Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oldest light shows universe grew fast, researchers say [inflationary cosmology gets a big boost]
Houston Chronicle (www.chron.com) ^ | March 17, 2006 | Dennis O'Brien

Posted on 03/17/2006 3:46:30 AM PST by snarks_when_bored

SEARCH RESULTS

Front page


March 17, 2006, 12:51AM

Oldest light shows universe grew fast, researchers say

First stars arose 400 million years after big bang, not 200 million years, as once thought

By DENNIS O'BRIEN

Baltimore Sun

Scientists examining the oldest light in the universe say they've found clear evidence that matter expanded at an almost inconceivable rate after the big bang, creating conditions that led to the formation of the first stars.

Light from the big bang's afterglow shows that the universe grew from the size of a marble to an astronomical size in just a trillionth of a second after its birth 13.7 billion years ago, researchers from Johns Hopkins and Princeton universities said.

Readings from a NASA probe also show that the earliest stars formed about 400 million years after the big bang — not 200 million years afterward, as the research team once thought.

"With this new data, theories about the early universe have just taken their first exam, and they passed with flying colors," said David Spergel, a Princeton astrophysicist and co-author of the findings published Thursday.

The results are based on readings from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, a robotic instrument with two telescopes that sweeps the sky every six months in an orbit a million miles from Earth.

Light from the probe also has confirmed a theory that the universe is made up mostly of dark energy, a mysterious force that continues to cause the universe's expansion, said Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Charles Bennett, the probe's principal investigator.

"This light is just invaluable. It's really the only fossil we have from that time," Bennett said.

Inflationary theorists argue that at the time of the big bang, the universe was at first microscopic. But three events changed things: fluctuations in temperature, bursts that transformed energy into matter and a rapid expansion of the universe that ultimately enabled stars and galaxies to form.

By polarizing and filtering out light from the earliest stars, the researchers were able to uncover evidence of those inflationary moments — fluctuations in brightness of the light scattered around the big bang's afterglow. "It amazes me that we can say anything about the first trillionth of a second of the universe, but we can," Bennett said.

The researchers say the findings also confirm that only 4 percent of the universe is composed of the familiar atoms that make up what we see around us.

Another 22 percent is dark matter — a gravitational force made up of cold particles — and 74 percent is dark energy, a force that appears to be causing the universe to expand.

Experts say the findings will help scientists for years as they try to unravel mysteries about the early universe.




TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bigbang; cmbr; cosmology; crevolist; earlyuniverse; inflation; physics; stringtheory; wmap
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: Rock N Jones

I believe the truth: No one has a clue.


61 posted on 03/17/2006 7:00:38 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is really an immaculate conception.

Well, "pan spermia" is where Frances Crick went when his studies of DNA began to produce findings that exceeded the limits of his science to adhere to evolution.

Of course, the origins of the "spermia" still leaves uncomfortable questions for evolutionist theorists. Like, we did not evolve, but someone else in a galaxy far far away.......did?
62 posted on 03/17/2006 7:04:34 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
for one side simply to be laughably wrong

Blame it on the chemicals sloshing around our heads that creates the impression that we even exist. Of course, compared to the scale of universal time, 70 quick rotations around our local star might qualify as 'not existing'.

63 posted on 03/17/2006 7:06:40 AM PST by lemura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

What about the universal constant-the speed of light? Where's Einstein when he's needed? This is truly baffling to non-astronomers like me.


64 posted on 03/17/2006 7:06:59 AM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
What about the universal constant-the speed of light?

From what I've read, in inflation models, it's space itself which is coming into existence, hence the speed of light isn't a barrier. Stuff moving in space appears to be unable to exceed light's speed, but the expansion of space itself can.

65 posted on 03/17/2006 7:14:22 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; Paulus Invictus

Not just space, but space-time altogether is coming into existence. The early universe did not 'travel' anywhere. It stretched out like a balloon or a bubble and light stretched out with it.


66 posted on 03/17/2006 7:17:33 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: lemura
Of course, compared to the scale of universal time, 70 quick rotations around our local star might qualify as 'not existing'.

Yup, which is why the very first priority should be figuring out a way to increase that number of rotations into at least the hundreds, if not the thousands and beyond!

That's also why I tend to get somewhat testy at times in these threads. I don't like ideas that distract from what should be the prime directive. :)

67 posted on 03/17/2006 7:23:11 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I purposely left 'time' out of my response. While it's true that at the origin point-instant of the Big Bang (should such there have been), spacetime itself came into existence, from what I've read, cosmologists don't seem to speak of time as also having expanded along with space (indeed, it's not clear what that might mean). An extremely small amount of time elapsed while the vast expansion of space occurred—that's what the gist of this result seems to me to be.

But, of course, I'm not a cosmologist, so everything I say should always be taken as the comments of an interested gawker.

68 posted on 03/17/2006 7:28:27 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: FerdieMurphy

True; but, only in perspective. If I'm having fun and you aren't, time passes at the same rate for both of us but it will seem more swift for me. How it seems is not how it actually is. It is merely perspective. For you, having no fun makes the day into 1000 years. For me, the 1000 years is but a day in my fun. Perspective in plain language.


69 posted on 03/17/2006 7:34:02 AM PST by Havoc (Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All
Sean Carroll has detailed comments:

WMAP results — cosmology makes sense!

70 posted on 03/17/2006 7:35:45 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

I was just thinking that my previous comments might seem harsh, but the point that I'm making is a simple one: If you want to be taken seriously, then support your statements. An unsupported statement is of no consequence in a scientific discussion, and IMO shouldn't be treated as such. If you want your personal opinions to be valued just of their own accord, then the best place for that is some kind of support group..


71 posted on 03/17/2006 7:36:45 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: All
The WMAP site:  New Three Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe

A nice pic from that site:


72 posted on 03/17/2006 7:42:16 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; Sir Francis Dashwood; lemura; Rock N Jones; Paulus Invictus
I just posted this in the other thread, but it might be of interest to some here as well:

The Myth of the Beginning of Time: String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state.

And, so far as what I said above, I shouldn't have said "no one has a clue" (someone might, for all I know), but rather: No one knows for sure.

73 posted on 03/17/2006 7:44:49 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Thanks for posting that link, AntiGuv.


74 posted on 03/17/2006 7:51:40 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; Sir Francis Dashwood; lemura; Rock N Jones; Paulus Invictus; The_Victor; ...

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's an excellent introduction to String Theory written by its founder, so I hope people find it of interest.


75 posted on 03/17/2006 8:06:31 AM PST by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

bump for later reading


76 posted on 03/17/2006 8:09:48 AM PST by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Are you saying that you believe in something that is
unable to be seen? How is that "empirically scientific"?


77 posted on 03/17/2006 8:15:15 AM PST by Getready
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo

> It is much easier to believe in God...

Fortunately, scientists are not interested in what's "easy." Same goes for many FReepers: we want the facts, even if they're hard.


78 posted on 03/17/2006 9:22:53 AM PST by orionblamblam (A furore Normannorum libra nos, Domine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Getready

"Are you saying that you believe in something that is
unable to be seen? How is that "empirically scientific"?"

Nobody has seen a proton. Is the proton not part of science?


79 posted on 03/17/2006 9:32:11 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

What's with this cr@p?!

On crevo threads we're constantly being pestered by posters who seem to think that cosmology has something to do with biology.

Now you posting about "evolutionists" and "the starting point for all life " on a thread that was previously about cosmology.


80 posted on 03/17/2006 10:44:57 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson