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

Skip to comments.

NASA Announces Dark Matter Discovery
NASA ^ | Aug. 14, 2006 | Megan Watzke

Posted on 08/15/2006 9:45:42 AM PDT by zeugma

NASA Announces Dark Matter Discovery

Astronomers who used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT Monday, Aug. 21, to announce how dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily energetic collision.

Reporters must call Megan Watzke at the Chandra Press Office at: 617- 496-7998 or e-mail: mwatzke@cfa.harvard.edu for participation information. Shortly before the start of the briefing, images and graphics about the research will be posted at: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/

Briefing participants:
- Maxim Markevitch, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Mass.
- Doug Clowe, postdoctoral fellow, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
- Sean Carroll, assistant professor of physics, University of Chicago, Ill.

A video file about the discovery will air on NASA TV at noon, Aug. 21. Audio of the event will be streamed live on the Web at: http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

For NASA TV streaming video, schedule and downlink information, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

For information about NASA and agency programs, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/home


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chandra; darkmatter; nasa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 last

51 posted on 08/15/2006 10:41:03 AM PDT by evets (08-22-06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Huh? why wait till 8/21? The work was done sometime
before, I'm sure they redid the experiment to rule out
artifact..(i hope)...so why the wait?...
Or was it a mathematical model which assumes certain
facts...and could explain the bizarre results of
their experiment....
will wait to see information....then we will have
to worry about 8/22 (courtesy of Iran)...


52 posted on 08/15/2006 10:55:47 AM PDT by Getready (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evets

How in the world do you find such things?!


53 posted on 08/15/2006 10:57:39 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Never mind, I thought it was Darth 'Mater.

54 posted on 08/15/2006 11:11:22 AM PDT by southlake_hoosier (.... One Nation, Under God.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Dark Matter?

I find it interesting how quantum physicists and string theorists keep getting more and more bizarre in order to explain themselves and stopgap problems with their theories. Strange, up, down, one-handed clap, 26 dimensions, electron probabilities that include orbitals from your eye to Jupiter (or the other side of the Universe and back), virtual particles, quantum orbital....and the list goes on.

Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest solution is most likely.

Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) is that simplest solution. It simply gives credit to two simple principles. 1) The universe is pure energy, and 2) E=mc^2 or more precisely E(e0,u0)=mc^2.

All SED states is that energy in its simplest form is electromagnetic waves, and zero-point energy (ZPE) is the ground state (QED recognizes this as well but excludes it from their equations since cannot be measured - even the measuring rod will contain the same ZPE. ZPE has received a bad rap lately because it has been used by bogus scientists to try to make bogus claims like cold fusion and endless energy sources).

Matter on the other hand is, using a simple analogy, like knots on a wound rubber band. Matter is a state of energy, balled up (simply speaking). Matter can disintegrate back into pure ZPE..

The amount of energy contained in matter is governed by the well know equation E=mc^2, which again is more precisely show as a function of the electric and magnetic constants (which are not constant in SED, explained later).

Like the knots that form on a rubber band, matter forms in very specific knots that we see as particles.

The formation of matter occurred during the high energy state at the beginning of the universe. As the universe expands the total energy spreads out and matter slowly over time reverts back to energy (we see this experimentally)

Unlike electromagnetic waves we're used to, ZPE is on what is called a plank length scale. It is fundamentally the lowest state of energy.

This is where it gets interesting. Imagine a large explosion. Energy proceeds from ground zero outward. At any point in time with the right equipment, one can measure the energy gradient with respect to time. As one approaches the leading shock wave (the event horizon) the energy gradient becomes asymptotic.

The universe is just such a model. In other words, if one could image an initial explosion (ie the big bang), high energy in the form of mass would expand. As the energy drops (ie as the event horizon expands) the energy level eventually approaches zero, and as it does matter eventually disintegrates back into pure energy. In local space, the rate of decay of particles is relatively slow (particles are not being formed as they would be in a very high energy density, and particle stability or equilibrium has long passed)

The point to notice is that along the energy gradient the energy density is not constant. Today QED cannot explain this since it would alter every constant known. Take Mu for example (see article http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/Natconst.pdf), the ratio of the mass between a proton and an electron. This should be constant according to QED, but it is “now” observed to vary. Why?

The reason is QED is a special state of SED. In other words, SED is the macro view and QED is the micro view...on the scale of the universe.

A simple hydrogen atom, for example, has a single proton and a single electron. It is thought in QED that the electron orbits at a specific ground-state (give or take, for those looking to find fault, - Lamb shift and other minor variations). But that is because, until now, that is the way it is seen here on earth and as far as we could see with the spectral instrumentation we have.

But, "Old Photons Shed New Light". As we are now able to look out 12 billion light years and perform very precise spectral analysis, what we see is a shift in the ground-state of the hydrogen atom as if the predictable QED state is not as constant as we thought.

The reason for this is ZPE. ZPE density determines the ground-state of all atomic structure. It is not homogeneous along the density gradient. ZPE density is lower toward the center of the universe and higher toward the event horizon. Now instead of using only Lamb shift, and Doppler Shift to observe atomic spectra, a non-linear shift due to ZPE density must be used as well.

In theory, using this non-linear shifting, an XYZ coordinate system can be used to map the heavens (vs the relative system we use today with Doppler and red shifting).

So how does this fit into the discussion of Dark Matter? The answer is there really is only energy, ZPE and the particles formed by it. SED is physics that requires no exotic explanations. It is simply Classical Newtonian Mechanics at its finest that allows us to connect the dots between Relativity and QED without all the machinations, one-handed claps, Zen, Tao, or other bizarre mental gymnastics to figure it out.

Too bad so many lives depend financially on QED and its complexity (to fool) those that fund. Job security, higher education, and smooth talking elitists will keep science moving down the wrong path for years until this revolution replaces the old guard as has been done so many times in history.

55 posted on 08/15/2006 12:08:22 PM PDT by AMHN (Book Survey: Which is greater "Truth" or "Love"? FReepmail a reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

How about polowise?


56 posted on 08/15/2006 12:11:24 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
to announce how dark and normal matter have been forced apart in an extraordinarily energetic collision.

This pretty much describes what happens everytime I visit Taco Bell..

57 posted on 08/15/2006 12:11:48 PM PDT by IamConservative (Humility is not thinking less of oneself; humility is thinking about oneself less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. I. C. Spots

Bird flu found in mute swans, too.


58 posted on 08/15/2006 12:12:47 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

Robert Novak?


59 posted on 08/15/2006 12:13:33 PM PDT by doctor noe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Are you referring to 'quantum flapdoodle' or the dark matter which occasionally hits the polo field?


60 posted on 08/15/2006 12:33:32 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican
I find your lack of faith... distrubing...


61 posted on 08/15/2006 12:42:23 PM PDT by AFreeBird (... Burn the land and boil the sea's, but you can't take the skies from me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I'm still trying to figure out, "marcowise."


62 posted on 08/15/2006 12:58:47 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Hmmm, that is troubling ... unless you take the age, musculature, and reduced dexterity of my old fingers into account. Marco ... Polo ... You're it!
63 posted on 08/15/2006 1:28:48 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AMHN

Interesting post. Thanks.


64 posted on 08/15/2006 2:11:35 PM PDT by zeugma (I reject your reality and substitute my own in its place. (http://www.zprc.org/))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican; tomzz
There is no such thing as Dark Matter or Dark Energy..

Any particular reason for this assertion? You just don't like science you don't understand? Or do you also say there are no such things as electrons and protons? (You can't really 'see' them either.)
65 posted on 08/15/2006 3:11:57 PM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus

"Dark matter" is a necessary piece of baggage involved in trying to go on believing that the universe is mainly held together by gravity. In real life, the universe is mainly held together by electrical and electromagnetic forces.


66 posted on 08/15/2006 3:18:07 PM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
You just don't like science you don't understand?

There is NO science involved here. Dark Matter is a mathematical conjecture to "attempt" to make up for the fact that observations (which is the PRIMARY tool of science) do NOT jive with the Big Bang Theory in ANY of the predictive models of the BB.

And, yes, I believe in protons and electrons because you can observe electrons and protons even if you can't see them.

