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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-160 next last
To: BikerNYC
Then how can you suggest that scientists should not change theories when new observations are made?

Don't confuse real science with things like astrology, cosmology, and quite a bit of psychology.

How does the Bible explain the polarization of the CMB?

Read it.

If you believe a book once and for all determines scientific evidence and theory, you are no different than the cardinals and you are not engaged in a scientific pursuit.

The bible shows that this conversation is not very important. Man is important not the un-understandable ordinances of the heavens. We will never know why simple things like gravity and magnetism work let alone the real natural mysteries of the universe. They are just there for us to marvel at but our own salvation and relationship with God is infinitely more important.

61 posted on 12/20/2002 11:14:35 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
But most remarkable of all, I have a Thermos bottle that keeps my coffee hot in winter and my lemonade cold in summer. How does it know?

It's read the Bible.
62 posted on 12/20/2002 11:15:00 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
What's your beef with quantum mechanics?

The point where QM jumps the track and says that a big bang could have happened for no reason at all.

63 posted on 12/20/2002 11:16:57 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Faraday
Not all that "tiny,"

Was thinking in terms of radio waves where you can arrange your antenna this way and that but you need to put in a road so you can get your gear in and out and you need to climb dangerously high towers. Or we could deal with the visible spectrum and use transparent crystals like in polaroid sheets. You definitely get the sense of electric fields propagating through space with antennas.

64 posted on 12/20/2002 11:17:47 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
We will never know why simple things like gravity and magnetism work let alone the real natural mysteries of the universe. They are just there for us to marvel at...

Fine, you go off and don't think about such things that might trouble your pretty little head.
65 posted on 12/20/2002 11:18:02 AM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Fine, you go off and don't think about such things that might trouble your pretty little head.

OK, you go spend your life trying to figure them out without regard for God. Then in a few decades or so, we'll discuss it over a cup of really really hot BikerNYC.

66 posted on 12/20/2002 11:22:41 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
"What is polarization?"

Isn't it etheric harmonic synchronicity?
67 posted on 12/20/2002 11:23:53 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I have a Thermos bottle

I knew Dr. Thermos. Dr. Thermos was a friend of mine. I don't thnk they make Thermos bottles anymore, not the real ones like Dewar flasks. Those were truly amazing, things that practically cut a hole in the continuum, a reverse black hole if they also cut off gravity and we're lucky Dr. Thermos didn't figure out how to do that, yet made in a factory.

68 posted on 12/20/2002 11:25:26 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
That's the same point that allows a semiconductor to work.
69 posted on 12/20/2002 11:28:53 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Isn't it etheric harmonic synchronicity?

Of course it is. We're just wondering if Einstein's gift to the world - the photon - exists to allow for equations in canonical form. Dirac's primary postulate is that Nature prefers the Canonical form, and that experimental results don't matter whether they support the equation or not.

70 posted on 12/20/2002 11:31:00 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #71 Removed by Moderator

To: biblewonk
"We will ever know..."

Some folks aren't as willing as you appear to be to settle for ignorance.

Some kids strive to get 100% on science and math exams.

I suppose you weren't one of those kids.

Some of those kids grow up to be physicists and mathematicians. They're still trying to get 100%, even though it's a stupendous challenge.

Some of us think this is a good thing.
72 posted on 12/20/2002 11:34:01 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
We will never know why simple things like gravity and magnetism work

Of course the key word in this "why". If you include the transcendent in your hypothesis, it is easy to deduce "intelligent design." Science is unconcerned with such "whys". It takes the universe to exist and to operate in ways that can be understood via observation, experimentation, and theory testing. On this level we know a whole lot about gravity and magnetism. (BTW, these two [of four] fundamental forces, are not all that simple.) If the answer, "because God made it that way," suffices for you, fine. Though, if all of our species took that attitude, we'd still be living in caves.

73 posted on 12/20/2002 11:35:56 AM PST by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Faraday
I'll never understand why the most wackadoo thumping fundies have to think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
74 posted on 12/20/2002 11:37:38 AM PST by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Faraday
the key word in this "why".

That's the thing, of course. "Why" is the instrumental case of "what" and implies an actor, agent, or motive.

Scientists don't waste much time on "why." Simply finding "what" or "how" is enough to keep one busy.

75 posted on 12/20/2002 11:42:37 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Maybe each photon runs up and down the hills and valleys of the transmitted wave(s); then we would have fast photons and slow photons and the observed speed of light would be merely the average of the fastest and the slowest (>0) photon. Or, something like that.
76 posted on 12/20/2002 11:45:07 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: Faraday
the key word in this "why".

That's the thing, of course. "Why" is the instrumental case of "what" and implies an actor, agent, or motive.

Scientists don't waste much time on "why." Simply finding "what" or "how" is enough to keep one busy.

78 posted on 12/20/2002 11:47:10 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
I'll never understand why the most wackadoo thumping fundies have to think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

For a few of the posters, it seems that thinking itself may be incompatible with some of their doctrines. The odd thing is that in such cases, they choose to go with the doctrine.

79 posted on 12/20/2002 11:47:44 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Why the double post? Must be an IE undocumented feature. Implies a Creator.
80 posted on 12/20/2002 11:48:08 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-160 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