Posted on 03/04/2014 6:45:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In 1964, a pair of engineers at Bell Labs in New Jersey tried to build a better antenna and ended up uncovering the origins of the universe. After ruling out city noise, nuclear bombs and pigeon poop, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson argued that a strange radio hiss in their readings was the first confirmed signal of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This relic glow emerged as a result of the big bang and now permeates the universe.
The discovery solidified big bang theory as our best explanation for cosmic origins, and Penzias and Wilson went on to net a Nobel prize. Now, 50 years later, the CMB (pictured above) has helped us figure out the universe's age, shape and components, as well as details about how it has evolved. But with almost every discovery, the CMB raised new and more vexing questions. Here are six of the biggest lingering mysteries sparked by studies of the big bang.
1. Why is the early universe so smooth?
At first, maps of the CMB looked too good to be true. After the big bang, matter should have flown apart and formed random clumps. But the CMB showed that the universe was incredibly uniform, as if far-flung regions had somehow stayed in contact during the universe's early expansion.
In the 1980s, physicists came up with the idea that the universe went through a period shortly after the big bang when it ballooned exponentially – a theory now called inflation.
Recent maps of the CMB have borne out some predictions of this model, but not all of them. Even if the theory is true, we still have no idea what caused inflation, when it started and why it stopped. We could have an answer soon.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
As Alamo_Girl has put it on previous occasions, ‘Without Time, events do not occur; without space, things do not exist.’
The Bible tells us Who was there, made simpler in John's Gospel, chapter one. The observer is 'The Word made flesh Who dwelt among us.'
Nachmonides, in his 13th century commentaries on Genesis states that a fair reading of Genesis relates that there are ten dimensions. We exist in three, maybe four of those dimensions (space, time, the one from which Life erupts into the physical universe, and the one where spirit originates).
Yes it is still around. We can see light and structure associated with it, plus, not only is the Universe still expanding, but it's at an ever faster rate.
There is a cold spot in the CMB that could be from another Universe.
Indeed, dear MHGinTN, thank you for remembering!
Or from bifurcation of other dimensions of our initial conditions ...
“What’s up with that?”
Be patient. They’ll work it out, eventually.
“Without time, no change could occur, so whatever pre-existed the big bang would just continue to exist unchanged.”
Well, there could be a “timeline” outside of ours, from which we are a consequence. As an analogy, an author has his own timeline, independent of the one in a book that he wrote. He’s free to read it from the beginning, middle or end as he chooses.
“Well, there could be a “timeline” outside of ours, from which we are a consequence. As an analogy, an author has his own timeline, independent of the one in a book that he wrote. He’s free to read it from the beginning, middle or end as he chooses.”
Even if this were the case, it wouldn’t invalidate my point. In order for our universe to change from a pre-Big Bang state to a post-Big Bang state, time must have existed in our timeline, not just in an outside one.
“In order for our universe to change from a pre-Big Bang state to a post-Big Bang state, time must have existed in our timeline, not just in an outside one.”
I suppose you’re saying here that “time” exists independently of a timeline started with a big bang. I don’t think Big Bang theory disallows that notion. Also, I don’t think that sort of time need be deterministic, the way we experience ours.
“I suppose you’re saying here that “time” exists independently of a timeline started with a big bang.”
Well, what I’m saying is that change can’t happen without time. If change is happening, then time is happening too. The Big Bang, as proposed, involves a change, so time must have already been in existence in order for such a change to happen.
That’s because the notion of time is wrapped up in the word “change”. I’m not that familiar with Big Bang theory, but I’m comfortable with the notion that there is a moment of time for which there is no “before”. I think the universe demands an explanation but not a cause.
“That’s because the notion of time is wrapped up in the word “change”. I’m not that familiar with Big Bang theory, but I’m comfortable with the notion that there is a moment of time for which there is no “before”. I think the universe demands an explanation but not a cause.”
You can look at time two different ways, but I think that either way you look at it, you will come to the same conclusions.
Option A: Time is just a measurement of change. In this case, when a change occurs, time must pass, because time is essentially an emergent phenomenon of any change, a measurement of how different things are from what we remember them to be.
Option B: Time is a dimension (or part of a dimension), in which motion can occur. However, when moving in the other, non-time dimensions, there is always an element of motion in the time dimension. The only exception is if the motion occurs at the speed of light, but nothing with a resting mass greater than zero can attain that speed. So, for all intents and purposes, as soon as anything substantial changes (moves), it is also moving through time.
Now, there could be some “time before time” in which things operated differently, but the physical laws governing it all would have to be different than what we observe today. If they were different, then how could we speculate at all about conditions beyond that point, since we have no way to observe and experiment to find out what the physical laws were at that time? It would be beyond the purview of science to speak of.
“It would be beyond the purview of science to speak of.”
I agree; that won’t stop people from calling it “science”, though.
Yes, it seems most modern scientists have a problem recognizing any limits on their discipline, or saying the words “we can’t know”.
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.