I also deny the existence of Black Holes. Once again, they are ONLY a mathematical conjecture. The irony is that the assumption that BB is true and that BH's are possible, leads to the conclusion that the ENTIRE universe IS a black hole!! Which it is not. Of course, then you got Stephen Hawking claiming that the universe is a web of quantum-sized universes that exist inside their own BH's of universes.... It is MORE arcane that Ptolemy's epicycles. No, I have no problem with science. But Math ain't science! And a lot of Mathematicians/Cosmologists think it is, in fact, some of them worship it as a religion ala Pythagorean Mysticism.
67 posted on 08/15/2006 5:38:22 PM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon
That's Lord Helmet to you....
68 posted on 08/15/2006 5:41:32 PM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AMHN

I agree with your first paragraph. Dark matter and all this other malarky reminds me of the arguements of how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

However; regarding Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is that there was NO begining to the Universe. It has been here forever and will continue forever. No Big Bang, no collapsing universe, no Big Crunch, no infinite expansion (it is ALREADY an infinite expanse!)

It has evolved forever and will continue to evolve forever. It is definitely LOTS of energy, particles, collisions of particles, collisions of wave-fronts, electricity and magnetism leading to great electrical generators etc.

Read the "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner. Very informative.


69 posted on 08/15/2006 5:47:20 PM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
"Dark matter" is a necessary piece of baggage involved in trying to go on believing that the universe is mainly held together by gravity. In real life, the universe is mainly held together by electrical and electromagnetic forces.

DAMN!! That's exactly what I would have said!!
70 posted on 08/15/2006 5:48:45 PM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AMHN
"I find it interesting how quantum physicists and string theorists keep getting more and more bizarre in order to explain themselves and stopgap problems with their theories. Strange, up, down, one-handed clap, 26 dimensions, electron probabilities that include orbitals from your eye to Jupiter (or the other side of the Universe and back), virtual particles, quantum orbital....and the list goes on."

Well said. I've never bought into the dark matter solution to Astronomical discrepancies either. Always reminded the way epicycles were used for hundreds of years to "prove" the Earth centrist idea of the universe. I'm betting there will be a straight forward explanation somewhere in the future that will include normal matter, the kind you can vacuum up off the floor
71 posted on 08/15/2006 5:58:47 PM PDT by Tiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican

"...the simplest solution is that there was NO begining to the Universe..."

I wouldn't argue with the premise of your statement. It takes great faith to believe either way without any proof (regardless of what science tries to teach).

But one must try to start from a fairly easily recognizable beginning to discuss alternative theories...but the first cause, the point of beginning "is" far more vast than any expanse one measures in the visible universe.

Even a singularity is infinite somewhere

72 posted on 08/15/2006 6:08:59 PM PDT by AMHN (Book Survey: Which is greater "Truth" or "Love"? FReepmail a reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican

You are using this Internet and writing your remarks BECAUSE the predictions with quantum physics work. There is a quantum field and it started expressing when dimension space and dimension time left the ground (rest) state. The quantum field is the residual state of space and time mixed sustaining a field of energy not in equilibrium. Quantum mechanics adequately predicts what matter will do, how it will interact with the quantum field, and what can be done to matter to gain use from the quantum field. It ain't magic, but if you don't have a basic understanding of how the quantum field generates the interactions as a medium for matter and forces then it must look like magic and something you don't want to believe in. But you will continue to be blessed with developments which come about because someone DOES have a fundamental understanding which allows them to predict and utilize. Enjoy, stop scoffing and enjoy!


73 posted on 08/15/2006 6:10:32 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

They found it in Assad's pants after those Israeli fighters overflew his compound.


74 posted on 08/15/2006 6:14:38 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

How about this, "Let's wait till NASA rolls out its findings"
I hope it is more conclusive than its' "mars meteorite found
on earth, which had evidence of ancient life on mars" fiasco.


75 posted on 08/15/2006 6:28:27 PM PDT by Getready (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
If this stuff (dark matter) actually was 90% of the universe as claimed, all of us would be having to vacuum it up off our carpets daily.

How much helium do you have in your carpets?

76 posted on 08/15/2006 6:31:36 PM PDT by HayekRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
stop scoffing

I believe that I was denying that the Big Bang happened, that Black Holes exist, and that Dark Matter exists. At no point did I scoff at QM. I scoffed at Stephen Hawking's web of quantum-sized universes that are connected but unknowable, unobservable, and unbelievable. Oh, wait, you have to believe they exist because it is absurd. That is not science; that is faith.
77 posted on 08/15/2006 6:34:15 PM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
"Dark matter" is a necessary piece of baggage involved in trying to go on believing that the universe is mainly held together by gravity. In real life, the universe is mainly held together by electrical and electromagnetic forces.

