rethinking how the universe began

[arauca]

Recently, scientists on the Planck team announced finding certain large-scale features on the CMB sky that they cannot explain. One of them: a large cold spot, which corresponds to an anomalously large area of high density.

What does this mean? To discuss the findings, The Kavli Foundation held a discussion with three key members on the team. One important question: Will the theory for how the universe began need to be modified, amended or even fundamentally changed?

"[T]he theory of inflation predicts that today's universe should appear uniform at the largest scales in all directions," says George Efstathiou, professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at Cambridge (KICC). "That uniformity should also characterize the distribution of fluctuations at the largest scales within the CMB. But these anomalies, which Planck confirmed, such as the cold spot, suggest that this isn't the case."

Efstathiou has been involved in the Planck mission since it was first proposed to the European Space Agency in 1993. "[T]his is very strange," he says. "And I think that if there really is anything to this, you have to question how that fits in with inflation.... It's really puzzling."

Says Anthony Lasenby, a member of the Planck Core Team and professor of astrophysics and cosmology at Cambridge and Deputy Director of KICC: "[This] data is really putting pressure on some alternative inflation models.... Inflation actually may have been more limited in scope than previously theorized."

Says Krzysztof Gorski, a Planck Collaboration scientist and senior research scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA: "Perhaps we may still eliminate these anomalies with more precise analysis; on the other hand, they may open the door to something much more grand—a reinvestigation of how the whole structure of the universe should be."


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-discoveries-planck-rethinking-universe-began.html#jCp

 

[wegs]

Very interesting!

I'm confused though and maybe someone can shed some light here for me.

But, we know that astronomers have conclusively discovered unchanged relics from the Big Bang. Why would a recent discovery like this mentioned, potentially put the fundamental theory in question?

 

[arauca]

Very interesting!

I'm confused though and maybe someone can shed some light here for me.

But, we know that astronomers have conclusively discovered unchanged relics from the Big Bang. Why would a recent discovery like this mentioned, potentially put the fundamental theory in question?

In science I feel people are hard to accept changes in the accepted theory. It is hard to admit to be wrong

 

[wegs]

In science I feel people are hard to accept changes in the accepted theory. It is hard to admit to be wrong

Lol true I guess.
Issue I have is with the word choice. Modified, ok. Amended, ok. But fundamental doesn't make sense when we have evidence that points to the theory that we currently "accept," as being valid.

 

[arauca]

Lol true I guess.
Issue I have is with the word choice. Modified, ok. Amended, ok. But fundamental doesn't make sense when we have evidence that points to the theory that we currently "accept," as being valid.

Watch out they will bring a fudge factor to perpetuated the current theory .

 

[paddoboy]

Very interesting!

I'm confused though and maybe someone can shed some light here for me.

But, we know that astronomers have conclusively discovered unchanged relics from the Big Bang. Why would a recent discovery like this mentioned, potentially put the fundamental theory in question?

I see a hell of a lot more "tinkering" with aspects of cosmology...the further we see, the more precision we are able to adhere to.
But, Even a future validated QGT will almost certainly entail the main aspect of the BB/Inflationary model.

I say that even though I have just posted an article on a non expanding space/time.
The procedure of the scientific method now takes over....ie, checking, re-checking, more observations, and finally peer review.
If we find more evidence supporting it, and we do not find anything contradicting it, it "may" surpass our BB/Inflationary model.
The point is an established model like the BB, wont go away in a day. If the BB model is wrong, and that would be rather extraordinary, it would thus require an extraordinary bit of evidence to invalidate it.
People/scientists poo-pooed dark matter when it was first proposed....mounting evidence since though certainly supports its existence.
We then recently had headlines that Einstein was wrong, and that the speed of light was not constant..further tests and observations quickly put that finding to sleep.
That's science, that's the scientific method, that's how it works.

 

[quarklet8]

I read that someone involved in cosmology thought this CMB "Dark Spot" might be another universe. This resembles responses to the "Dark Flow" study. I get the impression cosmologists think other universes may influence ours and that would explain irregularities in ours such as the values of its constants. I think a universe must parallel ours made of anti-matter and that both came from the same singularity. Could the Dark Spot be IT?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

In science I feel people are hard to accept changes in the accepted theory. It is hard to admit to be wrong

No, that's not it. The point is that by the time a hypothesis has been elevated to the level of a theory, it has been exhaustively tested and peer-reviewed, meaning that the chance of errors is just about zero. So when someone comes along with a new hypothesis that contradicts it, the most likely explanation for the contradiction is that the new hypothesis has an error that we missed.

It must now undergo the same rigorous testing and peer review as the original. This will take considerable time.

 

[sideshowbob]

In science I feel people are hard to accept changes in the accepted theory.

Ever hear of Einstein? He turned physics upside-down. His changes in the accepted theory are accepted now.

Science is a process of constant rethinking. Naturally, when you rethink something you start by tinkering with the existing thinking instead of throwing it out the window and starting from scratch.

 

[SciGuy500]

couldn't the universe of started with various random events, instead of 1 hyper-event like the big bang

 

[quarklet8]

Fred Hoyle proprosed the Steady-state theory after WW II. The Big Bang version of creation trumped it due to the CMB. But now our universe is imagined as only one of many in a greater "multi-verse". They're like a field of plants which blossom from time to time. Against this, our universe may be by itself or part of a small group. Hugh Everett made a multi-verse theoretically possible. I see the creation process as a continuous splitting in two, so a "meta-verse" must have split into ours and its "anti". Ultimately, we must be part of a "dia-verse", or the"Local Group" of universes. While the multi-verse theory doesn't require a "recollection mechanism", the dia-verse does: as bodies collapse and become denser, their gravities must increase enough to overcome Dark Energy. We do see this "Dark Gravity" at the galactic level rather than the inverse kind we know. Therefore, gravity may eventually become stronger...

