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.

[Southack]

"At about 1 Planck Time the Standard Model projects that gravity begins differentiating from the unified field. This is termed a "spontaneous symmetry break"; the reason for the successive symmetry breaks was the cooling of the universe (a much more trivial symmetry break takes place in snowflake formation, fwiw - a typical analogy). The differentiation of gravity would've taken place at about 1019 gigaelectron volts (GeV) when the universe dropped below 1032 Kelvin. As the transformations that would merge gravitation and quantum effects were limited below this critical threshold, the fabric of space & time emerged in the sense that we know it.
(3) In any event, before 1 Planck time - i.e., before the differentiation of gravity at about 10-43 seconds - we cannot extrapolate classical gravitation (as you seem hellbent to do). ...
(4) More importantly, at about 10-36 seconds, the next symmetry break differentiated the strong force from the remaining electroweak field. This is projected to have taken place at 1014 GeV. In any case, it was the tremendous energy released by this symmetry break that overwhelmed the nascent gravitational attraction to spark the cosmic hyperinflation."

The universe couldn't have cooled prior to 10-36 seconds because it was still its original size (i.e. the area the size of a marble).

Which is to ask: where did the heat go prior to 10-36 seconds?

[Southack]

"(5) To put it in more scientific terms (for the others, as this will almost certainly fly over your head) this 1014 GeV threshold is the minimum required to create x-bosons that mediate transformation between quarks and leptons. Because x-bosons ceased to emerge, quark/lepton transformations suddenly halted. The symmetry of grand unification (between the strong & electroweak forces) broke apart into the two symmetries that governed the strong force SU(3) and the electroweak force SU(2)xU(1). Again, this superdramatic explosion of energy caused the hyperinflationary phase from about 10-36 seconds until about 10-32 seconds."

A single explosion, even if "superdramatic," is insufficient to cause the universe to expand at ever faster rates (i.e. what we see today). This fact makes Big Bang adherents claim *other* mechanisms for our present-day universal expansion (confirmed by Hubble), treating modern expansion differently than inflation around the Planck Epoch.

More problematically, cooling is a transfer of information, violating Relativity during that stage where "space" alledgedly expanded in between matter at speeds vastly higher than C (i.e. "from about 10-36 seconds until about 10-32 seconds.").

[AntiGuv]

The question is not where the heat went beforehand, but rather where it first came from. I already told you this before. Once the universe was there, the cooling was automatic (initially due to the transformations between all types of particles). The question is where it all came from to begin with, and that we don't have an explanation for. The only viable scientific hypothesis to explain this, as I noted above, is that of string theory (I ever-so-slightly favor the ekpyrotic scenario myself). But regardless of where one posits that the initial conditions emerged from (God works just fine, so far as we know at this juncture) the rest is self-generated.

[AntiGuv]

A single explosion, even if "superdramatic," is insufficient to cause the universe to expand at ever faster rates (i.e. what we see today). This fact makes Big Bang adherents claim *other* mechanisms for our present-day universal expansion (confirmed by Hubble), treating modern expansion differently than inflation around the Planck Epoch.

The release of energy from the symmetry break that differentiated the strong force from the electroweak force caused the inflation. The currently accelerating expansion, as you've already been informed, is due to other reasons. And, of course the currently accelerated expansion is treaded differently from the Big Bang inflation, because they are ultimately separate phenomena. There is not even the most remotely slightest contradiction in that.

More problematically, cooling is a transfer of information, violating Relativity during that stage where "space" alledgedly expanded in between matter at speeds vastly higher than C (i.e. "from about 10-36 seconds until about 10-32 seconds.").

This problem exists only in your fantasy world, but in any case, what part of 'quantum effects overwhelm relativity in the early universe' didn't you understand?

[Southack]

"(6) As the early universe continued to cool exponentially (because of the exponential drop in energy density due to the exponential cosmic expansion*) the final symmetry break took place at about 10-12 seconds, thereby differenting weak interaction from electromagnetism. Consequently, as the universe continued to cool, below the threshold of 1013 Kelvin that was reached at about 10-6 seconds, quarks were able to bind into protons and neutrons, after which eventually 'standard' gravitation could kick in (e.g., limiting the effects of expansion for local systems)."

We're moderately close to being able to test this part of the theory. We can heat matter above 2*10^9 Kelvin already (the Z Machine).

[Southack]

"The question is not where the heat went beforehand, but rather where it first came from. I already told you this before. Once the universe was there, the cooling was automatic (initially due to the transformations between all types of particles)."

Do we have any examples in the lab of matter cooling due to particle transformations rather than through heat transfer?

[AntiGuv]

Yes. Ultimately all parts of the theory are testable, and in time we will test all of them, and to date all the tests have confirmed the current Standard Model, or else it would no longer be the Standard Model, but rather there would be a new Standard Model. :)

[AntiGuv]

To cut directly to what you're asking: Not to my knowledge. We have not recreated and observed the conditions of the Planck Era. Our projection of circumstances back before the differentiation of the Grand Unified Field is based on extrapolation from quantum mechanics.

[Southack]

More problematically, cooling is a transfer of information, violating Relativity during that stage where "space" allegedly expanded in between matter at speeds vastly higher than C (i.e. "from about 10-36 seconds until about 10-32 seconds."). - Southack

"This problem exists only in your fantasy world, but in any case, what part of 'quantum effects overwhelm relativity in the early universe' didn't you understand?"- AntiGuv

Except, you don't even have Quantum Effects in such an early universe, just a "unified field." You've got to pretend that there is no Gravity, no independent Strong Force, no independent Weak Force, no independent electromagnetic force.

