Posted on 04/01/2006 7:13:30 PM PST by bondserv
More Hints at Early Origin of Stars, Galaxies 03/31/2006
Several articles this month showed further evidence for a growing realization in astronomy: stars and galaxies were already mature at the beginning of the universe (see, for instance, 09/21/2005 entry). Some recent examples:
A second area in astrophysics that can be construed as a cloud on the horizon is that recent observations in the years 2002-2003 suggest that not just suggest, recent observations tell astronomers that when the universe was less than 3 billion years old, there were already galactic clusters [03/12/2003]. Not only were there galaxies... but here we have, astronomers have discovered, a modest galactic cluster (I believe that it has something like 30 some-odd galaxies in it) that goes back to less than 3 billion years after the big bang. Thats much too much structure to have after only two and a half or 2.7 billion years of expansion. So that is another problem that astrophysics needs to come to grips with.Goldman compared these challenges to a couple of mysteries at the beginning of the 20th century that Lord Kelvin described as small clouds on the horizon (1) the inability to explain the blackbody radiation spectrum and (2) the lack of deviations of the speed of light through the ether as found by the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two small clouds became cloudbursts a few years later when they led directly to quantum theory and relativity theories that dramatically overhauled our conceptions of space, time and the universe.
Its not a small problem, either, because the extent of the structure that we can discover in the universe has implications for whether big bang and inflation are really capable of providing a model of the universe. So its a small it may seem like a small problem to non-specialists, but within astrophysics its a significant challenge.
And then theres the question of whether we are in fact reading the microwave background radiation correctly. [03/20/2006] Because all of this theory is empirically supported by interpreting extremely minute ripples in the microwave background radiation. And from those ripples, ripples in temperature, temperature inequalities on the order of ten thousandths of a degree Kelvin are thats the basis for trying to explain why there is as much structure as there is in the universe. If were misinterpreting the microwave background radiation data, then really we have a whole new picture of the universe that might emerge. So, thats one set of clouds that one can anticipate that over the next decade we will potentially be seeing significant modifications in our conceptualization of the universe and its origin, and maybe even of its fate.
Goldman suggested later in the lecture one possible new conception of the universe that might emerge in the years ahead: that the universe might be viewed as some kind of information structure. Sound like intelligent design? Sound like instant creation? He asked, and how will we understand that philosophically and physically? Easy: in the beginning was the Word. Consider creation: an idea ahead of its time.
And Creation-Evolution Headlines pulls back into the lead in the "Most idiotic crap regularly posted to FR" category.
They either misunderstood the article they link to or are deliberately misrepresenting it.
We're not seeing the big bang itself. What we can see is microwave background radiation, which can be thought of as the afterglow from the Big Bang.
See post #20 for scriptural possibilities.
and what did the article mean since you seem to understand it?
I'm not blaming anything on God. It's these creationists who are calling Him a liar -- who needs to trick his people by making the world look older than it is.
But microwave is the same and light isn't it -- em wave? Visible light, microwave -- same thing just different wavelength. Both travel at the same speed -- c.
http://www.physorg.com/news12084.html
Although they have become staples of science fiction, tachyons, worm holes and warp drives remain speculation, and many physicists dismiss their significance. There is, however, at least one real-world example of superluminal (i.e., faster-than-light) travel. It occurs when light passes through water.
In this dense medium, Schneider explained, light is slowed to three-fourths of its speed in a vacuum. In a nuclear reactor, charged particles flying off the radioactive rods through the water they are submerged in exceed this reduced speed.
Because these particles contain an electric charge, they emit energy, called Cherenkov radiation. Any particles they bump into become radioactive, giving the water a characteristic blue glow.
"It's not at all exotic," Schneider said. "Every time you look at the water in a nuclear reactor, the bluish glow you see is radiation produced by charged particles moving faster than the speed of light in the water."
There is also a simple cheating observation that one can mistake for superluminal velocity, basically: from the earth, wave a powerful laser back and forth across the sky. If it hits a surface and is reflected (say, on the moon), it will appear to an observer that a laser dot is "travelling" faster than light (about perpendicular to the direction you aim it).
Of course there is no single "laser dot", but rather a series of them spread out...
I'm not sure what there is to consider: you're flat-out wrong. I'm a little rusty on my quantum mechanics (any physicists here?) but I seem to recall vacuum fluctuations as well as a number of other ways to create matter out of "nothing." I guess in at least some respects, e=mc^2 is creating matter out of "nothing."
It's the elitists who seem to forget the concept of humility!
If you say so. I don't know who you're calling "elitist," but I don't think there's anybody more arrogant than those who think that they can understand the universe and how it came to be from two chapters of Genesis alone.
I'm not sure I understand your question. CMB does travel at the speed of light, and it is slowly dissipating -- think of it as the left over heat of the "explosion" (to use a rather inadequate analogy).
|
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
If space formed out of a Big Bang, then the massive gravity and energy created at that moment could have warped the growing expanse of space, and matter on its edges could have traveled at sublight speed as the compressed space-time in which it occupied expanded at a speed faster than light.
The answer is not complicated. They were "conceived" 9 billion years ago but only "born" 4.5 billion years ago. - It's late and I don't have time to explain this any further, sorry. Good night.
Origins ping
That's not one question, that's about 19 different questions. You're not thinking of the Big Bang correctly. It wasn't all the matter contained in a tiny area, it was the entire universe. Matter didn't exist until some time after the Big Bang. Of course "space time" was warped, because at the moment of the Big Bang it didn't exist. Quarks didn't appear until 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons until 10^-12 seconds, the simplest atoms for 300,000 years.
Makes sense. A warp.
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.