Posted on 03/17/2006 3:46:30 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
This piece of news is getting wide publication, many articles, many threads. No doubt many minds are tripping out on this information if it is new to them. However, it seems to be confirmation of Guth's inflation hypothesis rather than a new model.
Guth is said to have been walking around with a big smile on his face for the last day or so. Clearly, he's in line for a Nobel prize in Physics. I wouldn't bet against him.
I favor a vastly enhanced version of Steinhardt's model. Guth kicked it all off no doubt, but there are far more powerful possibilities starting from that idea and shifting perspective.
What were its physical properties?
Very dense.
Do we say that an infinitely large space containing nothing, a total vacuum, was then and has since been filled by a universe of objects ranging from galaxies to sub-atomic particles?
No. Space is what is expanding.
That is not in any of the major mathematical models. What is in the models is that the universe, when it was microscopic and now when it is too big to imagine very well, was complete in itself: no outside to expand into.
Veneziano's article (see AntiGuv's link in Post #73) contains a bit of discussion of Steinhardt's views. If you haven't read it, it's a fine article, albeit a couple of years old.
Think of it as an original sin.
One way to think of it, by analogy with the spatial dimensions of spacetime is that time got "big." A universe w/o inflation would exist for a virtually infinitesimal amount of time before collapsing. Our universe, according to the latest and greatest evidence, may last forever.
9. ConclusionsThe standard model of cosmology has survived another rigorous set of tests. The errors on the WMAP data at large ℓ are now three times smaller and there has been significant improvements in other cosmological measurements. Despite the overwhelming force of the data, the model continues to thrive. The data are so constraining that there is little room for significant modifications of the basic CDM model. The combination of WMAP measurements and other astronomical measurements place significant limits on the geometry of the universe, the nature of dark energy, and even neutrino properties. While allowing for a running spectral index slightly improves the fit to the WMAP data, the improvement in the fit is not significant enough to require a new parameter.
source:
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology/>
Hopefully, somebody here can translate the geek-speak details in the paper into something a layman can comprehend.
That's an excellent summary! GLad you provided the link to it; it helps grasp the signifiance of these results.
LOL, all 92 pages might take a while.
This paper stands as a refutation to anybody who says there's no value in unmanned space missions. This one mission has completely realigned our understanding of the universe, and done it with solid fact. Many ships of faith and fancy will rip their bellies open on this hard rock of truth.
But then, that's what the science-haters feared most about these missions.
I'm trying hard to get my mind around that concept, but still don't know where the original, soft-ball sized object/particle came from before it exploded into space. What's the theory? Socrates said, "I only know that I know nothing," and he was right. Neither do we.
There may be something misleading about that diagram. Inflation moved the grid itself, but expansion is moving the objects against the grid. Seems like two different processes.
That was but one reason why I only skimmed it, and then skipped straight to "CONCLUSIONS" when looking for something from it to post here.
This paper stands as a refutation to anybody who says there's no value in unmanned space missions. This one mission has completely realigned our understanding of the universe, and done it with solid fact. Many ships of faith and fancy will rip their bellies open on this hard rock of truth.
But then, that's what the science-haters feared most about these missions.
Nicely stated. Inflationary Cosmology wins another round. Speaking of which, I think the article goes into details of how several alternative models do stacking up against the evidence (I think I even saw a mention of MOND, though it might only have been for comic relief). If you get the chance to review that section of the paper, could you give the lay people here a "score card summary" on exactly which alternative cosmologies got gutted by the latest WMAP data and analysis?
"And, boy, was there ever light!"
True. True. True.
Stand WAY back, there, sonny boy!
The last thing heard before the Big Bang: "Hold muh beer and watch this!"
Space is what is expanding.
Into what?
Many of our problems come from asking one more question when it is best to stop while we still have some idea where we are.
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.