New Sharpened Images From Hubble Telescope Contradict Post-Big Bang Theories (nasa.gov) 98
An anonymous reader quotes NASA:
By applying a new computational analysis to a galaxy magnified by a gravitational lens, astronomers have obtained images 10 times sharper than what Hubble could achieve on its own. The results show an edge-on disk galaxy studded with brilliant patches of newly formed stars... The galaxy in question is so far away that we see it as it appeared 11 billion years ago, only 2.7 billion years after the big bang... The resulting reconstructed image revealed two dozen clumps of newborn stars, each spanning about 200 to 300 light-years. This contradicted theories suggesting that star-forming regions in the distant, early universe were much larger, 3,000 light-years or more in size. "There are star-forming knots as far down in size as we can see," said doctoral student Traci Johnson of the University of Michigan, lead author of two of the three papers describing the research.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, done.
Now what?
Re: (Score:1)
We'll end up waving to ourselves.
Re: (Score:3)
No, just the one. Swimming through space. With four elephants on its back. Carrying the world on their backs.
Re: (Score:3)
My first impression was "Fractals all the way down."
Re: (Score:3)
It's "Enhance and zoom in!"
By "their" clock there is a "before" (Score:3)
Re: By "their" clock there is a "before" (Score:1)
Re: By "their" clock there is a "before" (Score:5, Informative)
You are not wrong. But then have to deal with a mechanism for creating infinite universes. Which is not science. It can at best be called fan-fic.
Not science?
... One of the study’s authors, Professor Tom Shanks of Durham University, told the RAS, “We can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard [theory of the Big Bang]. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.”
"It sounds bonkers but the latest piece of evidence that could favour a multiverse comes from the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. They recently published a study on the so-called ‘cold spot’. This is a particularly cool patch of space seen in the radiation produced by the formation of the Universe more than 13 billion years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/sc... [theguardian.com]
Re: By "their" clock there is a "before" (Score:2, Insightful)
If the universe is defined as the entirety of what exists that is causally connected go us, even theoretically, then these other universes in a greater multimeter is just a renaming of the universe.
By definition we can never see or detect or be affected by anything outside of our universe. If another "universe" "made" ours, then that's just renaming an older part of our universe.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, there could be very weak interactions that are not readily observable at a small scale but are via gravitational distortions by dark matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Generally ordinary people use "universe" to refer to the place that contains everything that can be reached by travelling normally around (e.g. in a spaceship). If there is a similar but separate place that cannot be reached from the other place via ordinary means, ordinary people would most likely call that another universe. That is how it works in fiction, too.
This is a bit like steam being defined as the gas form of water, which is invisible. What people mean when they say "steam" is typically the visibl
Re: (Score:2)
Ordinary people don't understand how a kitchen refrigerator work, and will try to change the subject if you try to explain it to them. If science is to go forward, you need not to concern yourself with 'ordinary people'. History has shown that they are too busy mocking and laughing at higher intellects and their ideas, bringing t
Re: (Score:2)
If the universe is defined as the entirety of what exists that is causally connected go us, even theoretically, then these other universes in a greater multimeter is just a renaming of the universe. By definition we can never see or detect or be affected by anything outside of our universe. If another "universe" "made" ours, then that's just renaming an older part of our universe.
Even if so, the point remains that our space/time, our "clock", is not the only "clock" and that our "big bang" can have a well defined moment in time using an alternative "clock"
Re: (Score:1)
I prefer to think that it was after *a* big bang, not necessarily "our" big bang.
If you accept the fact that the universe is infinite, then it's quite possible that there have been
a series of "big bangs" throughout the course of existence. So, the one that's being discussed
here is a big bang that occurred relatively locally, about 13 billion years ago, but that doesn't
mean that there hasn't been another/others further away that we haven't seen (yet). In other
words, referring to "The Big Bang" is somewhat pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not wrong. But then have to deal with a mechanism for creating infinite universes. Which is not science. It can at best be called fan-fic.
Not science?
Do you have a null hypothesis? Is it testable? Do you have data from your tests? Can others repeat your tests?
If you answered "no" to any of the above, it's not science.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a null hypothesis? Is it testable? Do you have data from your tests? Can others repeat your tests? If you answered "no" to any of the above, it's not science.
Consult the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. As I am not a member I'll have to defer questions on their work to them.
"exotic" as ordering function (Score:2)
Physicists use "exotic" as an ordering function, with the overly explained on one side and the underly plausible on the other side. Welcome to the great watershed of fundability.
I use the word "exotic" to mean "outside the observable light cone". This also translates to "amazingly cool" and "so glad you're funding this out of your own pocket".
If there's one place public money does NOT belong, it's outside the observable light cone.
Re: (Score:3)
Meaningless. Spacetime expanded from it. Time is from it. The only source or cause of the big bang is that which is beyond space and time.
By definition.