Then you've got to pretend that there is no Relativity (ooops, I mean, that relativity is "overwhelmed"). Then you've got to pretend that a "superdramatic" explosion hyper-accelerated Space, but not matter, vastly faster than C due to cooling that couldn't even happen prior to said explosion (because space hadn't expanded prior to said explosion event).

And that's just the Inflationary Era.

After that point, you've got to shift gears to pretend that the current ever-increasing rate of universal expansion is due to entirely different, though currently completely unknown (dark energy is a guess with no lab or physical support), processes.

You can make post after post about me being ignorant, arrogant, whatever, that still won't change the fact that the Big Bang Emperor has no clothes as itemized above.

[Southack]

"Yes. Ultimately all parts of the theory are testable, and in time we will test all of them, and to date all the tests have confirmed the current Standard Model, or else it would no longer be the Standard Model, but rather there would be a new Standard Model. :)"

OK, now *that's* funny!

[AntiGuv]

And please bear in mind that no physicist claims that we know the precise conditions of the Planck Era. That is because we do not have a Theory of Everything that unifies General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Until we have that, we cannot project what the circumstances were when they were a unified field, and there are limitations to our projections of what circumstances were when they were virtually merged.

What we can do is project backwards as far as the equations will take us, which is prior to Cosmic Inflation at the juncture where gravity differentiates. Now, you are welcome to argue for the interim that we cannot unify them because they are un-unified (say, for instance, that God works his mysterious ways in the aperture). That'll work, if it makes you happy, until whenever the Theory of Everything gets discovered.

[Southack]

"What we can do is project backwards as far as the equations will take us, which is prior to Cosmic Inflation at the juncture where gravity differentiates."

But have we really done that, or have we taken short-cuts? I mean, we know how much matter exists...have we calculated enough energy to account for the original Inflation explosion/acceleration/field-shift? Was there even enough energy available to make the Big Bang?

[AntiGuv]

As I've already noted, you are a confirmed obscurantist, and I haven't the slightest delusions about that. Try not to make the dreadful error of believing for even the most split trillionth of a second that I post anything for your benefit, since I do not consider you redeemable at all. Rather, I am posting for the lengthy list of people that you've inflicted yourself upon.

And, as my post above made clear, I am addressing one point and one point only: Your assertion that, if gravitational attraction of local systems counteracts cosmic expansion between bodies within that system, therefore inflation could not have taken place in the early universe due to gravitational attraction. That's it, and that's done.

Beyond that, feel free to 'shift gears' to whatever makes you happy, rhetorically crashing and burning all over the known universe. Whenever, if ever, I feel the need to jump into the fray on another topic you'll know it. Until then, have a nice day!

[PatrickHenry]

I ever-so-slightly favor the ekpyrotic scenario myself.

Me too, mostly for aesthetic reasons. Actually I like the earlier oscillating universe scenario, before branes got dreamed up. But the way things are going, I don't see how to get there from here. (I don't know how we got here from there, for that matter, but I'm content to follow the evidence, even if the universe doesn't bow to my personal preferences.

[Southack]

"I am addressing one point and one point only: Your assertion that, if gravitational attraction of local systems counteracts cosmic expansion between bodies within that system, therefore inflation could not have taken place in the early universe due to gravitational attraction. That's it, and that's done."

My assertion must be on target, as you are reduced to claiming that Gravity simply didn't exist during the Inflationary Era. In fact, you deny that the Four Fundamental Forces existed (just a "unified field"), and you assert that those Quantum Forces (that apparently didn't exist except as a field) "overwhelmed" Relativity (i.e. Relativity doesn't apply) in order to explain how information could be transfered faster than C.

But wait, there's more:

You are also reduced to claiming that matter somehow cooled in a way that we've never seen in the lab or in the field, even though Space hadn't expanded to even permit universal cooling in the first place.

[AntiGuv]

I would recommend you start here: Big Bang. That book is rated 8th grade and up.

Then, once you've mastered that, you can find any number of books to expand your understanding here: Cosmology Books & Links. I'd suggest you focus on the most recent years (2003 & after).

Finally, for a change of pace to something you'll actually appreciate, why don't you focus your objections on the actual Shortcomings of the Standard Cosmology that remain controversial? At least then there might be some remote tangential benefit for someone or other to be stumbled upon via your posts.

[RadioAstronomer]

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_history.html

[dread78645]

"Critical density" placemark

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not to forget the ankles.

[AntiGuv]

My assertion must be on target, as you are reduced to claiming that Gravity simply didn't exist during the Inflationary Era.

I never claimed that. This is a blatant lie.

In fact, you deny that the Four Fundamental Forces existed...

I never denied that they existed. This is a blatant lie. I stated that they were not differentiated.

You are also reduced to claiming that matter somehow cooled in a way that we've never seen in the lab or in the field...

This is a blatant lie. I never claimed that. What I did was cut to the chase and get to the point that you were actually hoping to make. We have seen energy loss due to particle transformation in any number of experiments. I just declined to take advantage of your utter ignorance when I knew that your real issue was the thermal state problem.