New Theory Suggests Start of Universe

AP via Yahoo! ^ | January 8, 2002 | Paul Recer

[Darth Reagan]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A half billion years of utter blackness following the Big Bang, the theoretical start of the universe, was broken by an explosion of stars bursting into life like a fireworks finale across the heavens, a new theory suggests.

An analysis of very faint galaxies in the deepest view of the universe ever captured by a telescope suggests there was an eruption of stars bursting to life and piercing the blackness very early in the 15-billion year history of the universe.

The study, by Kenneth M. Lanzetta of the State University of New York at Stony Brook challenges the long held belief that star formation started slowly after the Big Bang and didn't peak until some five billion years later.

``Star formation took place early and very rapidly,'' Lanzetta said Tuesday at a NASA (news - web sites) news conference. ``Star formation was ten times higher in the distant early universe than it is today.''

Lanzetta's conclusions are based on an analysis of what is called a deep field study by the Hubble Space Telescope (news - web sites). To capture the faintest and most distant images possible, the Hubble focused on an ordinary bit of sky for more than 14 days, taking a picture of every object within a small, deep slice of the heavens. The resulting images are faint, fuzzy bits of light from galaxies near and far, including some more than 14 billion light years away, said Lanzetta.

The surprise was that the farther back the telescope looked, the greater was the star forming activity.

``Star formation continued to increase to the very earliest point that we could see,'' said Lanzetta. ``We are seeing close to the first burst of star formation.''

Bruce Margon of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore said Lanzetta's conclusions are a ``surprising result'' that will need to be confirmed by other studies.

``This suggests that the great burst of star formation was at the beginning of the universe,'' said Margon, noting that, in effect: ``The finale came first.''

``If this can be verified, it will dramatically change our understanding of the universe,'' said Anne Kinney, director of the astronomy and physics division at NASA.

In his study, Lanzetta examined light captured in the Hubble deep field images using up to 12 different light filters to separate the colors. The intensity of red was used to establish the distance to each point of light. The distances were then used to create a three-dimensional perspective of the 5,000 galaxies in the Hubble picture.

Lanzetta also used images of nearby star fields as a yardstick for stellar density and intensity to conclude that about 90 percent of the light in the very early universe was not detected by the Hubble. When this missing light was factored into the three dimensional perspective, it showed that the peak of star formation came just 500 million years after the Big Bang and has been declining since.

Current star formation, he said, ``is just a trickle'' of that early burst of stellar birth.

Lisa Storrie-Lombardi, a California Institute of Technology astronomer, said that the colors of the galaxies in the Hubble deep field images ``are a very good indication of their distance.''

Current theory suggests that about 15 billion years ago, an infinitely dense single point exploded - the Big Bang - creating space, time, matter and extreme heat. As the universe cooled, light elements, such as hydrogen and helium, formed. Later, some of areas became more dense with elements than others, forming gravitational centers that attracted more and more matter. Eventually, formed celestial bodies became dense enough to start nuclear fires, setting the heavens aglow. These were newborn stars.

Storrie-Lombardi said that current instruments and space telescopes now being planned could eventually, perhaps, see into the Dark Era, the time before there were stars.

``We are getting close to the epoch were we can not see at all,'' she said.

[elfman2]

"The "Big Bang" is just an explanation for the origins for the universe. It isn't supposed to address a cause"

I don't think it's even an explanation. An explanation of how babies are made doesn't begin after conception.

The "big bang" theory looks more like an explanation of the universe's development, not of its origin. I may be wrong, but I believe the general theory behind the development of planets and stars long preceded the big bang theory.

I'm sure that the theory details are immensely fascinating to study, but from a layman's perspective, the actual "bang" is no more significant to a full explanation of the universe's origin than cell division is significant to an explanation of a baby's origin.

I think it's a misrepresentation to say that I'm asking for something else, a "cause", if I want to know what preceded either that first cell division or the actual bang.

Peoples' naturally curiosity is what drives us to investigate and reason through the universe. And the inductive part of that reasoning is probably driven by a natural "dissatisfaction" with the unexplained. Some put more faith in God to fill the void, and some put more faith in man's ability to reason since it has explained so much that was unknown for so long. But it still appears that the beginning of the universe is so completely unexplained and cosmologists are so completely without a clue, that God is as good of an explanation as any. And I say that as an atheist ;^)

I think this ambiguity is a place that evolutionists and creationists can come together. After all, what difference should it make to either if God set the world in motion through the big bang 15 billion years ago. If we simply respect each other's faith in the unknown, all we're disagreeing on is the method of creation/evolution. And as time passes, the evidence and clear thinking may put that question to rest.

[Physicist]

What would CAUSE a singularity to change state, and whatever the explanation could be, HOW would it, as the "first cause," influence the transition?

That's a different question. The assumption you're making is that the universe exists in time, that we can talk meaningfully about a period of time before which the Big Bang occurred, and that the Big Bang is a caused event that can be expressed in a historical narrative that comprises periods of time before and after the event itself.

I believe this is an error. Time exists within the universe; the universe does not exist in time. The Big Bang itself denotes the advent of the existence of time, so any historical narrative of causal events must necessarily take place within the universe.

Here is my canonical explanation of the geometry of space and time at the Big Bang, which may help you to understand why it isn't necessary that there be any such thing as "before the Big Bang".

Moreover, there are provably uncaused events within the universe (the decay of a subatomic particle, for example).

[longshadow]

Cosmological placemarker & bttt

[JoJo the Clown]

OK, I'll buy what you said about the relationship between time and the existence of the universe, but what about the bigger point I raised? How can a singularity, which by definition, has no internal irregularity, i.e. is homogenous and uniform, transform into an irregular (non-uniform) universe? What accounts for the variation that exists post-Big Bang. It cannot be sound waves, gravity, or anything else, since whatever effects those things would have would have to be uniformly applied. No local variations would result, unless one contemplates manipulation from something other than the singularity itself. Don't you agree? If not, I would be very interested to understand why you do not?

[Junior]

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority!

Isn't that supposed to be "Improper Authority" (such as using a theologian's work in an astrophysics argument)?

[Darth Reagan]

By stepping in and trying to answer your question, I'm just setting myself up to be corrected by Physicist. But, my guess is that sound waves aren't uniform in the way you are thinking. Sure, the sound may have had a uniform wavelength and frequency, but by its very nature, the waves "bounce" off of the matter and energy erupting from the big bang. Picture the top of the sound wave moving up (actually rippling through) and thereby compressing matter above it (minutely, but enough). Then that more dense matter has greater gravitational pull than other matter around, and, BAM, matter starts to coalesce.

I hope I don't get beat up over this one....

[marbren]

and God said "Let there be light, and let it travel 186,000 miles per second"

[passive1]

Any speculation as to where space is expanding into? In other words, what is on the other side of space?

[Darth Reagan]

and God said "Let there be light, and let it travel 186,000 miles per second"

And God said "It is good, and let there be photons and stuff. And, while I'm at it, how bout some electrons, protons, neutrons and a quark or two. That's good to." The first day.

[JoJo the Clown]

Darth, I agree with your point, but respectfully, I think it missed mine. Maybe I am just not making mine well. Let me try this. I realize it is simplistic, but it helps illustrate my point. Conjure up a singularity in the dead center of a big ball of nothingness. (You don't need the ball, actually, since it contradicts the notion of the singularity as "all there is," but it helps visualize the Big Bang. Now, the Big Bang occurs. Matter/energy spewing out and heading toward the exterior ball. ASSUMING no external gravitational forces, or other forces (and that has to be the case, consistent with the notion that the singularity is "all there is"), WHY wouldn't the first created matter hit the surface of the exterior ball at exactly the same time? And why wouldn't, at that moment, there be nothing but contiguous solid matter from the former singularity point to the surface of the ball. Why would there be any "space" in between pieces of matter? Why would there be any variation from one pole of the ball to another? I.e. how can it be that a singularity transforming to a universe of matter/energy sends out anything but concentric spheres of matter that are uniform? Traditional Big Bang theory holds that tug and pull of some kind eventually occurs, accounting for local variation in gravity, and that in turn allows for a variety of variation in the formation of matter. But why would there be any variation in the tug and pull to begin with? Unless there is an external influence on the system that is NOT part of the created matter/energy?

[Darth Reagan]

Perhaps the question cannot be answered since, at the point of the singularity, the laws of physics break down anyway. Yep, that's a cop out. I understand your point and am sure I'm not the one to explain for Physicist. I anxiously await his reply. My attempted explanation (wild-a$$-guess) assumed there would be sound after the bang and the sound waves themselves would disrupt the initial post-bang uniformity.

[PatrickHenry]

Bump.

[JoJo the Clown]

Agreed. The background radiation argument is not persuasive. What we are faced with is contemplating two equally ludicrous notions--either that the universe has "always" existed, without finite borders, without a beginning or ending, OR that everything that exists didn't exist before time itself existed. There must be another explanation.

[RightWhale]

I've never seen this addressed...maybe my math and assumptions are faulty

The objects appear to be farther than their age would indicate assuming they are travelling through space. They are even farther in real time. It appears they have travelled faster than light to get to their present positions, but this does not count the expansion of space. This is not a problem for cosmologists because they make it all up as they go. Your math and assumptions may be faulty anyway.

[Focault's Pendulum]

The Deep Field....the furthest back the Hubble Telescope had taken us.

I love all this stuff....I just wish I could understand about %80 more.

[Capt. Tom]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

The universe always existed and had no beginning.

Now if you find that hard to comprehend; how did the universe get started? Some say God made it. Then when did God originate. They say God always existed and always will. Well if you can believe God always existed and didn't have a beginning, why can't you believe the Universe always existed and didn't have a beginning?? -Tom

ps the answer is, you'd like to think there is a God out there to save your sorry ass when you die, and to give you life after death. And your willing to grovel to gain His favor. - Tom

[RadioAstronomer]

Sigh! I always find the fun threads too late.

[RadioAstronomer]

The universe always existed and had no beginning.

The universe did not exist before the Big Bang. I keep hearing explosion and that is a very bad analogy. Space-Time itself (and all matter contained within) expanded creating the universe as we see it now.