Nope. There are plenty of models that take us from a low entropy to high entropy universe and back again within the same set of rules.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. The universe is cooling down, hence the entropy of the universe is going down, not up. The moment just after the Big Bang had the highest entropy, and it has been decreasing since
Nope. Entropy in physics is the number of microstates the universe can be in. With all the energy concentrated in one place, there are fewer possible states. With the energy spread around, there are many more possible states.
Re: (Score:2)
Entropy only applies to closed systems, correct?
I sometimes wonder if our "universe" is actually a closed system.
Re: (Score:2)
Entropy only applies to closed systems, correct?
I sometimes wonder if our "universe" is actually a closed system.
No. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. If the system isn't closed, the entropy could go up or down. I don't know how you could consider the entire universe to not be closed. If it was open to more state, then that state by definition is part of the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you, you insensitive clod?!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Meaningless. Spacetime expanded from it. Time is from it. The only source or cause of the big bang is that which is beyond space and time.
By definition.
That's absolutely retarded. If you want to throw out time entirely you're throwing out causality. At that point, you're just saying "fuck it" and allowing anything to happen up until the big bang, then you have a specific set of weird rules for the first moments of the big bang, then you have the actual rules that we know and can test.
The big bang theory is pretty much baseless conjecture derived from winding back the clock and masturbating over a lot of made up math that can't be tested in the actual uni
Re: "only 2.7 billion years after the big bang" (Score:2)
No, it is a philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you are getting at as far as public perception fo science goes. If my chemist friend tells me something about chemistry, then I will believe him so long as I have no glaring evidence against his statements. However, two points:
1. The process of science is not a religion. It is the opposite of religion because the actual beliefs one holds in pure science are not important, only the method by which one reinforces or discards them. In practice humans are flawed and this doesn't always work out, but
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to theoretical cosmology.
Re: (Score:1)
The Big Bang made testable predictions that no other theory made and has been shown to be consistent with the data we have gathered using newer and newer generations of data collection devices. Scientists predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, a uniform (to 1 part in 100,000) source of microwaves in every direction. There was no other reason to think there would be such a thing, but it turned out to exist.
Religions don't make testable predictions. The Big Bang Theory made testable predictio
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, we observed the CMBR. We haven't observed any of the fuckery required to support the big bang theory such as time not existing or time looping, causality not existing, everything not existing, everything suddenly existing from nothing, singularities, etc. All the math falls apart when you wind back to T 0. Winding the clock back very close to T 0 and thinking how shit would look like is valid theory, but it's not testable and is not scientific.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not by definition.
Re: (Score:1)
Post-Big Bang Theory spin-off (Score:2)
Re: Jesus Christ (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And takes half damage from the fireball.
Re: (Score:1)
Jesus saves
But Buddha makes incremental backups.
I must not be smart enough. (Score:2)
Each "star-forming region" makes multiple stars (Score:4, Informative)
Within a galaxy, things were not more compact then. On the largest (between galaxy clusters) scale, things were more compact, but within a galaxy orbital dynamics are more important than the primordial distribution. There is some difference expected in the appearance of individual galaxies, but the galaxies themselves weren't much smaller.
The other thing you're confused about is the concept of "star-forming region". These are clouds of gas and dust (such as the "Pillars of creation [wikipedia.org]") dense enough to allow stars to form relatively rapidly. Within such clouds, dozens or hundreds of stars form. It's not one star per region.
Because fewer stars had formed 10 billion years ago, it was expected that more gas and dust was available, leading to larger clouds.
Re:Each "star-forming region" makes multiple stars (Score:4, Informative)
The other thing you're confused about is the concept of "star-forming region". These are clouds of gas and dust (such as the "Pillars of creation [wikipedia.org]") dense enough to allow stars to form relatively rapidly. Within such clouds, dozens or hundreds of stars form. It's not one star per region.
Alas, we must speak of the Pillars of creation in the past tense. A super nova blew em away.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There was no "Big Bang"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Magnetism increased in gauss
What does "increased in gauss" mean?
until poles began to form
Are there no poles when only so little magnetism is present?
; with north and south pokes come lines of force, and from these, eddy currents form.
Eddy currents in what? Doesn't a current require some sort of conductor?
These eddy currents are energy.
Ok
This caused the poles to begin to rotate.
The poles create the currents and then those currents cause the poles to rotate? How/why?
Since a stationary magnetic field is not moving (by definition) there was no mass or energy, ergo no universe yet.
Hm
But a rotating magnetic field is moving, so it can create a universe.
Why?
a tangent curve is simply a sine wave as viewed from outside the system.
Could you explain this?
The asymptote(s) appear to be a Big Bang because of this.
We (humans) are simply viewing the universe as a virtual system from outside it.
Can you elaborate on this?
This does away with not only pi
Why?
but also "dark matter/energy".
Why?
I ask you to think about it
Did that, raised the above questions.
Re:There was no "Big Bang"... (Score:5, Informative)
Pardon my awkward syntax; Gauss is the measurement of magnetic strength. Once the Gaussian field reaches a certain level, poles are formed. I don't know what the level required is, but it is true nonetheless. This is basic physics.