 

[C C]

<Edit> Hah! Serves me right for entering this thread via "New Posts" rather than the AEC forum itself!

rethinking how the universe began

Well, I'm just glad that this decade's occurrence of the intermittent offering from contrarianism that "the universe is shrinking rather than expanding" has been released (or gotten out of the way).

Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all

"...Wetterich's paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet, but thus far, comments by others in the field suggest openness to this new line of thinking. That might be because one exciting prospect of this new theory is that it would do away with the idea of a singularity existing just before the Big Bang—a point at which conventional physics breaks down. Instead it might suggest that the universe is simply in a constant state of flux with no real beginning and no real end...."​

 

[wellwisher]

This observation of a large scale structure indirectly challenges the matter-anti-matter assumption of universe creation. As long as the universe was relatively uniform, matter and anti-matter annihilation, slightly favoring matter was reasonable. But such a large scale structure, has too much matter in one place for the time available.

I never like the matter and anti-matter assumption because the term anti-matter was very misleading. Nuclear decay from atoms (matter) can give off positrons which is considered anti-matter. While positron capture does not go boom but becomes part of matter.

Anti-matter is simply a special case of matter, which is relatively rare state, as inferred by the observation the entire universe is matter. The most stable will always remain. Observation also shows that positive charge prefers the heavier mass. Even positron will go where the bulk of the mass is and remain there for eons

 

[brucep]

In science I feel people are hard to accept changes in the accepted theory. It is hard to admit to be wrong

There's no problem with admitting you're wrong in science. You should model yourself after that. Four months earlier they were touting Planck as an incredible confirmation of the Modern Standard Model of Cosmology.
Planck's most detailed map ever reveals an almost perfect Universe
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-planck-reveals-universe.html#nRlv

I find it hard to believe that WMAP didn't find such a dark spot in the CMBR? The difference for Planck is greater experimental resolution but ..... the difference in resolution is ....
On the Coherence of WMAP and Planck Temperature Maps
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1111
This article on Planck has a nice picture of the 'cold spot'.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013...-the-universe-is-still-weird-and-interesting/

 

[brucep]

<Edit> Hah! Serves me right for entering this thread via "New Posts" rather than the AEC forum itself!



Well, I'm just glad that this decade's occurrence of the intermittent offering from contrarianism that "the universe is shrinking rather than expanding" has been released (or gotten out of the way).

Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all

"...Wetterich's paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet, but thus far, comments by others in the field suggest openness to this new line of thinking. That might be because one exciting prospect of this new theory is that it would do away with the idea of a singularity existing just before the Big Bang—a point at which conventional physics breaks down. Instead it might suggest that the universe is simply in a constant state of flux with no real beginning and no real end...."​

We already have a thread on that paper. Mark{us} does a nice job with his analysis.

 

[brucep]

This observation of a large scale structure indirectly challenges the matter-anti-matter assumption of universe creation. As long as the universe was relatively uniform, matter and anti-matter annihilation, slightly favoring matter was reasonable. But such a large scale structure, has too much matter in one place for the time available.

I never like the matter and anti-matter assumption because the term anti-matter was very misleading. Nuclear decay from atoms (matter) can give off positrons which is considered anti-matter. While positron capture does not go boom but becomes part of matter.

Anti-matter is simply a special case of matter, which is relatively rare state, as inferred by the observation the entire universe is matter. The most stable will always remain. Observation also shows that positive charge prefers the heavier mass. Even positron will go where the bulk of the mass is and remain there for eons

I'll make sure those physicists know you already figured out the answer.

 

[C C]

We already have a thread on that paper. Mark{us} does a nice job with his analysis.

Yah, so I belatedly realized. Not that the original unedited reply was much more than amusement at seeing the idea resurrected yet again by someone like Wetterich, as opposed to spotting it in the topics of "suburban science" discussion groups over the years.

 

[PartyBoy]

I'm really not suprised they found a cold spot. Equals and opposites/ positives and negatives are logically bound true despite whatever initial observations we interpret. Scientific observations are falling farther from logical and rational truth. They are open to human interpretation and cease to be questioned in balance. The unwise credit their vision over rationality and win in textbooks leaving the wise to suffer such basic concepts as hot and cold in realtion to creation. Perhaps their are truly idiotic individuals incapable of rationality above observations I should not converse with. Fearless egos wandering blind into argument who make simple ideas complex and resolve the wise into stupidity. I prefer those who begin with complexity and resolve in simplicity.

Years from now some creature will ask how hot and cold both existed in the same area when there was never really a question to be resolved.

 

[R1D2]

If "stuff" contracts and gets denser, and were somewhere in the "stuff" we will get crushed eventually.. Right? And what does all the "space knowledge" do to really help us in the short run?

 

[KitemanSA]

Lol true I guess.
Issue I have is with the word choice. Modified, ok. Amended, ok. But fundamental doesn't make sense when we have evidence that points to the theory that we currently "accept," as being valid.

There are other theories that explain current data as well as the Big Bang without wierd constructs like "inflation". Perhaps this will lead to a shift in acceptance to another theory tat works better with this new data. But arauca is quite right, they will fudge to make the popular theory fit.