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."
English sure isn't what it used to be. French is, though, if you're from Quebec.
A voice said "...Now."
Beyond that, I have no comment. =]
I do find it fascinating that, as you wind the BBT (Big Bang Theory) back to time t=0, you arrive at a point where all the contents of the universe are in a single point source of zero volume and infinite density... and going to time t=-1 femtosecond brings us entirely into the unknown.
I find no qualitative difference between these conjectures and the metaphysical. Of course, that doesn't disprove either one.
My old VW Beetle had one of those. It was an entertaining few minutes, especially for the semi-conscious driver tailgating my car at the time the event began.
Actually I was, which is probably why I don't get fooled by things that are falsely called science.
It wasn't though, if I understand Guth correctly. There are processes and the time spans and volumes are small but never zero.
What a silly statement. Let's think about that one. Science is about all the whys.
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.
This means that, for the moment, BB Inflationary Cosmology is the only theory left standing.
I have no idea if the Ekpyrotic Model can be revised to accomodate this data.
Philosophy is. Insofar as science is an offshoot of philosophy, it is, too. But modern science has left the "whys" to others. Science today is collecting data and machine solving the 3 basic differential equations. "What" is a goal of modern science. "How" is a goal of modern science. "Why" is of interest to others.
I found the following on the net:
1. Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. It was intended to solve the difficulties which earlier thinkers had raised with reference to the beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes which act on things. There are four causes:
2. Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
3. Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
4. Final cause, or the end for which it is.
It seems to me that science concerns itself with the first two "whys", philosophy/religion with the second two.
Really?
Being a smart-aleck, the next question I'm likely to ask is "What happened before that?"
Nope. Science is about "How." Determining "Why" by using science is like trying to learn C++ programming by studying the insides of your computer.
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.