Yes. Below a certain level there, apparently, are no poles.
Eddy currents do not need a conductor nor medium, any more than magnetism itself does. They exist where (and because) the lines of force intersect with the poles -- or more nearly correctly, with an imaginary line drawn between the poles.
See above. Eddy currents are coincidental with the erection of poles; they are not exactly caused by the poles. See any basic physics text which covers magnetism. Since they are energetic in a state in which there is no matter (yet) the energy created (released?) must act on something; the magnetic field is the only thing which exists, so this energy must either cause it to rotate or to expand (since there are no molecules to vibrate yet, there cannot be heat). I choose rotate because the math of the speed of expansion of the universe requires rotation rather than linearity. In either case, rotation or expansion make a magnetic field move, which field started as a stationary one.
Both matter and energy, according to the Standard Model, are moving electromagnetic fields. This is basic quantum theory stuff. A stationary magnetic filed is not moving, so it causes no matter nor energy. Matter-and energy are moving magnetic fields. In a nutshell, increasing magnetism could have resulted in the creation of magnetic poles in nothingness (a stationary magnetic field), and coincident eddy currents, which caused the system to begin rotation.
This comes from basic trigonometry. A sine curve is side a of a triangle over side b as the angle between them changes. A tangent curve is side c divided by side a. In searching to understand this, I discovered an article describing the tangent as being "outside" of the system of side a and side b, mathematically speaking. Since the effect of "dark matter-energy" is to increase the speed of expansion of the universe, which has been experimentally shown, graphing that increase would yield a curve that is not sinusoidal, but tangential. This would cause the universe to seem to have begun from a big bang, but only if it were observed from outside of the universe itself. That the universe is a virtual or apparent one is not an original thought of mine, but is fairly commonly-held by some physicists nowadays.
Because a rotating universe can best be described in radians rather than degrees. Since a radian is 360 degrees/2pi, any pi factors in measurements will cancel out.
What is called dark matter and dark energy is a construct to explain the increasing velocity of the expansion of the universe. If I am right, then the increasing velocity is an illusion caused by our being outside the actual universe and which makes simple rotation (sine curves) seem like tangent curves. See a book on trig or visit this site http://encyclopedia2.thefreedi... [thefreedictionary.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Did I answer them for you?
Can't say that I understand most of what you said, but yes, you did. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Gaussian is not a term. And poles form from electric currents running in circles, so you have to have an electric ring first. You do not have one, therefore there is no pole.
Your poles do not create energy. They cannot create universes either. Because to exist they need electric ring currents, requiring electrical charges from particles to be moving and constrained by matter in a dense state.
Without any constraining matter the poles neither form nor could they increase in strength, because to increase in st
Re: (Score:2)
Did I answer them for you?
So in summary, it's magnets all the way down?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be pedantic, but I don't think pedantic means what you think it means. Hint: I mostly asked questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point being?
Re: (Score:2)
since one of the "Four Forces" (magnetism) is self-organizing; Here what is more likely to my way of thinking:
Actually anything 300,000 years after the "big bang" is speculation. You as right as the rest.
To be fair... (Score:3)
the validity of images they are talking about should be questioned because to see that far the Hubble had to squint as hard as it could. ;)
Re:To be fair... (Score:4, Funny)
I often wonder how accurate the estimates of the gravitational lensing effect are... I mean, I'm sure there are dozens of PhDs based on methods "to be sure within +/- BS" of what they are seeing, but there are enough variables and unknowns in these methods to easily have a "whoops, missed this one" moment, several times.
Re: (Score:1)
Researchers do have practice with similar reconstruction techniques. [uchicago.edu] In the linked case there are multiple projections of the same target with varying degrees of distortion, which narrows the range of possible of mistakes. Any proposed lens model used on such has to account for multiple (distorted) copies of the same object.
Thus, they can re-use the model on single-copy distortions with some degree of confidence.
Re: To be fair... (Score:2)
Maybe 18 months ago, they were able to accurately predict the lensing, even accounting for dark matter, and position themselves exactly right to intercept photons that were billions of years old.
It's pretty good, actually.
I'm a little skeptical (Score:2)
The light spots look a little too clean and consistent to me. There's a lot of stretching of an already resolution-stretched area. To come out that clean is not realistic.
Data is data. (Score:2)
You could "upscale" plain old DVD to 4K. It is not 10 times sharper than DVD.
Re: Data is data. (Score:3)
You're right and that's exactly why this interesting. This is the equivalent of someone using a digital camera to record an image being enlarged by an external lens. The camera normally wouldn't have the resolution to resolve the image, but something else is enlarging the image for it.
Same thing is happening here. Without gravitational lensing the image would take up, say 10x10 pixels on the Hubble CCD (total guess) and not be well resolved. But with gravitational lensing that image is now taking up 20x200
Sample Size anyone? (Score:1)
A sample size of ONE doesn't mean squat.
Is Anyone Really Surprised? (Score:1)