Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

Yahoo (AP) ^ | 3/16/2006 | MATT CRENSON

[The_Victor]

Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second.

The discovery — which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation — is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation.

It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup.

"It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing."

Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, said: "The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning."

Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old — long after inflation had done its work.

But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance.

Physicists presented new measurements of those variations during a news conference at Princeton University. The measurements were made by a spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001.

Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred thousand years. WMAP also measured variations in the cosmic microwave background so huge that they stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the research.

The new analysis looked at variations in the microwave background over smaller patches of sky — only billions of light-years across, instead of hundreds of billions.

Without inflation, the brightness variations over small patches of the sky would be the same as those observed over larger areas of the heavens. But the researchers found considerable differences in the brightness variations.

"The data favors inflation," said Charles Bennett, a Johns Hopkins University physicist who announced the discovery. He was joined by two Princeton colleagues, Lyman Page and David Spergel, who also contributed to the research.

Bennett added: "It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe."

The physicists said small lumps in the microwave background began during inflation. Those lumps eventually coalesced into stars, galaxies and planets.

The measurements are scheduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

[AntiGuv]

Well, we won't go into it any further in this thread, for the simple reason that this isn't the first time we've debated, so I know better, and I never make the same mistake twice, as there are far too many new mistakes eagerly waiting their turn. ;^)

If you want read the book above, or don't if you'd rather not. It covers all kinds of interesting topics that touch on the issues raised here. That's all I have to add.

[Netheron]

Well, John is also writing for a general audience.

[gomaaa]

E ²= p² c² + m² c⁴




YYYYEEEEEEHHHHHAAAA!!!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second."

Finally...something expanding faster than the Federal government.

[gomaaa]

I never used TeX much, but LaTeX is pretty cool. I'd better get comfortable with it, as I'm likely to use it to write my thesis.....

[Vicomte13]

Why are we getting angry with each other about these things?

This is really, really hard stuff, and nobody knows. We're groping around in a dark box picking up little bits and pieces of things that make sense except where they don't.

We haven't unified the fields, and our really wild speculations of bubbles and 'branes are, well, epicycles and angels when you get right down to it...interesting and imaginative speculations...but speculations.

It could well be that what we THINK our key tests proved, really weren't proved by those tests because we're looking at it wrong...because some assumption or other is off kilter.

Uniformitarianism is one of those assumptions that pervades everything we do...that what is is what was. But we don't really know that, of course.

So why get testy with each other?
Come on! This stuff is FUN! It's interesting. It's great to be able to study interesting stuff. But it doesn't really MATTER, does it? Not enough to yell at each other.

[The_Victor]

Well, John is also writing for a general audience.

Probably people like me. Engineer with just enough knowledge of physics to be dangerous.

[beezdotcom]

Funny somebody seemed to understand whose festival was referenced, too.

Why? It's intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

[Southack]

"Interesting. Can I see your math? I've seen the math on the other side of the question. But, you seem to have this down, so let's see your work. This will, no doubt, revolutionize physics. There's a Nobel Prize in your future, I expect."

Instead of the math, you'd be more likely to understand that a force applied such that expansion overcame gravity (e.g. all mass first inside the area of a marble) was then overcome by gravity (e.g. the universe's "inflation" slowed) and then expanded again, but this time not as fast (i.e. Hubble and others have observed and confirmed that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate).

That's the "inflation" theory.

And when laid out like that you should be able to see why that theory is hooey.

[TC Rider]

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

I figured it had something to do with Hillary's ass.

[VadeRetro]

It's intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

Yeah. ;)

It can be the ruin of a thread, feeding someone's need to be the center of attention.

[gomaaa]

String theory hasn't been confirmed in the lab yet, but that doesn't mean it's complete crap. We'll see if SuperSymmetry is confirmed by the LHC at CERN in the next few years. That my put at least a few feathers in the String Theorists' caps or put the kabosh on the whole thing.

[arthurus]

So what does this do to the speed of light being a constant and an absolute limit?

[beezdotcom]

An analogous situation - take a flashlight beam and wave it across the sky - you've made a beam "travel" from one star to another in a few seconds,

By the way, a new crop circle appeared in the field behind your house. I translated the symbols for you; they said: "Enough with the high-beams, already!"

[The_Victor]

I never used TeX much, but LaTeX is pretty cool. I'd better get comfortable with it, as I'm likely to use it to write my thesis.....

LaTeX can handle ligatures,.... and chicks dig ligatures.

[Southack]

"The universe is expanding between galactic clusters rather than between solar systems. It seems they aren't at all sure what is doing this, but they are pretty sure gravity drove the inflationary phase."

Not gravity as we see it today (i.e. our current laws of physics). All mass inside a marble space?! And then space expands away from that massive gravity?!

And then the expansion slows down?!

And then we notice that our universe is still expanding...at an ever increasing rate?!

...except for inside our solar system.

Now why am I not sold on this "inflationary" theory?!

[MineralMan]

"Instead of the math, you'd be more likely to understand that a force applied such that expansion overcame gravity (e.g. all mass first inside the area of a marble) was then overcome by gravity (e.g. the universe's "inflation" slowed) and then expanded again, but this time not as fast (i.e. Hubble and others have observed and confirmed that our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate)."

Why don't you let me be the judge of what I'll be more likely to understand? Show me your math. I've seen the math for the other theory. Now, I'd like to see the math you use to refute it. If you need to send a .pdf file, you can freepmail me.

Based on your minimal textual explanation, I suspect you are misunderstanding the theory, but I can't tell without your calculations.

[longshadow]

OOOOH! Hard Data! Yum-Yum! :)

Best of all, that data depicted on the graph depicts what was available BEFORE today's announcement. Apparently, the new data continue the previous pattern of obsevational results matching the pattern predicted by the Inflationary model to an astonishing degree.

[beezdotcom]

It can be the ruin of a thread, feeding someone's need to be the center of attention.

True enough. The "Ptolemy Polemic", I call it.

[Vicomte13]

"There are only 4 dimensions. Nothing else can be shown in the lab or in reality."

Depends on how you define "dimension".

The inner space of the mind is a dimension - the most interesting of all - but it isn't encompassed by any of the other three or four.

And it might well be that our universe is a thought, and ultimately obeys the rules of thought...of whoever is doing the thinking. (Others, please note, that is no more speculative than froth, bubbles or 'branes, so let's not get testy about a little foray into speculative theology.)

We can easily see three dimensions: length, width and heighth. Time? Well, we call it a dimension, and that helps us. Maybe it is. Maybe it doesn't exist at all.

We could just as well call "randomness" a dimension without measure.

Drill, and you get down to circular definitions that repose on semantics.

Which doesn't make it not worthwhile.
But you've said there are four dimensions.
I'd say that we can demonstrate three, and the fourth, time, is less tangible and more speculative than mind.
So, there's either three demonstrable or five, but not four.

So much depends on how you define the words.