Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#101  Postby ElDiablo » Mar 18, 2014 1:57 pm

A little rambling...
The subject in general is mind-blowing and awe-inspiring. I can't help but think of this in 3d and the universe being contained in some way. But there may be no edges, we could just be part of a Celtic loop where everything that's part of the loop is unstable and that which is not the loop is stable. Instability creates universes and stability is nothing. What we detect at the quantum level may be a transition. The multi-dimensions that string theorists talk about may be different expressions of that instability.

If anything this shows I don't know anything, but that's not the same as nothing.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3121

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#102  Postby kennyc » Mar 18, 2014 2:02 pm

ElDiablo wrote:A little rambling...
The subject in general is mind-blowing and awe-inspiring. I can't help but think of this in 3d and the universe being contained in some way. But there may be no edges, we could just be part of a Celtic loop where everything that's part of the loop is unstable and that which is not the loop is stable. Instability creates universes and stability is nothing. What we detect at the quantum level may be a transition. The multi-dimensions that string theorists talk about may be different expressions of that instability.

If anything this shows I don't know anything, but that's not the same as nothing.



The Doughnut Theory of the universe, AKA the Homer Simpson Model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_t ... e_universe
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#103  Postby Pulsar » Mar 18, 2014 2:34 pm

Ironclad wrote:Excuse my ignorance once again.

BB happens, and the photons get 'ejected' (I know, I know), so how comes GWs can affect/spin these particles that are, presumably, moving faster?

I'm an idiot, I suspect. :D

I need some time to digest and understand these results, and I will post something if I'm confident enough that I'm not talking complete bollocks. But this is a very technical field of study, and way out of my comfort zone, so bear with me :)
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 42
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#104  Postby Pulsar » Mar 18, 2014 2:49 pm

lpetrich wrote:Jester blogs on this finding: RÉSONAANCES: Curly impressions
"If this holds" is the central question now. This sort of experiments is difficult and subject to pesky instrumental effects and systematic effects due to foreground emission. It's not impossible that BICEP screwed up; in fact, experts point out some worrying aspects of the data, for example the excess in the BB spectrum at high multipoles. So I would say at this point it's fifty-fifty. Fortunately, there are many experiments out there with similar sensitivity (Planck, ACTPole, SPT, POLARBEAR) that should be able to confirm or refute the claim in the near future. In particular, the release of Planck polarization data this year should straighten many things out.


He's talking about the three data points in the blue region that are higher than the expected value:

Image

As noted on Matt Strassler's blog, these seem to be statistical flukes. He writes:

However, this point was addressed by the BICEP2 folks in their presentation. Their view is that (1) the high data points are not very statistically significantly high, and (2) with new data that they haven't released from their third-generation experiment, they don't see the same effect. So this is presumably what gives them confidence that the excess is a temporary, statistical fluke that will go away when they have more data.

So apparently, the anomalies will disappear when the new data is added. That's not surprising, because the initial data of an experiment is biased to overestimated values, since flukes above the actual value are easier detected than flukes below the actual value. All data points will probably be adjusted downward as the data become more robust.
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 42
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#105  Postby Rumraket » Mar 18, 2014 3:11 pm

Katherine wrote:I say 'Checkmate, Creationists' on Twitter, someone replies with this:

lol yes Science closer to proving Genesis, an always existing universe would have dealt a fatal blow


??????????????

The person seems to have issues with atheists, and she particularly seems to revel in stirring up shit with Prof Brian Cox.

The person is apparently unaware that multiple cosmological models predict inflationary epochs, some of which are past-eternal.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13148
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#106  Postby ElDiablo » Mar 18, 2014 3:22 pm

kennyc wrote:
ElDiablo wrote:A little rambling...
The subject in general is mind-blowing and awe-inspiring. I can't help but think of this in 3d and the universe being contained in some way. But there may be no edges, we could just be part of a Celtic loop where everything that's part of the loop is unstable and that which is not the loop is stable. Instability creates universes and stability is nothing. What we detect at the quantum level may be a transition. The multi-dimensions that string theorists talk about may be different expressions of that instability.

If anything this shows I don't know anything, but that's not the same as nothing.



The Doughnut Theory of the universe, AKA the Homer Simpson Model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_t ... e_universe


mmmm, donuts....
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3121

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Andrei Linde video

#107  Postby hackenslash » Mar 18, 2014 4:18 pm

I've asked for this to be merged with the main thread.
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21427
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#108  Postby surreptitious57 » Mar 19, 2014 7:26 am

hackenslash wrote:
Our 3-brane is separated from another 3-brane by an additional dimension of space. The Big Bang occurred when these
two 3-branes slammed together. There is, in this model, another cosmos, much like ours, residing on the other brane
Since gravitons can travel between branes, we feel the gravity of the matter on the other brane but, because photons
can't travel between branes, it doesn't react electromagnetically in our cosmos, so we can't actually see it anywhere
in the electromagnetic spectrum - dark matter

