Big Bang theory Gains New Evidence

[stromboli]

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-internatio ... heory.html

(Phys.org) —An international team of scientists using the most powerful telescope on Earth has discovered the moments just after the Big Bang happened more like the theory predicts, eliminating a significant discrepancy that troubled physicists for two decades. The discovery will be published in the international journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on June 6.

One of the most important problems in physics and astronomy was the inconsistency between the lithium isotopes previously observed in the oldest stars in our galaxy, which suggested levels about two hundred times more Li-6 and about three to five time less Li-7 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts. This serious problem in our understanding of the early Universe has invoked exotic physics and fruitless searches for pre-galactic production sources to reconcile the differences.
The team, led by Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, has proven the decades-old inventory relied on lower quality observational data with analysis using several simplifications that resulted in spurious detections of lithium isotopes.

Using observations of ancient stars with W. M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope and state-of-the-art models of their atmospheres has shown that there is no conflict between their lithium-6 and lithium-7 content and predictions of the standard theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, restoring thus the order in our theory of the early universe.
The discovery that the universe was expanding by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and subsequent observations suggest the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang. The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
"The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe."
Taking accurate measurements of lithium-6 and lithium-7 in old stars is extremely challenging, both from a theoretical and observational perspective, in particular for lithium-6, because being the less abundant isotope of lithium, its signature is very weak. The required data can only be obtained with the largest telescopes on Earth such as the Keck Observatory on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii equipped with the powerful High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) spectrograph to disperse the stellar light into its constituent colors and absorption features.

The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!

[Colanth]

Well ...

No one actually doubted it before.  The consensus was just that there was something we weren't getting.  And that turns out to be correct - what we weren't getting was accurate data.

Of course, theists can jump on this as some sort of "proof" that science isn't reliable.

[Solitary]

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html

(Phys.org) —An international team of scientists using the most powerful telescope on Earth has discovered the moments just after the Big Bang happened more like the theory predicts, eliminating a significant discrepancy that troubled physicists for two decades. The discovery will be published in the international journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on June 6.

One of the most important problems in physics and astronomy was the inconsistency between the lithium isotopes previously observed in the oldest stars in our galaxy, which suggested levels about two hundred times more Li-6 and about three to five time less Li-7 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts. This serious problem in our understanding of the early Universe has invoked exotic physics and fruitless searches for pre-galactic production sources to reconcile the differences.
The team, led by Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, has proven the decades-old inventory relied on lower quality observational data with analysis using several simplifications that resulted in spurious detections of lithium isotopes.

Using observations of ancient stars with W. M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope and state-of-the-art models of their atmospheres has shown that there is no conflict between their lithium-6 and lithium-7 content and predictions of the standard theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, restoring thus the order in our theory of the early universe.
The discovery that the universe was expanding by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and subsequent observations suggest the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang. The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
"The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe."
Taking accurate measurements of lithium-6 and lithium-7 in old stars is extremely challenging, both from a theoretical and observational perspective, in particular for lithium-6, because being the less abundant isotope of lithium, its signature is very weak. The required data can only be obtained with the largest telescopes on Earth such as the Keck Observatory on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii equipped with the powerful High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) spectrograph to disperse the stellar light into its constituent colors and absorption features.

The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!

I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies. And how in the world could the theory be falsified they don't try to do it and ignore evidence?  Stephen Hawking now says the universe has no beginning in a singularity from his understanding of quantum mechanics, or end, and just is. But nobody is listening. I'll get back on this on a different thread. Bill

[Jason78]

I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

I call bullshit on that!

[stromboli]

Have I inadvertently opened a can of worms?  :shock:

[Brian37]

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-international-team-big-theory.html

(Phys.org) —An international team of scientists using the most powerful telescope on Earth has discovered the moments just after the Big Bang happened more like the theory predicts, eliminating a significant discrepancy that troubled physicists for two decades. The discovery will be published in the international journal Astronomy & Astrophysics on June 6.

One of the most important problems in physics and astronomy was the inconsistency between the lithium isotopes previously observed in the oldest stars in our galaxy, which suggested levels about two hundred times more Li-6 and about three to five time less Li-7 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts. This serious problem in our understanding of the early Universe has invoked exotic physics and fruitless searches for pre-galactic production sources to reconcile the differences.
The team, led by Karin Lind of the University of Cambridge, has proven the decades-old inventory relied on lower quality observational data with analysis using several simplifications that resulted in spurious detections of lithium isotopes.

Using observations of ancient stars with W. M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope and state-of-the-art models of their atmospheres has shown that there is no conflict between their lithium-6 and lithium-7 content and predictions of the standard theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, restoring thus the order in our theory of the early universe.
The discovery that the universe was expanding by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and subsequent observations suggest the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in an event called the Big Bang. The fundamental observations that corroborate the Big Bang are the cosmic microwave radiation and the chemical abundances of the light elements described in the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory.
"The predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis have been one of the main successes of the standard Big Bang model," said lead author Lind. "Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation. This further consolidates a model resting heavily on the pillars of the cosmic microwave background and the expanding Universe."
Taking accurate measurements of lithium-6 and lithium-7 in old stars is extremely challenging, both from a theoretical and observational perspective, in particular for lithium-6, because being the less abundant isotope of lithium, its signature is very weak. The required data can only be obtained with the largest telescopes on Earth such as the Keck Observatory on the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii equipped with the powerful High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer (HIRES) spectrograph to disperse the stellar light into its constituent colors and absorption features.

The best part of this for me is that is shows the scientists involved are challenging their own work, and looking for more evidence to either bolster or disprove their basic assertions. Go science!

Theism adapts through marketing, not testing, and does not adapt to improve, but to prop up bad claims. So it simply keeps putting different color cloths on the same skunk arguments.

Science however demands the strict quality control that once something is busted, you discard the bad data. And the only way to insure the most accurate answers is to kick the ever living shit out of the claim with testing, control groups and peer review.

Theism is nothing more than human projecting their own childish desires on the world around them.

And how can anyone think they are special in a universe this size? No we are merely lucky, but even with our species existence, that "luck" also comes with very harsh conditions for many and the ultimate finite existence as well, like our planet and sun will die too.

Theism cheapens reality by concocting bullshit answers to reality. It is like trying to look into deep space with a kaleidoscope instead of a telescope.

Knowing reality is much more awesome, both in its constructive and destructive reality, than the ancient myths of scientifically ignorant humans.

[josephpalazzo]

they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

The blueshifting can be explained: most of these are galaxies nearby. They are blueshifted, meaning they are moving closer to us, as a result of the gravitational pull between galaxies. The ouliers also can  be explained. Take an explosion as an analogy - the BB is not an explosion -- but for the purpose here, we can draw some conclusions. In an explosion, particles will fly out, but on occasions some of these will collide and deflect in weird angles. Similarly, in the initial stage of the BB, some clusters of matter might have deviated from the normal course either through collisions or very strong gravitational pull of nearby galaxies, so that today they are moving towards us. But notice, the number of blueshifting galaxies is extremely small, and so this does not put the BBT in jeopardy.

And how in the world could the theory be falsified they don't try to do it and ignore evidence?  

Which evidence is being ignored?

Stephen Hawking now says the universe has no beginning in a singularity from his understanding of quantum mechanics, or end, and just is. But nobody is listening.

A lot of people are listening to Hawking, but most of the theists listening are howlering that this is nonsense. Of course, if you don't understand the physics, Hawking will sound like nonsense.

[Solitary]

So the raisons in a loaf of bread rising scenario for the Big bang is misleading then? The Big Bang says that space is expanding not the galaxies. If space is expanding how could a blue shift happen and galaxies that are red shifting collide which they do even in space that is expanding faster and faster, and thus gravity gets weaker? I agree if space is expanding slower than gravitational affects there will be blue shifts.  I'm always surprised that atheist are skeptical of religions, but not science. Like I said I'll get back with a post on this subject when I have time and try to find evidence I can't for now.

I've always been of the opinion that good science tries to falsify its data and theories, not just keep finding evidence to support the theory. This is the very reason evolution is considered fact now, because every piece of evidence that was found to falsify it has been explained, and all evidence from various fields of science have confirmed it with new evidence.

I've changed my mind, I can't find the evidence that I had that has been lost, so I will post my opinion and those of scientist on the latest evidence for the Big Bang and what is actually believed now at this thread which is appropriate.

Today, cosmologist can provide a variety of plausible, mathematical precise scenarios for an uncreated universe that violate no known laws of physics. Further more, despite the well-confirmed big bang, the universe, defined as all there is, had no beginning and thus no end
or Creator. The so-called proofs that the universe cannot be eternal are erroneous.

While there is no serious disagreement that our universe began with the big bang, nothing forbids it, and indeed modern cosmology suggests, an eternal multiverse containing many universes besides our own. I can see the rabbit pulled out of the hat. In any case, the claim that time did not exist until it was created in a big bang is incoherent. You can't have creation if you have no time.

Photons out number the atoms by a factor of a billion, and they are random to one part in one thousand. The universe is mostly random motion, and because we live in a tiny pocket of complexity, we wrongly assume the universe is highly ordered. Modern cosmology today views the universe as probably eternal, having no beginning and no end. While the big bang is the origin of our universe , nothing forbids the existence of a prior universe or, many other universes.  

The idea behind the big bang was first proposed by an astronomer and Belgian Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre. Einstein told him his math was correct, but his physics abominable. In Einstein's gravitational equation, the cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density in a vacuum, that is, space without matter. This number is 120  orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Such a value is so high it would result in a universe that would expand so rapidly that galaxies would have no time to form.

Modern cosmology does not require that everything that exists began with a big bang. Hawking and Penrose long ago admitted that their 1970 theorem proving the universe began in a singularity, while not "mathematically" erroneous, did not apply to the origin of the universe.
This was based on Einstein's general relativity if it was correct. In the end their work was generally accepted and now days nearly everyone assumes the universe started with a big bang.

It is ironic that Hawking can't convince other physicist that there is in fact no singularity  at the beginning of the universe because it disappears once quantum effects are taken into account. Decide for yourself. Mine is just an opinion, or not, like always.  8-)   Bill

[PopeyesPappy]

I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

I call bullshit on that!

What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?

[josephpalazzo]

So the raisons in a loaf of bread rising scenario for the Big bang is misleading then?

 Analogies are often used in science to illustrate a particular point, and is rarely meant to be used for some other points. Needless to say that any analogy is only valid to a certain extent.

If space is expanding how could a blue shift happen and galaxies that are red shifting collide which they do even in space that is expanding faster and faster, and thus gravity gets weaker? I agree if space is expanding slower than gravitational affects there will be blue shifts.

One does not exclude the other. Most galaxies are receding from us. The few that don't can be explained by local conditions.

I'm always surprised that atheist are skeptical of religions, but not science. Like I said I'll get back with a post on this subject when I have time and try to find evidence I can't for now.

Are we talking about atheists or scientists? Perhaps those atheists who do not question science might feel they are not competent to do so. They rely on them because (1) science has made its marks , and (2) that science has a mechanism of self-correction, that religion doesn't have. So they take the attitude: if science has it wrong for now, some smart scientist will fix it. Religion is based on dogma, and there is enormous resistance to change that. One would have to leave that particular denomination, and start a new one - why there are 33,000 christian denominations at last count.

I've always been of the opinion that good science tries to falsify its data and theories, not just keep finding evidence to support the theory. This is the very reason evolution is considered fact now, because every piece of evidence that was found to falsify it has been explained, and all evidence from various fields of science have confirmed it with new evidence.

Finding evidence to support a theory, and falsification are two different activities.  

The universe is mostly random motion, and because we live in a tiny pocket of complexity, we wrongly assume the universe is highly ordered.

Our theory tells us the the universe had to start with high order, and since the BB, its disorder is on the increase.

 

The idea behind the big bang was first proposed by an astronomer and Belgian Catholic priest Georges-Henri Lemaitre. Einstein told him his math was correct, but his physics abominable. In Einstein's gravitational equation, the cosmological constant is equivalent to an energy density in a vacuum, that is, space without matter.

Einstein put in the CC because in his times, galaxies were not known to be receding. But he knew his cosmological model would be highly unstable. So the CC was introduced to put stability in his model. It's only when Hubble demonstrated with a stack of data that the universe was expanding that Einstein realized that his equations did in fact lead to an expanding universe, and so he though his CC was a blunder. But now, with the universe accelerating, that CC has been resuscitated.

I don't know what Einstein told Lemaitre.

This number is 120  orders of magnitude higher than what is observed. Such a value is so high it would result in a universe that would expand so rapidly that galaxies would have no time to form.

You're conflating two things. That order of magnitude comes from QFT. If the CC from GR is given a value of 1, the calculated QFT vacuum energy would be 10[sup:22qjed79]120[/sup:22qjed79], clearly a mismatch.

Modern cosmology does not require that everything that exists began with a big bang. Hawking and Penrose long ago admitted that their 1970 theorem proving the universe began in a singularity, while not "mathematically" erroneous, did not apply to the origin of the universe.
This was based on Einstein's general relativity if it was correct. In the end their work was generally accepted and now days nearly everyone assumes the universe started with a big bang.

*** my underlining.

Except for Reinhartd and Turok ( Cyclic theory using Brane theory), Randal-Sundrum's model in 5 dimensions, Smolin's Fecund Theory, Penrose's CCC theory, to name a few.

It is ironic that Hawking can't convince other physicist that there is in fact no singularity  at the beginning of the universe because it disappears once quantum effects are taken into account. Decide for yourself. Mine is just an opinion, or not, like always.  8-)   Bill

Other physicists have no problems with Hawking. The general public, hmm, that's another matter.

[Sal1981]

Well ...

No one actually doubted it before.  The consensus was just that there was something we weren't getting.  And that turns out to be correct - what we weren't getting was accurate data.

Of course, theists can jump on this as some sort of "proof" that science isn't reliable.

And that will only show that they are dishonest assholes. Of course they will.

[josephpalazzo]

I don't want to get into it now because I don't have the evidence handy, buy they completely ignore any evidence that contradicts the theory. For example: the blue shifting of galaxies.

I call bullshit on that!

What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?

Blue shifting galaxies are real, but they don't contradict the BBT.

[GurrenLagann]

Joseph, are you a scientist? You seem like one. xD

/is a compliment

[josephpalazzo]

Joseph, are you a scientist? You seem like one. xD

/is a compliment

Thanks, I try my best. I also run this blog, often seen on this forum.  :-D

[PopeyesPappy]

What are you calling bullshit on, the existence of blue shifting galaxies or that they contradict big bang theory?

Blue shifting galaxies are real, but they don't contradict the BBT.

Yea, Andromeda is a blue shift galaxy. It is moving towards us. As you said before there are other phenomena that cause blue shift in the light from distant galaxies.

Question for you Joseph. We detect light emitted from a galaxy exactly one billion years ago. How far away was the galaxy when the light was emitted and how far away is it now?