NASA Reaffirms Big Bang Theory 313
Peretz writes "NASA has found evidence reinforcing a theory of what took place post-Big Bang and time expansion. They claim: 'Over the course of millions of years, gravity exploited the density differences to create the structure of the universe---stars and galaxies separated by vast voids.' Thereby creating a 'structure' to the universe -- a kiddush cup. '...finds that the first stars---the forebears of all subsequent generations of stars and of life itself---were fully formed remarkably early, only about 400 million years after inflation. This is called the era of reionization, the point when the light from the first stars ionized hydrogen atoms, liberating electrons from the protons.'"
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA has a confirmed a theory of what took place post-Big Bang and time expansion.
Please don't use sensationalist and misleading headlines. Confirmation of a theory is tantamount to saying that it is proven. Given that this is scientific theory we're referring to, I don't think that's what you want to say. What you probably want to say is, "New evidence supports a Big Bang Theory".
What NASA actually says in their article is:
To put that into laymans terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. That can be a good thing for the status of a theory. But let's be somewhat scientific here and not throw around statements that imply proven theories. This is, after all, supposed to be "News for Nerds".
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference between the headline and the first line is pretty vast, although the headline is clearly trying to hint at the truth rather than mislead, by using the word "a" intead of "the."
What the first line says is that a theory about how certain events played out after the big bang had been "confirmed." What the headline sounds like is "the Big Bang has finally been proved!" But note that it says "a Big Bang theory." Here's the writer of the headline trying to give himself an out. I cut him some slack; I'm sure he's working with a limited 80 column field or so. In other words, technically what he said was that "a theory about the Big Bang has been confirmed," but he made it just a little too sensationalistic, which is probably going to lead to a whole string of, "See? NASA has confirmed the creationists are _wrong_!" posts that have nothing to do with this. But since everyone likes to see a good tussle between the creationists and the more evolutionary-minded here on slashdot, I'm not even sure that's a bad thing.
Incidentally, I'm a fundamentalist, and I lean toward a literal understanding of Genesis and a 6000-year earth (although I'm not adamant about it and easily accept that I might be misunderstanding things), and even I accept that the "Big Bang" is probably a pretty good model for what happened. (I just think the timescale may be way off, and that we have a long way to go before we truly understand.) So for anyone who did misread the headline and thought you finally had complete triumph over all the creationist wackos, I hate to burst your bubble. :)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:4, Funny)
Feel free to believe whatever you want, just don't call it science or I'll tell you how you should pray.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Pages and pages.
And most of you folks just state the obvious - that creat
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Which timescale? The astronomers', or the Bibles? I think this new data is actually a beautiful confirmation of the Big Bang. The theory makes some very specifc predictions about what one should see when using a partuclar kind of microwave receiver - predictions that have now been confirmed. At this point, the idea of the Big Bang is as solidly supported by real-world evidence as almost any other theory - including gravity, relativity, QED, or even the theory of evolution. That theory makes very specific claims about the age of the Universe. Pretty cool, eh? What supporting evidence does the Genesis story have? What predictions does it make - and can they be falsified?
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Informative)
Who the hell modded this insightful? From the "first" creation story: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." From the "second": Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the ear
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Also translatable to "When God began to create the heavens and the Earth." My reference is the footnote in the New Revised Standard Edition [oremus.org].
The second verse more clearly explains that the Bible is talking about the creation of the Earth as we know it:
Genesis 1:2 "The earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep"
I've spent a lot of time considering that beginning passage. I just don't think that the Bible is talking
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: 6000 years old (Score:3, Informative)
This theory is based on (in my opinion an incorrect) belief that God created the earth, and then directly followed up by creating everything else, in literally 7 days earth time. Though no where is this stated or implied. Furthermore, time is defined as infinite to God in Genesis, where it's stated that 7 days can be equal to 7 years or 7 minutes.
The 6000 year figure comes from listings of the ages of parents st
re-evaluate the use of "day" (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, to move on
Although it is a rather common view, and in no way to critique you at all, may I suggest, respectfully, to investigate further and deeper the meaning of "day" throughout the Bible?
Keeping all religious doctrines
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a professional physicist, and I've seen the evidence fo
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm now convinced that the creation vs. evolution controversy (with intelligent design) is really, well, a bunch of hype that serves to draw people away from religion and science. Let me first make it clear that evolution is fact; no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s about it.
This controversy pulls people away from religion and Christianity because they see christians arguing a naive, scientifically unt
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, there are no articles.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
I just love you fundamentalists telling God what he can and can't do.
I love you atheists knee-jerking and noticing I'm religious and failing to read the entire post and realize I said exactly the opposite of that.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Which of course brings us back to the whole issue of 'the big bang'.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
"Don't tell God how to run his Universe." -Neils Bohr
(Both quotes are actually paraphrasings rather than quotes, but what the hey.)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Still, I'm not sure if "Reaffirms" is better. How about "More Evidence for Big Bang Theory." The text itself seems fine now.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
That's my purse. Hey!
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:3, Interesting)
No, in layman's terms, they've proven the theory. In scientific terms, they have new data that agrees with old data and theories. The problem is that non-technical language doesn't distinguish between "theory" and "hypothesis," nor between "sufficient evidence to accep
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree completely. However, if you're going to take things down to laymans terms, you need to explain what you're talking about. Saying "the theory is proven" is not correct, even in laymans terms. Saying "the theory is effectively proven, with a vanishing small chance for error" better conveys the reality.
In any case, most people have pointed out that the story is misleading anyway. While this is evidence for a big bang type event, it is more interesting because it provides evidence for an inflationary universe; something that has had far less evidence to back it before now.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
NASA *Reaffirms* Big Bang Theory
Look like you were in a big hurry to do some karma whoring and you neglected to even look at the story. The original posting was completely reasonable.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Look like you were in a big hurry to do some karma whoring and you neglected to even look at the story.
Looks like you were in such a big hurry to criticize that you weren't paying attention to the signs that the story changed.
"Confirms" (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
You need to stop reading Dan Brown. It's rotting your brain.
GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:2, Funny)
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:2, Funny)
Not if the head of Nasa mentions the huge oil deposit on Mars.
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:3, Funny)
The former media guy would have insisted on saying "NASA Confirms: Big Bang was Done by Jesus"
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:5, Interesting)
How do we gaze back to the infant universe? The cosmic microwave background is a fossilized record of what occurred way back when. Embedded in this light are subtle patterns that point to very specific conditions about the early universe.
So...subtle patterns from something that happened long ago that may or may not have been affected by external forces on the way towards us. Patterns for which we are extrapolating initial conditions on the basis of what is equivalent to a very, very small number of observations in the grand timeline, and for which we only have a single location (this solar system) to sample from.
All this to describe an event whose happening we don't really understand and which we have no way to either predict or test. What can we really do now that we couldn't before?
We can see into space with a higher degree of accuracy, and finally, perhaps, test a few of the theories that we couldn't before (which are based on other theories that we still can't yet test). Don't get it wrong, though:
Deciding that the universe is a particular age is still taking a leap of faith, no matter what age you think it is.
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:2)
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:2)
Of course, it's quite a leap to go from "science requires faith" to "you mi
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:2)
We believe this because everything we observe follows this pattern. Even if this isn't sufficient proof to overcome hyperbolic doubt, even Hume accepted that it is the best thing we have. Besides, science isn't based on finding what's "True," but rather getting the closest to the truth we can, as I posted originally.
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:2)
My opinion there is that you should go ahead and assume that any theory that has been put forth is equally valid. I don't see why "God made it at a specific time" or "its always been there," or "it happened at a specific time all by itself" are all equally valid hypotheses in absence of real testability.
Its interesting that you mention putting your h
Re:GWB says 'Bad Scientists' (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you don't know much about science. The Big Bang theory is highly speculative, but to call it "wild speculation" is simply untrue--it is the most logically consistent explanation of phenomena we observe in the universe.
My opinion there is that you should go ahead and assume that any theory that has been put forth is equally valid. I don't s
How? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh come on! (Score:2, Insightful)
I sure agree (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll probably change their stance a few years anyway about the whole thing.
Re:I sure agree (Score:2)
Re:I sure agree (Score:2)
But if we're a part of the universe created by that event, and nothing travels faster than the speed of light, then how did we get here before the light from that event got here? If we're seeing it via reflections, how did what it's reflecting off of get out there ahead of it?
Re:I sure agree (Score:2)
Actually, the light being studied is the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a snapshot of the universe at the moment it cooled to the point it was transparant for the first time (called Recombination), which was about 100 K years after the Big Bang IIRC. The temperature everwhere we look is extremely uniform, too uniform given the size of the universe at that time and the speed of light.
