Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

[plasticsundance]

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.

"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."

Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background.

If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.

These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal.

more ...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Cool Info. Thanks For Posting.

[plasticsundance]

9. No problem

And thank you. Feel free to visit HaltonArp.com. Interestingly, Stephen Hawking was a student of Fred Hoyle. Fred Hoyle did much in the way of improving radar detection in WWII, and he figured out how a star produces energy. He once did not believe in the BBB theory, but he he changed, and then changed again after careful examination. Stephen Hawking was a student of Fred Hoyle. As was, the mathemitician that produced the theory of string theory. Hoyle accpeted and then later denied the BBB theory.

Stephen Hawiking changed his opinion on his black hole theories, because some scientiest at Los Alomos busted him on key factors.

I reccomend the book The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner. It's a good book to read when as the days grow shorter and cold days longer.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Mother Nature is a coy mistress...

isn't she? Thanks for posting this.

[plasticsundance]

11. I'm a theosophists and follow Buddha.

[nam78_two]

3. Thanks for posting/nt

[Lerkfish]

4. for laughs you should post this in the religion forum

atheists are always telling us the big bang is the absolute truth.

I'd be interested in their takes on this,

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. Wait, Seriously? That's Pretty Funny.

I didn't know some Atheists felt that way. That seems really silly to me but to each their own.

I've always felt that some day the Big Bang Theory will be blown out of the water. It seems in the past few years it is far more frequent for new scientific findings dealing with the universe to contradict or not fit neatly into the big bang than it has been for things that bolster it.

[shrike]

16. Story in Discover magazine recently

About a scientist who disputes the Big Bang and has an alternative theory.
Unfortunately, I'm too science-illiterate to explain it here. Maybe I can get DH (who used to read MIT's magazine for fun) on here to do so.

[Nevernose]

7. Why should the Big Bang and religion be exclusive?

We had to come from somewhere, right?

Okay, to be fair, I'm mostly an agnostic these days. But even an agnostic can expect a scientific explanation.

Also, this is just one study. Give it couple of decades of non-Bush interrupted science.

[plasticsundance]

14. It's not about Bush-the Idoit-King

During the Reagan years, cut backs in spending did not rely on empirical evidence, thus theories came foremost. Ask anyone whether they know the difference between cold and hot bang theories of the BBT, and you’ll get aDiscovery/TLC answers.

[plasticsundance]

10. I'm a theosophists and follow Buddha.

It's too complicated to follow here.

[genie_weenie]

18. Well, you know us Atheists

We travel around in packs beating people up for mocking us with depictions of nothing and un-saving them and such...

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Yeah, because ANY time scientific theories need to be updated or changed

it really means that the Earth is 6,000 years old, Dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark", and the Bible has been literally true all along. :eyes:

[Nevernose]

5. This is why W hates the Hubble

Everything that's ever come out of it, even this study, support the theory that the universe is more than 7,000 years old.

While I suspect that astronomical evidence will evetually and CONCLUSIVELY support the Big Bang, creationists will latch on to this shit and claim that "there is no more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for ID." This study still shows, however, that the universe is more than seven millenia old -- otherwise, why did all that light take 7 billion years to get here?

[Warpy]

8. I realize this is very preliminary stuff

but the evidence for a steady state universe seems to be piling up.

[shrike]

17. Maybe that's what the 'Discover' guy was talking about

If you read my above post, you'll see I mentioned that Discover magazine recently featured a guy with an alternate theory of the universe.

Full disclosure: I'm a church-goer but I LOVE science. I just wish I had the chops to understand more of it.

[sam sarrha]

12. big bang was simply the only other option other than, 'it leaked in from

somewhere else..' then you would have to figure out where that was and where it came from.. :dilemma:

[Ghost Dog]

23. Fractal mathematics.

The way such 'patterns' tend to grow, within and without...

ed: ah, yes: cf. #20.

[Mnemosyne]

13. Very interesting, thanks plasticsundance! n/t

[plasticsundance]

15. bump

Let's have a scientific discussion. C.mon. Put some meat on the table.

[ldf]

22. just one atheist's opinion

and since i'm atheist, you can rightly assume that i do not believe in a beginning and/or end to either time, or space.

that said....

if science has postulated that, based on the evidence, everything is expanding, (and a report out this week says that the expansion is actually speeding up, not slowing down), it would be seem logical that "expansion" implies a starting point in space from whence the "expansion" began.

so, work with me here for a moment, there WAS a big bang.

nanoseconds after the big bang, the inevitable started to happen.

due to the density of the freshly "exploded" material just nanoseconds after escaping that ball of, well, EVERYTHING, the material of the big bang immediately started to coalesce. atoms combined. gases formed, then solidified into particles, into larger particles, eventually into solid objects large enough to have a gravitational pull, which attracted even more, to eventually become planets, suns, solar systems, galaxies.

all the while still expanding from the big bang.

in the chaos to order, it is also inevitable for the suns/solar systems/galaxies to be pulled, gravitationally, into each other.

x amount of collapsed mass eventually results in a black hole. multiple black holes are forming simultaneously (over eons of time), pulling in yet more mass, acting as vacuum cleaners to nearby space (eventually covering millions of light years).

all while continuing to expand.

black holes get larger and larger, with more and more gravitational pull, continuing to act as vacuum cleaners, sweeping clean entire areas of space.

black holes start pulling in other black holes.

everything still continues to expand.

meanwhile (back at the ranch), a hundred trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (hey this is space with no end...) light years away, the SAME thing is happening.

big bangs are happening all over. there is no one big bang, there are infinite big bangs, all happening at the same (infinite) time.

now, either, according to one theory, the expansions stop, and everything collapses back into the ORIGINAL big bang-producing mass in that quadrant of the universe, starting the cycle that never stops, over again,

or

each big bang mass continues to expand to the point of colliding with mass from other big bangs (remember, time is infinite), with the inevitable black holes pulling in other black holes, to the point of reaching the tipping point into THE NEXT big bang made up from a DIFFERENT batch of originating mass.

with infinite time and space, that is obviously what is happening.

no god ever lit the match, since time never began, and no god will ever be there to "collect" his crop of souls, since time will never end.

there.

now you know how it all works.

you're welcome. glad i could clear it all up for you...

:-)

[plasticsundance]

24. You did not respond to the specifics of the article I posted

I did not request a response in crayons, but something more intelligent. I doubt that you're familiar with the work of Hoyle, Alfven, and even Hawking's that reversed his black hole theories due to being busted by scientist's at Los Almos.

I want this topic to remain with keeping with the spirit of empirical data, no need for the delusion of deductive models.

Thanks in advance.

[xchrom]

19. wow -- that's very interesting.

it'll be great to follow this story.

[stranger81]

20. article re the "alternative theory"

if you're interested in the subject, see Michio Kaku's latest book for more.

From the Australian (last month):

"Instead, Turok says the Big Bang was not a unique event at all. In fact, it was likely to have been one of many, perhaps millions of, Big Bangs.

A small but growing band of other researchers, including Paul Steinhardt, the Albert Einstein professor of science at Princeton University, in New Jersey, support the idea.

If Turok and his supporters are right, the implications are daunting. The life's work of many scientists, and thousands of research papers, would be redundant. No wonder they are fighting back. It would also mean that time, matter and energy have always existed - and always will."

----- snip ------

"Under his and Steinhardt's theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of history but simply an event within it, caused by the collision of our universe with another one existing in another dimension.

Turok and Steinhardt suggest that such events may happen every trillion years in a kind of cycle. If they are right, then time has always existed and so has the universe. What's more, they always will exist, and so there is no need for inflation or for a creation event - or perhaps even a creator. Pope Pius would be furious. Many of Turok's fellow physicists already are."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20192903-2703,00.html

[plasticsundance]

21. Interesting theory

but not enough, You need specifics. String theory is a mathemetical proponent, but it doesn't coincide with epmirical evidence.

[sam sarrha]

27. in Buddhism the creation and origins of the universe are not important

such subjects are considered a distraction to the really important things like Liberation from suffering/cyclical rebirth and enlightenment.

[annabanana]

26. I am looking forward

to the articles that can translate the evidence in light of the standing theories for the less scientifically literate, along with the arguments and turf wars and implications etc etc..

(I can usually "get it" a little further along the line)