Oh I see. You know no physics. Carry on!

78 posted on 08/15/2006 6:35:06 PM PDT by HayekRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Getready

Good point! I'm eagerly awaiting what I suspect will be Chandra pix of something behaving wierdly, or something comparable. This rings of 'inference', but that's okay since it can lead to predictions which will strengthen or weaken an hypothesis.


79 posted on 08/15/2006 6:38:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican
I believe that I was denying that the Big Bang happened, that Black Holes exist, and that Dark Matter exists.

On the first item, what is your explanation for the uniform expansion of the universe, and of the cosmic microwave background? On the second, how do you explain gravitational lensing, and what do you think happens to the relativisitic field equations at very high matter densities?

80 posted on 08/15/2006 6:53:07 PM PDT by HayekRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: HayekRocks

I'm not certain that there is any expansion. BB was introduced to explain why there is an expansion. But BB cannot account for galactic clusters, super clusters, or even star clusters. In the BB universe, star clusters cannot have formed because it takes more years to form them than the universe has existed. Even worse for galactic clusters. Even worse for the super clusters that have been mapped. BB originally assumed a homogenous starting point. The observed universe is too 'lumpy' for observation to agree with BB. So BB was modified to have small lumps in it in the first millionths of a second after the bang (or some tiny time frame.) Now the BBers want to use the uniformity of the microwave background as evidence of BB. Did you catch the fallacy there? The universe is NOT uniform, but the uniformity of the microwave radiation is used as evidence of the BB.

First, the universe sprang from a singularity but the universe is too lumpy for that.

So they changed it to the universe sprang from "quantum quasi-singularity thingy" to account for the lumpiness but try to use the uniformity of the microwave radiation as evidence that a NON-uniform thingy grew into the universe.

Then there were all the failures in the prediction of the elements. I believe namely the ratio of hydrogen, helium, and deuterium. If I remember correctly, it was "inflation" that was invented to account for the discrepancy between observation and prediction.

As to what I think "happens to the relativistic field equations at very high matter desities?" -- The question is flawed. It asks what I think about an equation when some part of it is "high". The real question is "does relativistic field equations correctly predict what is observable in objects with extremely high densities?"


81 posted on 08/15/2006 8:01:18 PM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
In real life, the universe is mainly held together by electrical and electromagnetic forces.

As this declaration is in conflict with the explanation accepted by those who are expert in the field, once again: What is your reason for choosing this explanation rather than the established one?

(Note: I am not saying that a 'consensus' explanation is automatically right. If you have solid reasoning, then lay it out. Advances in science come from those who reject the 'standard' explanation and find something beyond it. But the burden of proof is on those who would overturn established explanations. What's your proof?)
82 posted on 08/16/2006 5:11:18 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican
Dark Matter is a mathematical conjecture to "attempt" to make up for the fact that observations (which is the PRIMARY tool of science) do NOT jive with the Big Bang Theory in ANY of the predictive models of the BB.

No, actually Dark Matter is used to explain the observed paths of stars in galaxies, and in no way depends on the Big Bang or any other explanation for the origin of the universe itself. See "Astronomy," July 2006.

Dark Energy is a candidate explanation for the observations of the speed of expansion of the universe over time. It fits the observed evidence and is consistent with mathematical descriptions of the universe (i.e. General Theory of Relativity) that also fit with observed evidence and can be used to make testable predictions. Fitting with observations and tested theory is not automatically proof, but it's a place to start.

By your standards, we can indeed 'observe' black holes even though we can't see them. And the black hole itself is not only a mathematical conjecture, but a very consistent expression of mathematically observable data. (Stars in orbit around an unseen mass, whose mass and maximum radius can be observed/calculated from the orbit of the visible star, demonstrate an object with mass and radius sufficient to have an escape velocity greater than the velocity of light.) Whether there is an actual 'singularity' at the heart of the black hole is mathematical conjecture, but not the existence of bodies with escape velocity greater than the speed of light.

Extensions beyond the observed data, such as Hawking's conjecture that the universe is a web of quantum-sized universes (not his claim, actually, just a conjecture to explain what the current theory allows but does not require) are not the evidence for black holes.

And in fact, the apparent accelerating expansion of the observable objects in our universe would indicate that the universe is not a black hole. In contrast, instead of being closed where nothing can escape, most things in the universe seems to have a high enough velocity to escape, or at least to expand to a rest state without falling back toward the net center of mass.