If branes exist in spacetime then it must have existed before the Big Bang otherwise it could never have happened. They must be incredibly unstable if their collision results in the creation of an entire Universe. The energy level must be many orders of magnitude greater than that at the centre of a black hole or a white dwarf. Could dark energy therefore be the result of that collision ? That would explain why the Universe is still expanding. Dark matter could be undetected matter from the collision also. If inflation falsifies this then we now know what the other ninety six per cent of the Universe is composed of. Though other Universes shall remain immune to detection. Though if this one keeps expanding at the rate
it does then local space will at some point be devoid of virtually all light because the only visible star will be the Sun. And
all of this from a single physical reaction over thirteen billion years ago. It is therefore not too grand a statement to say we owe our very existence to quantum mechanics

I remember watching a BBC Four documentary last year about explanations for the origins of the Universe [ the one where Lee Smolin and Roger Penrose and Neil Turok were each given a Rubik Cube to solve ] and the brane collision was one model on the table. Now with falsification someone should get a Nobel because it is that significant. I think it would be very unfair for it not to go to Andrei Linde as it was he who originally suggested it. And this coming so soon after the discovery of the Higgs two years ago. Which is very unusual indeed now as the Universe does not usually give up its secrets that frequently
So anyone who is a physicist or has an interest in physics is very fortunate indeed to be living in these times. I for one shall definitely be trying to learn more about it and specifically cosmology in light of this fantastic discovery
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#109  Postby Pulsar » Mar 19, 2014 10:22 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Reeve wrote:I wonder if this will make Roger Penrose's cosmological model more testable. I seem to remember that his cyclic one was crucially dependent on gravitational waves with the predictions it made.

Ditto for Steinhardt & Turok's model.



Stephen Hawking claims victory in gravitational wave bet

Stephen Hawking has claimed victory in a bet with a fellow scientist over the discovery of primordial gravitational waves, ripples in the structure of space-time from the birth of the universe.

The Cambridge cosmologist bet Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, that gravitational waves from the first fleeting moments after the big bang would be detected.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Hawking said the discovery of gravitational waves, announced on Monday by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, disproves Turok's theory that the universe cycles endlessly from one big bang to another.

If confirmed by other groups, the discovery would count as the strongest evidence yet for cosmic inflation, a theory which says that the universe went through a period of extremely rapid expansion soon after the big bang. The theory explains why the universe looks almost the same in every direction.

"It is another confirmation of inflation," Hawking told the Today programme. "It also means I win a bet with Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, for cyclic universe theory predicts no gravitational waves from the early universe."

But Turok was not ready to concede just yet. He told the programme that the bet rested on results from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope, which last year failed to spot any signs of gravitational waves.

continues: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/stephen-hawking-gravitational-wave-bet-big-bang
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4618
Age: 42
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#110  Postby hackenslash » Mar 19, 2014 11:25 am

surreptitious57 wrote:If branes exist in spacetime then it must have existed before the Big Bang otherwise it could never have happened.


Well, see Pulsar's post below, but I might have been wrong about the implication for brane-worlds, but in that model, they didn't exist in spacetime, spacetime existed on the brane.

They must be incredibly unstable if their collision results in the creation of an entire Universe.


Stability wouldn't have much to do with it, their collision simply imparts the energy.

Could dark energy therefore be the result of that collision ? That would explain why the Universe is still expanding.


Well, it looks unlikely in light of Pulsar's post. In any event, the best candidate for Dark Energy is, IMO, simply gravity.

Dark matter could be undetected matter from the collision also.


Well, in that model, dark matter is just matter that resides on the other brane, though that looks unlikely now.

If inflation falsifies this then we now know what the other ninety six per cent of the Universe is composed of.


Ummm, how? Not sure I get you.

Though other Universes shall remain immune to detection. Though if this one keeps expanding at the rate it does then local space will at some point be devoid of virtually all light because the only visible star will be the Sun. And all of this from a single physical reaction over thirteen billion years ago. It is therefore not too grand a statement to say we owe our very existence to quantum mechanics


It isn't too grand a statement anyway. :)

I remember watching a BBC Four documentary last year about explanations for the origins of the Universe [ the one where Lee Smolin and Roger Penrose and Neil Turok were each given a Rubik Cube to solve ] and the brane collision was one model on the table. Now with falsification someone should get a Nobel because it is that significant.


Not sure about that. The brane-worlds model was a fringe model, in reality. I liked it, because it was somewhat elegant, but there you go. The documentary was an episode of Horizon entitled What Happened Before the Big Bang, and IIRC, it was a wooden puzzle rather than a Rubik's Cube.

I think it would be very unfair for it not to go to Andrei Linde as it was he who originally suggested it.


