| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Astronomy Forum » Indian has new theory on Big Bang
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
|
Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
LONDON: A new controversial analysis by an astronomer of Indian origin
has suggested that the Big Bang might not have come at the beginning
of the Universe, but after a long and slow period of shrinkage.
According to a report, the theory has been put forward by Amit Yadav,
an astronomer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
If this theory holds any ground, it would show that the early universe
did not inflate with the smoothness that many theorists expected. "The
standard, canonical models will be ruled out if this holds," said
Yadav. "The simplicity is gone," he added.
Yadav's result suggests that models of inflation - a furious
hyperexpansion in the instant after the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years
ago - have to be much more complicated than previously thought, or
else that inflation never occurred at all and that the Big Bang came
after a period of contraction.
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"he said.
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 16, 9:32 pm, visualseep...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: LONDON: A new controversial analysis by an astronomer of Indian origin
has suggested that the Big Bang might not have come at the beginning
of the Universe, but after a long and slow period of shrinkage.
The analysis may be controversial, but the conclusion sure can't be.
Hasn't Hawking been talking about this for sometime?
That the Big Bang happened after a Big Crunch?
<snip>
Quote: Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
The conclusion?
We must find an ad hoc solution to save the Big Bang.
Never question the Big Bang. It must be saved.
I wonder how long that mentality can really last? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| harmony |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
is the universe one big yo-yo?
<visualseeplus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:931a582b-347f-4946-95b8-318219ea901e@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Indian has new theory on Big Bang
17 Apr 2008, 0007 hrs IST,ANI
LONDON: A new controversial analysis by an astronomer of Indian origin
has suggested that the Big Bang might not have come at the beginning
of the Universe, but after a long and slow period of shrinkage.
According to a report, the theory has been put forward by Amit Yadav,
an astronomer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
If this theory holds any ground, it would show that the early universe
did not inflate with the smoothness that many theorists expected. "The
standard, canonical models will be ruled out if this holds," said
Yadav. "The simplicity is gone," he added.
Yadav's result suggests that models of inflation - a furious
hyperexpansion in the instant after the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years
ago - have to be much more complicated than previously thought, or
else that inflation never occurred at all and that the Big Bang came
after a period of contraction.
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"he said.
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 17, 3:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
No crunch ahead means there is no crunch behind.
The universe is accelerating in expansion.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| hanson |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tTQNj.71279$TT4.17440@attbi_s22...
Quote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Mikey probably referred to his
Big Bong, his flatulation and his falsies.
Be careful what you ask for , Sam.
Thanls for the ahahaha... ahahahanson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified?
<quote>
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.
</quote> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified?
quote
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/378039
Quote:
The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.
/quote |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 19, 10:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified?
quote
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/378039
That's well over my head.
Any comments, Sam?
Quote: The analysis of Yadav and adviser Benjamin Wandelt showed that the CMB
map was not gaussian with a certainty of 99.5%.
/quote |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| theman |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 20, 7:41 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Quote:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/378039
That's well over my head.
snip
Yeah Sam don't you know Helland can't even do limits what would he
know of higher math or science? And for that matter why is he still
posting?
Cheers |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Helland |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 20, 5:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Quote: Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 19, 10:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified?
quote
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/378039
That's well over my head.
Any comments, Sam?
Basically there is support for "inflation" in the CMB analysis.
Now introducing non-linear parameters for the rate of inflation? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 20, 5:39 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 20, 5:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 19, 10:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified?
quote
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/378039
That's well over my head.
Any comments, Sam?
Basically there is support for "inflation" in the CMB analysis.
Now introducing non-linear parameters for the rate of inflation?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The universe begins infinitely small in dimensions.
No crunch ahead means there is no crunch behind.
The universe is accelerating in expansion.
At time zero it began to inflate and then slowed down.
I would like to know how fast that was?
Mitch Reamsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Helland wrote:
Quote: On Apr 19, 10:37 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
On Apr 17, 6:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Michael Helland wrote:
So, the Big Bang + inflation has been falsified.
How so?
Did you read the article?
"If the result sticks, it would be the first time that one of the
predictions of simple inflation failed. And it could also lead to a
radical reinterpretation of what the Big Bang was and whether it
marked the universe's beginning,"
A prediction that doesn't match what is observed is how a hypothesis
is falsified.
How has inflation has been falsified?
quote
Standard, simple inflation – needed to achieve a flat, smooth universe
- holds that, just after the Big Bang, a uniform negative
gravitational field drove a brief period of accelerated expansion.
Then the field died out, creating the matter and energy known in the
universe today and leaving an afterglow of microwave radiation just a
few degrees above absolute zero. If simple inflation theory is right,
this imprint should be almost, but not quite, perfectly gaussian - a
pattern with smooth-looking noise.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/378039
That's well over my head.
Any comments, Sam?
Basically there is support for "inflation" in the CMB analysis. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:46 pm
|
|