If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Scientists at subby's workplace have found a signal from the beginning of time. Possibly a Nobel Prize winning discovery   (wired.com) divider line 259
    More: Spiffy, Nobel Prize, Planck epoch, Lawrence Krauss, discovery, theory of relativities, gravitational wave, accelerating universe, signals  
•       •       •

13214 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:31 AM (26 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



259 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-17 12:42:00 PM

Skeptos: I wonder if they'll give the Nobel Prize (or one of the three, since clearly Guth and Linde should be the other two) to someone from the BICEP2 collaboration?  And if so, whom, and how would they justify the choice, since so many people have worked on it or its predecessors?


I would imagine one to both Guth and Linde for development of the theory, and then maybe one to maybe both Kovac and Lange for the experimental verification?
 
2014-03-17 12:42:07 PM

Skeptos: I wonder if they'll give the Nobel Prize (or one of the three, since clearly Guth and Linde should be the other two) to someone from the BICEP2 collaboration?  And if so, whom, and how would they justify the choice, since so many people have worked on it or its predecessors?


Probably the spokespeople, who act as the "president" of the experiment. They've often been with the project for a long time and have lots of political power with the decision making, and are responsible for getting lots of governmental funding.
 
2014-03-17 12:43:29 PM

error 303: Skeptos: I wonder if they'll give the Nobel Prize (or one of the three, since clearly Guth and Linde should be the other two) to someone from the BICEP2 collaboration?  And if so, whom, and how would they justify the choice, since so many people have worked on it or its predecessors?

I would imagine one to both Guth and Linde for development of the theory, and then maybe one to maybe both Kovac and Lange for the experimental verification?


Nevermind, didn't realize Lange recently passed away...
 
2014-03-17 12:44:23 PM
Everyone wants to speculate about time and space and how it all began when we could just ask the one thing we know was there in the beginning: Galactus.
 
2014-03-17 12:44:29 PM

tinyarena: "At the tone the time will be 00:01"


"At the tone, the time will be 00:00.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000001."
 
2014-03-17 12:45:12 PM

Mentat: "Hello Sweetie"?  The fark?


Clicked in for this. leaving satisfied.
 
2014-03-17 12:45:26 PM
So the Universe began as a large Magic Eye puzzle?
 
2014-03-17 12:46:23 PM

anarchisthippy: Jubeebee: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

There was no "before" because time did not exist. You can't have anything north of the North Pole, and you can't have "before" the Big Bang.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. While time is indeed a "thing", the concept of time as we know it completely allows for a "before" just as much as it allows for an "after" when it comes to the universe. Does time, as it governs the universe, allow for a "before"? No absolutely not, but the abstract way in which we measure it certainly does.


Not sure if stoned or philosopher
 
2014-03-17 12:47:09 PM

error 303: The Crepes of Wrath: Felgraf: AND direct evidence for the inflationary epoch?!

And if I'm not mistaken, the inflationary universe model also implies (requires, actually) a multiverse.

Not entirely the case. Inflationary cosmology allows for "multiverses", i.e. separate bubbles of space-time, and an eternal inflation model will always produce an infinite number of separate universes, but I believe even with this discovery it's still possible to reconcile inflation with a single universe. Some one may correct me if I'm wrong though.

/lapsed astrophysicist


In short, there may be, might be, could be some multiverses-- there is the possibility-- but we cannot know the degree of probability yet.

/yet
 
2014-03-17 12:49:38 PM
did george burns tell you to get out of his room?
 
2014-03-17 12:50:39 PM

Ilmarinen: anarchisthippy: Jubeebee: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

There was no "before" because time did not exist. You can't have anything north of the North Pole, and you can't have "before" the Big Bang.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. While time is indeed a "thing", the concept of time as we know it completely allows for a "before" just as much as it allows for an "after" when it comes to the universe. Does time, as it governs the universe, allow for a "before"? No absolutely not, but the abstract way in which we measure it certainly does.

Not sure if stoned or philosopher


As someone with a philosophy major, allow me to help. He is missing the following qualities.

1) No unneeded Latin phrases
2) No long phrases defined as a highly nuanced version of a word we already have
3) Average word length is too small
4) No dismissal of non-existence counter arguments
5) Acknowledgement of counter points, instead of ignoring them

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe just stoned.
 
2014-03-17 12:53:53 PM

HairBolus: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

Since nobody has a good combination of gravity with quantum theory, nobody really understands the big bang. Alternative notions such as "big bounce" can't be ruled out.

[math.ucr.edu image 706x551]



Is that like the "black holes suck everything up then bang it all back out" theory I came up with when I was like 5 or 6?  The only problem is all that had to have a "start" from somewhere, so I've been thinking there was the "first" big bang followed by big bounces, but where did the crap from the first big bang come from?  Was it God?  Stewie Griffin and the exploding dimensional pad?  The Doctor dialing a wrong number?  The Goa'uld throwing random explosives into a Stargate's wormhole?  Piccard dumping the septic tanks during hyperspace?  Who knows, but it sucks being stuck on this part of the problem.

I really like explaining to people that, because of that theory, this could be the 98th or 27999948867th incarnation of the universe, and that one of the few things religion and science agree on is that everything started in an instant, just each have a different cause for the effect.  My big bang started something like 13+ billion years ago while yours started 6000 years ago.....suppose Christians just haven't seen 7000 year old coral reefs or buildings.
 
2014-03-17 12:54:24 PM

Muta: Shepherd: Inflation doesn't require a multiverse.  The multiverse is the simplest way to avoid the anthropic principle -- 'why did the universe inflate in just such a way that life was possible' -- but you can still have inflation without a multiverse.

To me, the multiverse is the simplest way to answer the, "if it happened once, why didn't it happen more times", question that arises with a universe.

/Associates degree in cosmology and astrophysics


Agreed.  But just because it's the simplest way doesn't mean it's proof.  We might just have a single universe that happens to have had inflation.

/Master's degree, thesis on quantum chromodynamics.
 
2014-03-17 12:55:01 PM

astro716: Skeptos: I wonder if they'll give the Nobel Prize (or one of the three, since clearly Guth and Linde should be the other two) to someone from the BICEP2 collaboration?  And if so, whom, and how would they justify the choice, since so many people have worked on it or its predecessors?

Probably the spokespeople, who act as the "president" of the experiment. They've often been with the project for a long time and have lots of political power with the decision making, and are responsible for getting lots of governmental funding.


Could be, but I imagine that could get messy and potentially rancorous if the collaboration had multiple co-leaders (since only three Nobel Prizes can be given), or some more junior person was the one who conceived and designed the most important detector, etc. (though I have no idea whether these things are true of BICEP2).
 
2014-03-17 12:56:52 PM

Felgraf: HOLY shiat they may have finally detected gravity waves?!

AND direct evidence for the inflationary epoch?!

I agree, that IS Nobel-worthy. Jebus, that's friggen awesome.


Crap, I always hated the inflationary theory.  My hypothesis was that the universe started at a size larger than currently predicted by the big bang theory.  That way there would be no need for the inflationary change in expansion.

I still have my billboard hypothesis intact though.

/Congrats to subby and the team for their discovery regardless.
 
2014-03-17 12:57:01 PM
Turns out the First Word was not "Fiat!" It was "Shyte!" followed by the sound of breaking vessels of light.
And then the Santa Sophia said: "Shall I get the bucket and mop then, Butterfingers?"

They don't print that bit in the Bible, but if you check with the Cabalists you will find this is pretty much the true story of Creation.

And God said, "Let there be Shyte!" and God saw the Shyte, and God said, "Well, it'll have to do. We're over budget as it is."

Just kidding. He said "Man, this is some pretty good Shyte!" And then he blew a smoke ring, and that smoke ring is the origin of the Universe of Space and Time. The one he was intentionally working on was a bust.
 
2014-03-17 12:57:13 PM

pkellmey: One of my classes had someone who would always change the infinity symbols to christian fish symbols. Always good for a laugh when the professor would be going back through the equation and stop, scratch his head and mutter, "What the Fark...?"


The Ichthys fish is the same symbol that's used to mean "proportional to" in some places.
 
2014-03-17 12:58:26 PM

Shepherd: Muta: Shepherd: Inflation doesn't require a multiverse.  The multiverse is the simplest way to avoid the anthropic principle -- 'why did the universe inflate in just such a way that life was possible' -- but you can still have inflation without a multiverse.

To me, the multiverse is the simplest way to answer the, "if it happened once, why didn't it happen more times", question that arises with a universe.

/Associates degree in cosmology and astrophysics

Agreed.  But just because it's the simplest way doesn't mean it's proof.  We might just have a single universe that happens to have had inflation.

/Master's degree, thesis on quantum chromodynamics.


I do love a good scientist dick-wagging contest
 
2014-03-17 01:02:14 PM
You found the big bang burger barn?
 
2014-03-17 01:03:42 PM

Shepherd: Agreed.  But just because it's the simplest way doesn't mean it's proof.  We might just have a single universe that happens to have had inflation.


Yep. There was a time when a geocentric solar system was a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the universe, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when circular orbits were beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when elliptical orbits were a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when newtonian physics provided a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when general relativity provided a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time...

I'm not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, but the multiverse theory seems like a step in the wrong direction.
 
2014-03-17 01:03:53 PM
Also, is it true that these results basically rule out anything other than a plain-vanilla quadratic inflationary potential?
 
2014-03-17 01:05:00 PM

make me some tea: [img.fark.net image 615x691]



You couldn't have done this SIX MONTHS AGO?
thenypost.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-17 01:09:42 PM
I'm far more interested in the "detecting gravity waves" aspect than anything else - from a practical standpoint, that's far, far more important.  If we do indeed prove that gravity operates as a wave (and thus likely has some kind of transmission particle/element/process), we're on the road to learning how to manipulate it.

/still dreaming of mass negation and superluminal travel...
 
2014-03-17 01:12:24 PM
Old...
 
2014-03-17 01:17:58 PM

jfarkinB: ralanprod: Pffft.

Let me know when they track down a recording of a booming voice calling out, "Let there be light".

Pffft. Everyone knows that at the beginning of time they spoke Latin.

/wants subby's job


Let me point out that just last week someone said to me "I'd kill myself if I had your job!"
 
2014-03-17 01:19:42 PM

Parthenogenetic: [www.wired.com image 660x352]
Is this one of those things where you cross your eyes and see a 3-D dinosaur or something?  Because I'm not seeing it.


It's a maze:

i58.tinypic.com

Solved it.
 
2014-03-17 01:22:31 PM

Ilmarinen: anarchisthippy: Jubeebee: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

There was no "before" because time did not exist. You can't have anything north of the North Pole, and you can't have "before" the Big Bang.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. While time is indeed a "thing", the concept of time as we know it completely allows for a "before" just as much as it allows for an "after" when it comes to the universe. Does time, as it governs the universe, allow for a "before"? No absolutely not, but the abstract way in which we measure it certainly does.

Not sure if stoned or philosopher


Why not both?
 
2014-03-17 01:24:58 PM

Diagonal: tinyarena: "At the tone the time will be 00:01"

"At the tone, the time will be 00:00.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000001."


BOOOOOOM

//said the Big Bang.
 
2014-03-17 01:26:20 PM

Fubini: Then there was a time when circular orbits were beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time.


Actually,we sort of went from Geocentric to Eliptical, didn't we? The problem with circular was that the math DIDN'T predict as well as the (Now highly refined and with epicycles) Geocentric version did. That was one of the problems Copernicus had,if I remember right.
 
2014-03-17 01:29:34 PM

TheGogmagog: make me some tea: [img.fark.net image 615x691]


You couldn't have done this SIX MONTHS AGO?


I'm guessing a cosmology episode is being edited/updated as we speak
 
2014-03-17 01:30:58 PM

dittybopper: Ilmarinen: anarchisthippy: Jubeebee: MartinD-35: What was there before time started, would that be a negative number?  I'm a bit confused here with the concept of the infinite and all that.  Dinosaur riders need not try to help.

There was no "before" because time did not exist. You can't have anything north of the North Pole, and you can't have "before" the Big Bang.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. While time is indeed a "thing", the concept of time as we know it completely allows for a "before" just as much as it allows for an "after" when it comes to the universe. Does time, as it governs the universe, allow for a "before"? No absolutely not, but the abstract way in which we measure it certainly does.

Not sure if stoned or philosopher

Why not both?


Gazing into before the big bang, or outside of the universe=

It's an eternity in there.
fc08.deviantart.net

/Hope I have the quote close enough, and the right story.
 
2014-03-17 01:34:41 PM

Diagonal: error 303: The Crepes of Wrath: Felgraf: AND direct evidence for the inflationary epoch?!

And if I'm not mistaken, the inflationary universe model also implies (requires, actually) a multiverse.

Not entirely the case. Inflationary cosmology allows for "multiverses", i.e. separate bubbles of space-time, and an eternal inflation model will always produce an infinite number of separate universes, but I believe even with this discovery it's still possible to reconcile inflation with a single universe. Some one may correct me if I'm wrong though.

/lapsed astrophysicist

In short, there may be, might be, could be some multiverses-- there is the possibility-- but we cannot know the degree of probability yet.

/yet


An infinite stack of 11-dimensional membranes....


...with maple syrup.
 
2014-03-17 01:35:57 PM
Subby, knowing the secrets of the universe and winning a Nobel Prize is great and all but... couldn't I have a flying car now?


img.fark.net
I mean it's almost 2015.  The car doesn't have to have a time machine in it or be powered by a Mr. Fusion.  I'm not even that picky, just a really good jetpack would be great.  Even James Bond had one!
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-17 01:37:57 PM
The God farticle?
 
2014-03-17 01:39:39 PM

dittybopper: Parthenogenetic: [www.wired.com image 660x352]
Is this one of those things where you cross your eyes and see a 3-D dinosaur or something?  Because I'm not seeing it.

It's a maze:

[i58.tinypic.com image 660x352]

Solved it.


Now let the DJ revolve it?
 
2014-03-17 01:43:23 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-17 01:45:53 PM
Doctor Who?
Doctor Who?
Doctor Who?
Doctor Who?
Doctor Who?
Doctor Who?
 
2014-03-17 01:47:22 PM
There is one thing I never got about the microwave background radiation: if it was created at the big bang how can we still detect it? Wouldn't it have gone past us or is is constrained by the edge of the universe like air in a balloon?
 
2014-03-17 01:54:00 PM
So gravity is a vibration? Is there anything in this universe that isn't a damn vibration?
 
2014-03-17 01:54:07 PM

GRCooper: TheGogmagog: make me some tea: [img.fark.net image 615x691]


You couldn't have done this SIX MONTHS AGO?

I'm guessing a cosmology episode is being edited/updated as we speak


I was mildly disappointed that when he got to the big bang in the first episode, he didn't take a moment to at least in a sentence or two state what evidence we have on it.  A keyword or two to google for more information. Granted, like this I don't understand enough to convince anyone else, but I could research B-mode cosmic microwave and maybe find the predictive formula and resulting measurements.
 
2014-03-17 01:57:37 PM

big pig peaches: There is one thing I never got about the microwave background radiation: if it was created at the big bang how can we still detect it? Wouldn't it have gone past us or is is constrained by the edge of the universe like air in a balloon?


Try this, the background radiation is actually heat, left over from the Big Bang, that has cooled, but which is still hot enough to detect at about 3 Kelvin with the proper equipment.  It is constrained by the edge of the universe like air in a balloon because it is not moving, it is simply there, like heat trapped in a room.
 
2014-03-17 01:57:37 PM
Does this also show that during the earliest nanoseconds the universe had started to become globby.  In order to have a detectable  gravitational wave you need to have a nonuniform acceleration of mass.  If this is a snapshot of the primordial universe then the red regions can be seen as the future galaxies.
 
2014-03-17 01:57:51 PM

Fubini: Shepherd: Agreed.  But just because it's the simplest way doesn't mean it's proof.  We might just have a single universe that happens to have had inflation.

Yep. There was a time when a geocentric solar system was a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the universe, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when circular orbits were beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when elliptical orbits were a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when newtonian physics provided a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time. Then there was a time when general relativity provided a beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time...

I'm not a cosmologist or astrophysicist, but the multiverse theory seems like a step in the wrong direction.



The number of things wrong with your above progression is simply staggering.  You could have just written the final statement, and left the rest out.  The mass above makes your final statement redundant.
 
2014-03-17 02:00:05 PM
Awesome. I love this field of science.

Okay, so the inflation occurred just before the Big Bang - there was a sudden expansion. But where did the universe expand into? Just a featureless void with no matter, energy, stuff?

Or did the universe displace something that was alreadythere? Was our creation also an act of destruction?
 
2014-03-17 02:05:25 PM

Felgraf: Fubini: Then there was a time when circular orbits were beautifully simple and mathematically elegant description of the solar system, according to all known data at the time.

Actually,we sort of went from Geocentric to Eliptical, didn't we? The problem with circular was that the math DIDN'T predict as well as the (Now highly refined and with epicycles) Geocentric version did. That was one of the problems Copernicus had,if I remember right.


Depends on where you lived, whose science you had heard of, and who you chose to believe.

Astronmers knew that orbits couldn't be perfectly circular maybe as far back as antiquity, I don't know. Thus, Ptolemy used a two-circle system (a circular orbit with an epicycle) to describe the motion of the planets as early as the 100's AD. It wasn't until 1605 that Johannes Kepler realized that the orbit of Mars was best described by an ellipse rather than a circle or ovoid (egg shape). Between those two times, there were several major geocentric and heliocentric theories advanced.

The Copernican system (1543) was heliocentric and had circular orbits modified by more epicycles.  The Tychonian system (1570's) was a more sophisticated geocentric system that combined Ptolemaic and Copernican ideas, but also had essentially circular orbits.

Much later, in 1687, Issac Newton showed that Newtonian physics gave rise to the elliptical orbits that Kepler described.


So yes, on an absolute scale there was a period of time where we had heliocentrism with non-elliptical orbits. The funny circular orbits modified by epicycles actually predicted planetary motion pretty well in accordance with what data they had at the time. As before, that idea goes back to Ptolemy, which was used in order to explain the apparent retrograde motion of the planets.
 
2014-03-17 02:05:28 PM

RyogaM: big pig peaches: There is one thing I never got about the microwave background radiation: if it was created at the big bang how can we still detect it? Wouldn't it have gone past us or is is constrained by the edge of the universe like air in a balloon?

Try this, the background radiation is actually heat, left over from the Big Bang, that has cooled, but which is still hot enough to detect at about 3 Kelvin with the proper equipment.  It is constrained by the edge of the universe like air in a balloon because it is not moving, it is simply there, like heat a fart trapped in a room.

 
2014-03-17 02:12:27 PM

pkellmey: I don't see a Nobel in it, but interesting nonetheless.


Why not? The WMAP got it in '06
 
2014-03-17 02:16:28 PM

Khellendros: The number of things wrong with your above progression is simply staggering.  You could have just written the final statement, and left the rest out.  The mass above makes your final statement redundant.


Please, O Wise One, please illuminate my ignorance. What specifically did I get wrong?

At all stages of human history, people have formulated models that seemed to explain the observable evidence most simply. As our knowledge about the universe expands, the theories that once seemed simple and beautiful no longer do. I think that the multiverse theory is going to fall into the category of ideas that seemed beautiful in the lack of further evidence, but don't have staying power.
 
2014-03-17 02:17:45 PM

TheGogmagog: Crap, I always hated the inflationary theory. My hypothesis was that the universe started at a size larger than currently predicted by the big bang theory. That way there would be no need for the inflationary change in expansion.


The major problem with the hypothesis is that it requires a very specific exception to General Relativity (the most accurate cosmological theoretical model ever created), in just this one instance, to be correct. Not only does it fly in the face of GR, but the Relativity principle itself -- that the laws of physics are the same for all observers at all points and all times. For the prediction to be wrong, the implication is that the laws of physics were different immediately after the formation of the universe than they are now.

Inflation requires no such thing. GR allows for expansion of space at arbitrary rates, so, perhaps counter-intuitively, it's a simpler (and therefore more likely) solution to the issue than "the prediction in this particular instance is wrong."
 
2014-03-17 02:17:58 PM

Foxxinnia: So gravity is a vibration? Is there anything in this universe that isn't a damn vibration?


..Gotta keep those luvin good vibrations a happin with you...
 
Displayed 50 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report