A theory that the
Re:I sure agree (Score:2, Interesting)
You've got several errors in your assumptions.
First off, the "Event" that caused the photons in the CMB isn't actually the singularity->universe transition at time zero, it's what happened thousands of years later, after charged particles formed neutral complexes and allowed photons to travel more than a fraction of a meter witho
Re:I sure agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Big Bang cosmology is based upon three key lines of evidence:
1. The red shift of distant galaxies demonstrates that the observable universe is expanding.
2. Nucleosynthesis demonstrates that the large majority of the very lightest elements; hydrogen, helium and lithium are not the products of stars, but rather from some period when the universe was much hotter and denser than it was today.
3. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, seen in *every* direction you care to look, is the clearest earmark that the Universe was much hotter and denser.
So even if Big Bang cosmology is replaced, the replacement theory is going to have to explain these observations and the inference gained from them that the universe was much denser and hotter early in its history.
Witnesses at the time are not required. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Confirmation (Score:2)
Well, happy St. Patty's to you too! (Score:5, Funny)
Fantastic!
I was looking for a pickup line for tonight!
Re:Well, happy St. Patty's to you too! (Score:2)
Re:Well, happy St. Patty's to you too! (Score:4, Funny)
Speaking as someone on the geekier end of the spectrum -- they just know.
It's difficult not to use words like Grok in conversation, and even if I try to stare at her shoes, somehow the woman always seems to know.
For some of us, our social awkwardness precedes us by several metres.
Re:Well, happy St. Patty's to you too! (Score:2)
A definite proof of the Big Bank theory (Score:3, Funny)
Then I clicked and there was a story.
It happened in less than a second, so we can call that a Big Bang.
Q.E.D.
Re:A definite proof of the Big Bank theory (Score:2)
(note that with
Lets not forget. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2)
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2)
No, he can't. He can show you an overwhelming amount of evidence that is consistent with the H2O theory, but that is not the same thing as proof. It is, however, as close to proof as anything in science ever gets.
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why can't he? He can take the components, separate them and then show you with instruments that can read such materials. "See we were in a vacuum that had pure H2O. Now after applying the electrical process, we have some gas in there. My instruments are able to tell me that it is Hydrogen a
Probality theory (Score:2)
Re:Probality theory (Score:2)
Re:Probality theory (Score:2)
Re:Probality theory (Score:2)
Re:Probality theory (Score:2)
No. What is said is that it is impossible for an explanation conforming to the scientific method to ever satisfy your given criteria.
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2)
Prove that your sample was pure water. (Ditto; water is really, really hard to purify.)
Prove that your "electrical process" did not somehow introduce new material into the chamber.
Prove that your instruments are reading the elements in the chamber, and their proportions, correctly.
And after you're done proving all those things, prove that the techniques you used to prove them are correct.
Etc. Do you se
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2)
Congratulations, you have just proved that electricity transmutes the element "water" into the elements "hydrogen" and "oxygen".
That tells us nothing about what's "really" going on at the at
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2)
Well, it also helps if you have experiment(s) that were designed specifically to disprove the theory, and they didn't.
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Big Bang is falsifiable, though by this point, and with the vast number of observations done in the last three decades, it's hard to imagine any evidence now coming to light that would overthrow it. If it is replaced at all, then the new theory is still going to have explain the evidence, and that means that the new theory is still going to have to deal with a universe that was once incredibly hotter and denser than it is now.
Re:Lets not forget. (Score:2)
However, if you have a bunch of competing hypothesis, and the evidence disproves all but one, you pretty much are stuck with the survivor as the working theory until something better comes along.
So far, the evidence is pretty much against most other competing theories, including steady-state and creationist viewpoints.
42 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:42 (Score:2)
what? (Score:3, Funny)
Era of reionization? Time expansion? Doesn't Nasa know this is friday afternoon, time to go drinking and chase skirts? I can't think about this now!
The Universe as a Kiddush Cup? (Score:2)
-Erwos
[1] Interpret this as you will - upon reflection, there's a lot of meanings to it.
Re:The Universe as a Kiddush Cup? (Score:2)
We're probably rattling around on the floor of God's back seat because (as astronomers will soon discover) our universe has the wrong football team logo on it.
