Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chicago research supports cosmos theory
UPI ^ | September 19, 2002 | SomeGuy

Posted on 09/19/2002 8:39:34 PM PDT by gcruse

CHICAGO, Sept. 19 (UPI) -- University of Chicago astrophysicists said Thursday that they have verified the theoretical framework supporting current cosmological theory, using a radio telescope that measures minute polarizations of the cosmic microwave background.

The Degree Angular Scale Interferometer is at the National Science Foundation's Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and enabled a team led by astronomy and astrophysics professor John Carlstrom to measure the behavior of light rays from 14 billion years ago, when the universe was a mere 400,000 years old.

"You can't see further back than 14 billion years because the universe was ionized," Carlstrom said. "This telescope is like a time machine."

At a news conference Thursday at the Adler Planetarium, Carlstrom said the team's findings show polarization is predictable, detectable and falls within theoretical parameters, supporting theories that the universe expanded at great speed just moments after the Big Bang. To prove the theory correct, the next step will be to measure gravity waves but the necessary instruments are years in the future.

"This was a test of the framework. It rules out other models," he said.

Most light is unpolarized, flickering up and down on its own plane. It becomes polarized when it's reflected and scattered.

Carlstrom noted the universe is made up of 5 percent ordinary matter, 30 percent dark matter and 65 percent dark energy. His findings will allow researchers to begin exploring dark energy and whether it eventually will blow the universe apart.

"Dark energy pulls things apart," he said. "Gravity makes things come together. Gravity used to win. That's why we're here.

"There's a lot of strange stuff out there."

University of Chicago theorist Wayne Hu said the findings are significant because "if they (the researchers) didn't see it (evidence of polarization), it would have said we didn't understand how atoms were formed. This confirms fundamental physics. It's the first direct evidence."

Beginning in 2000, the interferometer began collecting data from 32, 10-degree-square spots in the sky -- areas about the size of the circle made by thumb and first finger making an OK sign at arm's length. The data show polarization is dependent on temperature.

"What's unique about polarization is that it directly measures the dynamics in the early universe," Carlstrom said.

"This beautiful framework of contemporary cosmology has many things in it we don't understand, but we believe in the framework," assistant professor Clem Pryke said. "This new result was a crucial test for the framework to pass."

Also working on the project were John Kovac and Erik Leitch of the University of Chicago, and Nils Halverson and Bill Holzapfel of the University of California, Berkeley.

The data comes from a period when the universe was only 400,000 years old, when matter and energy were just beginning to separate. Temperature differences showed patterns of lumpy matter frozen in the early universe, but by measuring polarization, astronomers can actually see how the early universe was moving.

The researchers collect data from the interferometer by satellite and transmit instructions to the instrument the same way.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 09/19/2002 8:39:34 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Alas, poor ekpyrotica. So it's to be a brane-less, singular universe after all?
2 posted on 09/19/2002 8:59:04 PM PDT by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Skeptical YEC bump
3 posted on 09/19/2002 9:11:15 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I oppugn your Interferometer.

Nosey.
4 posted on 09/19/2002 9:46:01 PM PDT by PoorMuttly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoorMuttly
I went to the U of C.

Bump! Orange hair and all!
5 posted on 09/19/2002 10:14:41 PM PDT by fooman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget
It doesn't sound contradictory with the string/brane/parallel universe theories.

The brane theory also describes events BEFORE the big bang. It probably has room to contain the framework mentioned in this article.

NB: I am not a physicist, but my dad was.
6 posted on 09/19/2002 10:24:04 PM PDT by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"This was a test of the framework. It rules out other models," he said.

Including Lorentzian lattice quantum gravity?

This remains to be seen.

Or not seen in 3+1 dimensions.

7 posted on 09/19/2002 10:39:06 PM PDT by henbane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; RadioAstronomer
PING! FYI
8 posted on 09/19/2002 10:52:30 PM PDT by Boomer Geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
It was an attempt to be facetious. Brane-death is not anywhere close to proven. The theory of a very early and dramatic inflation of the space-time manifold seems to have been reinforced, seeming to foreclose some of the recent alternate theories.

Will we ever really know?

Thanks for the post.

9 posted on 09/19/2002 11:26:47 PM PDT by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget
Will we ever really know?

Only when we build our own universe... and it doesn't fall apart in ten days.

10 posted on 09/19/2002 11:33:46 PM PDT by tictoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tictoc
We won't hold our breaths, will we?
11 posted on 09/19/2002 11:34:41 PM PDT by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tictoc
Only when we build our own universe... and it doesn't fall apart in ten days.

I saw Mulholland Drive and it fell apart in one hour.

12 posted on 09/21/2002 6:53:04 AM PDT by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
That was the only movie I walked out of totally confused about what I had just seen. The beginning was pretty good, but then.... I haven't bothered reading the explanations, that's a movie better off misunderstood.
13 posted on 09/21/2002 6:56:47 AM PDT by Mr.Clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; longshadow; PatrickHenry
Ping!
14 posted on 09/21/2002 7:02:20 AM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr.Clark
Obviously it helps if you drink a bottle of Ny-Quil beforehand, then settle slowly into your seat.. and repeat silently to yourself: "David Lynch is a genius.. David Lynch is a genius". At least, that's what most reviewers did.
15 posted on 09/21/2002 7:15:47 AM PDT by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Thanks for the ping. To get all of this in context, one needs to see some background on this part of the article:

At a news conference Thursday at the Adler Planetarium, Carlstrom said the team's findings show polarization is predictable, detectable and falls within theoretical parameters, supporting theories that the universe expanded at great speed just moments after the Big Bang.

So here are a few links that may be helpful:

Brane Bashing : Big Bang or Big Clap?. (Analog Magazine, good general treatment.)
Cosmic microwaves get polarized (about Carlstrom's work).
The Caltech Cosmology Group.

16 posted on 09/21/2002 8:04:28 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Physicist; ThinkPlease; RadioAstronomer; aBootes
From your first link:

The remaining possibility is the detection of optical polarization in the cosmic microwave background radiation induced by long wavelength gravity-wave effects. If such polarization were detected, it would tend to support inflationary cosmology and to falsify ekpyrotic cosmology. However, no such polarization has yet been observed.
[emphasis added]

So, the observation reported in the original article not only suppports inflationary Cosmology, it falsifies the ekpyrotic alternative.

Yet another piece of the Cosmic puzzle appears to have fallen in place......

17 posted on 09/21/2002 1:25:22 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; general_re; LogicWings; Scully; ThinkPlease; longshadow; Alamo-Girl
Why isn't this thread jumping?
18 posted on 09/21/2002 7:01:48 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"This was a test of the framework. It rules out other models," he said.

So the universe is older than 6K years? </sarcasm>

19 posted on 09/21/2002 7:04:43 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Why isn't this thread jumping?

Cause it's too esoteric. Unless you're actually are in the field who can keep up with this?

The article was too chaotic and requires so much background to follow. Besides how do you challenge something like:

It rules out other models," he said.

It rules out all other models? Do we just bow down now?

Give up all other theories now boys. We got it!!!

"Dark energy pulls things apart," he said. "Gravity makes things come together. Gravity used to win. That's why we're here."

Ohhh, That's why we are here !!! Now I don't only have to believe in dark matter, I have to accept dark energy.

I just saw an article where they made anti-matter in Europe somewhere. Now do we have a theory for dark anti-matter and dark anti-energy?

I admit to not being up on this field, so I'm not qualified to say, but where do they get these exact timelines? 14 billion years ago, 400,000 years after the BANG! Last I remember the BANG was pushed back to more than 20 billion years. And I thought the background radiation from the BANG that those two guys discovered a few years back was the first 'direct evidence.'

Does this truly rule out plasma steady state theory? How can we be so sure? My head hurts, I need some wine.

20 posted on 09/21/2002 7:57:49 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson