Forums: Community: Campground:
Problems for the Big Bang Model?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Campground

Premier Sponsor:

 


Partner rrrADAM


Sep 25, 2008, 3:53 AM
Post #1 of 19 (814 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553

Problems for the Big Bang Model?
Report this Post
Can't Post

NASA wrote:
Scientists Detect Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Across Billions of Light Years

09.23.08 Francis Reddy / Rob Gutro
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
301-286-4453 / 4044
francis.j.reddy@nasa.gov / robert.j.gutro@nasa.gov

Release No. 08-83


WASHINGTON -- Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe.

"The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We never expected to find anything like this."

Read the rest here:
http://www.nasa.gov/.../2008/dark_flow.html


robbovius


Sep 25, 2008, 4:02 AM
Post #2 of 19 (808 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406

Re: [rrrADAM] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
NASA wrote:
Scientists Detect Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Across Billions of Light Years

09.23.08 Francis Reddy / Rob Gutro
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
301-286-4453 / 4044
francis.j.reddy@nasa.gov / robert.j.gutro@nasa.gov

Release No. 08-83


WASHINGTON -- Using data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), scientists have identified an unexpected motion in distant galaxy clusters. The cause, they suggest, is the gravitational attraction of matter that lies beyond the observable universe.

"The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Alexander Kashlinsky at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We never expected to find anything like this."

Read the rest here:
http://www.nasa.gov/.../2008/dark_flow.html

this is both awesome and exciting...

I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine."


Partner rrrADAM


Sep 25, 2008, 5:19 AM
Post #3 of 19 (798 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553

Re: [robbovius] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Sounds like Sagan or Tyson.


Partner epoch
Moderator

Sep 25, 2008, 5:21 AM
Post #4 of 19 (796 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 32163

Re: [rrrADAM] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Dont' google image the thread title with the filter off at work! Blush

Fuck!Pirate


boymeetsrock


Sep 25, 2008, 9:49 AM
Post #5 of 19 (778 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709

Re: [rrrADAM] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

So if I understand this correctly, some gasses or energy waves from various parts of the universe are moving toward a single point which is not outside of the visible universe? And also not in relation to general universe expansion?

Could there be a black hole there?

Very interesting and mind boggling stuff. Thanks for sharing!


sungam


Sep 25, 2008, 10:15 AM
Post #6 of 19 (773 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26800

Re: [boymeetsrock] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

boymeetsrock wrote:
Could there be a black hole there?
I doubt even a super-duper-big-fuck-off-massive black hole could cause such diruptions.


petsfed


Sep 25, 2008, 11:35 AM
Post #7 of 19 (753 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8599

Re: [boymeetsrock] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

boymeetsrock wrote:
So if I understand this correctly, some gasses or energy waves from various parts of the universe are moving toward a single point which is not outside of the visible universe? And also not in relation to general universe expansion?

Could there be a black hole there?

Very interesting and mind boggling stuff. Thanks for sharing!

[jaded ex-astronomy researcher]I think whatever is causing this is much more interesting than just a black hole.[/jaded ex-astronomy researcher]

Some thing that's measurable over an isotropic sample of galactic clusters points at something a little bit more elemental, a little bit more intrinsic to our universe. The existence of any one black hole is not necessary to the existence of the universe (although their overall existence is necessary). But some thing that big? That is beyond our visual horizon? This is sexy stuff.

Of course, since we're essentially looking backwards in time, this apparent motion could be any number of things, including redshifting due to the extreme mass density of the infant universe. That is, the light warping we measure could be from the still lingering footprint of the fires of creation.


gogounou


Sep 25, 2008, 11:44 AM
Post #8 of 19 (748 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 20, 2006
Posts: 542

Re: [rrrADAM] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Excellent link. Prompted me to look into cosmic inflation, as well. I had never been aware of that aspect of Big Bang theory.

Thanks!
J


boymeetsrock


Sep 25, 2008, 12:48 PM
Post #9 of 19 (737 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709

Re: [petsfed] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I see.... well no I don't but that did give me a better sense of what we're talking about.

Now when you say fires of creation do you mean of the universe as a whole, or perhaps a particular galaxy/ system?

Also the report made it sound like they are seeing this phenomenon (mahna-mahna?) in only one corner of the universe and not all around the edges. Is that correct and if so why.

OK, I know this isn't astronomy class so you guys don;t have to keep humoring me. This is all just very interesting and apparently far beyond my comprehension.


petsfed


Sep 25, 2008, 3:30 PM
Post #10 of 19 (726 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8599

Re: [boymeetsrock] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

boymeetsrock wrote:
I see.... well no I don't but that did give me a better sense of what we're talking about.

Now when you say fires of creation do you mean of the universe as a whole, or perhaps a particular galaxy/ system?

Also the report made it sound like they are seeing this phenomenon (mahna-mahna?) in only one corner of the universe and not all around the edges. Is that correct and if so why.

OK, I know this isn't astronomy class so you guys don;t have to keep humoring me. This is all just very interesting and apparently far beyond my comprehension.

The image in the article shows that galaxy clusters spread pretty evenly over the sky all seem to be heading for this beasty. That seems to pretty strongly point towards a universal effect. Read more carefully, the report states that everything seems to be attracted towards one particular neighborhood. Since we can't see what they're attracted towards, we can speculate all we want about what's going on.

In the interest of rigor though, we are compelled to state most especially that there is something causing all of these clusters (which are really, REALLY big) to head towards a single point in the universe. It is, in all probability, something very massive (or acts, at least in a gravitational sense, like something very massive). But we can't see what it is, so it might be dark matter, it might be the intrinsic shape of the universe, it could be the gravitational waves of the pre-cosmic soup. But no matter what causes it, if this effect is real, its pretty fuckin' sweet.


(This post was edited by petsfed on Sep 25, 2008, 3:31 PM)


bender


Sep 25, 2008, 10:04 PM
Post #11 of 19 (693 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 188

Re: [robbovius] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

robbovius wrote:


I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine."


you really aught not get that excited by such prognostications

remember these are at heart science nerds

they get excited by a .1 change in calculable magnitude whenever the furtherance of instermentation allows the refinement of vantage

their enthusiasm is mostly for the unpreceptable

i wouldnt run to far with their exuberance


sungam


Sep 26, 2008, 5:05 AM
Post #12 of 19 (681 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26800

Re: [bender] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

bender wrote:
robbovius wrote:


I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine."


you really aught not get that excited by such prognostications

remember these are at heart science nerds

they get excited by a .1 change in calculable magnitude whenever the furtherance of instermentation allows the refinement of vantage

their enthusiasm is mostly for the unpreceptable

i wouldnt run to far with their exuberance
More crap from the bull's rear end.
Thanks, bender.


boymeetsrock


Sep 26, 2008, 6:45 AM
Post #13 of 19 (676 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709

Re: [petsfed] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Thanks for explaining Petsfed. I'll keep reading as this is interesting.


petsfed


Sep 26, 2008, 7:45 AM
Post #14 of 19 (662 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8599

Re: [bender] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

bender wrote:
robbovius wrote:


I forget exactly the person who made this statement (stephen hawking? )but it seems appropos here: "Not only is the univese weirder than we imagine, its wierder than we CAN imagine."


you really aught not get that excited by such prognostications

remember these are at heart science nerds

they get excited by a .1 change in calculable magnitude whenever the furtherance of instermentation allows the refinement of vantage

their enthusiasm is mostly for the unpreceptable

i wouldnt run to far with their exuberance

Beat 'em up in high school and now you work for one?

I find absolutely nothing wrong with the child like wonder that most scientists approach their given field. I wonder how different the world would be if we could all get so excited about subtle refinements of the evidence.

Incidentally, ".1 change in calculable magnitude"? Does that mean a factor of .1 (so technically an order of magnitude) or a superposition of .1 of whatever you're measuring? Since we tend to prefer scientific notation, that's only the second significant figure, so we're still talking in terms of hundredths of the total. 3.6x10^8 vs 3.7x10^8 doesn't seem like much, but its still a shift of 1,000,000. Your criticism is basically incomprehensible, however warranted you may believe it to be. Try to rephrase, being careful not to use trigger words like "magnitude" unless they are actually the words you mean to.

My real point though is that if you can't get excited by how complex and yet how simple the universe is, then what the hell keeps you interested in the world at large? The day I realized that I could be filled with the same sense of awe staring at a mountain vista or working out some new fact about the universe, I knew I'd found a calling.


sungam


Sep 26, 2008, 8:01 AM
Post #15 of 19 (659 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26800

Re: [petsfed] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
Incidentally, ".1 change in calculable magnitude"? Does that mean a factor of .1 (so technically an order of magnitude) or a superposition of .1 of whatever you're measuring? Since we tend to prefer scientific notation, that's only the second significant figure, so we're still talking in terms of hundredths of the total. 3.6x10^8 vs 3.7x10^8 doesn't seem like much, but its still a shift of 1,000,000. Your criticism is basically incomprehensible, however warranted you may believe it to be. Try to rephrase, being careful not to use trigger words like "magnitude" unless they are actually the words you mean to.
LaughLaughLaugh Bender just got served... Laugh


Maddhatter


Sep 26, 2008, 3:52 PM
Post #16 of 19 (647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 28, 2008
Posts: 1752

Re: [sungam] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Dark matter. All mass is in fact energy.
We really need to know WTF dark matter is before any of this shit even matters.


Just say'n.


hafilax


Sep 26, 2008, 4:07 PM
Post #17 of 19 (644 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 3025

Re: [Maddhatter] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

or...
this shit is important because it might help us figure out wtf dark matter is.


petsfed


Sep 26, 2008, 4:49 PM
Post #18 of 19 (632 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8599

Re: [Maddhatter] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Maddhatter wrote:
Dark matter. All mass is in fact energy.
We really need to know WTF dark matter is before any of this shit even matters.


Just say'n.

Spoken so naively. Kinda makes me smile.

We're not justified in believing that dark matter follows the same matter-energy equivalency that regular matter does. All we know about dark matter is that warps space-time the same way that regular matter does, but does not radiate or absorb energy in any detectable fashion.

We could just explain this away with a wave of the hand as dark matter, the bogeyman we blame all of our evidentiary weirdness on, but we're not really justified in saying even that because if it was dark matter, it would affect all galaxy clusters equally. And that's pretty clearly not the case.


kachoong


Sep 26, 2008, 8:01 PM
Post #19 of 19 (616 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [gogounou] Problems for the Big Bang Model? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

gogounou wrote:
Excellent link. Prompted me to look into cosmic inflation, as well. I had never been aware of that aspect of Big Bang theory.

Thanks!
J

This phenomenon could also be the beginning of a cosmic deflation that began 3.8 billion years ago (from our reference point)... and their point of reference could essentially be the "center" of the visible universe... not necessarily the same center that started the big bang, but the inward concentration of the universe's elasticity... I mean, the universe should surely return back in on itself at some point, whether to the same point or not... this could be the "trashcan" everything will at some point be heading towards eventually...


Forums : Community : Campground

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook