Topic: Big Bang fails shadow test

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

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.

Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky.

"Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment.

The WMAP dataset is available to the public and other scientists are already testing the UAH group's results, Lieu said, although no one has yet reported finding any flaws in their analysis.

Classic science. 

1/ Make predictions based on theory.
2/ Check the prediction by experiments and/or observation. 
3/ Followed of course by others duplicating the experiment and/or observation. 
4/ Then if needed formulate a new theory that accounts for the new data
5/ go back to step 1/

Currently this one is at step 3/

[Sirgod]

Ok , I need more cofee this morning. When I glanced at hte thread title, I thought It read something about a Big Bong. Was wondering what Nemesis was smoking.

stephen

[Dash Jones]

Now isn't this test reliant that the border of the universe is actually currently decreased in speed and either decreased to the point of return, or decreased slower than the force of expansion, hence if it is actually still expanding at or near the rate of initial expansion, this test could say something similar to their result?

Meaning that the Big Bang fails the shadow test for a decreasing universe, but that might only mean the universe is actually quite young yet?

[Nemesis]

Meaning that the Big Bang fails the shadow test for a decreasing universe, but that might only mean the universe is actually quite young yet?

Or there was no bang of the type theorized about.  Potentially this could lead to a major shakeup in cosmology and the laws of physics.

Here are 2 links to articles that were posted earlier.  Both of them potentially could also lead to changes in cosmological theories.

Link 1/
Link 2/

One has to do with whether or not black holes CAN exist and the other with a differing # for the Hubble constant.  Add them to the failed shadow test and it begins to look like evidence is mounting that there are issues with the current form of the Big Bang theory.

[Dash Jones]

Uh, actually yes, there is a big bang theory of that.  The problem with the Big bang is that the physicists aren't certain whether the universe is contracting or expanding, and if it is expanding (most common belief) still, at what rate is it expanding in relation to the speed of light (theoretical of course).

Most people don't even understand the Big Bang theory (which yes, the best explanation is a big bang, but one has to realize that when there is NO TIME OR SPACE prior to the big bang, it really wasn't a big bang, more of the expanse of where our laws of physics apply, and how fast that expanse is still expanding.

As long as it is either expanding or contracting, it would probably fall under the Big Bang as the basic idea is just that our laws of physics for our universe came into being and expanded in the time/space that we can measure.

Now there are multiple minor theorums on how this occurred or what happened that could be affected by this result stated by the article above.

However, it hardly comes close to invalidating or even shaking up the Big Bang.

If the universe is contracting it MIGHT (that's a might big might too) shake a few things up in relation to how they see it happening (but that also happens, oh, about every month you have a shake up...with a major shakeup happening every oh...one to five years...sooo nothing new there).

However with the prevailing view that it's expanding...shadow microwaves are only going to say something if the expansion has slowed CONSIDERABLY in my opinion.

On the matter of Black Holes existing or not...that is debatable.  Supposedly around 10 years ago they got photos of a black hole... (actually not photos OF, but photos of everything around it, with the nice little hole in the middle...which of course was...blank...)

It fit their laws and reasonings...but I haven't heard anything countering that find yet, though it could be interesting to read if they did find something incongruent about the photo.

[Dash Jones]

Here's a new moral of the story for all of you...

Freaking read the article before responding to stuff about it!!! (something I SHOULD have done)

Okay, I stand corrected.

Hardly invalidates the stuff on Big Bang, but it might change several theorums...but overall it's not all that ground breaking yet.

It falls between a minor and major shakeup as listed above which occur on a fairly regular basis in the field soooo....

[Soliton]

Personally I think the problem is that we are currently looking at the universe through Coke bottle glasses. We just don't have good enough instruments to know one way or another about our current theories as our observations are fuzzy enough to allow for the current notions to be held as valid. I hope that instead of any missions to other planets we get some really good observational satellites into orbit so that we can really make sense of the universe. I think it will be more meaningful to get a much sharper view of the universe than to bring back a rock from Mars.

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

We should do both!