it interacts with the universe.....it would seem we are ready to make a big leap in science and change not just our understanding of the universe but our current life's.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

We don't even know what Dark matter is made out of? How it acts? It's like what 85% of the universe, correct? Basically its a way we are giving mass to something that has no mass?

When we figure out what dark matter and energy is or how it interacts with the universe.....it would seem we are ready to make a big leap in science and change not just our understanding of the universe but our current life's.

No, actually dark matter clearly has mass. Lots of mass. Detectable mass, which is where the 85% figure comes from. It just doesn't exhibit any electromagnetic attributes. Which is why we can't "See" it and detect it like normal matter. It doesn't emit or absorb light at all. It seems that the only thing detectable that it does have is mass(and maybe weak force).

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Define irony:

Someone with no background in science who feels they are qualified to discredit the theses of brilliant individuals who have spent a lifetime contributing to a compendium of knowledge.

[hometeam]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Define irony:

Someone with no background in science who feels they are qualified to discredit the theses of brilliant individuals who have spent a lifetime collaborating to a compendium of knowledge.

Right.

That is my main argument to people who just.cant.get.it. People can accept EVERYTHING that comes from science, computers, satellites, medicine, OUR ENTIRE WORLD, and we KNOW it works. You know, because THAT IS HOW WE WHERE ABLE TO CREATE THESE THINGS! And then people dedicate their entire lives to knowing about how things TRULY work, collaborating all around the world, in the past and going into the future. And when they talk about anything that is at odds with stone aged myths, all the sudden, the 'science isnt in' or any other number of excuses, we have heard them all. Are you kidding me?

The other day, in a single conversation. I had an otherwise intelligent person tell me;

1. 'they found noahs ark, they found it!'
2. Carbon dating has been disproven
3. Humans have only been around for 2000 years
4. The bible was written in the 1800s, after science had taken hold, so science has proven the bible true.

This is why people who understand science, and how it really works, get so exasperated all the time.

Come on.

[track]

Originally Posted by Fish

No, actually dark matter clearly has mass. Lots of mass. Detectable mass, which is where the 85% figure comes from. It just doesn't exhibit any electromagnetic attributes. Which is why we can't "See" it and detect it like normal matter. It doesn't emit or absorb light at all. It seems that the only thing detectable that it does have is mass(and maybe weak force).

Actually it's more like 25 % for dark matter, 65% for dark energy and the rest is ordinary matter....or close to those percentages

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by hometeam

Right.

That is my main argument to people who just.cant.get.it. People can accept EVERYTHING that comes from science, computers, satellites, medicine, OUR ENTIRE WORLD, and we KNOW it works. You know, because THAT IS HOW WE WHERE ABLE TO CREATE THESE THINGS! And then people dedicate their entire lives to knowing about how things TRULY work, collaborating all around the world, in the past and going into the future. And when they talk about anything that is at odds with stone aged myths, all the sudden, the 'science isnt in' or any other number of excuses, we have heard them all. Are you kidding me?

The other day, in a single conversation. I had an otherwise intelligent person tell me;

1. 'they found noahs ark, they found it!'
2. Carbon dating has been disproven
3. Humans have only been around for 2000 years
4. The bible was written in the 1800s, after science had taken hold, so science has proven the bible true.

This is why people who understand science, and how it really works, get so exasperated all the time.

Come on.

Yeah, I had a guy once tell me that our history had been artificially compressed and that 'known history' all took place within the past 600 years.

People say weird stuff.