You don't have to accept explanations that are consistent with observed data and with testable theory, but the burden of proof is on those who propose alternate explanations. What's your explanation, and what's your proof?
83 posted on 08/16/2006 5:28:22 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus
Try this for starters...
84 posted on 08/16/2006 5:31:02 AM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

Normal matter, dark matter, anti matter, string theory, worm holes, cold fusion. My head hurts.
Never mind. Just because theoretical physics seems to be in one huge confused cock up, just keep in mind that the Force is with you and that ultimately, the answer to life, the universe and everything is 42.


85 posted on 08/16/2006 6:01:23 AM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnigan2
Actually, the problem with the answer to the question of Life, The Universe, and Everything, is that what is commonly known as the Answer, is actually a mis-translation.

It was meant to be written as "fourty-two", not "42", so the answer is actually 38. 

86 posted on 08/16/2006 6:24:36 AM PDT by zeugma (I reject your reality and substitute my own in its place. (http://www.zprc.org/))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
"It was meant to be written as "fourty-two", not "42", so the answer is actually 38"

- You're the first person I've met who is crazier than I am.
87 posted on 08/16/2006 12:56:36 PM PDT by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
Dark matter is what they came up with when math wouldn't prove their theory. Oh yeah.... it' dark matter out there.
88 posted on 08/16/2006 12:58:39 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
If this stuff (dark matter) actually was 90% of the universe as claimed, all of us would be having to vacuum it up off our carpets daily.

Look.

Dark matter.

89 posted on 08/16/2006 1:00:24 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
NASA Reports Successful Probe to Uranus.

In Futurama, scientists renamed Uranus because of that horrible joke.

The new name?

Urrectum.

90 posted on 08/16/2006 1:01:13 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Islam is a perversion of faith, a lie against human spirit, an obscenity shouted in the face of G_d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Urrectum
I understand it contains no solid matter, just gas. Has a ring around it, too.


91 posted on 08/16/2006 2:21:36 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
I looked at it, and I'm not convinced. Even aside from any relative credibility of EE's versus astrophysicists about astrophysical phenomena, his introduction page consists primarily of an attack on others as close minded, an attack on phenomena he doesn't like as 'invisible' without addressing the observations that have led to the acceptance of those phenomena, plus a whine that the established astronomers restrict access to expensive equipment to those who meet the qualifications to use the equipment.

Fundamentally, you have a EE whose only tool is a hammer, and he sees everything as a nail (meaning, electrical in nature).

And by the way, astrophysicists spend a LOT of time studying plasma dynamics.
92 posted on 08/16/2006 2:52:30 PM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican
So BB was modified to have small lumps in it in the first millionths of a second after the bang (or some tiny time frame.) Now the BBers want to use the uniformity of the microwave background as evidence of BB. Did you catch the fallacy there? The universe is NOT uniform, but the uniformity of the microwave radiation is used as evidence of the BB.

The 'lumps' you speak of are a predicted result of inflationary Big Bang theory, which predicted specifically that the background radiation, while generally in the smooth form of a uniform blackbody spectrum, would have very small anisotropies. They were subsequently found.

Add to that that the BB properly predicts the observed ratios of hydrogen to helium in the universe (and more recently, even lithium), and there's actually pretty outstanding support for the theory.

93 posted on 08/16/2006 4:54:54 PM 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 81 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
the BB properly predicts the observed ratios of hydrogen to helium in the universe

Since when? Gamow predicted a certain ratio. What was observed did not jive with prediction. Also, what happened before the Big Bang?
94 posted on 08/16/2006 5:17:48 PM PDT by true_blue_texican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: true_blue_texican
Since when? Gamow predicted a certain ratio. What was observed did not jive with prediction.

For helium, the fit between observation and prediction was quite good, within a couple percent. Not so good for lithium, but that's a problem for stellar astrophysicists, now believed to be solved (though it's still early on this).

Also, what happened before the Big Bang?

Assuming the Big Bang theory is sound, why would we expect it to be capable of solving this problem? Isn't 'what happened before so-and-so' a problem for any theory or conception of the universe's origin or past? There are speculative answers to that question, but they are just that, speculation. We have no observable record of what happened before the BB, only what happened since.

95 posted on 08/16/2006 5:42:14 PM 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 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-95 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