Posted on 03/17/2006 3:46:30 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
|
||||||||
SEARCH RESULTS
|
|
|
Oldest light shows universe grew fast, researchers say First stars arose 400 million years after big bang, not 200 million years, as once thought
Baltimore Sun
Scientists examining the oldest light in the universe say they've found clear evidence that matter expanded at an almost inconceivable rate after the big bang, creating conditions that led to the formation of the first stars. Light from the big bang's afterglow shows that the universe grew from the size of a marble to an astronomical size in just a trillionth of a second after its birth 13.7 billion years ago, researchers from Johns Hopkins and Princeton universities said. Readings from a NASA probe also show that the earliest stars formed about 400 million years after the big bang not 200 million years afterward, as the research team once thought. "With this new data, theories about the early universe have just taken their first exam, and they passed with flying colors," said David Spergel, a Princeton astrophysicist and co-author of the findings published Thursday. The results are based on readings from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a robotic instrument with two telescopes that sweeps the sky every six months in an orbit a million miles from Earth. Light from the probe also has confirmed a theory that the universe is made up mostly of dark energy, a mysterious force that continues to cause the universe's expansion, said Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Charles Bennett, the probe's principal investigator. "This light is just invaluable. It's really the only fossil we have from that time," Bennett said. Inflationary theorists argue that at the time of the big bang, the universe was at first microscopic. But three events changed things: fluctuations in temperature, bursts that transformed energy into matter and a rapid expansion of the universe that ultimately enabled stars and galaxies to form. By polarizing and filtering out light from the earliest stars, the researchers were able to uncover evidence of those inflationary moments fluctuations in brightness of the light scattered around the big bang's afterglow. "It amazes me that we can say anything about the first trillionth of a second of the universe, but we can," Bennett said. The researchers say the findings also confirm that only 4 percent of the universe is composed of the familiar atoms that make up what we see around us. Another 22 percent is dark matter a gravitational force made up of cold particles and 74 percent is dark energy, a force that appears to be causing the universe to expand. Experts say the findings will help scientists for years as they try to unravel mysteries about the early universe.
|
I believe the truth: No one has a clue.
Blame it on the chemicals sloshing around our heads that creates the impression that we even exist. Of course, compared to the scale of universal time, 70 quick rotations around our local star might qualify as 'not existing'.
What about the universal constant-the speed of light? Where's Einstein when he's needed? This is truly baffling to non-astronomers like me.
What about the universal constant-the speed of light?
From what I've read, in inflation models, it's space itself which is coming into existence, hence the speed of light isn't a barrier. Stuff moving in space appears to be unable to exceed light's speed, but the expansion of space itself can.
Not just space, but space-time altogether is coming into existence. The early universe did not 'travel' anywhere. It stretched out like a balloon or a bubble and light stretched out with it.
Yup, which is why the very first priority should be figuring out a way to increase that number of rotations into at least the hundreds, if not the thousands and beyond!
That's also why I tend to get somewhat testy at times in these threads. I don't like ideas that distract from what should be the prime directive. :)
But, of course, I'm not a cosmologist, so everything I say should always be taken as the comments of an interested gawker.
True; but, only in perspective. If I'm having fun and you aren't, time passes at the same rate for both of us but it will seem more swift for me. How it seems is not how it actually is. It is merely perspective. For you, having no fun makes the day into 1000 years. For me, the 1000 years is but a day in my fun. Perspective in plain language.
I was just thinking that my previous comments might seem harsh, but the point that I'm making is a simple one: If you want to be taken seriously, then support your statements. An unsupported statement is of no consequence in a scientific discussion, and IMO shouldn't be treated as such. If you want your personal opinions to be valued just of their own accord, then the best place for that is some kind of support group..
And, so far as what I said above, I shouldn't have said "no one has a clue" (someone might, for all I know), but rather: No one knows for sure.
Thanks for posting that link, AntiGuv.
I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's an excellent introduction to String Theory written by its founder, so I hope people find it of interest.
bump for later reading
Are you saying that you believe in something that is
unable to be seen? How is that "empirically scientific"?
> It is much easier to believe in God...
Fortunately, scientists are not interested in what's "easy." Same goes for many FReepers: we want the facts, even if they're hard.
"Are you saying that you believe in something that is
unable to be seen? How is that "empirically scientific"?"
Nobody has seen a proton. Is the proton not part of science?
What's with this cr@p?!
On crevo threads we're constantly being pestered by posters who seem to think that cosmology has something to do with biology.
Now you posting about "evolutionists" and "the starting point for all life " on a thread that was previously about 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.