Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

New evidence dor the Big Bang Theory (reported 15;00 17/03/2014 GMT on BBC news)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 80 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 17 Mar 2014 15:07:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2014 15:08:50 GMT
Spin says:
Researchers are currently holding a press conference in which they reveal that they have identified the signal left by the Big Bang fractions of second after it occurred. This discovery confirms the theory of cosmic expansion. And seems to verify the Big Bang Theory itself. (Edit: This discovery does not identify the cause of the Big Bang, only that the Big Bang did in fact occur)

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:09:45 GMT
Dan Fante says:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26605974
Interesting.

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:17:04 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2014 15:17:23 GMT
"The aim has been to try to find a residual marker for "inflation" - the idea that the cosmos experienced an exponential growth spurt in its first trillionth, of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.

Theory holds that this would have taken the infant Universe from something unimaginably small to something about the size of a marble. Space has continued to expand for the nearly 14 billion years since."

No mention of 6 days? Either literally or metaphorically.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 15:17:17 GMT
Spin says:
Dan: Interesting? It is spectacular news! To have direct evidence of the first moments of the Big Bang and also explain the expansion and uniformity of the universe is an amazing feat. And consequent theories that will arise from this discovery will explain even more.

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:18:06 GMT
Withnail says:
Are Leonard and Penny finally going to get it on?

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:18:49 GMT
Government propoganda.

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:23:13 GMT
Spin says:
I guess the meaning and importance of this discovery, which will no doubt receive the Nobel prize, is lost on some.

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:23:45 GMT
Government propoganda.

Posted on 17 Mar 2014 15:36:50 GMT
""I can't tell you how exciting this is," said Dr Jo Dunkley..."

How very unfortunate for her... Official Secrets Act?

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 23:17:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Mar 2014 23:18:18 GMT
But Spin surely you don't believe this?
You do realise what it is they have observed?
All the universe looks the same in any direction and is flat. To explain this a rapid period of inflation is required to even everything out - to make the universe look like it does. But this would predict that gravitational waves produced ripples in spacetime causing partial polarisation of the CMB radiation in the very early inflation phase. It is this they have found.

But gravity doesn't exist! Get on that phone and tell them they are wrong Spin.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Mar 2014 23:57:24 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 00:24:37 GMT
Spin says:
If this discovery is verified, we know what the universe was like a mere four hundred thousand of our years after the initial Big Bang.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 03:03:48 GMT
light says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 10:14:27 GMT
Oh I realise the importance of this discovery. Indeed its very exciting. And furthermore it tells us what the universe was like a trillion trillion trillionth of a second after the BB not 400,000 years because gravitational waves, unlike light, were able to travel through the universe and are therefore "visible" to us.

What I don't get is that gravity doesn't exist but gravitation does. That is utter nonsense. They are the same phenomenon. You appear to be arguing over the words. What is the difference between gravity and gravitation that makes one reality and one a fantasy? Explain that and I might understand where you are coming from.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 10:20:37 GMT
No. The early universe is opaque to light only. Light could not travel until 400,000 years after the BB because atoms did not exist as the temperature was too high. Once atoms formed at 400,000 years the universe became transparent to light so we could detect CMB which is the light from the BB red shifted so far it is microwaves.
Gravitational waves are not affected by the early plasma state of the universe so their detection signals that there was a period of rapid inflation after the BB. It means we are looking at the BB trillionths of a second after it happened.

Posted on 18 Mar 2014 12:34:13 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 14:54:25 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2014 15:26:17 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 15:15:58 GMT
Anita says:
Light - it is not about vibrations. If by some chance you think it confirms string theory, it doesn't. It may help to tie in the fourth major force (gravity) though (whatever Spin thinks of gravity).

Sorry, if I misread your post. Wasn't sure what to make out of vibrations in this context

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 21:52:52 GMT
Mrs. F. Shaw says:
Hi Anita

I thought what was detected was 'waves' one one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth second after the expansion.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 22:08:45 GMT
What is the difference between gravity and gravitation that makes one reality and one a fantasy?

Come on Spin. Answer the question.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Mar 2014 22:12:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Mar 2014 22:14:09 GMT
Anita says:
Yes - or rather "ripples" in the relic radiation which is the oldest visible light (a small patch of sky has been watched)

Edit: Sorry, I'm just used to "relic radiation" in my language, I should have said "cosmic microwave background"

Posted on 19 Mar 2014 02:04:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2014 02:10:02 GMT
light says:
"Scientists first to trap light and sound vibrations together in nanocrystal"

http://phys.org/news175766229.html

I thought the article was interesting.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2014 02:11:48 GMT
light says:
Anita

I was thinking if there was light at the time of the Big Bang then I don't see why there wasn't sound as well. I wasn't sure what to think, that's why I asked.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2014 02:29:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Mar 2014 04:56:58 GMT
light says:
Spin,

"So, un answer to your question, the evidence does not concern "vibrations" but, rather, "waves" that are bent and stretched like a string of elastic."

I was thinking that light waves and sound vibrations existed simultaneously. I read a few short articles, which are probably outdated by today's standards but they seem to support what I think.

Hearing the Big Bang Itself

"Image from the Planck missionThe European Space Agency plans to launch a mission called Planck in 2008 that will study microwave background polarization. WMAP, launched in 2001 yet still going strong, could find B modes before Planck. While Planck is more sensitive, WMAP has a head start. The race is on.

After Planck there's a proposed mission to study inflation in even greater detail; the specifics of the mission will depend on what WMAP and Planck see. One route could be a highly advanced polarization detector. But other ideas might emerge as well.

Theory predicts that we can directly detect the Big Bang, the very moment of the creation of space and time as we know it. This would be a remarkable achievement for humankind, and with dedication this visionary goal can be attain within two decades.

No ordinary telescope will do. Light, or electromagnetic radiation, can only allow us to view the moments after the Big Bang. But the Big Bang made a rumble, a vibration in the fabric of space and time called a gravitational wave that is still ringing today."

So, Let there be light and sound ;o) accordingly.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Mar 2014 02:39:11 GMT
Anita says:
Well, surely bang should be something loud... :)

Sorry, joking. Light and sound are quite different things in nature. Sound is a wave, there's no sound in vacuum. It needs some medium to travel in. Btw - sound travels nearly 5 times faster in water than in air, and about 18 times faster in, say, steel (that is not related to anything, actually, just as curiosity).

Light being an electromagnetic wave and a stream of particles obviously does travel in vacuum
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  80
Initial post:  17 Mar 2014
Latest post:  20 Mar 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions