Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation's Polarization Detected at Last

Scientific American ^ | 19 December 2002 | Sarah Graham

[BMCDA]

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

However, the most incredible part of this is the fact that after their conversion these ex-evolutionists have replaced what they knew about the Theory of Evolution with some comic book version thereof, because if they really were evolutionists back then, I simply cannot believe that they held the same views about the ToE as they do now.

[VadeRetro]

Yes. So many argue along the lines of "So one day a dinosaur gave birth to a bird, but where was there another bird for it to mate with? What are the odds of two such mutations within a reasonable distance?"

I see. This person used to be an "evolutionist" but then "got smart?" Hmmmm?

If that was the understanding of evolution they used to accept, you have to wonder what they were using for brains when they thought they were "evolutionists."

[PatrickHenry]

If that was the understanding of evolution they used to accept, you have to wonder what they were using for brains when they thought they were "evolutionists."

Still, you've got to give them credit for rejecting such lunacy [tuna transforming themselves into tigers]. Now if they'll just be bold enough to take the next step, and use their intelligence to reject creationism, which is just as goofy as the bogus version of evolution they claim they believed, they can make some genuine intellectual progress by learning about the real theory of evolution.

[MHGinTN]

From your post #115, then the spacetime we 'enjoy' in our bubble following our 'BB' arose from a background field of spcaetime of some sort. Is that a correct inference from your post?

[Condorman]

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.

Aw man! I didn't get YOU anything for Christmas!!

[Doctor Stochastic]

... but in titus 6:20 the God points out that there are things passing themselves off as science...

Perhaos you would like to revise your reference or bible version?

Or did you just make this up? Even Babs couldn't get away with faux-Shakespeare.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"perhaos" should be "perhaps"

[titanmike]

What you seem to have here is several lines of logic which appear fairly sound leading to an irrational conclusion (the idea of all the matter and energy in the universe being condensed to a point and then somehow exploding its way out of the point15 billion years ago). That (good logic leading to bad conclusions) usually means you're looking at something the wrong way and that there's some other explaination(s) for the data.

[Physicist]

The points that you are missing are that A) the total energy of the universe is very close to zero and B) the mass and energy of the universe didn't escape from anywhere. It's right where it was.

It simply is not the case that there was a big ball of matter that spontaneously exploded out into an infinite and existing space. If that's what you think you are debunking, you are debunking only your own misunderstanding of it. The expansion was (is) of space and time itself, and not of matter into space. The matter/energy is pulled out of the expanding space for free, as a byproduct of the real expansion.

[Physicist]

I should add that if you're going to denounce an idea as irrational, you'd better come to the plate with something better than that you don't like how it sounds. Is there a logical contradiction you can point out? Maybe a violated conservation law? Perhaps some scrap of empirical evidence that refutes it?

[RightWhale]

Sure. It's turtles all the way down. :)

[PatrickHenry]

Dead thread placemarker.

[gore3000]

There are an infinite number of universes and an infinite number coming into being each instant.

...and no one has a picture of a ghost because they are too shy to be photographed.

[Physicist]

So far in this thread, nobody has mentioned the MOST important result of this discovery: it falsifies the Ekpyrotic Theory of Cosmology, the only other viable competitor with Inflationary Big Bang Cosmology.

Can you give me a link to that thread? I can't seem to find it.

For the record, I just spoke with Burt Ovrut, one of the pioneers of the Ekpyrotic theory. He was surprised by that assertion, and expressed deep skepticism that CMB polarization would be calculable in such models as they now stand. They are still in their infancy, whereas inflationary models are very well understood.

[longshadow]

Can you give me a link to that thread? I can't seem to find it.

It was a few months back; I'll try to find it. I'm quite sure the statement about CMB polarization falsifying the Ekpyrotic Model was either in the article that was posted, or in something I found somewhere on the web. Perhaps the characterization was hasty....

[longshadow]

Found it.

---

---

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 4:25 PM EDT by longshadow

---

I'm quoting something from PH's link in the reply immediately above the the one shown above.

Perhaps they overstated the case for falsifying the Ekpyrotic Model.

Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger!

[PatrickHenry]

Another source: THE NEW RECYCLING UNIVERSE, John G. Cramer. Analog is rather far from being a peer-reviewed journal, but the science columns get pretty-well picked over. I relied on this article for some of my recent posts. Cramer says:

The Big Bang model, as a result of its turbulent super-high-density initial phase, should produce in its early stages a cosmic flood of gravitational radiation, and this should show up as polarization of the electromagnetic cosmic background radiation. The Steinhardt-Turok model predicts no such gravity waves and polarization. If that polarization of the microwave background is found, the Big Bang model gains strong experimental support. On the other hand, if no such polarization is present, the Steinhardt-Turok cyclic model receives similar support.

[PatrickHenry]

This link works: THE NEW RECYCLING UNIVERSE, John G. Cramer.

[js1138]

[PatrickHenry]

Self-search list ping.