Posted on 03/16/2006 11:31:54 AM PST by 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.
That's actually not a problem for my math, but for Inflationary Theory. Inflation is already coming up with 123 AU's (instead of 1 AU) between the Earth and Sun (with distance 0 at t=0).
Starting with a larger distance just increases Inflationary Theory's error...disproving it further.
Once again, you are incorrect. The math is correct; the units are correct.
The age of the sun is determined by the study of solar oscillations and meteorites, not by Inflation Theory, as being 4.56 billion years. And, no, I was not saying the same thing; those were two separate problems with your inane equations, that are thereby rendered characteristically meaningless.
And I've concluded that you are way too far divorced from any semblance of reality to make further conversation with you of any value. I don't want to understand the physics of your fantasy world even enough to debunk them as having any validity in actuality. Sorry!
That's quite a trick, considering that the expansion rate at distance d = 0 is zero.
Here's the only tip I'm going to give you, in the only post I'm going to make to you on this ridiculous waste of time - the rate changes as a function of distance. That means you cannot solve this algebraically, as you've attempted so hopelessly to do. You're going to have to go purchase a calculus book and learn how to solve integrals to find the distance between two points as a function of time and the Hubble constant.
"but wouldn't there be a giant void in the center of the universe somewhere?"
Yes, you are right, but that void was used up by placing large amounts of it between the ears of liberals.
That's yet another problem with Inflationary Theory's math model (especially at t=0 for the universe).
You're confusing Inflationary Theory's math problems with my own, however. I did the math to show that Inflationary Theory makes erroneous predictions.
You're attempting to latch onto those math problems as if they are mine; they aren't...they simply further discredit the very theory that I disproved mathematically in post #381.
If you want, you can start t=0 at .5 AU or any other starting distance greater than 0, but the math gets even worse for Inflationary Theory. It still gives you the wrong answer, so you don't have to use my d=0 at t=0.
That's fine. Plug 4.56 Billion years in instead of 17 Billion years and Inflationary Theory yields 33 AU for the distance of the Earth to Sun.
Now go measure that distance and tell me if Inflationary Theory is correct!
Right, right...even though I'm the one who showed my math, line by line in post #381...and even though you can't write the first equation of what you're babbling about above, I'm the one who is wrong.
Uh, huh.
No wonder that you fled this thread rather than post actual rebuttal math to disprove me...
No, that's quite alright, but thanks for offering! I do not want to steal any of your thunder. You should bask in the glory of imploding the Standard Model all on your own.
There is no 'edge' and likewise, there's no 'center'.
Take the previously mentioned balloon, mark it with dots to represent stars, galaxies, etc. Inflate the balloon. The distance between every dot will increase in proportion to the original distance between them.
As for what 'we' might see ...
Place an ant on the surface of this balloon. The ant is two-dimensional. He knows about left & right and forward & back; but the in & out is beyond his understanding.
Now, inflate the balloon. Every dot in every direction seems to be receding away from our poor ant. And the farther away the dots are - the faster they recede. That's redshift.
If our ant is clever enough, he can plot the redshift versus the distance to the various dots and discover how fast the balloon is expanding. That's the Hubble constant.
With a little mathematics, the very clever ant can use the constant to figure out how long the balloon has been inflating -- add in some good distance measurements, he could figure just how big his universe (balloon) is.
Plus given some imagination, our ant might possibly discover that 'unknown' in & out dimension.
It was Charles Darwin. He confessed on his deathbed.
Why would you calculate the expansion of earth to sun distance over the life of the universe?
Or at all, for that matter?
Would be more like making the squares larger, but their relative positions remain the same. The distances between the pieces get larger, but the pieces don't move from their own squares............
since thousands of physicists have worked on this over the past decades and don't seem to find a fundamental flaw in it, maybe I'm just misunderstanding it and should ask some questions to clarify the matter", instead *you* consistently and reflexively think, "hey, I don't see how that could work, so without any doubt, 'THE THEORY IS HOOEY'..." Really, please explain this to me -- what sort of mental state leads to such public exhibitions of ludicrous presumptuousness?
My guess...one or more of the following: megalomania, hubris, narcissism, conceit -- in combination with ignorance, anonymity, and a need for attention.
In fact, it would give us 1,1670,459,940,000 Kilometers (about 78 AU for 1 AU = 149,598,000km).
So by the math, Hubble Age, and Hubble Constant, real scientists know that Inflation Theory is bunk. Hooey.
78 AU does NOT equal 38 AU (distance from Sun to Pluto...and even Pluto is stretching our Solar System).
What in Sam Hill are you trying to do? That is what is called a nonsense number. You have just shown me and everyone else that you utterly do not understand what H_0 stands for, and how to use it in the real world.
Listen and learn: The Hubble constant multiplied by a distance will tell you what the expected recessional velocity for the object should be at that distance from your observational point due to the expansion of the universe. H_0((Km/s)/Mpc)*d(Mpc)=v(km/s). The Hubble constant multiplied by a time gives you nonsense, a number that means absolutely nothing.
CART DRIVER Bring out your dead!
LARGE MAN Here's one!
CART DRIVER Ninepence.
BODY I'm not dead!
CART DRIVER What?
LARGE MAN Nothing... There's your ninepence.
BODY I'm not dead!
CART DRIVER 'Ere. He says he's not dead.
LARGE MAN Yes he is.
BODY I'm not!
CART DRIVER He isn't.
LARGE MAN He will be soon. He's very ill.
BODY I'm getting better!
LARGE MAN You're not. You'll be stone dead in a few minutes.
CART DRIVER I can't take him like this. It's against regulations.
BODY I don't want to go on the cart.
LARGE MAN Don't be such a baby.
CART DRIVER I can't take him.
BODY I feel fine.
LARGE MAN Do me a favour.
CART DRIVER I can't.
LARGE MAN Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes. He won't be long.
CART DRIVER I promised I'd be at the Robinson's. They've lost nine today.
LARGE MAN When's your next round?
CART DRIVER Thursday.
BODY I think I'll go for a walk.
LARGE MAN You're not fooling anyone you know.
(to CART DRIVER) Isn't there anything you could do?
BODY (singing unrecognisably)
I feel happy... I feel happy.
The CART DRIVER looks at the LARGE MAN for a moment. Then they both do a quick furtive look up and down the street. The CART DRIVER very swiftly brings up a club and hits the OLD MAN. (Out of shot but the singing stops after a loud bonk noise.)
Ummm... Noooooo..
H (Hubble's Constant) is measured across the entire universe. However, our solar system, and yes even an entire galaxy is "gravitationally bound" which basically means there is no expansion going on within these small local areas.
This includes the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
H_0((Km/s)/Mpc * t (s) = ? (Km/Mpc) right?....
I think the answer is 42.
So the warping of space in proximity to a large mass prevents/eliminates the expansion? Or does the warping just make it unmeasurable? Either way, I didn't know or expect that.
You need to bone up on some basic cosmology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.