Sounds awefully familiar... (Score:2)
In simpler, day-to-day terms, what they're trying to say here is that Universe rapidly enlarged until it eventually blew the seal.
top down vs bottom up (Score:2)
Which theory is supported by this? The one that says large scale structure in the universe formed first or that small scale structure formed and later clustered together to form super structures?
And how does this relate to the universe's current acceleration, if at all?
Now, would that be... (Score:2)
It Will Be Thrown Out By Kansas (Score:3, Funny)
Nasa Confirms that it Reaffirms Theory (Score:3, Funny)
*Head asplodes*
NASA takes credit for universe (Score:2)
NASA will be adding a new "Universe Discovery Center" to the NASAquest Children's Activity Center [nasa.gov] at NASA centers.
Re:NASA takes credit for universe (Score:2)
What I'd Still Like Explained... (Score:2)
If the Universe started out in one place, and expanded at less than the speed of light, how can we only now be receiving light from its early days?
And while you're at it:
If object A is moving one direction at .6c, and object B is moving the opposite direction at .6c, does each object appear to be moving at >1c from the other object?
Thanks!
Re:What I'd Still Like Explained... (Score:5, Informative)
Because the Big bang was not an explosion. The universe didn't start in one place - it was one place, and that place - space itself - expanded.
If object A is moving one direction at
No. Because by special relativity, velocities do not add in the Newtonian fashion. The wikipedia article on it is pretty good.
Re:What I'd Still Like Explained... (Score:2)
Follow up article (Score:2, Funny)
Luckily, here's Stephen "MC" Hawking... (Score:4, Funny)
Big Bizang
Words: MC Hawking & Fred Ciesla
Music: Dark Matter
In the beginning there was nothing, not even time.
No planets, no stars, no hip-hop, no rhyme.
Then there was a bang like the sound of my gatt,
the universe was born and the shit was phat
The universe began as a singularity,
nobody knows what went on then G.
For ten million, trillion, trillion, trillionths of a second
the state of the universe cannot be reckoned.
The fundamental forces were unified,
we've no theory to describe that 'though I've tried,
then the forces split and the universe was born,
it was hotter than a priest watching kiddy-porn.
Protons, neutrons and electrons came to pass,
as photons collided changing energy to mass.
Three minutes go by, temps a cool one billion,
down from one hundred million, trillion, trillion.
This reduced heat allowed a new event,
the formation of heavier elements.
Still it was millions of years, 'fore the first start glowed,
if you're down with the bang sing along here we go!
It was a big-pow, piz-ow,
bang-a-dang, bigitty-digitty,
boom, bigitty-boom,
ka-boom, the big bizang.
Hold on now what about inflation?
Well that's a little tricky,
and could use some explanation.
Inflation, one could fairly state,
was a time when the universe expanded at a rate,
that was faster than the speed of light,
but that over simplifies and it ain't quite right.
Still for purposes here it will have to do,
'cause I ain't got the time to explain it to you.
The beginning of time and the birth of all matter,
say it took seven days you're as mad as a hatter,
it was millions of year 'fore the first star glowed,
if you're down with the bang sing along here we go!
Re:Kiddush Cup ? (Score:3, Informative)
There is no use resisting, five points to Gryffyndor!
Re:You heard it here first... (Score:2)
Re:You heard it here first... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think scientists decided that the universe is probably expanding from a single point, and then decided to manufacture evidence to prove that belief to themselves? The whole idea that the universe is expanding was a shocking idea that was only accepted by astrophysicists when they conclud
Re:You heard it here first... (Score:3, Interesting)
*whether the universe exists or not notwithstanding, of course.
Re:You heard it here first... (Score:2)
Re:You heard it here first... (Score:5, Insightful)
The dame walked into my office with a sneer on her pretty pasty-white face. "You sure you know what you're talking about?" I sneered back.
"Yeah," she said. She had the kind of teeth made for clenching, white and pearly and pressed firmly together. "Yeah, the way I see it, the Universe got a bum rap. They say it all exploded, but I don't believe it. Not my Universe, the big handsome lug." She went on like that for a while. It coulda been the whiskey, but I think she was just dumb in love with her own voice. She went on about how the Universe had to've always been, and nobody had no evidence to the contrary.
She wound down after sixty minutes or so.
