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

Skip to comments.

Big Bang's afterglow fails intergalactic 'shadow' test
University of Alabama in Huntsville ^ | 01 September 2006 | Staff (press release)

Posted on 09/01/2006 8:10:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at UAH found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.


The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

"Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not," said Lieu. If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.

These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal.

==============

Another story about this is here.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bigbang; cosmology; genesis1; lettherebelight; thewordistruth; tvf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-192 next last
I donno about this ...
1 posted on 09/01/2006 8:10:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
SciencePing
An elite subset of the Evolution list.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

2 posted on 09/01/2006 8:11:18 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I dunno either. Something is askew with the picture.


3 posted on 09/01/2006 8:12:25 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Who knows what secrets lurk in the hearts and minds of men?

Dah Shadow Do!

4 posted on 09/01/2006 8:13:15 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It makes no sense that there would be shadows to me. The radiation is coming from all directions.


5 posted on 09/01/2006 8:17:17 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping. Will be interesting to see the discussions.


6 posted on 09/01/2006 8:18:29 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Title is a mistake.

LACK of evidence doesn't prove anything, other than the current lack of evidence.

It'd be like me saying, I woke up this morning and the ground was dry, so that must prove that it doesn't rain around here.


7 posted on 09/01/2006 8:18:30 AM PDT by FreedomNeocon (Success is not final; Failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts -- Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence........


8 posted on 09/01/2006 8:23:40 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Everywhere is the center of expansion.


9 posted on 09/01/2006 8:24:26 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

They're all on DVD now......

10 posted on 09/01/2006 8:24:45 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I donno about this ...

As with any cutting edge research, sounds like more info is needed...

As the 2nd article states, could be a failure to account for radiation emitted by the galactic cluster, or that we simply don't understand exactly what's going on near the event horizon.

11 posted on 09/01/2006 8:25:32 AM PDT by Quark2005 ("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther

Me And My Shadow

Writer(s): Dave Dreyer - Al Jolson - Billy Rose


(This is the duet with Sammy Davis, Jr.)

Like the wallpaper sticks to the wall
Like the seashore clings to the sea
Like you'll never get rid of your shadow
Frank, you'll never get rid of me

Let all the others fight and fuss
Whatever happens, we've got us.

Me and my shadow
We're closer than pages that stick in a book
We're closer than ripples that play in a brook
Strolling down the avenue
Wherever you find him, you'll find me, just look
Closer than a miser or the bloodhound's to Liza
Me and my shadow
We're closer than smog when it clings to L.A.
We're closer than Bobby is to J.F.K.
Not a soul can bust this team in two
We stick together like glue

And when it's sleeping time
That's when we rise
We start to swing
Swing to the skies
Our clocks don't chime
What a surprise
They ring-a-ding-ding!
Happy New Year!

Me and my shadow
And now to repeat what I said at the start
They'll need a large crowbar to break us apart
We're alone but far from blue

Before we get finished, we'll make the town roar
We'll make all the late spots, and then a few more
We'll wind up at Jilly's right after Toot's Shore
Life is gonna be we-wow-whee!
(Here comes the party!)
For my shadow and me!

Say Frank?
What is it, Sam?
Do me a favor?
What do you want, now?
Would you mind taking it, just one more time?
From the top?
No! From the ending!
Wonderful!

And while we are swinging, to mention a few
We'll drop in at Danny's, The Little Club too
But wind up at Jilly's, whatever we do
Life is gonna be we-wow-whee!
(Wow!)
For my shadow and me!

Frank?
Oh, forget it Sam.


12 posted on 09/01/2006 8:27:41 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
we simply don't understand exactly what's going on near the event horizon

How deep can they see now? A couple hundred thousand years from the discontinuity? No doubt they will find surprises every time they see a little deeper.

13 posted on 09/01/2006 8:28:22 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Maybe they all fell into the Black holes when they tripped over the Dark Matter......


14 posted on 09/01/2006 8:29:15 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Does Dark Matter cast a shadow?........


15 posted on 09/01/2006 8:30:09 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

The fact that some galaxies have shadows and some don't doesn't go to contention that the microwave radiation is proof of the Big Bang. The radiation is there.

What we apparently are lacking is an understanding as to why some galaxies don't shield it.


16 posted on 09/01/2006 8:31:46 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Dark matter doesn't do much at all. It has gravity, but it neither emits nor absorbs nor reflects light. Nor does it interact with ordinary matter except by gravity.


