"A SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH LETS US SEE TO THE BEGINNING OF TIME"

Started by Sal1981, March 17, 2014, 03:50:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sal1981


full article by Lawrence M. Krauss:

Quote

At rare moments in scientific history, a new window on the universe opens up that changes everything. Today was quite possibly such a day. At a press conference on Monday morning at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a team of scientists operating a sensitive microwave telescope at the South Pole announced the discovery of polarization distortions in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is the observable afterglow of the Big Bang. The distortions appear to be due to the presence of gravitational waves, which would date back to almost the beginning of time.

This observation, made possible by the fact that gravitational waves can travel unimpeded through the universe, takes us to 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang. By comparison, the Cosmic Microwave Backgroundâ€"which, until today, was the earliest direct signal we had of the Big Bangâ€"was created when the universe was already three hundred thousand years old.

If the discovery announced this morning holds up, it will allow us to peer back to the very beginning of timeâ€"a million billion billion billion billion billion times closer to the Big Bang than any previous direct observationâ€"and will allow us to explore the fundamental forces of nature on a scale ten thousand billion times smaller than can be probed at the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator. Moreover, it will allow us to test some of the most ambitious theoretical speculations about the origin of our observed universe that have ever been made by humansâ€"speculations that may first appear to verge on metaphysics. It might seem like an esoteric finding, so far removed from everyday life as to be of almost no interest. But, if confirmed, it will have increased our empirical window on the origins of the universe by a margin comparable to the amount it has grown in all of the rest of human history. Where this may lead, no one knows, but it should be cause for great excitement.

Even for someone who has been thinking about these possibilities for the past thirty-five years, the truth can sometimes seem stranger than fiction. In 1979, a young particle physicist named Alan Guth proposed what seemed like an outrageous possibility, which he called Inflation: that new physics, involving a large extrapolation from what could then be observed, might imply that the universe expanded in size by over thirty orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, increasing in size by a greater amount in that instance than it has in the fourteen billion years since.

Guth’s work was designed to address what were then seemingly irreconcilable problems with the standard Big Bang model, which did not offer any explanation for why the observable universe is so incredibly uniform on large scales, and how it has continued to expand for so long without collapsing once again. Inflation, crudely put, explains how the universe is likely to have grown shortly after the Big Bang, to bridge the gap between our hypothesis about the origins of the universe and the universe we observe today.

But the hallmark of great theory is its ability to predict future discoveries, not merely explain previous ones. Within a few years, Guth and a host of others demonstrated that quantum-mechanical effects during this very early period immediately after the Big Bang could have generated primordial variations in matter and radiation that resulted, owing to gravity, in the formation of all observed cosmic structures, including our earth, our galaxy, and all observable galaxies. Moreover, the special characteristics of these “primordial lumps”â€"produced when the size of the universe was smaller than a single atomâ€"might be tested if we were able to probe out to the farthest reaches of the known universe.

In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite reported observations of the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiationâ€"the afterglow of the Big Bang generated when the universe was only three hundred thousand years oldâ€"that allowed just such measurements to be performed. Evidence of primordial lumps was discoveredâ€"leading to a Nobel Prizeâ€"and the stage was set for subsequent experiments, which verified that Guth’s Inflation theory was at least consistent with observation.

However, consistency is not enough in science. After all, different models of Inflation could have produced results consistent with many different observations. So one needed a much more robust and unambiguous prediction to really confirm these ideas.

Remarkably, one such prediction arose. If gravity is also subject to quantum mechanics, then it was shown that, during Inflation, quantum fluctuations in gravity would be produced, and would appear today as gravitational wavesâ€"ripples in the fabric of space and time. Gravitational waves are incredibly difficult to detect directly: we have built huge detectors, here on Earth, that are so sensitive that they can detect a force that changes the length of a two-mile-long detector by an amount smaller than a single proton. So far, however, no signal has been observed.

But the universe is a far bigger detector. The same Cosmic Microwave Background that gave us an image of primordial structures might also be distorted by gravitational waves with wavelengths as large as the size of the observable universe. In 1992, right after the COBE discovery, a student of mine and I were sufficiently excited to claim that if Inflation occurred at an energy scale only slightly larger than where we think three of the four forces of nature might be unifiedâ€"the so-called Grand Unified Scaleâ€"gravitational waves might even have produced the entire observedCOBE signal.

This turned out not to be the case. But on Monday, nature may have revealed a more exciting possibility. A more sensitive probe of the microwave backgroundâ€"one that measures how the light generated at the time the C.M.B. was created might be “polarized,” as space is alternatively compressed and stretched by gravitational wavesâ€"apparently sees precisely the signal expected from Inflation. Moreover, the amplitude of the effect is indeed more or less expected if the scale of Inflation is the scale expected for Grand Unification.

If it turns out to be confirmed by other experiments, think about what this discovery implies for our ability to explore the universe (besides the other remarkable implications for physics): when we use light to look out at the distant universe, we can only see back as far as three hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, when the universe cooled sufficiently to become transparent to light. But gravitational waves interact so weakly that even waves produced less than 10-35seconds after the Big Bang can move through space unimpeded, giving us a window on the universe at essentially the beginning of time.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the current result is in some tension with earlier claimed upper limits from other experiments, so we will need to wait for the results of a host of other experiments currently operating that can check this result.

For some people, the possibility that the laws of physics might illuminate even the creation of our own universe, without the need for supernatural intervention or any demonstration of purpose, is truly terrifying. But Monday’s announcement heralds the possible beginning of a new era, where even such cosmic existential questions are becoming accessible to experiment.

source:http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/03/a-scientific-breakthrough-lets-us-see-to-the-beginning-of-time.html


Fuck yeah, science!

SGOS

I have suspected for a few years that the "300,000 year limit" of our ability to observe our beginnings would be overcome.  Is this it?  And if it is, how much will it tell us?

Sal1981

btw, it should be thirty thousand billion billion billion billion billion times closer to the point of the Big Bang.

josephpalazzo

Can they give Einstein another Nobel? Too bad we didn't discover gravitational waves while he was alive. This new discovery opens the door to GUT that was only speculative yesterday. Also, inflation theory, like it or not, is here to stay. Alan Guth must be having one hell of a time.

AllPurposeAtheist

So all I need is a microwave oven and a telescope from kmart to watch the big bang? All this time I've been watching it on TV.  I'll be damned. :-k
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

stromboli

Cool. Lawrence Krauss, one of my favorite people. Love to see this stuff. Thanks a bunch.

josephpalazzo

One issue that seems to get little attention from the different articles I read so far is the possible impact this new discovery might have on Grand Unified Theories (GUT). If one looks at the Standard Model (SM), all the forces are dealt with gauge theory. In that scheme, one needs group theory to make the theory gauge invariant. For the electromagnetic force, you need  SU(1); for the Weak force, SU(2); and for the Strong force, SU(3). You can see there is a pattern there. So people in physics theorize that there might be a SU(n) that could unify all of these forces with gravity under one umbrella. It turns out that SU(5) is one possible candidate  - SU(1), SU(2) and SU(3) are subgroups of SU(5). It also predicted that all the forces, including gravity, would be equal at 106GeV. Guess what, this new observation that gravitational waves impacted inflation has been found to be at 106GeV, suggesting very strongly that in the pre-inflation era, all the forces were equal as predicted by GUT.

josephpalazzo

Typical answer from AiG:

Quote

This announcement undoubtedly will be welcomed as the long-sought proof of
cosmic inflation so necessary to the big bang model. Biblical creationists know
from Scripture that the universe did not begin in a big bang billions of years
ago. For instance, from God’s Word we understand that the world is far younger
than this. Furthermore, we know from Genesis 1 that God made the earth before He
made the stars, but the big bang requires that many stars existed for billions
of years before the earth did. So how do we respond to this announcement?


First, this announcement may be improperly understood and reported. For
instance, in 2003 proof for cosmic inflation was incorrectly reported and a similar
erroneous claim
was made last year. Second, the predictions that are being
supposedly confirmed are very model-dependent: if the model changes, then the
predictions change. Inflation is just one of many free parameters that
cosmologists have at their disposal within the big bang model, so they can alter
these parameters at will to get the intended result. Third, other mechanisms
could mimic the signal being claimed today. So, even if the data are confirmed,
there may be some other physical mechanism at play rather than cosmic
inflation.





http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/03/17/has-cosmic-inflation-been-proved

AllPurposeAtheist

QuoteSo, even if the data are confirmed, 
there may be some other physical mechanism at play rather than cosmic 
inflation.

Undoubtedly big spooky is involved!
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Atheon

But but but it cant be troo! Sez in the bibble that GOD did it!!!!!1!1!
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

stromboli

You can intellectually bitch slap these meat brains all day, but the stupid never runs out.

Solitary

Is time the measure of change, or is change the measure of time? Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Solitary on March 19, 2014, 03:00:35 PM
Is time the measure of change, or is change the measure of time? Solitary

We can have a change in time, a change in position, a change in velocity, etc. But a measure of change is not defined anywhere in physics, as far as I know.

Solitary

Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 19, 2014, 06:26:34 PM
We can have a change in time, a change in position, a change in velocity, etc. But a measure of change is not defined anywhere in physics, as far as I know.

Thanks you for your response. Time is the duration or interval between two events in science, however this interval is a change or duration measured on a clock (periotic movement), which is a measure of change that is a measure of time, is it not? Sounds like circular reasoning to me. Solitary




"For thousands of years philosophers through the ages have pondered the question of what is time. Indeed this is one of the most enjoyable topics for physics students to discuss; What is time? If you search the Internet you will find Scientific Forums such as Slash Dot discussing these things. Recently in an online think tank the subject came up again and a fellow thinker named Marv had this to say has he defined what time really is and he stated:

"What we call "time" is only a metric used to measure change. Change requires movement. If every sub-atomic particle through out the universe, even those yet to be discovered, were to suddenly stop in place, there would be no time. Bread wouldn't go stale, we wouldn't age, and roses would never bloom. Nothing would happen."

Yet with change being the only constant we realize that it cannot be so, time in that regard cannot stop, but perhaps some of the spinning can be reversed setting the observer backwards as well. It seems that the definition of time is at issue and humans and philosophers have always tried to define it; "time is like a river flowing to the ocean" a poet might say. Or time is that which separates the past, present and future.

Have you thought much about time? Have you taken the time to consider such thoughts? What does time mean to you? Are you stressed out constantly over time? Do you never seem to have enough of it to get all those things done you wish to do? If you get a little extra time, then please consider this in 2006.


"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement."
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Solitary on March 20, 2014, 11:53:06 PM
Thanks you for your response. Time is the duration or interval between two events in science, however this interval is a change or duration measured on a clock (periotic movement), which is a measure of change that is a measure of time, is it not? Sounds like circular reasoning to me. Solitary

Not really. In your statement,  you have "a measure of change that is a measure of time" which would indicate that change = time, but it's not. The word "change" is different than the word "time". Take time as what you would measure on a clock - which is a tick. A change in time is the difference between two ticks. A similar case is position. Take it as a dot on a line. A change in position is the difference between two dots.  You can see that change≠ time.



Quote"For thousands of years philosophers through the ages have pondered the question of what is time. Indeed this is one of the most enjoyable topics for physics students to discuss; What is time? If you search the Internet you will find Scientific Forums such as Slash Dot discussing these things. Recently in an online think tank the subject came up again and a fellow thinker named Marv had this to say has he defined what time really is and he stated:
"What we call "time" is only a metric used to measure change. Change requires movement. If every sub-atomic particle through out the universe, even those yet to be discovered, were to suddenly stop in place, there would be no time. Bread wouldn't go stale, we wouldn't age, and roses would never bloom. Nothing would happen."
Yet with change being the only constant we realize that it cannot be so, time in that regard cannot stop, but perhaps some of the spinning can be reversed setting the observer backwards as well. It seems that the definition of time is at issue and humans and philosophers have always tried to define it; "time is like a river flowing to the ocean" a poet might say. Or time is that which separates the past, present and future.
Have you thought much about time? Have you taken the time to consider such thoughts? What does time mean to you? Are you stressed out constantly over time? Do you never seem to have enough of it to get all those things done you wish to do? If you get a little extra time, then please consider this in 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement."

I will agree that defining the concept of "time" has its difficulties, but so is the concept of "force" or the concept of "mass". But we still have an intuitive feeling for what they are.