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.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Fish

There was a time, just a few hundred years ago, when people didn't understand what made humans sick. They blamed it on silly things like punishment from God, witchcraft, contact with dead animals, bad air, etc. Then someone came along and proposed that there were tiny microscopic creatures too small to see, that were invading the human body and causing sickness. This was overwhelmingly met with the same denial you're showing here. People refused to believe it could be possible. There was no proof. It was a discussion on magic.

Yesterday's magic often becomes tomorrow's science.

true, but correct me if I'm wrong, scientific laws are there for a reason, that is, they are provable, varifiable and accepted facts. You cannot create matter from nothing according to scientific laws, that's impossible. However, in order to justify the theory of the big bang, and by proxy the theory of evolution, people like Krauss are resorting to what is little more than a discussion on magic.

My whole involvement in this thread came about because the Dave Lane poster said it's easier to explain the existence of the universe if you take the supernatural out of the equation. But then when you do that how do you explain everything coming out of nothing? It takes a lot of speculation, imagination and pure fiction to explain something coming out of nothing, yet people like Dave Lane say it's easier to do this than say "God created the universe?"

This is called being a hypocrit where I come from.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

true, but correct me if I'm wrong, scientific laws are there for a reason, that is, they are provable, varifiable and accepted facts. You cannot create matter from nothing according to scientific laws, that's impossible. However, in order to justify the theory of the big bang, and by proxy the theory of evolution, people like Krauss are resorting to what is little more than a discussion on magic.

My whole involvement in this thread came about because the Dave Lane poster said it's easier to explain the existence of the universe if you take the supernatural out of the equation. But then when you do that how do you explain everything coming out of nothing? It takes a lot of speculation, imagination and pure fiction to explain something coming out of nothing, yet people like Dave Lane say it's easier to do this than say "God created the universe?"

This is called being a hypocrit where I come from.

[Strongside]

You guys realize that arguing about what you're arguing about is pointless right? You're never going to get anyone that believes either side of this to convert to your opinion by offering it up on a web forum. True belief in anything can only come through personal research and study. Anyone that believes something simply because someone says it to be true doesn't actually believe it.

If I post a new thread stating that we've just traded for Desean Jackson, you'd all ask me for a link. Whether you believe in science or any religion...go find your own link.

[Messier]

Science will never say, god created the universe, because it can't. Science must stay to what is in the natural world. Once god enters the equation, you're talking faith and believe. I don't for a second think you can't have both, but you'll never come to the scientific conclusion that god created the universe.

And this needs to leave the lounge.

[Wildcat2005]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

true, but correct me if I'm wrong, scientific laws are there for a reason, that is, they are provable, varifiable and accepted facts. You cannot create matter from nothing according to scientific laws, that's impossible. However, in order to justify the theory of the big bang, and by proxy the theory of evolution, people like Krauss are resorting to what is little more than a discussion on magic.

My whole involvement in this thread came about because the Dave Lane poster said it's easier to explain the existence of the universe if you take the supernatural out of the equation. But then when you do that how do you explain everything coming out of nothing? It takes a lot of speculation, imagination and pure fiction to explain something coming out of nothing, yet people like Dave Lane say it's easier to do this than say "God created the universe?"

This is called being a hypocrit where I come from.

First the big bang doesn't say the universe came out of "nothing"
There was always some form of energy that existed

Second technically something can out of nothing. At the quantum level things behave in ways that break the laws of physics. To even to pretend to understand how the universe MUST operate is beyond naïve, for anyone, let alone someone without a lifetime's work in the field of physics.

Unless you have an answer as to how a single electron can go every direction at the same time, then you should not try to fit everything into a cause and effect relationship because things at the quantum level don't behave that way.

Third you just can't say "well it can't come from nothing, so there must of been a creator"
If there is a creator, then where did it come from?
A creator of universes of far more complex than a single universe.

It is not the simplest explanation, it is a deflection

[ChiefsLV]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

that's not elaborating, it's a cop-out. What caused the spark?

Classic god of the gaps argument

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Messier

Science will never say, god created the universe, because it can't. Science must stay to what is in the natural world. Once god enters the equation, you're talking faith and believe. I don't for a second think you can't have both, but you'll never come to the scientific conclusion that god created the universe.

And this needs to leave the lounge.

yep, and the psuedo-theoretial-magic behind the theory of the big bang and what caused it breaks all the scientific laws that these same scientists claim are fundamental to understanding the universe and how it works. It's the irony of ironies and it's really quit baffling as to how hypcritical the whole thing is.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Strongside

You guys realize that arguing about what you're arguing about is pointless right? You're never going to get anyone that believes either side of this to convert to your opinion by offering it up on a web forum. True belief in anything can only come through personal research and study. Anyone that believes something simply because someone says it to be true doesn't actually believe it.

If I post a new thread stating that we've just traded for Desean Jackson, you'd all ask me for a link. Whether you believe in science or any religion...go find your own link.

I'm with you. I did the research and have for years. Happens to be something I care strongly about. The fact people like Donkeystone doesn't understand science only reinforces his ignorant beliefs. No one elses.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

yep, and the psuedo-theoretial-magic behind the theory of the big bang and what caused it breaks all the scientific laws that these same scientists claim are fundamental to understanding the universe and how it works. It's the irony of ironies and it's really quit baffling as to how hypcritical the whole thing is.

OK quit trolling.

[Strongside]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I'm with you. I did the research and have for years. Happens to be something I care strongly about. The fact people like Donkeystone doesn't understand science only reinforces his ignorant beliefs. No one elses.

Sure. But his ignorant beliefs are still his beliefs. Let him do his thang and you do yours. I am an atheist, but I don't, and never would, try to push those beliefs on anyone else and all that I ask is that members of other faiths show the same respect to me in return.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Wildcat2005

First the big bang doesn't say the universe came out of "nothing"
There was always some form of energy that existed

Second technically something can out of nothing. At the quantum level things behave in ways that break the laws of physics. To even to pretend to understand how the universe MUST operate is beyond naïve, for anyone, let alone someone without a lifetime's work in the field of physics.

Unless you have an answer as to how a single electron can go every direction at the same time, then you should not try to fit everything into a cause and effect relationship because things at the quantum level don't behave that way.

Third you just can't say "well it can't come from nothing, so there must of been a creator"
If there is a creator, then where did it come from?
A creator of universes of far more complex than a single universe.

It is not the simplest explanation, it is a deflection

the big bang theory does say that our universe, as we know it, all came out of a tiny particle that exploded. So, this tiny particle existed in space and in time, right? Or, it didn't, right? Regardless, out of this tiny particle came all matter and energy, so again, this is a huge problem/issue/question because out of one tiny particle came everything, and the universe is massive. I understand that the scientific community is still trying to figure it all out, especially at the quantum level and at levels that are basically unmeasurable, but that being said, it's still somewhat of a faith based system to believe everything came out of one tiny particle becasue it breaks all the laws of science that these same scientist claim are essential to understanding the universe.

[ActiveShooter]

Originally Posted by tmw4h5

I understand the thought process behind religion, spirits/souls, etc, etc.
We are a species that is so far advanced that we have essentially "mastered" our existence in the sense that we don't really have much to truly fear other than ourselves. We are the dominant species on the planet.
But, we've been here for just a fraction of time in relation to the age of our planet, let alone to age of the universe.
Further more, we have this mindset as humans that we are special - there has to be some reason for our existence other than just pure luck. (sorry, but probably not)
We, like every animal, are afraid to die. We say we aren't, but we are. We're afraid that when we die, it's just that - we're dead. We cease to exist. Our thoughts are gone. So, we have created this idea that there is a special afterlife just for us where we can continue to live forever.
It sucks, but realistically, we're just like any other animal.

You give man too much credit. "Mastered our existence" Lol. Sadly man likes to jump to conclusions on both the religious side and scientific side. If science can't see it or measure it, it doesn't exist. At least religion is somewhat honest telling you to believe on "faith".
I don't know 100% that there's a heaven, but I know 100% that there's a Satan and demons doing his bidding. No, I'm not referring to Obama, I'm referring to outright supernatural demons. I've personally been attacked 4 times by by a Demon. The unrecommended use of an Ouija board spared me a self inflicted death by identifying the attacking demon. I've also seen a full body apparition that science has zero explanation for except to say that I must've been asleep and dreamt it. The reality of these experiences are unexplainable through the myopic lens of science. I was agnostic and dismissive of the Bible when the first attack occurred. I really had a problem with Genesis. I am now a creationist, not in the Adam and Eve way, but in a intelligent design way. "If"science ever finds the missing links and proves macro evolution, I'm fine with it. Doesn't disprove God or Christ in any way. It's just a reminder to be cautious about the literal interpretation of everything in the bible and use it as a guide. I was also extremely dismissive of an ouija board. I thought plastic and cardboard was in no way powerful.
Man's problem is that he doesn't know what he doesn't know and anything from another dimension or supernatural gets dismissed because it can jeopardize previous findings. It's easier to just dismiss it as crazy. Man and science are in their infancy and until science realizes that, it shall remain so.
I haven't had a near death experience, but many have. Some had a great experience and some had a horrific experience. Science likes to explain it as a hallucination from the brain dying. That's the easiest determination to make because it only takes into account brain patterns and makes no mention of a soul which would be hard to prove.
Just 120 years ago, it was believed that if you went 70mph in a car, you would suffocate. Some believe that the vastness of the universe and the distance involved precludes any visitation of extraterrestrial life. They fail to recognize that just because it takes man 9 months to reach Mars, doesn't mean that lifeforms that are a million earth years older or even 1000 years more advanced can't cover distance with ease.
I've also seen a craft accelerate at a rate that would render any life aboard liquid if gravity wasn't mastered and all weight reduced to absolute zero. Someone has the capability. Spacemen, US, Russians? I don't know, but people that haven't seen are conditioned to put a tin foil hat on you.
Man's arrogance is his biggest handicap.
.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I'm with you. I did the research and have for years. Happens to be something I care strongly about. The fact people like Donkeystone doesn't understand science only reinforces his ignorant beliefs. No one elses.

lol, you haven't answered one thing, you are skirting the issue. If you just said let's agree to disagree I'd have more respect for you, but you can't even do that.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by ActiveShooter

"If"science ever finds the missing links and proves macro evolution, I'm fine with it.

What missing links do you feel are required to prove evolution?

[Messier]

Originally Posted by Strongside

Sure. But his ignorant beliefs are still his beliefs. Let him do his thang and you do yours. I am an atheist, but I don't, and never would, try to push those beliefs on anyone else and all that I ask is that members of other faiths show the same respect to me in return.

That's good.

I only problem I have with, "evangelical atheism", is the idea that people who believe in god are ignorant, or stupid. I've said on here before, I've known some dumb atheists, and some of the most brilliant people I've ever known are christian. It does nothing to belittle someone for their beliefs.

And done.