Astronomers Discover First Direct Proof of the Big Bang Expansion

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member



Somebody's going to win a Nobel Prize. At least that's what the physics community is saying after the announcement on Monday that a Harvard team has found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang. It's more proof that the Big Bang really was the beginning of it all.


The discovery itself is a little bit tough to wrap your head around—as it should be, given that it helps to explain the beginning of existence. Astronomers specifically discovered a twist of light called primordial B-mode polarization. This refers to the swirling effect that enormous gravitation waves had on photons that escaped from the Big Bang and serves as proof that those gravitational waves actually exist. As far as understanding the origins of the universe goes, this is a very, very big deal. Some say that this finding is up there with the discovery of the Higgs boson back in 2012.


Einstein, being Einstein, predicted all of this in 1916. His theory of general relativity hypothesized that these gravitational waves exist as ripples in the fabric of space-time, and scientists have been trying ever since to prove their existence. If gravitational waves do exist that means that the rapid expansion of the universe in the moments after the Big Bang actually happened. The effect is a little bit like how waves form on the surface when you drop a big stone in a pond. However, you also have to imagine that the Big Bang formed the pond itself.


Regardless of how you picture it, this is a big deal. "If it is confirmed, then it would be the most important discovery since the discovery, I think, that the expansion of the universe is accelerating," says Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who was not involved in the research. Loeb added, "It's worth a Nobel."



Of course, everything has to be confirmed now. The Harvard team did not reveal their findings recklessly, though. They also used one of the most advanced telescopes in the world, the BICEP2 in Antarctica(above), to collect the data. "These are extremely careful and conservative people," Marc Kamionowski, a theorist from Johns Hopkins who was one of the few people who saw the data before it was revealed to the public, told Time. "They've had this evidence for three years, looked at every alternative explanation for what they were seeing, and systematically ruled them out one by one."


And don't forget: Einstein called it a century ago. If we know anything about Einstein, it's that he was a pretty damn smart guy. [New York Times]


BONUS: This new discovery is a great chance to revisit the origins of Alan Guth's original idea of inflation in the the post-Big Bang era. Here's the page in his notebook from when he first made the discovery.



http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
 

Silky Shagsalot

Well-Known Member
sure i do! a theory is when you have everything you need to prove a hypothesis, except actual physical evidence, lol. and i believe that's what this thread is about, i think.... harumph..lol...
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
sure i do! a theory is when you have everything you need to prove a hypothesis, except actual physical evidence, lol. and i believe that's what this thread is about, i think.... harumph..lol...
Like I said, you don't understand how science works

Did you miss the title of the thread? "..first direct proof of the big bang..."
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
oh, i'm sooo sorry! you go ahead and re-define it for us, would you? thanks...
You're the one that is attempting to redefine what "theory" means

Theory - a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
i'll just refer you to my previous post, #8. a lack of physical evidence....
"Somebody's going to win a Nobel Prize. At least that's what the physics community is saying after the announcement on Monday that a Harvard team has found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang. It's more proof that the Big Bang really was the beginning of it all."

First sentence.
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
"Somebody's going to win a Nobel Prize. At least that's what the physics community is saying after the announcement on Monday that a Harvard team has found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation right after the Big Bang. It's more proof that the Big Bang really was the beginning of it all."

First sentence.
Before getting too excited, give the paper at least a once over, now in its 2nd revision (in only a couple days ;) )
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3985

I look at what Scientific American wrote about it, and conclude this material is extremely dense in its theory, considering SA doesn't differentiate between 'gravitational waves' and 'gravity waves'. Then again, Dr. Kinney from PI also mixes the two (albeit, subtly, as one will see in the video below).

I've read the paper, and quickly got lost in the minutiae involved (just try reading the part describing the lenses :lol: Polypropylene foam, polyethylene, nylon, microwave absorption materials, yada yada yada...). I can barely grasp the ideas of E-mode and B-mode polarization (an obvious Maxwell reference). How they manage to differentiate noise from data is a feat of incredible technology. We are talking about fluctuations in the background radiation of +/- 1.8E-6 K !!! That is fucking incredibly tiny.

However, what does Neil Turok have to say?
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/node/93439
[HR][/HR]Perimeter Director Neil Turok, a cosmologist whose work centres on our understanding of the early universe, said, “If confirmed — and it is a big if — then this result is spectacular and will have opened an entirely new window on the big bang.” He noted that, if it is confirmed, it would refute a model of the early universe he proposed with Princeton’s Paul Steinhardt.


“It would conclusively refute the ekpyrotic and cyclic models we proposed a decade ago. However, more recent bouncing universe models based on the Higgs field might still be viable.”
...
Turok, however, sounded a note of caution. “As far as inflation goes, there is a real tension, which the BICEP2 authors admit, between the BICEP2 result and the previous WMAP and Planck results. If all these experiments are correct, then inflationary models would be in trouble because fitting all the data requires tweaking inflationary models in very artificial ways: such models would be contrived and unconvincing.” He went on to say that this conclusion is the opposite of that reached by the BICEP2 authors.
...
Turok ended on a measured note. “As Carl Sagan said, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’ I am not sure BICEP2 has provided that yet.”

[HR][/HR]
So, yes, it is pretty cool to see seeming discoveries like this (and the Higgs boson, for that matter). However, real scientists don't let headlines rule the day.
BTW, I like how the OP references "a Harvard team" as the source of this :lol:
Take a closer look at the pedigree of each team member; it's a multi-national, multi-institutional affair in both participation and funding.

Link to datasets etc. from one of the 2 'Harvard' members.
http://bicepkeck.org/

[video=youtube_share;EHXnK5CXsHc]http://youtu.be/EHXnK5CXsHc[/video]

More fun background links from SA:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/cosmic-inflation-and-big-bang-ripples/
 

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Then there is the press conference.
That's better than anything media outlets are reporting.
Straight from the horses' mouths.

[video=youtube_share;Iasqtm1prlI]http://youtu.be/Iasqtm1prlI[/video]
 

kenneyrowe

Active Member
All of that sounds real plausible and i actually believe it, but can big bang answer the question of what happens to u after you die?
 
Top