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

Skip to comments.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation's Polarization Detected at Last
Scientific American ^ | 19 December 2002 | Sarah Graham

Posted on 12/20/2002 9:19:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry

Although it was discovered less than 40 years ago, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation has been around a lot longer than that. A relic from the early days of the Universe more than 14 billion years ago, the CMB is the oldest radiation on record. Current cosmological models posit that the CMB should be slightly polarized but this property has never been observed--until now. Researchers have successfully detected the CMB's polarization and found that it agrees with the theoretical estimates.

Erik Leitch and John Kovac of the University of Chicago and their colleagues used the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), which is located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, to study the CMB radiation. Over a two-year period, this array of radio telescopes collected radiation signals coming from deep space in two patches of blank sky. The resulting 271 days worth of useable data revealed the light's polarization (the direction in which the light's field oscillates as it travels toward an observer on the ground). Writing in the journal Nature, the scientists report that the CMB radiation's level and spatial distribution are in excellent agreement with the predictions of the standard theory. "If the light hadn't been polarized, that would mean that we would have to throw out our whole model of how we understand the physics of the early universe," Leitch notes. In an accompanying commentary, Matias Zaldarriaga of New York University calls the findings "both a remarkable technical achievement and a wonderful consistency check for the theory."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bigbang; cosmology; crevolist; physics; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 next last
To: Oberon
Being a smart-aleck, the next question I'm likely to ask is "What happened before that?"

BB Cosmology involves the idea that space AND time come into existence concurrently at t=0. Therefore, by definition, there is no such thing as t<0. Hence, there is no "before" the BB, as the word "before" presupposes the ability to establish temporal order, and if there is no "time" then there can be no temporal order.

The standard way of illustrating this is to use the analogy that asking what is "before" the BB is like asking what is North of the North pole, or what is colder than absolute zero.

121 posted on 12/20/2002 2:01:23 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: titanmike
How about the universe has simply always been around and will always be around?

Because nobody's figured out any mathematically workable model that is consistent with the observed data.

Why do you need these beginning myths? Oh, the "expanding universe" you say? Turns out, at least from what I hear, that one's a myth too.

Well, you heard wrong, because the expansion of the universe is an observed fact. Even the old, failed "steady-state" models exhibited cosmological expansion.

122 posted on 12/20/2002 2:20:50 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
BB Cosmology involves the idea that space AND time come into existence concurrently at t=0.

Well, of course. It would have to.

123 posted on 12/20/2002 2:25:00 PM PST by Oberon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
God points out that there are things passing themselves off as science. That's pretty much what we have here when we see a 1 part per 100,000 difference in the distribution of background radiation at 2.7ish degrees K and conclude that it supports the big bang theory.

That you can't be bothered to do the math is a poor substitute for a valid critique.

124 posted on 12/20/2002 2:35:31 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The other quantum events that occur as 'BB's' that flash out of our universe, do those happen in a field of spacetime, our spacetime, even if only for a moment? If so, would that infer a background dimensional field out of which our 'BB' bubbled?
125 posted on 12/20/2002 2:37:12 PM PST by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I never said that, but in titus 6:20 the God points out that there are things passing themselves off as science.

Really? It says that? I seem to be fresh out of Bibles with that mysterious sixth chapter of Titus, and I can't seem to find it online anywhere. Now, I'm no Bible wonk or anything, but maybe someone's slipping stuff in when you're not looking?

126 posted on 12/20/2002 3:45:42 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The other quantum events that occur as 'BB's' that flash out of our universe, do those happen in a field of spacetime, our spacetime, even if only for a moment? If so, would that infer a background dimensional field out of which our 'BB' bubbled?

It would be very difficult for me to say....

127 posted on 12/20/2002 3:55:17 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Why do you need these beginning myths? Oh, the "expanding universe" you say? Turns out, at least from what I hear, that one's a myth too.

Well, you heard wrong, because the expansion of the universe is an observed fact. Even the old, failed "steady-state" models exhibited cosmological expansion.

Do you have any evidence of that OTHER than redshift?

128 posted on 12/20/2002 3:55:29 PM PST by titanmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: titanmike
Do you have any evidence of that OTHER than redshift?

The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology.

129 posted on 12/20/2002 4:34:36 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Good post! Another victory for the scientific method. The anti-science cre-IDs are going to be upset again.
130 posted on 12/20/2002 4:47:49 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
The anti-science cre-IDs are going to be upset again.

That's their destiny. They love it.

131 posted on 12/20/2002 4:50:09 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
the expansion of the universe is an observed fact

That would explain how the distance between myself and my exwife has been constantly increasing.

132 posted on 12/20/2002 4:53:09 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
That would explain how the distance between myself and my exwife has been constantly increasing.

And also why the pants of my old Army uniform no longer fit.

133 posted on 12/20/2002 5:00:05 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
That's their destiny. They love it.

That explains their stamina.

134 posted on 12/20/2002 5:00:56 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
You stated yourself earlier in this thread that you used to be a "materialist in Sagan's church" ...

It's part of some kind of mantra they get from somewhere. I'm embarrassed to say what it reminds me of, but I won't let that stop me, of course.

In my misspent youth, I used to go in strip bars sometimes. (Blush!) The girls would try to talk to me and hustle me for some very expensive drinks. Would you believe that every one of those girls had just broken up with her boyfriend in the last week/month? Probably still true today, although my personal survey of the subject ended about 20 years ago.

I'm told--haven't checked this one out personally--that every criminal in the State Pen was framed, too.

Incredible numbers of the creos used to be evolutionisits until their minds expanded and they began to question. (If these are questioning minds, I'd hate to see "doctrinaire.")

135 posted on 12/20/2002 5:03:31 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Nice link!
136 posted on 12/20/2002 5:08:23 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And also why the pants of my old Army uniform no longer fit.

I tend to put my old Air Force field jacket on when I wash my car in cold weather. (Said jacket and a blue raincoat being the last useful residues of my time in the service.) I just noticed today that the field jacket seems to have undergone some kind of thirty-years delayed shrinkage.

137 posted on 12/20/2002 5:12:14 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: titanmike
Do you have any evidence of that OTHER than redshift?

Yes. We can look at the time evolution of the most distant type Ia supernovae (in other words, how they increase and die off in brightness over time). These supernovae should follow the same profile over time, all over the universe. But supernovae that are receding from us rapidly will brighten and dim more slowly, for two reasons: the Doppler effect and time dilation. As it turns out, both of these effects are measurable in the distant supernovae and are in good agreement with the observed redshifts. There is no doubt that they are receding from us in a manner that increases with distance.

138 posted on 12/20/2002 5:12:20 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Incredible numbers of the creos used to be evolutionisits until their minds expanded and they began to question.

Yeah, like all those brilliant "scientists" at places like "Creation Research Institute" who used to be "darwinists" until they discovered Noah's Ark. Funny thing about those scientists ... they never seem to make any scientific discoveries. I wonder why that is.

139 posted on 12/20/2002 5:17:13 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I wonder why that ["... they never seem to make any scientific discoveries"] is.

I have a theory, of course. When you buy into "Goddidit," you don't want to hear anything else. Doesn't give you much to offer to the advancement of discovery.

140 posted on 12/20/2002 5:21:12 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 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