Cosmic inflation: 'Spectacular' discovery hailed

Yes and no. He was a "proper scientist" so to speak but he worked on the Voyager mission's care package which explained humanity to anybody who potentially picked it up in the future. If humanity ever dies out, Voyager will still travel alone for billions of years. The images left here are the only things that will remain of who we were. A message to other species that they are not alone.

<a class="postlink" href="http://imgur.com/a/CvEvO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://imgur.com/a/CvEvO</a>

One of the reasons that I love science and in particularly physics is that the laws of the Universe are the same no matter where you are. Using this, we can communicate to others who may never speak our language or speak at all.

There's not many people that I will say that I look up to in every single way but Carl Sagan might have done more to shape my worldview when I was a child than anybody else. I watched Cosmos every single night going to bed and knew his books cover to cover before I knew how to tie my shoes.
 
Damocles said:
Yes and no. He was a "proper scientist" so to speak but he worked on the Voyager mission's care package which explained humanity to anybody who potentially picked it up in the future. If humanity ever dies out, Voyager will still travel alone for billions of years. The images left here are the only things that will remain of who we were. A message to other species that they are not alone.

<a class="postlink" href="http://imgur.com/a/CvEvO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://imgur.com/a/CvEvO</a>

One of the reasons that I love science and in particularly physics is that the laws of the Universe are the same no matter where you are. Using this, we can communicate to others who may never speak our language or speak at all.

There's not many people that I will say that I look up to in every single way but Carl Sagan might have done more to shape my worldview when I was a child than anybody else. I watched Cosmos every single night going to bed and knew his books cover to cover before I knew how to tie my shoes.

Amazing that you have had that interest from so young an age and pursued it into adulthood, you are obviously very knowledgable in your field and can explain it very well to us that have not a clue. Whoever knew such people lurked on football forums. But I'm glad you do :)
 
I am. I watched the first episode and found it a bit bombastic for my tastes.

You have to remember that the beauty of the original Cosmos was that it explained the connections between science and humanity on a small and intricate level which enabled you to realise the vast majesty of it all. The new series seems to try and show you the vast majesty directly which isn't the same. Cosmos the original made you feel like you were peeking behind the curtain of life, the new one is like throwing back the curtain and having it perform a vaudeville show.

I'll watch the next two episodes and hope that it gets better.
 
Came across an article in National Geographic which might be interesting to some people, certainly is to me as it covers two things we discussed on this thread earlier a) importance of the unexpectedly strong "crowbar" strength of the gravitational waves and the implications of that b) the confusing world of spacetime geometry (to me at least - maybe not Damocles).

Big Bang Discovery Opens Doors to the "Multiverse"

Gravitational waves detected in the aftermath of the Big Bang suggest one universe just might not be enough

multiverse-magazine-illustration-01_77755_990x742.jpg


Bored with your old dimensions—up and down, right and left, and back and forth? So tiresome. Take heart, folks. The latest news from Big Bang cosmologists offers us some relief from our humdrum four-dimensional universe.

Gravitational waves rippling through the aftermath of the cosmic fireball, physicists suggest, point to us inhabiting a multiverse, a universe filled with many universes. (See: "Big Bang's 'Smoking Gun' Confirms Early Universe's Exponential Growth.")

That's because those gravitational wave results point to a particularly prolific and potent kind of "inflation" of the early universe, an exponential expansion of the dimensions of space to many times the size of our own cosmos in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, some 13.82 billion years ago.

"In most models, if you have inflation, then you have a multiverse," said Stanford physicist Andrei Linde. Linde, one of cosmological inflation's inventors, spoke on Monday at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics event where the BICEP2 astrophysics team unveiled the gravitational wave results.

Essentially, in the models favored by the BICEP2 team's observations, the process that inflates a universe looks just too potent to happen only once; rather, once a Big Bang starts, the process would happen repeatedly and in multiple ways. (Learn more about how universes form in "Cosmic Dawn" on the National Geographic website.)

"A multiverse offers one good possible explanation for a lot of the unique observations we have made about our universe," says MIT physicist Alan Guth, who first wrote about inflation theory in 1980. "Life being here, for example."

Lunchtime

The Big Bang and inflation make the universe look like the ultimate free lunch, Guth has suggested, where we have received something for nothing.

But Linde takes this even further, suggesting the universe is a smorgasbord stuffed with every possible free lunch imaginable.

That means every kind of cosmos is out there in the aftermath of the Big Bang, from our familiar universe chock full of stars and planets to extravaganzas that encompass many more dimensions, but are devoid of such mundane things as atoms or photons of light.

In this multiverse spawned by "chaotic" inflation, the Big Bang is just a starting point, giving rise to multiple universes (including ours) separated by unimaginable gulfs of distance. How far does the multiverse stretch? Perhaps to infinity, suggests MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing for Scientific American.

That means that spread across space at distances far larger than the roughly 92 billion light-year width of the universe that we can observe, other universes reside, some with many more dimensions and different physical properties and trajectories. (While the light from the most distant stuff we can see started out around 14 billion light-years away, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, stretching the boundaries of the observable universe since then.)

Comic Mismatches

"I'm a fan of the multiverse, but I wouldn't claim it is true," says Guth. Nevertheless, he adds, a multiverse explains a lot of things that now confuse cosmologists about our universe.

For example, there is the 1998 discovery that galaxies in our universe seem to be spreading apart at an accelerating rate, when their mutual gravitational attraction should be slowing them down. This discovery, which garnered the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, is generally thought to imply the existence of a "dark energy" that counteracts gravity on cosmic scales. Its nature is a profound mystery. About the only thing we understand about dark energy, physicists such as Michael Turner of the University of Chicago have long said, is its name.

"There is a tremendous mismatch between what we calculate [dark energy] ought to be and what we observe," Guth says. According to quantum theory, subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence and vanishing again in the vacuum of space, which should endow it with energy—but that vacuum energy, according to theoretical calculations, would be 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeroes) too large to explain the galaxy observations. The discrepancy has been a great source of embarrassment to physicists.

A multiverse could wipe the cosmic egg off their faces. On the bell curve of all possible universes spawned by inflation, our universe might just happen to be one of the few universes in which the dark energy is relatively lame. In others, the antigravity force might conform to physicists' expectations and be strong enough to rip all matter apart.

A multiverse might also explain away another embarrassment: the number of dimensions predicted by modern "superstring" theory. String theory describes subatomic particles as being composed of tiny strings of energy, but it requires there to be 11 dimensions instead of the four we actually observe. Maybe it's just describing all possible universes instead of our own. (It suggests there could be a staggeringly large number of possibilities—a 1 with 500 zeroes after it.)

Join the "multiverse club," Linde wrote in a March 9 review of inflationary cosmology, and what looks like a series of mathematical embarrassments disappears in a cloud of explanation. In a multiverse, there can be more things dreamt of in physicists' philosophy than happen to be found in our sad little heaven and earth.

Life, the Universe, and Everything

The multiverse may even help explain one of the more vexing paradoxes about our world, sometimes called the "anthropic" principle: the fact that we are here to observe it.

To cosmologists, our universe looks disturbingly fine-tuned for life. Without its Goldilocks-perfect alignment of the physical constants—everything from the strength of the force attaching electrons to atoms to the relative weakness of gravity—planets and suns, biochemistry, and life itself would be impossible. Atoms wouldn't stick together in a universe with more than four dimensions, Guth notes.

If ours was the only cosmos spawned by a Big Bang, these life-friendly properties would seem impossibly unlikely. But in a multiverse containing zillions of universes, a small number of life-friendly ones would arise by chance—and we could just happen to reside in one of them.

"Life may have formed in the small number of vacua where it was possible, in a multiverse," says Guth. "That's why we are seeing what we are seeing. Not because we are special, but because we can."

There's also a short video at the bottom of the original article: <a class="postlink" href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140318-multiverse-inflation-big-bang-science-space/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/</a>
 
These threads are always the best on this site, I don't understand most of it but it's fascinating stuff. Keep it going Skashion and Dams, top posting.
 
multiverse-magazine-illustration-01_77755_990x742.jpg


This image explains Dr. Linde's point (though isn't scientifically accurate) but he uses a strange definition of the world "multiverse". He doesn't mean "lots of Universes", he means "lots of separate Big Bangs in our Universe".
As ever, physics is defeated by the English language in how to explain things

Essentially he is saying that because our observable Universe isn't a special place and if it had a period of inflation then there's no reason why other observable Universes can't have their own inflation period and become homogenous due to scale.

This is a tough one to explain but I'll have a go.

Let's say that you are stood in the middle of a huge field. Over to your left, miles away, a guy is painting every blade of grass red. Over to your right, miles away, a guy is painting every blade of grass blue.

What happens to the blades of grass that you are stood on when the painters get to you? You would think that they become purple. Each painter then continues on their journey in the same direction with the guy painting red continuing to paint the blue blades of grass and the guy painting blue overwriting the red blades of grass to make them purple.

Eventually modern science comes along and realises that the Universe is purple and all the blades of grass were painted by one guy. But then when we make a calculation of how many blades of grass there are and how long it would take, we think that that painter had to be working at an impossible energy rate. Off by several hundred trillion times. It's obvious that we're missing something as nobody can paint that fast. We call this missing energy "Dark Energy" and nobody has even the slightest idea what it is or where it comes from.

Dr Linde is suggesting that maybe there were many different painters on our field and they all did a bit but it merged together to fool us which means that our Dark Energy could just be a miscalculation.

Obviously he's just verbalising a possible idea and doesn't have any evidence to support it, it's just a thought.
 
Damocles said:
Leave it to the BBC to say:

"New science discovery: Here's no real information about it"

This is actually quite a large deal. One physicist wrote that outside of finding life on another planet or directly detecting dark matter this is the biggest near-present discovery we could have made.

To simplify it grossly, this is pretty much the first observable evidence for inflation in the early observable Universe. Indirect evidence, but it meets enough predictions that we can start focusing on exactly which model of inflationary theory is the correct one.


You know your onions Damocles so can you simply things a little more for me ?

How did the space get there before the "super rapid expansion" took place ? Who put it there and what purpose was it serving ?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.