"Look, Lady," I snapped. "I get paid by the hour. You owe me big. But I'll forget to send the bill if you just answer me one question."
She squinted at me like her eyeballs got a taste of something sour. "What?" She spat the word out in a short blast of noise, like a bird honking for attention.
"You ever break the second law of thermodynamics?"
The question must've smacked her right between the eyes. "What're you implying?" She was suddenly, strangely coy.
I pressed my advantage. "Your lovely little thing with the Universe. You ever break the second law of thermodynamics? Did you ever see the Universe break the second law of thermodynamics?"
She shook her head like she had a boiled egg stuck in her ear. She admitted, "I have never done any such thing. It's impossible for a lady of my fine upbringing. I don't even understand what you are driving at, Mister Entropy."
"Yeah, I know." I pointed toward the door. She took the hint, and left my office like a hot, wet squal in the middle of the Pacific. "That's the problem, " told the blank and empty space where she had been. "If you don't get it now, you'll probably never understand."
Re:You heard it here first... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there's Obler's Paradox for one.
Saying the universe was always in existence implies an actual infinity, and the problems this brings up are, well, practically infinite! Like for example, if the universe has always been here, and it's increasing in entropy, how come it hasn't completely run down already?
There's lots more. All it takes is a little reading and thinking to find lots more problems with a universe that's always been here.
If you want to look this up, (Score:3, Informative)
This is a helpful hint to curious people about to use Google and is not intended as a spelling flame.
Infinity solves its own problems (Score:4, Insightful)
The second law of thermodynamics is no longer considered a law per se, since we discovered that thermodynamic systems such as gasses are composed of atoms which collide with one another according to time-symmetric laws, not some continuous 'gas' stuff which obeys the 2nd law the way particles obey the law of gravity, say. The fact that entropy always seems to go up is merely a statistical law, namely, that the chances of it going back down are EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY unlikely, because of all possible arrangements of (for example) the atoms in a cloud of gas, most of them are in thermal equilibrium, and a vanishingly small number of possible states of that cloud of gas have all of them on one side, or some similarly low-entropy state.
But such states are still possible. And given infinite time, anything possible will occur. So while a massive amount of energy suddenly conspiring to come together to form the super hot and dense 'initial state' of the Big Bang is vanishingly unlikely, in an eternity, it will eventually occur. An infinite number of times, in fact. So the 'universe' as we conceive it (or at least the part of it which we call 'the universe', that part which we have any hope of ever observing) is currently winding down from an extremely unlikely lapse of entropy, and an inconceivably long amount of time in the future, something just like that will happen again.
And if you take infinite space for granted too, then something just like the Big Bang is happening right now, most likely somewhere so far away that everything we consider 'the universe' will be radiation and black holes (or possibly even just radiation, once the black holes all evaporate) by the time any effects of it can reach us. In fact, if space is infinite, then it's happening an infinite number of times *right now*.
The apparent problems of physical infinities only arise if you fail to completely grasp the sheer, literally unimaginably large scale of 'infinity', and all of the implications that it brings with it. Infinity solves its own problems.
Besides, the law of thermodynamics only states that entropy never goes UP. It could remain static over the entire universe, and just shift where the particular concentrations of energy are at a given time (changing local entropy). If you assume the law of conservation of information (which is the reciprocal or inverse of entropy) is true, then that seems like it's got to be the case, anyway, since an increase in universal entropy would mean a loss of information.
Theistic implications of big-bang theory (Score:3, Interesting)
But people got over it.
Re:Inflation (Score:3, Funny)
It was depressed and binge-eating?
Re:Inflation (Score:2)
It was depressed and binge-eating?
I prefer to think it just couldn't contain it's enthusiasm.
Re:Ok, somebody explain how this works. (Score:2)
Re:Ok, somebody explain how this works. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, you can't see all the way back to the Big Bang - for the fir
Re:Ok, somebody explain how this works. (Score:3, Informative)
If racecar a is on a straight racetrack with racecar b they will stop and smash at the end of the track. One can be ahead or behind the other one.They are limited to remaining on the line of the track so they are moving in 1 dimensions.
If racecar a is on a racetrack with racecar b, then each racecar is both ahead of and behind each other. They are limited to remaining on the line of the track but can turn so they are moving in 2 dimensions.
Now-- instead of a racetrack,
Re:Beware the Coming of the Great White Handkerchi (Score:2)