Scientists photograph BIRTH OF TIME with astonishing new dark matter camera

www.express.co.uk ^ | PUBLISHED: 12:33, Mon, Jul 31, 2017 | UPDATED: 17:05, Mon, Jul 31, 2017 | by Paul Baldwin

[Red Badger]

For the first 300,000 years after the Big Bang the rapidly expanding universe was dark and filled with neutral hydrogen gas doing nothing much.

But over the next half billion years the first stars and galaxies arrive through a process known as re-ionization – turning the lights on in the universe.

Using an amazing Dark Energy Camera which is part of the -meter Blanco Telescope, at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO), in northern Chile, scientists have captured a picture of 23 of these young galaxies – the very dawn of visual time.

Arizona State University astronomers Sangeeta Malhotra and James Rhoads, working with international teams in Chile and China, are now attempting to find when the very first light illuminated the universe.

This dramatic moment, known as re-ionization, occurred sometime in the interval between 300 million years and one billion years after the Big Bang.

[Delta 21]

It would have also been mute.

[minnesota_bound]

Did they use a quasar for the flash?

[minnesota_bound]

#7 That was the abridged version.
This is how it really happened.....

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov © 1956
http://multivax.com/last_question.html

[editor-surveyor]

.
Amazing! Photographing what isn’t there!

Quite a feat. (B.S.)

[Awgie]

How did nothing become something?

[editor-surveyor]

.
And all of it from that same rear orifice!
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “How did nothing become something?” <<

When someone with political clout demanded that it be something!
.

[Rik0Shay]

If some entity did not say ready, set, go then why did it not happen a billion years before.

[thoughtomator]

Big Bang theory is basically a way to try to use science to create a Biblically-compatible view of the universe.

[ctdonath2]

Thank you for the most succinct explanation I’ve seen.

I usually reference the need to simplify the explanation to something comprehensible by goat herders, lacking in robust 21st century scientific detail.

[Red Badger]

That’s a moot point...................

[Red Badger]

God said...............

[Steve Van Doorn]

So true

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "Some have theorized that instead of ‘one’ Big Bang, there were ‘several’ Mini Bangs"

Then it's wouldn't be the creation of the universe. Just a bunch of little big bangs

[Steve Van Doorn]

said, "No, it just slows it down a little bit, filling in the holes, as it were.. "

are you saying they still believe in the big bang theory?

[Fightin Whitey]

What Big Bang?

[Red Badger]

Yes, it’s still in the lead.

But now they have to explain what was happening during the ‘Dark Ages’.

Did gravity not exist yet?

Were the Laws of Physics not yet codified?

Was there a single universe or multiple myriads of universes all occupying the same space?

It begins to sound like Far Eastern mystic gobbledy gook after a while........If a galaxy forms in the early universe and there is no one to see it does it really exist?...................

[Red Badger]

There would have been a Big Bang that eventually produced a bunch of ‘Mini Bangs’ from gravitational acquisition of matter in groups that would eventually explode and scatter matter further and further, like a continuous fireworks display...............

[cgbg]

The analogy I like to use is that these “scientists” are like ants walking through the streets of Chicago.

They can’t conceive of what they can’t conceive—and as a result each “theory” is wackier than the next one.

[lonevoice]

That is truly amazing.