E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
ESA
The Planck mission has produced the most detailed all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The European-led team behind the Planck cosmology probe on Thursday released the mission's first all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background — a post-big-bang "baby picture" that suggests our universe is about 100 million years older than scientists thought.
The map traces subtle fluctuations in temperature that were imprinted on the deep sky when the cosmos was just 370,000 years old. Scientists say the imprint reflects ripples that arose as early as the first nonillionth of a second of the universe's existence. These ripples are thought to have given rise to today's vast cosmic web of galaxy clusters and dark matter.
"To a cosmologist, this map is a gold mine of information," University of Cambridge astrophysicist George Efstathiou, a member of the Planck science team, said during a European Space Agency news conference in Paris. He joked that not long ago, cosmologists might have "given up their children" to have such a map in their hands.
The $900 million (€700 million) Planck probe was launched on a European Ariane 5 rocket in 2009, along with the infrared-sensitive Herschel space telescope. Planck produced its first all-sky radiation map in 2010. Since then, scientists have fine-tuned the image to remove the bright emissions from the Milky Way and other foreground sources, leaving only the background radiation.
Two NASA satellites — the Cosmic Background Explorer and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, also known as COBE and WMAP — produced earlier versions of the baby picture. Those findings determined that the universe is made up of 4.5 percent ordinary matter, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 72.8 percent dark energy. The results also showed that the universe is geometrically "flat" to a margin of error of 0.4 percent, and helped scientists estimate the universe's age at 13.7 billion years.
Scientists who are investigating radiation from the Big Bang made the finding that our universe is about 100 million years older than we had thought.
NASA
Planck's map of the cosmic microwave background has significantly higher resolution than the readings that were made during previous missions such as COBE and WMAP, as shown in this graphic.
Planck can produce cosmological maps with three times the resolution of WMAP, and at least 10 times the temperature sensitivity. As a result, the estimates of the universe's age and composition have undergone some additional fine tuning. Planck's readings indicate that the universe's expansion rate is slower than previously thought — which means the universe is older.
Planck's estimate for the age of the universe is 13.82 billion years.
Martin White, a member of the Planck team from the University of California at Berkeley, told NBC News that Planck's estimate narrowed down the error bars on previous estimates. "In that sense, it's very consistent, but much more precise," he said.
The Planck team's breakdown of the universe's constituents is 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter and 68.3 percent dark energy, he said. "There's less stuff that we don't understand, by a tiny amount," Efstathiou said. As a result of the shift toward more matter and less dark energy, "an awful lot of people are going to be revising their calculations," White said.
Efstathiou said the Planck data also pointed to some "strange features" in the cosmic microwave background that may point to new frontiers in physics, including an unexplained dip at one point of the power spectrum, and an unusual distribution of large-scale fluctuations that roughly followed the plane of the solar system.
"Why characteristics of the CMB should relate to our solar system is not understood. ... I was explicitly told not to say anything about God in this talk — which I've just violated," Efstathiou said half-jokingly.
ESA
This graphic highlights anomalies seen in the Planck data. One anomaly is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky (indicated by the curved line), with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the mainstream view that the universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected (circled). The anomalous regions have been enhanced here to make them more clearly visible.
Planck's data set should help scientists do a reality check on many of the hypotheses proposed by cosmologists, including the view that the universe underwent rapid and far-reaching inflation in the first moments of its existence, as well as the claim that there are six or seven spatial dimensions in addition to the three we perceive.
An initial reading of the data appears to favor the simple models for the inflationary big bang, and rule out a lot of the complex models. "We think that they will be facing a dead end," said Krzysztof Gorski, a member of the Planck team from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain noted that so far, the mission has delivered just half of the data it's expected to produce. The rest of the data is scheduled to come out in 2014 and 2015. "Today is not the end of the story," he told reporters. Efstathiou put it another way, paraphrasing one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best-known catchphrases: "We'll be back."
More about cosmology:
- WMAP scientists unveil their best 'baby picture'
- Japanese string theorists simulate big bang
- Scrunched-up dimensions untangled
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
This story was originally published on Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:49 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
What a cute baby. She's adorable?
Yeah, but changing its diaper is an astronomical problem.
I'll have to admit that this is just a little bit "over my head" ;-)
@JK -- mine too! Fascinating nonetheless! Thank you Alan - as always.
Is it my imagination or does the picture bear a vague resemblance to earth? What appears to be North & South America, Africa and Asia and a few other earth features.
Blackbird, yes, I noticed the same thing. Eerie.
I thought the same thing at first, Blackbird, but on closer inspection I think we are just conditioned to see that whenever we look at a picture that shape with brown and blue blotches.
Strangely, she has her father's eyes!
looks like one of those Rorshach inkblots- what do you see?
Not surprising. The shape of the map already implanted in your brain suggested a map of the earth, so it's not much of a stretch to "see" shapes of continents within. This is not unlike the cloud "angel" image that got so much attention on the day the Pope was chosen....
You may be right about preconceived images but please do not associate what we see in the map with the "cloud angel". I am secular and not predisposed to seeing images in toast, sidewalks are clouds but that "cloud angel" did indeed look to have human features and IMO might have even been "altered" to look moreso as little seen on the internet can be taken for face value. Also I did use the term "vague resemblance". If one looks quite closely its diffuse. Just mentioned as a novelty with no connatations.
To me it looks like those Pac-Man dots in 3 dimensions.........
"I was explicitly told not to say anything about God in this talk — which I've just violated," Efstathiou said. Was this a question presented by Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News If so he should be removed from his job as science editor for introducing his dillusions.
Why is it that people can not leave out their dillusions ( god ) when discussing science? Scientist don't go 4+4=8 & there is no god.
Nope, I didn't have any opportunity to ask any questions. He just blurted that out, and I thought it was notable enough to pass along. Kind of brings the point home that the results do raise some deep mysteries, although I'm sure Efstathiou didn't mean to attribute the anomaly to the Almighty. He said it half-jokingly, for what it's worth. I like that word "dillusions" ... half delusion, half illusion.
I think you're a helluva guy for assuming the new word was intentional.
The concept of a supreme being has long been a factor in scientific discoveries, as people struggle with anything that could undermine their strong but unfounded beliefs on many topics. Even Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice" in response to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
It is indeed notable, if not critical, in reporting on progress in science to pass along words of a scientist that they feel are appropriate when talking about their work.
Gee, I really really hope you don't get fired over this. Really.
C'mon folks. I'm pretty sure Dr. Efstathiou was referring to the hoopla and distraction surrounding an unfortunate comment concerning the Higgs Boson. I'm all for anthropomorphism to help explain complex ideas in lay terms, but even calling this a 'baby picture' is a bit risky. Think of the possible ways this too, could be distorted.
Scientist are in people making a living and they make discoveries but that doesn't mean that they don't believe in God as many of them go to Church on Sundays. It is written that God made the world in seven days. Anything other than this Planet is not written.
Everything is just hypothesis, but they never will find out who, and how was the universe created, not just a solar system or the the more distant star constellation, I'm talking about the whole universe that goes to the darkness of infinite,everything is just speculations, nobody know the size or the origin of of the Universe and nobody will know.
Hummmmmm ... It's always interesting that some will preclude a possibility in a hypothesis ... is it possible that this is beyond the potential of understanding of man?
Why is that some people get so worked up when they hear "God"? Even "thanks God" sets some of them off. It's no better than those people who cry "heathens" when they hear E-word (evolution).
Infinity is just a word we use when talking or thinking about things we can't yet comprehend. Of course absolutes are just as impossible as infinity, the debate goes on in perpetuity, smoke coming out my ears, yeah, I live in Washington State, but the smoke isn't that kind of smoke!
ah well man, it's like; man...just your opinion man.....ok....
Well .. people can say whatever they want to say. The way to tackle any encroachment of religion into science can and should be dealt with improvement in science education and science education alone rather than political discussions. And I must say this particular column does that very well.
A veritable "Baby Picture" viewed by none other than technological 'infants'. We have so far to go ourselves,but the journey, as with any infant, will certainly be interesting and exciting as time goes on. Our need to search out the heavens and to discover "why" will always prod us to push ourselves ahead. We've only begun to scratch the surface of unraveling our existence. I, for one, am totally excited about the discoveries to come. I feel a connection to these discoveries and I wish I had the knowledge to help in some way. That is how excited I am about hearing of these new findings.
Love your articles Allen. Keep 'em coming.......
The issue not being discussed is (although it is irrelevant to the article at hand): is it more reasonable to posit that the universe as we know it as self-existing (which raises the question, among others, as to why entropy is so low - that is - there is a high level of order) or that there is some higher orderer or cause of existence. This is not a scientific question strictly, but it is a valid question.
After 13.82 Billion Years of progress, this is the best we get? We only have this planet for a few billion years more at best. I sure hope we get better at this.
IF you people beLIEve that "god" created all this, that and the other, my question to you is this: WHO made YOUR god who made this? Furthermore, why did YOUR "god" need a host for "jesus," yet was allegedly able to create everything including Adam from thin air.. Chew on that you religious nuts.
FYI there is NO god. It was a man made idea, created to control the masses. If the "big bang" happened all at once and the universe is expanding in all directions at the same rate, we will never be able to find the true "center" or origins of the "big bang". But claiming "god" did all this is 100% bs.
Makes me rather worry that there's a flaw in the system somewhere. Having it be exactly in the plane of the solar system seems to indicate some sort of serious system error.
Absent that, the solar system is in the plane of the galaxy and somehow there might be weird galactic filters...which would be a very exciting possibility; it will teach us something about our immediate neighborhood. Which wasn't the plan, but hey, I'll take knowledge wherever we can get it.
The universe is part of a living entity, one cell or one part of a cell that comprises an entity so huge we are just beginning to be able to comprehend it. The entity has a lifespan that cannot be compared to the fleeting time we exist. The entity is continuing to grow and it lives on a world with billions of other entities in a another universe that is another cell or part of a cell that comprises an entity so huge the beings that exist in it are only just beginning to be able to comprehend it...repeat ad infinitum! I feel SMALL, like a tiny bit of irrelevant tissue!
Humans knowledge of B.S. is endless.
I can only assume that if one can "picture" the expansion from such an early period one must surely be able to collapse the "picture" into that of say one big black hole with a lot of nothing and go forward from there to where we are today and conversly return to from whence we came. That's not God, that's science and history. Now, just where the hell did the "big black hole" come from? That's where "God" can enter the picture.
I adhere to no religious mythology at all, but the more we learn, the more convinced I am we are witnessing the work of Divine science, a constant building and reshaping upon the known.
My belief is further enhanced by the references to ripples and fluctuations which are indication of periodic pauses in the evolutionary process unwinding. This may also indicate there were not just one Big Bang, but several.
Alan Boyle, I am pleased to see you have an open mind, only through open minds can truth and knowledge flow.
this sounds like; a bragger of being greater than GOD thang. the serpent does not have a dark corner,and eating from the tree of Knowledge does not compare to the enormity of the heavens.which MAN can NEVER Explore within his Lifetime........
420 -
Adam wasn't created out of thin air, it was the dust of the ground. Host for Jesus? Jesus is God, in the flesh. He sent Jesus because man could not live up to Gods rules, so he had to send himself, to be tempted in every way that we, as man, are tempted.
You say God is bs but you DO NOT KNOW THAT, YOU ONLY THINK YOU DO, because you can't fathom faith or anything you can't see.
