Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

what was it like during the first second of the universe?

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Scientists have spotted swirling patterns in the radiation lingering from the big bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background (CMB)..

The observation itself isn't Earth-shaking as researchers know that these particular swirls or "B-modes" originated in conventional astrophysics, but the result suggests that scientists are closing in on a much bigger prize: B-modes spawned by gravity waves that rippled through the infant universe..

Cobe also detected part-in-100,000 variations in the temperature of the CMB across the sky, which would reveal much about the cosmos..

By 2003, Nasa's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other experiments had studied those variations statistically and found that they fit a model in which the universe consisted of 5 per cent ordinary matter, 24 per cent mysterious dark matter whose gravity binds the galaxies, and 71 per cent bizarre space-stretching dark energy. That standard cosmological model was strongly confirmed earlier this year by the European Space Agency's (ESA's) Planck space probe..

The microwaves in the CMB can be polarised like light reflected from the surface of a lake. In a patch of sky, the random polarisation pattern can be separated into two superimposed components: B-modes, in which the polarisation forms right or left-handed swirls, and E-modes, in which it does not..

Whereas the coalescing of matter in the early universe can produce only E-modes, gravity waves rippling along during inflation should produce B-modes..

The intensity of those "primordial" B-modes should reveal the energy density of the universe during inflation and help explain how it happened..


yay science!

the more we understand about the very earliest moments of the universe, the more we understand about it's future, i'm excited for this research..

stuff




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 



but the result suggests that scientists are closing in on a much bigger prize: B-modes spawned by gravity waves that rippled through the infant universe..

We have been looking for gravity waves for so long now but still have yet to detect any with our equipment. There is virtually no evidence at all that gravity waves really exist. Personally I think it's about time for us to let go of this idea and start thinking about gravity in other ways.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I'm more fond of the 10th second. The first and second are like so last eon.
edit on 6-8-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by tachyonmind
 



but the result suggests that scientists are closing in on a much bigger prize: B-modes spawned by gravity waves that rippled through the infant universe..

We have been looking for gravity waves for so long now but still have yet to detect any with our equipment. There is virtually no evidence at all that gravity waves really exist. Personally I think it's about time for us to let go of this idea and start thinking about gravity in other ways.


By this rationale we should give up dark matter and energy too.. We know how gravity behaves, we can measure its effects and calculate its strength.. Quantum gravity is one avenue of research, and may help us understand whether we are dealing with strings or loops..

The inability to detect something does not disqualify the mathematical proif of its existence..



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind
By this rationale we should give up dark matter and energy too..
Not exactly. We can measure the effects of dark matter and dark energy, so even though the causes aren't known, the effects are measurable and therefore there's no problem with the effects being too small to measure with available technology as with gravitational waves.

One of the problems with gravitational waves is that they are much harder to measure with available technology. But there may be a thousandfold improvement in the technology coming:

Gravitational Wave

Even with such long arms, the strongest gravitational waves will only change the distance between the ends of the arms by at most roughly 10^−18 meters. LIGO should be able to detect gravitational waves as small as h ≈ 5*10−20. Upgrades to LIGO and other detectors such as Virgo, GEO 600, and TAMA 300 should increase the sensitivity still further; the next generation of instruments (Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo) will be more than ten times more sensitive. Another highly sensitive interferometer (LCGT) is currently in the design phase. A key point is that a tenfold increase in sensitivity (radius of 'reach') increases the volume of space accessible to the instrument by one thousand times. This increases the rate at which detectable signals should be seen from one per tens of years of observation, to tens per year.
The LCGT would significantly improve our odds of measuring gravitational waves.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Can you propose a potential mechanism to the phenomenon of gravity?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Can you propose a potential mechanism to the phenomenon of gravity?


of course, gravity, by the current definition, is the mathematical equation representitive of an object with mass' effect on the surrounding space..

What is the definitionn as you understand it?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yup, i am excited by the potential of these developments too..
edit on 6-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Can you propose a potential mechanism to the phenomenon of gravity?


of course, gravity, by the current definition, is the mathematical equation representitive of an object with mass' effect on the surrounding space..



Einstein said;
The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Can you propose a potential mechanism to the phenomenon of gravity?


of course, gravity, by the current definition, is the mathematical equation representitive of an object with mass' effect on the surrounding space..



Einstein said;
The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.


yup =)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Can you propose a potential mechanism to the phenomenon of gravity?


of course, gravity, by the current definition, is the mathematical equation representitive of an object with mass' effect on the surrounding space..

What is the definitionn as you understand it?


"Personally I think it's about time for us to let go of this idea and start thinking about gravity in other ways"

this is the quote of ChaoticOrder I was responding to. If gravity potentially exists in a way we havent thought of, or dont think of, and ChaoticOrder thinks that is true, I would like to hear why and how they think so.

As for what you say. Math does not exist on its own, and is meaningless without physical correlation (in reality at least). So if this universe exists and it is composed of physical material and fields that interact in a manner to objectively produce the phenomenon of gravity, that exact activity that occurs, IS math, the math that exactly describes that activity, IS that activity, only in a symbolic form. But the goal is making the most accurate map for the most accurate understanding. So before our symbolic mapping of the real thing, reality, reality is doing the real thing, when I ask to describe the physical mechanism behind gravity, im asking to describe the real thing, because it is more possible that our secondhand interpretation of the real thing, is faulty or lacking, it is not possible that something that occurs in reality is faulty or lacking 'reason' for its occurrence, it occurs exactly because thus is nature and thus is nature, Scientists and seekers of truths only duty and privileged is attempting to exactly know nature.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Similar to that first second of orgasm.....



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


oh right, i get ya..


Similar that first second of orgasm...


Hehe, it is called the "big bang" for a reason then.. xD
edit on 6-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
well, it was bright and loud
2nd line



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
i dont know i was not around at the time
wait and i will ask my grandad .

ps in the begining was the word that is what the bible says and who am i to argue with that



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





Not exactly. We can measure the effects of dark matter and dark energy, so even though the causes aren't known, the effects are measurable and therefore there's no problem with the effects being too small to measure with available technology as with gravitational waves.


We can measure the effects of gravity waves, too.

www.nrao.edu...



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
what was it like during the first second of the universe?

Why is it that scientists still have to bring in a limited imagination to such a subject..

" It must have a beginning and end, " Really ???



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadtruth
what was it like during the first second of the universe?

Why is it that scientists still have to bring in a limited imagination to such a subject..

" It must have a beginning and end, " Really ???


well, if we didn't at least try to find out if it had a beginning, we'd never know would we?.. why do critics of science still have to bring in such a limited interpretation of what it is trying to achieve?






top topics



 
3

log in

join