17 posted on 09/01/2006 8:32:11 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Back in Columbus days they thought if you sailed to far you would fall off the edge of the earth. I just wonder what todays great minds say about what happens if you travel to the edge of the universe.

By the way does anyone know what existed before the big bang? There had to be something to blowup because nothing is the most stable environment that can exists so there had to be something.

Well that's why I'm not a science type dude.


18 posted on 09/01/2006 8:34:49 AM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It's like a story from James Taranto's "Bottom stories of the day" or whatever he calls it: "Scientists do not find shadows."


19 posted on 09/01/2006 8:35:22 AM PDT by xjcsa (The internet is not a truck. It's a series of tubes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon

All it means is that there are things here going on that they don't understand...more puzzles to puzzle out....


20 posted on 09/01/2006 8:35:25 AM PDT by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
There had to be something to blowup

How so?

21 posted on 09/01/2006 8:36:14 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I don't understand. The background radiation didn't 'come from' anywhere. It is in place from the fading of the big bang, which took place everywhere at once. The expansion of space since then expanded everyplace equally. Nothing 'went' anywhere.


22 posted on 09/01/2006 8:39:19 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Like I said nothing is as stable environment as you can get. So what was there to make it unstable?


23 posted on 09/01/2006 8:40:10 AM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Always remember:

"Wherever you go, there you are."


24 posted on 09/01/2006 8:41:13 AM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Democrap

"Like I said nothing is as stable environment as you can get."

But not, it seems, absolutely stable.


25 posted on 09/01/2006 8:43:23 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Existentialist matter?.......It's not really there, but is there?.......


26 posted on 09/01/2006 8:43:31 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Thanks. Your post must've been a Labor Day of Love!
27 posted on 09/01/2006 8:43:58 AM PDT by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Kind of a shadowy theory.


28 posted on 09/01/2006 8:45:09 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther

LABOR OF LOVE.....

Radney Foster vocals/acoustic guitar
Kim Richey harmony
Steve Fishell steel guitar
Bill Hullett guitar
Mike McAdam guitar
Pete Wasner piano
Dan Dugmore acoustic guitar
Michael Joyce bass
Bob Mummert drums



We've been burning that candle down
Both ends at the same time
There ain't enough money in this town
To make it worth working so hard
Honey nothings worth growing so cold
That you lose your heart and soul
So day by day we've gotta spend some time
On the labor of love
It's the give and take when everything is on the line
It's the labor of love
I want you I need you
I know we're strong enough
It just takes working on the labor of love
You've been living on empty arms
I've been standing on shaky ground
I've been thinking 'bout who we are
And what love really means
Girl it's gonna take all we got
But the real thing always does
So day by day we've gotta spend some time
On the labor of love
It's the give and take when everything is on the line
It's the labor of love
I want you I need you
I know we're strong enough
It just takes working on the labor of love
SOLO
I want you I need you
I know we're strong enough
It just takes working on the labor of love
Two people working on the labor of love
Girl we're working on the labor of love


From Raney Foster Labor Of Love
Arista Records 1994
PolyGram Intl Publishing/St Julien Music(ASCAP)
Mommy's Geetar Music(BMI)


29 posted on 09/01/2006 8:46:21 AM PDT by Red Badger (Is Castro dead yet?........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
But not, it seems, absolutely stable.

Yeah I guess it gives a new meaning to the phrase 'nothing happened'.

30 posted on 09/01/2006 8:47:06 AM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Democrap

LOL


31 posted on 09/01/2006 8:56:48 AM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Would the gas and dust (or at least a sizable percentage of it) in the galaxy cluster be at thermal equilibrium with the background radiation?


32 posted on 09/01/2006 9:01:21 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Who knew that there was yet another website devoted to creationism that follows this controversy.

Here's their take on it.

And as usual, they've found "recent" sources for their claims:

However, the temperature estimates of “space” were first published in 1896, even prior to George Gamow’s birth in 1904 (see Guillaume, 1896). C.E. Guillaume’s estimation was 5-6 K, and rather than blaming that temperature on some type of “Big Bang” explosion, he credited the stars belonging to our own galaxy.

And:

The late Sir Arthur Eddington—in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926)—already had provided an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space. In the book’s last chapter (“Diffuse Matter in Space”), he discussed the temperature in space. In Eddington’s estimation, this phenomenon was not due to some ancient explosion, but rather was simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe.

He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3.18 K (later refined to 2.8)—essentially the same as the observed “background” radiation that is known to exist today.

33 posted on 09/01/2006 9:18:53 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
Back in Columbus days they thought if you sailed to far you would fall off the edge of the earth. I just wonder what todays great minds say about what happens if you travel to the edge of the universe.

You have lunch at Milliway's, and then attend a Disaster Area concert.

34 posted on 09/01/2006 9:20:35 AM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American; Physicist; RadioAstronomer; ThinkPlease; edwin hubble
Would the gas and dust (or at least a sizable percentage of it) in the galaxy cluster be at thermal equilibrium with the background radiation?

I'm speculating here, but I think the answer is "not likely" -- gas and dust in a galaxy cluster is in the vicinity of lots of sources of energy, and thus I would expect it to not be in thermal equilibrium with the CMBR, but much hotter. Also, there are measurements within our own galaxy of tenuous interstellar gas that is at enormous high temperatures.

Perhaps the stray atoms of deep intergalactic space have reached such a reduced density by adiabatic expansion, radiated their energy away to the point where they might approach thermal equilibrium with the CMBR, but I can't think of anywhere else in the Universe where that would be true (except, of course, at the surface of last scattering.)

But I'll defer to others with a better understanding of this.

35 posted on 09/01/2006 9:24:02 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
There had to be something to blowup because nothing is the most stable environment that can exists so there had to be something.

Nothing is not something. Nothing is not even an environment. Like the song says, nothing comes from nothing. That's why if everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something exists, then Something must have always existed.

Cordially,

36 posted on 09/01/2006 9:46:24 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Nothing is not something. Nothing is not even an environment. Like the song says, nothing comes from nothing. That's why if everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something exists, then Something must have always existed.

Are you suggesting that a causality loop is impossible?
37 posted on 09/01/2006 9:58:40 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
That's why if everything that begins to exist has a cause, and something exists, then Something must have always existed.

Well then if everything that exist has a cause, what caused Something to exist and how could it always existed is it had to have a cause? And who made my Ford?

38 posted on 09/01/2006 10:05:44 AM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

So is dark matter everywhere in space? In our solarsystem, between stars, galaxies...?


39 posted on 09/01/2006 10:11:47 AM PDT by AFreeBird (If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

The shadows in the icrowave background are caused by absorption of ionized gases in these x-ray active galaxies. Microwaves can't get through these galaxy clusters because of these ionized gasses. But the microwaves will pass through galactic clusters where there is no x-ray activity and none of the ionized gasses. Perhaps the galaxies they think have ionized gas, don't.


40 posted on 09/01/2006 10:25:48 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
There had to be something to blowup because nothing is the most stable environment that can exists so there had to be something.

That's a common miscoception about the Big Bang. It wasn't an explosion in space of something, it was an explosion of space itself.

41 posted on 09/01/2006 10:27:56 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
what was there to make it unstable

Nothing is stable. Change comes with the territory.

42 posted on 09/01/2006 10:31:06 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

I don't believe in dark matter. I suspect they will find that the law of gravity needs revision, that it is not the simple inverse square relation they thought. It's too bad, really, the universe should obey simple math so we can feel like we actually have a clue. :)


43 posted on 09/01/2006 10:36:06 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: doc30
That's a common miscoception about the Big Bang. It wasn't an explosion in space of something, it was an explosion of space itself.

So space was Something?

44 posted on 09/01/2006 10:41:09 AM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Nothing is stable.

That's what I said.

45 posted on 09/01/2006 10:42:52 AM PDT by Democrap (http://democrap.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Democrap

There is nothing in philosophy or theology to support either view.


46 posted on 09/01/2006 10:43:38 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Democrap

What does it mean to talk about a period before there was anything to talk about?


47 posted on 09/01/2006 10:45:47 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
... the universe should obey simple math so we can feel like we actually have a clue. :) Sometimes I think the Universe has a sadistic sense of humor.
48 posted on 09/01/2006 10:47:57 AM PDT by AFreeBird (If American "cowboy diplomacy" did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


49 posted on 09/01/2006 11:01:45 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Democrap
So space was Something?

Aquinas answered that 700 years ago by showing Avicenna was wrong about Aristotle on that very question.

50 posted on 09/01/2006 11:06:04 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-192 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