New Theory Suggests Start of Universe

AP via Yahoo! ^ | January 8, 2002 | Paul Recer

[Darth Reagan]

WASHINGTON (AP) - A half billion years of utter blackness following the Big Bang, the theoretical start of the universe, was broken by an explosion of stars bursting into life like a fireworks finale across the heavens, a new theory suggests.

An analysis of very faint galaxies in the deepest view of the universe ever captured by a telescope suggests there was an eruption of stars bursting to life and piercing the blackness very early in the 15-billion year history of the universe.

The study, by Kenneth M. Lanzetta of the State University of New York at Stony Brook challenges the long held belief that star formation started slowly after the Big Bang and didn't peak until some five billion years later.

``Star formation took place early and very rapidly,'' Lanzetta said Tuesday at a NASA (news - web sites) news conference. ``Star formation was ten times higher in the distant early universe than it is today.''

Lanzetta's conclusions are based on an analysis of what is called a deep field study by the Hubble Space Telescope (news - web sites). To capture the faintest and most distant images possible, the Hubble focused on an ordinary bit of sky for more than 14 days, taking a picture of every object within a small, deep slice of the heavens. The resulting images are faint, fuzzy bits of light from galaxies near and far, including some more than 14 billion light years away, said Lanzetta.

The surprise was that the farther back the telescope looked, the greater was the star forming activity.

``Star formation continued to increase to the very earliest point that we could see,'' said Lanzetta. ``We are seeing close to the first burst of star formation.''

Bruce Margon of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore said Lanzetta's conclusions are a ``surprising result'' that will need to be confirmed by other studies.

``This suggests that the great burst of star formation was at the beginning of the universe,'' said Margon, noting that, in effect: ``The finale came first.''

``If this can be verified, it will dramatically change our understanding of the universe,'' said Anne Kinney, director of the astronomy and physics division at NASA.

In his study, Lanzetta examined light captured in the Hubble deep field images using up to 12 different light filters to separate the colors. The intensity of red was used to establish the distance to each point of light. The distances were then used to create a three-dimensional perspective of the 5,000 galaxies in the Hubble picture.

Lanzetta also used images of nearby star fields as a yardstick for stellar density and intensity to conclude that about 90 percent of the light in the very early universe was not detected by the Hubble. When this missing light was factored into the three dimensional perspective, it showed that the peak of star formation came just 500 million years after the Big Bang and has been declining since.

Current star formation, he said, ``is just a trickle'' of that early burst of stellar birth.

Lisa Storrie-Lombardi, a California Institute of Technology astronomer, said that the colors of the galaxies in the Hubble deep field images ``are a very good indication of their distance.''

Current theory suggests that about 15 billion years ago, an infinitely dense single point exploded - the Big Bang - creating space, time, matter and extreme heat. As the universe cooled, light elements, such as hydrogen and helium, formed. Later, some of areas became more dense with elements than others, forming gravitational centers that attracted more and more matter. Eventually, formed celestial bodies became dense enough to start nuclear fires, setting the heavens aglow. These were newborn stars.

Storrie-Lombardi said that current instruments and space telescopes now being planned could eventually, perhaps, see into the Dark Era, the time before there were stars.

``We are getting close to the epoch were we can not see at all,'' she said.

[Darth Reagan]

Here's my question. Assuming that the farthest thing away from us is 14 billion light years distant, and the universe is 15 billion years old, then how fast do stars and other matter have to travel to get that far away? If this object that's 14 billion ly away from us is 7 billion light years from the originating point of the Big Bang, then that matter had to travel at almost half the speed of light to get there. Of course, I'm assuming that this is the maximum distance of any object from us, and I'm not sure that's the case

I've never seen this addressed...maybe my math and assumptions are faulty. Any help?

[Darth Reagan]

Paging. I suspect you may know the answer to my question above.....

[VadeRetro]

If this object that's 14 billion ly away from us is 7 billion light years from the originating point of the Big Bang, then that matter had to travel at almost half the speed of light to get there.

The whole universe was contained in the Big Bang. It's not like the debris of an explosion expanding through space, rushing away from some central point. The whole space was once confined to a small point. The whole space is expanding. The Big Bang is everywhere, which is why the Cosmic Microwave Background comes from all over the sky.

[QueenCityAllan]

"And God said, 'Let there be light'"

'Nuff said.

[Darth Reagan]

So, its about space expanding, not objects moving -- and the objects are "attached" to a certain point in space (and, I suppose, move relative to the universe near their spot of "attachment"). That makes more sense.

[Consort]

I don't want to talk about it.

[VadeRetro]

You got it. The recessional velocities come from the expansion of the space itself. There could be things far enough away that they are receding from us at faster than light speed. We will never see such objects, since their spectra are basically red-shifted to zero energy.

[abandon]

I don't know if objects are "attached" to points of space. Rather, the space "within" objects is so small compared to the universe as a whole that the expansion of the space is undectable.

[Andy from Beaverton]

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[jwalsh07]

Lanzetta also used images of nearby star fields as a yardstick for stellar density and intensity to conclude that about 90 percent of the light in the very early universe was not detected by the Hubble. When this missing light was factored into the three dimensional perspective, it showed that the peak of star formation came just 500 million years after the Big Bang and has been declining since

Is this what's known in scientific circles as the fudge factor?

[NC_Libertarian]

What's beyond space?

[VRWC_minion]

And God said:

Be light.

[VadeRetro]

What's beyond space?

You can't get from here to there.

[NC_Libertarian]

Is that what he's saying? I think objects move through space, even if space is expanding. So are there any theories that space is infinite? Are there boundaries? Or I've heard before that if you travel long enough (a *very* long time of course) in one direction you would end up at your starting point.

[College Repub]

Big Bang is compadible with Creation Theory. It's merely a scientific explanation for God's work.

[Scally Wag]

"And God said, 'Let there be light'"

And there was nothing, but it could be seen.

[NC_Libertarian]

God created a reality of natural laws in meticulous balance. It's interesting to ponder.

[College Repub]

In fact, the more and more we discover about the origins of the universe and civilization, the more accurate Genesis appears to be. Science and religion go hand in hand.

[jwalsh07]

Or I've heard before that if you travel long enough (a *very* long time of course) in one direction you would end up at your starting point.

A lot of truth to what you say here, it happened to me often during a misspent youth.

[College Repub]

Age of the Universe

[NC_Libertarian]

Perhaps the physical expression of our existance cannot, as it is an intricate component of this spacial reality, but concsciousness transcends this reality.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The point in Genesis where plants appear is out-of-place, but otherwise it's a fairly accurate, simplified version of what science is showing us.... About what you'd tell someone living 3,500 years or so ago.

[rdb3]

The whole universe was contained in the Big Bang.

And who made the thing that went, "Bang," hmmmm? If there ever were such a theoretical thing which I highly doubt.

[College Repub]

Made a thread on the link I posted above....

[NC_Libertarian]

intricate = integral (opps :p)

[VRWC_minion]

The point in Genesis where plants appear is out-of-place

Not necesarily. Scientists are currently studying plants that grow without sun at vents in the earths crust and plant like organisms that feed on minerals in the earth.

Theologically speaking, I believe the first light was not the light of the sun but rather the light of Jesus. (See John Chapter 1) In addition in Revelations the new earth is lighted by God not by the sun. There is no need for the sun anymore to light the city.

[Junior]

You are beginning to see the nonsense of the standard ( big bang ) model.

The Big Bang never happened.

You obviously have little knowledge of that which you speak. Please read the replies to Darth Reagan that appear shortly after his question.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Theologically speaking, I believe the first light was not the light of the sun but rather the light of Jesus.

Scientifically speaking, it wouldn't be the light of the first sun, but the light of the explosion that started the Big Bang.

Theologically, I'd say the Light of God, but the Big Bang could be the physical manifestation of the Light of God.... I haven't really thought about it, though, one way or another.

Hey, God did it; it's His light.

[mitchbert]

In fact, the more and more we discover about the origins of the universe and civilization, the more accurate Genesis appears to be. Science and religion go hand in hand.

Stephen Hawking makes some interesting references to this concept in "A Brief History of Time". He claims that as the physicists on the cutting edge of cosmic theory get closer and closer to the so-called "beginning of time" and look further into the evasive "singularity" theories the more convinced they become that everything is too nice and neat to be purely accidental. Contrary to what many may believe, he claims, individuals at that level of science are not as dismissive of a "guiding hand" in creation as many laymen might think. Perhaps this is why many in the field describe the search for the moment of the Big bang to be trying to "read the mind of G-d."

Interesting.

[elfman2]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

[VadeRetro]

The Freeper known as "Physicist" likes to post that there is no "before" the Big Bang any more than there is a point North of the North Pole. Time itself starts at the BB.

[abandon]

You are beginning to see the nonsense of the standard ( big bang ) model.

Then what is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?

[DoctorMichael]

"And God said, 'Let there be light'"

Ditto! The Big Bang Theory is in nearly complete agreement with the account given in Genesis!

[VRWC_minion]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

For many nothing existed. If something existed then you run into the problem that not everything is under God's control. Without a long explanation you end up with two equal forces of good and evil without any clear way of determining which is which. It becomes a theological mess.

For me, its a big warning when any religious person starts to opine that God is on same plane as evil. Its a set up for the religious person to have control over others.

[Dimensio]

What's beyond space?

Oh, NC_Libertarian, don't be silly! The end of space ... draws line on chalkboard ... is just the beginning again!

[Dimensio]

Does anyone here know of the leading non-religious based hypothesis regarding what came before the Big Bang?

I don't think that there is one. Once you go back to the theorized universe at Plank time (which is a moment just after the start of the Big Bang) the fundamental laws of the universe break down and you really can't explain much of anything...

At least that's how it was when I last read about it.

[elfman2]

The Freeper known as "Physicist" likes to post that there is no "before" the Big Bang any more than there is a point North of the North Pole. Time itself starts at the BB.

I think my question wasn't complete. If there was no "before", then what are the leading non-religious based hypotheses as to how it began?

Even if the laws of the universe were different, it's still "something from nothing". There appears to be no way around that. (Kind of like the "God just was" explanation.)

If there are no good explanations, the Big Bang theory's not very satisfying. It only defers the question and pushes what we don't know back to an earlier point.

We could even say that this is a middle ground, some place for creationists and evolutionist to come together, and recognize that they don't have to be at odds from the start.

[JoJo the Clown]

Big Bang never made much sense to me. How do its advocates explain the non-uniformity of the universe? If all matter began with a singularity, how does the transformation from that state to an expanding universe (by "explosion") occur without perfect uniformity during the expansion? What accounts for the variation in the universe, and what accounts for the fact that the universe is mostly empty? The notion of a singularity makes no sense in that context.

[Physicist]

Is this what's known in scientific circles as the fudge factor?

It's what's known as the extinction function, and it has plagued astrophysics for a hundred years. For example, one of the most important measurements in astrophysics is the measurement of Cepheid variable stars, which have a strong correlation between the period of their variation and their intrisnic brightness. This makes them a "standard candle": if you know how long a Cepheid's period is, and you know how bright it appears to your telescope, you should be able to tell how far away it is.

The only problem is that between here and the distant star, the universe is not exactly transparent. There are molecular clouds that block some of the light from the star, making it appear dimmer--and therefore farther away--than it actually is. This wreaked havoc with galactic distance measurements in the first half of the 20th century, until people learned how to measure the extinction function and correct for it.

In the case of the very earliest stars, the extinction function doesn't affect our distance measurement. (We do that by looking at the redshift.) What it does do is affect our ability to count the earliest stars, and measure their brightness. The universe was a much thicker, murkier place back then, so it's not surprising if we've been underestimating the amount of activity.

[Arthur McGowan]

If you are looking at something you can't see, how do you know?

[VadeRetro]

If there was no "before", then what are the leading non-religious based hypotheses as to how it began?

I see that Physicist has arrived, so if I were smart I'd shut up now.

OK, I'm not that smart. That I can recall from reading the layman's treatments of cosmological stuff, you have the quantum hiccup idea and the multiverse idea. The former says that the universe is a quantum fluctuation with zero total energy. The latter says that some part of a meta-universe sort of collapsed and popped out into our Big Bang to form our universe.

[elfman2]

That I can recall from reading the layman's treatments of cosmological stuff, you have the quantum hiccup idea and the multiverse idea. The former says that the universe is a quantum fluctuation with zero total energy. The latter says that some part of a meta-universe sort of collapsed and popped out into our Big Bang to form our universe.

That's interesting. I think I remember reading a sci fi story many years ago that had us in a 3rd big bang after a series of expansions and contractions. Nevertheless, they're all appear inadequate in addressing the something from nothing paradox.

[JoJo the Clown]

Physicist, would you care to take a stab at answering my question above? What is the explanation for how a singularity becomes a non-uniform universe?

[abandon]

What accounts for the variation in the universe...

Quantum Mechaincs? It introduces randomness into the universe.

[Physicist]

What accounts for the variation in the universe,

Believe it or not, acoustics. I'm sure you've heard that there's no sound in space, but that's because the universe is so rarefied. That didn't used to be the case; sound waves were the main energy transport in the early universe. The result is that you get a characteristic spectrum of density fluctuations. You can see in the following plot just how well the observed fluctuations match the theoretical acoustic spectrum:

and what accounts for the fact that the universe is mostly empty?

Gravitational collapse. The denser areas collapsed into stars, galaxies (and even larger structures), which sucked the matter out of the less dense areas.

I've run a few simulations of such cosmological structure formation using the National Scalable Cluster Project supercomputers here at Penn, using parallel code written by Prof. Paul Bode.

• This animated .gif shows the mass density of a simulated portion of the universe 100 light-years across. Black is lowest density, followed by blue, green yellow, red, and finally white as highest density. Later images show later times, when more structure forms due to gravitational attraction. As the movie plays, the universe ages from 50 million to 12.5 billion years. During this time, our simulation volume actually expands by a factor of 40, but this expansion isn't shown.
• Here is another such universe, showing more resolution (WARNING: 7 MB).
• Here is the first frame of that universe, and here is the last frame.

It's an interesting research topic.

[Pres Raygun]

I took special relativity in college, but not general relativity. Consequently, I have some unanswered question about the expansion of space. How can one distinguish between an object's velocity (movement relative to space) from space itself expanding? Similarily, general relativity accounts for gravity due to space curving, but curving relative to what, meta-space?

[Physicist]

I see that Physicist has arrived, so if I were smart I'd shut up now.

Don't clam up on my account; you're doing fine, and I'm way too busy to field all of the questions today.

[Jay W]

What's beyond space?

A brick wall.

What's beyond the brick wall? It's bricks all the way beyond....

;-)