Evoulution is a theory and is NOT fact. Science cannot say 100% where man came from. Evoulution by definition is the evolving of a species because of need to adapt to surroundings (paraphrase). Man would have to be created by the universe just as they are. If we came from some amoeba and eventually humans came about then what parts of humans were initially created? The Heart? Lungs? Arms? Legs? etc., and if each of our organs "evolved" then why the need for them? If the species was thriving then why did it need to develop these "other" organs? And if the species couldn't survive without the lungs, for example, when it died off it would have been gone forever.
I have read quotes from many prestigious evolutionists and they all have agreed on one thing - the evidence isn't there to say that evolution is fact, and some have even said they realize they have wasted their lives chasing a false claim. Many also think that our schools shouldn't teach it either. Darwin himself stated that believing in anything but creation from God would be completely false.
Evolution
Nothing x No One = Everything, sure, why not.
I promise if you really gave God a chance you would see a dramatic change in your life.
Look, I am not a lifelong Christian, in fact, I dedicated my life to God about 2 years ago, I mean really dedicated. I still make mistakes, we all do, and we all will make them time and time again. Being a Christian is not about being perfect, that is impossible for man to be. Being a Christian is about love for your fellow man, taking care for those who can't care for themselves, working hard to EARN Gods favors, and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the word of God for the benefit of those who have no hope.
I for one do not see where being a Christian is so bad, as the world would mislead you to believe. You treat people nice, show love and tolerance all the while teaching what is right and wrong in Gods eyes, and working hard to provide for your family and giving God the glory for it.
The world proports devision among color, ethnicity, opion on trivial matters and hate amongst those who disagree with you. Just look at our country and how it has become so divided by these issues. The bottom line is we are all one race, the human race. While we may have a different opinion on how to live our lives it should mean that we need to hate those we disgree with.
While you may not believe in God right now, there will come a time when you call out to him for help, trust me. Even the people who want nothing at all to do with him will have something in their lives they can't do by themselves and will cry out to him. If you ever get in a serious car accident, which I hope you don't, I promise if you think you are about to die you will utter the words "Lord help me."
I pray for us all, that we may see what God has to offer, and the truth in what life really is and can be.
Sorry, I meant to say shouldn't hate those we disagree with.
What I find "strange" is to view say Andromeda which is not unlike our galaxy and see how "dense" stars appear to be. Then use the Voyageur satellites as an example. Both are at the outer limit of our solar system and if they looked back at the sun it would just be another star in the sky albeit first magnitude. Travelling at something around 38,000 mph it will take roughly 40,000 years to get close to our nearest star. With that in mind look at our own galaxy and the spiral arm in which we reside. In a glance we can see millions of stars which appear closely compacted and then we hear these Voyageur details. It similar to looking down on the earth from space or high altitudes and in a glance see across thousand and thousands of miles which would take days to travel across. There is something profound about this that cannot be grasped nor dare I say accepted as we expect instantaneous transposition.
Looks like an egg. Hmmm, I wonder......................?
Stephen Hawking made an hour long case (in his "Universe" series) that a "creator" was not necessary since "everything" can be explained by science.
He summed his argument by saying that since the "big bang" emanated from a primordial singularity (aka super-super-massive black hole) and that, as general relativity reveals, time does not exist inside a BH event horizon, therefore all that is (including time) simply "popped" into existence without the need for a "creator".
It seems Mr. Hawking is not able to conceptualize the profound "nothingness" necessary to understand that such a "creator" would not be dependent upon time (or any thing). Further, that a "creator" could exist -outside- of spacetime such that mere mortals cannot conceive.
Science has, by no means, proved the existence or the non-existence of a "super-natural creator". We, humans, remain mostly ignorant of all that was, all that is, and all that can be (even within spacetime and surely so outside it). It is this ignorance that some of us explain by way of a "creator".
In that the Higg's Bosun now appears certain, it posits that the universe is inherently unstable and that one day it will be destroyed probably by an encroaching universe (vacuum bubble). Does this run contrary to Dr Hawking's primordial singularity or is it simply another way to describe it. The Higg's therefore eliminates the "big crunch" theory of an expanding and contracting universe. Is it also correct to assume that the "Big Bang" occurred everywhere at once rather than from a single point (singularity).
Well, many other people believe that the ripples and fluctuations are due to magnified quantum uncertainty and do not need a Divine anything to explain it.
Ian,
If a creator was not necessary or involved, how can science alone explain consciousness, conflicting feelings and emotions ? While it is possible and rational to believe all things of a physical nature were derived from the building blocks provided throughout the universe, it is irrational to believe consciousness, feelings and emotions evolved from such building blocks.
The problem may be that scientist, as well as creationist confuse the definitions of life and alive as one in the same, where nothing could be further from the truth. Alive is a state of temporary existence, whereas life is spiritual in nature, the energy of your being, your soul, you your person, unique unto yourself, the captain of the ship who energizes the system, issues the commands, pushes the buttons, pulls the levers and steps on the pedals......Life is also an appropriate word in reference to the creator, the energy which is everywhere and is responsible for the creation and management of all else... A very deep subject.
Byron, said it yourself, UNCERTAIN
Blackbird,
That is a real problem for both scientist and creationist, explaining the before or beyond what we are certain of. Hawking is a very intelligent person who's opinion is widely respected, but his vision too is limited by his imagination, like all of us.
Ellis, our imagination can come up with lots of ideas; but without scientific evidence, it remains ... imagination. What Hawking said is that a personal God is extremely unlikely. In other words, if we have no evidence for the nature of God or even its existence, then any particular imagining of such an entity is almost certainly wrong.
JT,
Evolution is fact, and you, your body are proof of it. Like a tree, bird or insect, you evolved from a seed (egg) and continued to evolve to what you are now, and will continue to evolve until your body becomes dysfunctional. And no matter how many off-spring the tree or you produce, no two will ever be exactly the same. And that applies to everything
jock,
I do not believe in personal Gods. But you put too much stock in what Hawking said about there not being any evidence of a creator (God). The evidence is everywhere, in your being, the ground you walk upon. the air you breath, water you drink and universe far beyond, everything you could ever need to sustain you or provide you comfort was supplied in abundance. The evidence is that everything is interconnected, interactive, interdependent and relative to the well-being of the whole.
What Hawking and most other scientist fail to realize is what they rely most upon, the interaction, relevancy and interdependency of things to one another, the links which connect the dots of the grand puzzle.
If scientist were to take the time to connect the dots of Evolution, Relativity, BALANCE, and a Creator, the picture of how the creator preforms the magic would be clear. Balance is a primary factor most scientist overlook, but it is the factor which lends sense to the other three factors.
Ellis Baumgarner........
Agreed.
jock59801.......you said:
Creation or, if you prefer, spacetime is self-evident. What is not self-evident is how all that is came to be.
Despite the concerted and combined efforts of philosophers, religious authorities, astrologers, scientists and all others who have attempted to unravel that riddle, we remain ignorant of this staggeringly essential causation. We are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future and perhaps for so long as humans and our descendants exist.
Until then, some of us refer to the "answer" as God. Others, refer to it as the creator. Others still, point to random chance. But, those latter ones have yet to explain wherefrom sprang "random chance".
Of one thing we can be certain: there IS an answer. Call it what you will.
Would it shake your faith to know that you have within your body, genetic markers that trace your ancestry to a single tribe in Africa? Yes indeedy, Adam was - black!
Right. God endowed man with a natural curiosity, and then created a scenario whereby man would naturally exercise that curiosity and man gets punished. And this is the God that created the universe?
Evoulution (sic) is a theory and is NOT fact.
Well, ignoring the poor spelling, at least you got that right.... Science is all about theories, not "fact" - obviously you know nothing about the scientific method.
Uh, no thanks. People like you who claim to have knowledge of how things work outside of empirical methods, by using the Bible etc. have a terrible record as far as getting it straight. No, the universe is not 6,000 years old. No, the earth is not the center of the universe. No, woman was not created from Adam's rib. No, there was no "Great Flood" that covered the Earth....
Not true science can explain how your surroundings came to be. It's the point before that is unknown, but it doesn't take a magical sky fairy to explain you and the world around you.
And it doesn't require the supernatural.
Ian:
I find it odd that you require the latter to explain "random chance," yet have no such requirement for those who call it god or creator. From where did these spring?
JT
I can't fathom anything for which there is ABSOLUTELY no EVIDENCE. The realm of the gods has been constantly shrinking as our knowledge increases... Although I cannot completely assert the nonexistence of god (any of the thousands, including, of course, the abrahamaic god) since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the probability of its existence is near zero.
On the other hand
You need to understand the use of the term THEORY in the scientific language, it is completely different than the colloquial use... You, as a non scientist and individual, might say you have a theory about something, which will equate to having a HYPOTHESIS in scientific language. A theory in science is something proven, as the THEORY OF GRAVITY, which I am sure you cannot deny it is proven, real and a non controversial issue. The Theory of Evolution as a matter of fact is one of the most solid theories in biology. Once you understand the difference between Hypothesis and Theory, you will understand why this constantly used issue of "Evolution being just a Theory" is completely void of substance.
Finally
Aside from very few individuals in the atheist community (same as with few on the religious side), we do not hate the religious people, we, for one, are complete defenders of individual freedom, and beliefs are part of that freedom. Unfortunately, those haters are more often the loudest.
hambone johnson......you said:
That is exactly the point: We don't know how random chance came to be. But it must, like everything this side of absolute nothingness, have a causation or genesis. Many have given that mystery a name. Some say "God". Others say "creator".
Whatever "it" is, we are capable of grasping "it" only in a very superficial way. That is not true of "random chance". We have a good understanding of that concept. But, it is sterile and dependent (upon a yet deeper understanding for its existence).
It is this frustrating human inability to intellectually penetrate the veil of mystery that has given rise to concepts such as eternal, infinite, cosmic, and so on. These devices have come to suffice to explain that which we cannot explain. Where did "it" come from? We don't know. How can "it" be the supreme fundamental creator? That is a part of the mystery that some have named.
Greg-2438150........you said:
The most prevalent theory about the genesis of spacetime is a primordial "Big Bang". We can run our observable universe in reverse and deduce that it all diverged from a single, infinitely dense point (aka singularity). But, science cannot peer beyond that. We know nothing of what came before because, by definition, there was no "before". This is, to us, so far and totally impenetrable.
Some scientists assert that this singularity simply "popped into existence" without any causation or external influence. But, where did (the concept of) "existence" come from? What of "popped into"? For humans to conceive of, for lack of a better term, absolute non-existence is totally futile. Yet, that is what we must conceive before we can even begin to understand that which is responsible for absolute non-existence.....or, its opposite.
So, science is far from explaining this mystery. We should continue in that effort and we will. Occasionally, we will arrogantly declare our science has all the answers. But, that is only a delusion.
Of course, "magic" plays no part here. But, before it can be said that "supernatural" is also not involved, we must consider what that means. The definition is: "Of or relating to existence outside the natural world."
So, we must define "natural world". Is that which lies beyond the primordial singularity still within our "natural world"? That could be a matter of opinion. Those who say no would consider that which lies beyond "supernatural". Those who consider the beyond to be "natural" would argue there is nothing "super" about it.
In any case, whether natural or supernatural, we are not likely to explain that "beyond" any time soon and possibly never will. It is, and may forever be, a mystery. Call it (the mystery) what you will: "Sky Fairy", "Flying Spaghetti Monster", "Creator", "God"......it matters not. The mystery remains.
Who is the we, because science never claims to know.
Speaking of....I don't think you want to go there.
Greg-2438150.......you said:
Here's an excerpt from an article on 19th century physics:
Obviously, these 19th century physicists were profoundly (and, arrogantly) mistaken.
Then, another person more recently said the following:
That's akin to (but even more arrogant than) saying that because we understand the mechanics and biochemistry of reproductive biology, that we also understand how life came to be on Earth. Well, we don't. We have theories and perhaps we will one day know the answer. But then, that mystery will be replaced by myriad others deeper still.
You may be prepared to admit that neither you nor anyone understands the basest answers to existence. That is, that much (even most) of what might be known is not known and so, remains a mystery.
Some of us, quite dedicated to science and the scientific method, choose to call that mystery "God". You are, of course, free to call it what you will. But, for anyone to now claim that science "can explain how your surroundings came to be" or even that "all the important laws of physics have been discovered" is or was, in fact, delusional. We know only a tiny fraction. The vast remainder is mystery by which we are all confounded.
BS a quote from scientists? I don't think so. Science has never taken the position you think. If you know anything about science you would know this.
Again you don't know what your talking about. Look up the definition of scientific theory.
LOL anyone dedicated to science would not in any shape or fashion need nor desire to invoke the supernatural. Science doesn't say 4 x 4 = 16 and god did it.
The only one here delusional is you. To believe in a god is absurd. Really? No evidence what so every. We have scientific theories that provide an explanation. Are they the "true" answer? Nobody knows but the theories are observable and repeatable. Something you can't do with the supernatural. What a joke.
Greg-2438150.......
Maybe, you also believe that Albert Einstein was not a "scientist" and/or that Mr. Einstein was "delusional".
(You should know) there are many "scientists" (living and dead) who, faced with the monumental mysteries clearly in evidence before us, are moved to humility and awe rather than arrogance or cynicism. Often, that humility and awe is expressed in one sort or another of deism.
BTW----A brief perusal of your comment history reveals your proselytizing defense of atheism. That is remarkable for its irony. It is almost as though you worship the concept.
Even if Einstein believe in a god that doesn't change the fact that one is not required for our existence. Of course I defend Atheism. There are many idiots like you who think the have a direct connection to a creator. As I've said you have a great ignorance of science and to believe Atheism is a religion is like saying someone that doesn't collect coin is a coin collector. Beyond stupidity.
Pic looks fuzzy
Here's a comparison to WMAP, which shows how much better resolution Planck has.
http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/03/Planck_WMAP_comparison
And for anyone interested in the anomalies they are referring to, here is a image highlighting them.
http://spaceinimages.esa.int/Images/2013/03/Planck_enhanced_anomalies
It looks like God drew a big line across that one, and circled a spot at the bottom right.
Maybe that line is an artifact of the removal of foreground emissions.
They stated that the large scale anomaly aligns somewhat with the plane of our solar system, so you may be right Adam.
Everything spins. The Milky Way Galaxy is an excellent example. Spinning elongates, for lack of a better term, the equator of the Universe. Imagine each galaxy being created individually, by a Quasar event or Lesser Big Bang. The anomaly is the direction of the chain reaction of the birth of Galaxies. Hey, my guess is as good as yours.
New discoveries in science almost daily. A 14 billion year old UNIVERSE is much more realistic than to believe in a GOD which is limited to a 7000 year year CREATION notion still being propagated by the CULT of CHRISTIANITY. Arguing with a PREACHER last week in my town..I asked him about the BIG BANG THEORY and the demise of the DINOSAURS 65 mil. yrs ago...he said `ALL LIES`...I said `Somebodies Lying that`s for sure!`...RELIGION is selling SALVATION for weekly fees and threatening people with DAMNATION if they quit going or giving or (GOD FORBID)switch faiths! The world is round and not the center of all creation as was taught by the CHURCH until recently. JEEPERS CREEPERS those darn CREATION people in this day and age.`Thank God for science!..(pun)
The depiction of color is based on an exaggeration of variation of +-0.00005 or a 1 part in 20,000, centered around 2.7 kelvins, seeing a difference between 2.69995 vs. 2.70005 would be hard to do. If we were to be coloring an egg blue, but wanted to use the same about of color for 20,000 eggs we would be lucky to see any color at all.
Wizard, you know nothing about what Church is really about.
And JT, you know nothing about what Science is really about. So I guess it's a draw.
I know what the Church is about. It's about making money like any other business. The service it provides involves the supernatural.
The 3.2 flavors of neutrino indicate that a 4th flavor of neutrino (like a sterile neutrino) can probably be eliminated because a 4th neutrino would upset the predictions for the big bang.
Why doesn't 26.8 percent dark matter and 68.3 percent dark energy upset the predictions? Is there something I'm missing? Shouldn't dark matter and dark energy affect the production of H and He?
Probably a dumb question....
It didn't sound as if the slightly different balance for matter/energy upset anything. But I can imagine that a different breakdown might lead to slightly different tweaks in hypotheses.
A careful read of this article, might help in understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis#Characteristics
More dark matter and less dark energy mean a slower expansion of the universe. Thus, the age of the universe is slightly older than previously calculated.
Alan, you are a great guy,I like the way you respond to people,no one else does that,keep up the good work.
@Rob of UnSpace...I'd probably agree that it's a dumb question...if I understood what you were asking....
IMHO, take the statement that the universe is flat with a grain of salt; that's what they said about the earth, too, remember?
Yea, I'm having a tough time with that "geometrically flat" concept myself.
If the universe exploded in to existence, doesn't the action of exploding imply a spherical dimension?
Of course, if the universe is in spiral rotation like the solar system and the galaxy, then I could understand but the current consensus is that the universe is expanding and in every direction by observation is it not?
Perhaps the dimension they refer to is a property of the brane upon which our universe is splattered.
They aren't talking about "flat" as you know it. When they say "geometrically flat" it means that if you go in a particular direction you keep going in that direction, proportions of distance between to points and distance traveled remain relatively the same. If it wasn't, then we are talking about space bending in on itself, meaning if you go straight in one direction, you could end up back at your original starting position (or a few feet to the left or whatever).
So, to take you Earth statement (which wasn't a good analogy btw), if you walk in any direction, you'll come back to where you started. But it would also mean that if you dug straight down into the Earth, at some point you'll fall from the sky and end up where you started, it's circular for any given direction you go.
It's a hard thing to visualize, kind of hard to explain, hope this helps somewhat.
Mitchell
Right. So what if it is the brane that is flat and the universe is expanding in that context. As we expand, the "lumps" on the brane would be the dark matter. It is not a part of this universe, so we cannot interact with it, but gravity leaks in from the brane, so the lumps have more gravity, which results in matter on this side to tend to lump together.
Looks like the Father? or Mother?
Looks more like the milkman.
Alan, thank you for responding. I expressed myself poorly. I'd forgotten that the matter, dark matter and dark energy numbers changed.
I'm wondering why the presence of dark matter and dark energy at all don't change the ratios of H to He the way an extra neutrino or extra quark would. Having something that siphoned off 95.1% of the primordial universe should have a bigger effect.
I have been wondering is what we call dark matter and dark energy are connected to the brane, instead of to our universe. From the moment I heard the m-theory proposal that the big bang was the result of two branes coliding, I have wondered, what happened to the brane?
If an egg is thrown against the wall, and we are inside the egg, we see the structure of the egg from the inside, but a basic part of our "shape" would be a direct result of the shape of the wall.... so isn't it possible that part of what we think of as being a property of our universe might actually be related to the brane in some way?
OK then he's also religous & you sir are simply an enabler. The capital Almighty shows your religious
leanings & discredits your science writing. You should not have included it. The
statement has nothing to do with science.
Simmer down BK. Rants against religion and god are as tedious as the ones for. Rock on, Alan.
That's like asking about Religion and Politics. Some senators vote on decissions using their reglious belief and yet others of the same faith vote on issues with an open mind.
You're supposed to capitalize it because it's a proper noun, like Moby Dick. It doesn't matter that they're fictional.
I realize there are 3 hypothesis about the shape of the universe, with Flat being the general consensus now.
I have trouble envisioning this for some reason. Did we find, in any direction, an "end" of the universe? Can we point in a general direction and say, well, the universe ends in 400 million light years in that direction? If the universe is expanding, then we must know where the edge is? I wonder because in the "baby picture" above we are shown a picture of background radiation but it looks like its just the center with the edges missing?
Here we are again: The universe appears to be "flat" to the precision we can measure. But the Earth appears pretty close to flat if you're on the surface.
If we could see far enough, we might see the universe curving back to make a "hypersphere," the simplest solution to "no boundary but finite" universe. Problem is, we can only see 13.81 billion light years or so. If the universe is a couple million billion light years or more in "hypercircumference," then we'd never be able to see it.
It may be that it comes to an end somewhere, far beyond what we can see. It may be infinite. We can only see 13.8 billion light years, and when we look back that far, we see 13.8 billion years back in time. Before that, there wasn't anything in this universe, so we can't see any farther.
So we just don't know. There is something strange in the Planck data that indicates some sort of asymmetry, which could hint at a strange shape, another universe or who knows what. It's jokingly referred to as the "Axis of Evil." The Planck team eliminated the galaxy and some other problems that folks hoped would make the Axis of Evil go away. So maybe there's a hint of something. But a lot of folks think it just points to some systematic error because it lines up with the ecliptic--essentially our solar system. It could also just be a statistical fluke. I haven't done the math, so I can't say I even know what to think.
They found the "edge" of the universe over 20 years ago. The question is whether there is enough matter to slow the expansion to a "stable" existence, whether it will expand indefinitely, or if there is so much matter that it will eventually begin to collapse into a "big crunch". If the last scenario holds true, some think that the universe could just keep cycling between bangs and crunches. If light ever becomes blue-shifted, we'll know the crunch is coming.
No they haven't. They still aren't certain there is an edge. They have found the edge to the visible universe; which, as Rob of UnSpace pointed out, is just the furthest we can see due to the age of the universe. That edge is essentially what we are looking at in these pictures of the CMB.
So you're saying with certainty we can see further? You're the only person alive that knows what he doesn't know? Again, just as "flat" was put in quotes, so was "edge".
Thanks all for replying, I was actually looking up Euclidean Space just now and they touched on hypersphere, its just hard to wrap my mind around still at this point.
I wasn't referring to your use of the word "edge". I was referring to your use of the term "edge of the universe". There is a slight but important distinction between "edge of the universe" and "edge of the visible universe". The first may or may not even exist, pending on if the universe is infinite or not. The second does exist, and is as far as we can physically see due to the age of the universe and the constraints of the speed of light.
Ahhh... you were referring to a term I intentionally didn't use. That makes much more sense now. Thanks for clarifying.
sooooooo much in semantics ... defining the meaning of words ... even "God" ... and "Universe"
the "edge" of the universe should be referred to as ....the nonevent horizon
It all depends on what the definition of is is.
Semantics are sometimes important. It can make the difference on someone communicating a particular concept and someone else understanding it. Especially when it comes to science, if the receiver of a message is thinking along a different path and the terms being used aren't clearly defined, then the whole concept being conveyed may be lost. The more clearly and distinctly something is defined, the easier it is for everyone to discuss.
I guess you can't say that one single force governs the expansion and its "tendancy" . I suppose it's first incremental: galaxies full of solar systems; lots of things within it spinning, spherical elements of all kinds whose motion, centrifugal force and all kinds of attract/repel effects, moves the bodies slowly out from some center point but secures the configuration with gravity....but what's keeping them all seeking that gather and stay in a very specific shape; held to each other in a kind of 'plated' holding pattern, and seek spreading out flat as a direction. And there's just "space" above and below??? Fascinating. What's "space's" characteristic behaviour/effect. A vacuum? But it doesn't suck the objects helplessly out into itself: the power of the attraction of the bodies to each other is greater, and in that specific flat shape - -or is it more like a stuffed pita? Whose property/what star is located dead center of the plate? I'm no scientist but this is certainly going to spur a lot of web surfing.
I guess you can't say that one single force governs the expansion and its "tendancy" . I suppose it's first incremental: galaxies full of solar systems; lots of things within it spinning, spherical elements of all kinds whose motion, centrifugal force and all kinds of attract/repel effects, moves the bodies slowly out from some center point but secures the configuration with gravity....but what's keeping them all seeking that gather and stay in a very specific shape; held to each other in a kind of 'plated' holding pattern, and seek spreading out flat as a direction. And there's just "space" above and below??? Fascinating. What's "space's" characteristic behaviour/effect. A vacuum? But it doesn't suck the objects helplessly out into itself: the power of the attraction of the bodies to each other is greater, and in that specific flat shape - -or is it more like a stuffed pita? Whose property/what star is located dead center of the plate? I'm no scientist but this is certainly going to spur a lot of web surfing.
@fun mom
a vacuum dose not suck...rather the non vacuum pushes.
and the fact we are essentially ,by definition in side a black hole there is no center star.
@fun mom, and there is no center to the Universe, but each Galaxy has a center. A point of origin. Each Galaxy was created individually, in a Quasar event, a Lesser Big Bang. Look at the small picture, to see the big picture. One Stellar Nursery per Galaxy. The following chain reaction determines the shape of the Universe.
If we could accurately date the age of each Galaxy, we would be able to see the path, of the growth, of the Universe.
There is nothing that I can think of that "bangs" when a galaxy is created. A galaxy is not an object anyway; it is a process. Specifically, it is the process by which gas ends up inside a black hole. During this process, incidentally, suns and stars and planets and life gets created and gets old and dies. But it all ends up inside a central black hole someplace.
So, just to clarify the answer to my question. We really don't see the "edge" of the universe due to the vastness of space/time. And its speculation as to whether there actually is an end to the universe, something we may never find out due to expansion and again the sheer enormity of it all.
I also have a slightly better grasp on "flat" as well from comments and my research today.
Thanks all for commenting.
@Rob of UnSpace - the current size of the Observable Universe is actually about 46 billion light-years in any direction, not 13.8. The reason for the larger # is because during all those billions of years the light from distant galaxies was traveling to reach us, the Universe was also expanding!
Elinter...I posited a query in a Physics forum after discovery of a GRB some 14 billion LY away which was at the limit of the observable universe. I asked if one could immediately be projected to that point where would the GRB be distancewise (28 BLY?) and the answer from some learned physicist was that due to red shift it would be something of the order of 37 BLY.
So as you point out and which many laypersons might fail to absorb it is the observable universe which limits us. The "acceleration" is away from every observable point i.e. away from us (point a) but also away from us if we were at (point b). And the big bang didn't happen at one point in the void....rather it happened everywhere at once (Hawking...A Brief history). I think that's where perception confusion arises.
The size of the Observable Universe is currently constrained by time since the Big Bang. It is further limited by the CMB, as light could not travel freely before then, so we cannot "see" beyond that. Due to the expansion of the Universe since then, the current distance to what we now see as the CMB is about 46 billion light-years away.
Other than the CMB, the farthest objects (like stars, protogalaxies, etc.) at the limits of the Observable Universe are actually farther away than even the Hubble Space Telescope can currently see - this is because for objects that far away, the Red Shift stretches the wavelength deep into the infrared, beyond even the capabilities of the instruments on the Hubble! This is the reason the James Webb Space Telescope, the upcoming replacement for the Hubble, is optimized for viewing in infrared, and will allow us to view objects even farther away than we can now!
Because the size of the Observable Universe is currently constrained by time, it will get larger in the future. However, if the expansion of the Universe continues to accelerate, this expansion may eventually become the main limitation on what we can observe. Distant galaxies that are currently visible will disappear from view, as this accelerating expansion finally pushes them away from us faster than their light can travel back, effectively pushing them outside of what will then be the Observable Universe.
Why does anyone get wired up about the god thing. He may well have been throwing that concept in there just as he was throwing in the "dark matter", "dark energy" thing. Anyone see any lately? Someone says "I've seen its effects", someone else says "I've seen God's effects." Both are merely giving a name to something they don't understand. Take a chill pill. I'm always curious about religious people and non-religious people who get so defensive. Not so sure of that position you're holding that you've got to rise up at every slight.
I'm more intrigued by the idea of the universe being flat. I never could get a grip on that.
I would think that the reason the word flat is in quotes would be that they're saying the length and width are so vast that they overwhelm the depth. Not unlike a piece of paper being considered flat even though we know it has depth.
It may only be "flat" in that we can't measure the curvature sufficiently.
There are a number of theories (branes, etc.) that allow for a "flat" universe that has an "edge" and the anthropic principle breaks down for some folks who live within sight of the "edge."
All of those theories are pushing too hard the meager data we have. It's unlikely we'll ever know, at least within our lifetimes--but it's fun to play with!
Hummmmm ... But why flat?
If a "event" occurred that expanded the "universe" at such speed and force, why would the resultant "plume" be "flat?" ... I'm not a physicist and can't fathom how or why that would occur.. that would make me think that it was constrained by "something" on two "parallel" planes abutting the "event" ...
can someone explain for the confused?
Maybe the combined force of gravity prevents any one mass from moving too far above or below the plane.
Just so you know, when they referance "dark" matter or energy, it isn't because of a color or lack there of, it's because of a lack of knowing exactly what it is. Same for the "dark ages". The dark ages wasn't because the sun was dimmer then, it was because it was a time period of intellectual darkness.
Or that the "event" was driven/assumed "rotationally" as a huge "flywheel" would when it passed its limits, "pinwheeling?" But if that was true wouldn't everything in the "universe" rotate in the same directional plane?
Sorry ..I can't wrap my brain around this ...
@ moonbeamracer
when they say flat they mean space is "not curved"
it is not a flat disc in fact it's mass is on the hole dispersed quit evenly in all directions
Thanks Al for the cool stuff!
Wow! This is some cool stuff.
Wow, they revised the dark matter to dark energy ratio, that is truly groundbreaking stuff and a new step for mankind. Nobel prizes for everybody. Adding one troll and removing one orc from middle earth battlefield will certainly upset the course of history. :)
I wish they would say "known universe" since obviously something exists beyond the limits of the map. What we think is the universe is probably just a small part of an even larger body.
Right, as opposed to all the facts we've gathered about the unknown. *facepalm*
1) "Known" is implied
2) There is nothing "obvious" at all about any existence outside of our universal reality. Theories and conjecture to be sure, but nothing obvious.
More in the way of explanation's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Ripples as early as the first nonillianth of the universe's existence. Now back to my mundane existence.
Ban all space objects. BERMA SHAVE
Virgle, just a little info for you. Its BURMA SHAVE.
And there's no one on the extraterrestrial highway, to read the signs.
attaturk
In my opinion religion hurts the progress of science & humanity. I am not being defensive as much as being in fear of all religous people. I could not work if I mentioned being a non believer, especially in christian America or in muslim Turkey. I have thoughts of chritians chasing my family out of town with pitch forks.
Yes I see Christians behaving like that every where I go.. Get real man
@ BK, Are you Dr. Frankenstein, and do you consider your monster, family?
In fact BK is absolutely correct .... I'm the owner of a large business and never feel safe about letting any one know I an atheist . nor a'm I aloud to say any thing to my wife's family.
the part that amazes me is that any one in this day and age could think magic ( a god like being) could be used to explain any thing
So adopt a new religion. I would recommend becoming a Pastafarian. Heaven has a Beer Volcano and a Stripper Factory. Pretty cool.
I just want to say if there is a heaven they will find it. period. Man kind has came this far since the 60's basically. give us another 100 years with the current momentum we carry of technological advancement, and we will have a solid map of the universe. Im sure scientists know a whole lot more about what is out there than what they are telling us. I would put money on it they know of other life forms that exist in other places or at least have seen evidence of previous different life forms. What they dont tell us is what really matters. More than likely wont say a lot because they dont want to "scare" the public.
Just smoke some of your harvest and it'll all make more sense.
Again with the conspiracy stuff? If you don't understand, don't worry about it.
Why yes, of course the Evil Scientists (Paging Dr. Frankenstein!) are hiding everything from us lowly mortals because we're too stupid to understand it! Quick! Put on the tin foil hat! They're coming for us!!! YAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
*crickets*
Oh. Well, next time they really WILL. So there!
Well there is official footage released by NASA Employees that lost their jobs for releasing certain footage of film of why we never went back to the moon. You call it conspiracy because it was not on national television. You know what also was not on national television? When Tesla lit up a light bulb 27 miles away from its power source and the government shut down the whole operation in fear of him shutting out the need of big oil power companies, giving the government a blow in money since everyone could have an electric wireless everything for free. FREE ELECTRICITY FOR CARS AND HOUSES. no need for a gas powered car period. They only exist for the gov. to have a way to make money. Oil is their major source of income and Tesla would have eliminated that, period. Thats just one "conspiracy" thats still around and many houses are powered this way today, off the grid like we should be.
Conspiracy nut. LOL.
Actually, Apollo 18 was a documentary, not just a third rate movie. Another documentary that was like that, Iron Sky. Nazis on the moon!
god or no god, doesn't matter - this is the here and now, and this is some pretty mind-blowing stuff. We are (well, not me personally, but people who know this stuff), in my life time, are deciphering the universe. Sure, we've been doing that since the rise of man, but this is really pushing the envelope.
sweet.
I see the face of Jesus in the cosmological map!!
Can I get a "Hallelujah"????
Yessir, A-friggin-MEN! I've seen delight! Er....I mean, "The light".
The ground breaking data these multi million dollar machines are providing us makes me happy to be alive at this time of scientific discoveries. Just think a few years ago WMAP had everyone in a buzz now this??? It's amazing how we are basically the universe contemplating itself, I think I just broke my brain, it's so much to comprehend. New figures on matter, anti matter, and dark energy would have been more than enough to make this experiment a huge success but the anomalies hinted at by WMAP that scientists were hoping would be cleared up were shown to be there, and unexplainable at the moment. Then add to that a revised age of the universe, we truly are living in the greatest time in scientific history, if only Newton, Einstein, Hubble, and so many others that lead to this could have been alive to see it, maybe they are watching from Heaven....
I am always saying we live in the greatest time of discovery. I agree 100%.
Not that long ago the prevailing belief was that the world was flat and of course now we know it is not. Now we think our universe is "flat" and I'll bet sometime soon we will discover it isn't either. Every question we answer gives rise to even more questions and mysteries. Thanks Alan.
On the other hand, I find it interesting that results indicate the universe is "flat" and not spherical. In M Theory (aka Brane Theory), an improvement on String Theory, we might expect JUST such a result of 2 (mem)branes interacting/colliding to produce our universe in a Big Bang (i.e., the expansion of our universe being limited to that BETWEEN the branes).
Yes, that's some mindbending stuff, to be sure, but those extra dimensions give me a headache.
Just how do you photograph eternity, both coming and going?
Billions spent on a result that depends on opinion. Too bad that money wasn't spent on something that could actually help someone!
@finger,
I think I'll wait until you've evolved opposable thumbs...
If you wait until every starving person is fed or every societal problem is solved before you attempt to achieve something grand or learn something novel, you'll end up accomplishing nothing but your own eventual death.
WilliamOfRites & potfarmer you may enjoy this.