He's certainly one of the names being mooted, but if the discovery of the CMBR is anything to go by, possibly not. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel for that discovery and they weren't even looking for it. They thought it was pigeon shit in the antenna! :lol:

And this coming so soon after the discovery of the Higgs two years ago. Which is very unusual indeed now as the Universe does not usually give up its secrets that frequently So anyone who is a physicist or has an interest in physics is very fortunate indeed to be living in these times. I for one shall definitely be trying to learn more about it and specifically cosmology in light of this fantastic discovery


Heady days indeed.
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21427
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#111  Postby hackenslash » Mar 19, 2014 11:26 am

Pulsar wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Reeve wrote:I wonder if this will make Roger Penrose's cosmological model more testable. I seem to remember that his cyclic one was crucially dependent on gravitational waves with the predictions it made.

Ditto for Steinhardt & Turok's model.



Stephen Hawking claims victory in gravitational wave bet

Stephen Hawking has claimed victory in a bet with a fellow scientist over the discovery of primordial gravitational waves, ripples in the structure of space-time from the birth of the universe.

The Cambridge cosmologist bet Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, that gravitational waves from the first fleeting moments after the big bang would be detected.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Hawking said the discovery of gravitational waves, announced on Monday by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, disproves Turok's theory that the universe cycles endlessly from one big bang to another.

If confirmed by other groups, the discovery would count as the strongest evidence yet for cosmic inflation, a theory which says that the universe went through a period of extremely rapid expansion soon after the big bang. The theory explains why the universe looks almost the same in every direction.

"It is another confirmation of inflation," Hawking told the Today programme. "It also means I win a bet with Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute in Canada, for cyclic universe theory predicts no gravitational waves from the early universe."

But Turok was not ready to concede just yet. He told the programme that the bet rested on results from the European Space Agency's Planck space telescope, which last year failed to spot any signs of gravitational waves.

continues: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/stephen-hawking-gravitational-wave-bet-big-bang


I knew there was an implication, but I had thought that it was that they were lower energy. Cheers for that.
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21427
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#112  Postby surreptitious57 » Mar 19, 2014 12:08 pm

Even if branes exist on spacetime as opposed to in it then it still would have to exist before the Big Bang. Though
that would not necessarily be true if there are other models so maybe it is too early to say at this point in time ?

Dark energy certainly has the properties of repulsive gravity but does that automatically mean
that is what it is ? There must be alternative explanations otherwise why not regard it as such ?

If light is impervious to branes then it is entirely possible
for dark matter to be a result of brane collision is it not ?
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#113  Postby hackenslash » Mar 19, 2014 12:15 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:Even if branes exist on spacetime as opposed to in it then it still would have to exist before the Big Bang.


Yep. The branes would be the background on which the bang occurred.

Though that would not necessarily be true if there are other models so maybe it is too early to say at this point in time ?


Well, if this discovery is confirmed, it looks like this model is dead.

Dark energy certainly has the properties of repulsive gravity but does that automatically mean that is what it is ? There must be alternative explanations otherwise why not regard it as such ?


No, it's not automatic by any means. It's one of a few models, but it's automatically consistent with General Relativity, because it's a consequence thereof.

If light is impervious to branes then it is entirely possible for dark matter to be a result of brane collision as it is impervious to it too


Again, on the brane model, dark matter is simply matter that resides on the other brane.
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21427
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#114  Postby kennyc » Mar 19, 2014 2:03 pm

Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post


Ads by Google


Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#116  Postby Reeve » Mar 19, 2014 2:49 pm



:coffee:
Cito wrote:Reeve is a daily reality for girls. I don't know what this implies.

archibald wrote:I don't take Reeve seriously. I don't think he takes himself seriously.
User avatar
Reeve
 
Posts: 2969
Age: 25
Male

Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#117  Postby surreptitious57 » Mar 19, 2014 3:09 pm

Ihavenofingerprints : that link you provided is interesting because Krzysztof Bolejko at the University of Sydney suggests that inflation could have happened before the Big Bang in a Universe that was eternal. But a problem is that the point at which it could have began cannot be referenced because t = 0 is infinity and that is not a quantity that can be practically measured One therefore has to get as close to it as possible instead which is Planck time. But why cannot a hypothetical mathematical model of t = 0 not be possible ? Is it that it would be unreliable because it could not be falsified ? By the same logic then quantum gravity could never be falsified either because it is impossible to actually see what happens inside a black hole
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
 
Posts: 10074

Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#118  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Mar 19, 2014 4:59 pm

It boggles my mind that this is a gravitational map of a region of space smaller than the nucleus of an atom that has since blown up to almost the size of the entire observable universe. Talk about perspective.

Image
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12480
Age: 52
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#119  Postby hackenslash » Mar 19, 2014 5:28 pm

Indeed, and, as Hitch said, some people are still impressed by a burning bush...
User avatar
hackenslash
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21427
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Harvard-Smithsonian B-Mode observation confirmed

#120  Postby Aca » Mar 19, 2014 9:32 pm

Here, Ken Ham, armed with the only book that matters, shows that its all bollocks in few short lines, so hold on to your gravitational horses :lol:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... een-proved
on an island marooned in the Middle Ages
User avatar
Aca
 
Posts: 3435
Age: 44
Male

Country: Malta
Malta (mt)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest